HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-05-1988MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON APRIL 5, 1988, AT 7:30 P .M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:33 P.M. by Chmn. Compton.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. DeBellis.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Pei r ce, Rue, Chmn. Compton
None
Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney;
Sally White, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Comm. Ingell noted two corrections to the minutes: Page 7, Paragraph 10: "Comm.
Ingell did not feel it necessary to post a seating chart." Page 11, Paragraph 6: " .. ballot
box voting" should be changed to " ... ballot box planning."
Chmn. Compton made an addition to Page 16, Paragraph 11, Sentence 2: "He felt that
the density issue is actually created by parking problems, i.e., lack of on-site parking and
non-conforming parking situations, not people."
MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve the minutes of
March 1, 1988, as amended. No objections; so ordered.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
MOTION by Comm. DeBeUis, seconded by Comm. lngell, to approve P .C. 88-17, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 1209, 1210,
1211, AND 1212 PERTAINING TO ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED YARD AREAS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. DeBell i s, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-24,
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNlNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITlONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP /119542 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 215
MANHATTAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 27, TRACT 1076. No
objections; so ordered.
Comm. Ingell discussed Resolut ion P.C. 88-25 and discussed the wording on Page 1, Item
E, stating that he felt the wording should state: "The Condit i ons included within this
Resolution will include the Conditions of all previous resolution~."
Comm. Ingell discussed Condition No. 6, "If, in the judgment of the Police Department, it
is deemed necessary, two policemen will be assigned as doormen at the business' expense
during hours of operation." He asked why the condi t ion designates "two" officers.
P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
Mr. Schubach stated that that was a previous condition which has been incorporated into
this resolution.
Mr. Lough explained that if there is a problem, the police department send a patrol car
to inves tig ate, and a single officer would not go to a po tential trouble spot without
having a back-up officer; therefore, the wording says "two" officers.
Comm. Ingell discussed Condition No. 16 which states that screens shall be installed on
all operable exterior windows at ground-floor level. He questioned why screens are not
required on all levels.
Comm. DeBellis noted that screens at the ground-floor level are to prevent the pass
through of food and drink to the outside of this establishment.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve as amended (Item No. E,
Page 1, to be corrected as noted above) Resolution P.C. 88-25, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN 84 SQUARE FOOT
ADDITION FOR A BOX OFFICE AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1018 HERMOSA
AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 35, 1ST ADDITION TO
HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. Noting the objection of Comm. De Bellis, so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No citizens appeared to address the Commission.
VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AT 2012 LOMA DRIVE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 28, 1988. The staff review committee, at
their meeting of May 7, 1987, recommended that the Planning Commission grant a
negative declaration for this project.
The applicant requested a variance to extend his master bedroom. The site has a single
family dwelling and is zoned R-1. The maximum allowable height is twenty-five feet.
The Building Department has calculated the maximum height of this structure to be a
maximum of 29.5 feet, 4.5 feet over the maximum allowable height. The dwelling is a
typical two-story home with no unusual design features to the plan. Based on the method
of calculating height, this site would not allow for an extension of the second floor
without obtaining the variance.
The method of calculating height that is presently being used by the Building Department
is to take the high and low elevations at opposite ends of the lot and create an imaginary
line. The maximum allowable height for that particular area is then determined. A
plane parallel to the imaginary line is then created. No portion of the building may
exceed this plane.
Staff recommended approval of this variance because the topography of the site drops
off 38.2 feet from front to rear property lines. Therefore, the construction of a second
story in all practicality is impossible without a variance. This variance request will
result in only a small portion of the proposed bedroom addition exceeding the maximum
2 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
height. Staff also re commended approval of this variance since the structure will not
block neighbors' views. The site is located on a hill, and there are no neighbors adjacent
to the rear who would have thei r views blocked.
As noted in the survey, a portion of th e garage encroaches into the adjacent lot. A
condition of approval is to require the applicant to submit a lot line adjustment to
correct the garage encroachments. The applicant has stated both property owners have
resolved this matter, but lot line adjustments should be recorded pursuant to the
Subdivision Map Act.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff had received earlier in the day a copy of an easement
agreement between the applicant and his neighbor. The agreement has been submitted to
the City Attorney for review. Staff suggested that the Commiss io n may wish to modify
the condition requiring a lot line adjustment so that the garage is entirely on the
applicant's property, if the City Attorney fee ls that the agreement is acceptable.
The proposed addition conforms to all other zoning and planning requirements.
Comm. Peirce felt that the Building Department's interpretation of Zoning Code Section
208 has been incorrec t. The section clearly specifies that a warped plane shall be used to
measure the height of the building, not the front and back of the lot line. He felt that
perhaps this applicant may not have a problem; however, he noted that he could not be
certain based on the information presented.
Chmn. Compton agreed that there has been a difference of opinion in the
interpretation. He continued by discussing the measuring of heights. He discussed the
methods that the Building Department has been using, stating that the most restrictive
measurement is the one used.
Comm. Peirce stated that if the Building Department measures various projects
differently, it is not fair to all applicants. He felt that if the staff analysis has been
based on an incorrect interpretation of the code therefore resulting in a flawed
application being submitted, the possibility exists that this applicant may not even need a
variance. He stated that there is not enough information on which to base his decision
and he questioned how the Commission should proceed. He suggested that a memo be
sent to the Building Depar tment expressing the concerns of the Commission in regard to
their misinterpreting t his section of the code.
Public Hearing opened at 7:46 P.M. by Chmn. Compton.
Howard Silverstein, 2012 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, applican t, addressed the
Commission. He passed out photographs depicting various homes surrounding his house
which have three stories. He stated that his proposed addition would be 22 feet from
ground level, and the lo t does in fact drop off approximately 38 feet.
Mr. Silverstein discussed the proposal, stating that he wants to remove half of the roof to
put in the addition; and bring the addition to the original peak which is only 22 fee t from
ground level. There is approximately 40 to 45 feet of lot close to the ground level; it
then drops off rather dramatically.
Mr. Silverstein presented a petition signed by his ten of his homeowner neighbors
favoring this project.
3 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
Mr. Silverstein stated that he is probably the only person who has done any construction
work on this side of the street within the last ten years. He continued by discussing the
measurement of the height, stating that he feels it will not affect anyone's view. Ten
years ago he built an addition from ground level to 22 feet with benefit of a permit. This
is what he is again trying to achieve with this proposal. The addition will be built over
the existing structure, and it will not enlarge the footprint of the house in any way. The
addition will be built over the family room.
Mr. Silverstein stated that no views will be blocked because of this project, nor will any
be blocked in the future because all the houses behind his are uphill.
Mr. Silverstein discussed the lot adjustment and stated that approximately three years
ago litigation took place because several of the lots on the street had problems dating
from the 1920's. The final outcome was that his claim was dismissed without prejudice,
meaning that the claim can never be brought up again. Nevertheless, he entered into a
permanent easement agreement because his garage was built in 1929, and a corner of the
garage occupies approximately six feet of the lot next to his. He hoped that eventually
all the neighbors with this problem will enter into permanent easement agreements so
that these problems can be avoided in the future.
Chmn. Compton asked whether this property is in the vicinity of the Power Street
vacation.
Mr. Silverstein replied in the negative, stating that Power Street stops approximately a
half a block south of his property.
Comm. Rue asked about the distance of the addition from the existing grade.
Mr. Silverstein stated that it will be between 21 and 22 feet from the existing grade,
explaining that it will be under 25 feet. If the hillside is taken into account, different
interpretations have been asserted. However, in talking to the city planners, it was
determined that if the hill is followed exactly, the maximum height would be 17 feet.
Comm. Peirce stated that this property was in fact adjacent to the vacated portion of
Power Street. He stated that Power Street at one time ran at the base of the hiH
adjacent to the back of this property. He continued by explaining that Power Street was
relocated approximately 150 feet to the east.
Chmn. Compton commented on Power Street, explaining how the grade on the hill is
determined by going from point to point. He stated that probably every house in the
vacated area is nonconforming in regard to height because the lot lines were relocated.
Comm. Peirce maintained that the Building Director has been improperly measuring the
height of these houses and has not been correctly interpreting the code. He was unclear
as to what impact the Power Street vacation has on this particular house. He questioned
whether any portion of the vacated street went to any of the homeowners.
Mr. Schubach stated that this issue was discussed at length, and his understanding is that
part of the property did in fact go to the homeowners.
Comm. DeBellis stated that the survey does not indicate any such land being given to the
homeowners. Mr. Schubach noted, however, that the survey is old.
Public Hearing closed at 7: 55 P.M. by Chmn. Compton.
4 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
Chmn. Compton stated t hat he measured off the quarter-inch scale plans, and it appears
that the project from the existing retaining wall to the top of the roof appears to be
almost 25 feet. This would be the case even if measuring from the actual grade to the
peak of the roof. There is a deck in between, so one cannot simply drop a tape down to
measure the height.
Chmn. Compton stated that the retaining wall actually becomes the grade. He continued
by explaining the measurement procedure.
Comm. Peirce questioned whether a variance is actually necessary for this project.
Chmn. Compton explained the measuring of a warped plane, stating that the Building
Department is basing its interpretation on the warped plane standard. He stated that in
the case of a warped plane, the height will be measured from the lowest part of the lot.
Comm. Peirce agreed; however, he noted that this house is situated on a hill. He stated
that the measurement should be taken from the original grade at all points perpendicular
up; apparently, this is not how the Building Department is measuring. He stressed that
Section 208 clearly addresses this point, and he read from the code: "A vertical distance
measured from the existing grade of a lot adjacent to the exterior walls from any portion
of the building site covered by the building to the uppermost point of the roof."
Comm. DeBellis noted that this is not how this project was measured,
Comm. Peirce stated that that is why he is questioning whether a variance is actually
necessary for this project. He questioned whether a variance is necessary for the lot line
adjustment.
Chmn. Compton noted that a variance is being requested onl.y, for the height. He stated
that this project involves a high center lot. He continued by discussing this particular
situation and how he figured his measurements. He felt that there should be some
discretion in these types o f cases. He stated that in the past the lot lines have been
interpreted based on the existing street grades; these issues are then interpolated in
order to try to determine the natural grade. He noted that the point thing at issue in this
case is the natural grade.
Comm. Peirce stressed that he felt a memo should be sent to the Building Department
regarding their interpretation of Section 208.
Chmn. Compton agreed that this issue needs clarification. He suggested that this item
be returned for further discussion and clarification.
Comm. DeBeUis noted concern that an error has apparently been made. He questioned
what action should be taken, given the fact it has not been determined whether this
project actually needs a variance. He noted that findings must be made to indicate this
property differs in a substantial way; and it has been noted that there are many such
properties all along this street; it's just that no one has appeared to request a variance to
build. Therefore, t his problem did not arise sooner.
Comm. DeBellis felt that before the Commission addresses the issue of whether or not to
grant a variance, there must first be clarification on the measuring of the height. He
felt that this project may not require a variance. He stated that this problem is further
confused by the issue of the natural grade and the warped plane.
5 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
~
Comm. Peirce suggested that this issue be continued until the next meeting. At the end
of this meeting, the Commission can discuss and clarify the code and recommend that a
memo be sent to the Build ing Direc tor. The Building Depar tment can then r ee va lu ate
this particular project to d etermine whether or not this pro ject does in fact requ i re a
variance.
Mr. Lough stated that the matter can be continued; however, if this issue is not resolved
soon, the applicant could be placed in legal limbo thereby causing him a problem.
Chmn. Compton asked whether the variance could be approved, based upon the
interpretation of the Planning Commission that a variance would not be necessary.
Mr. Lough replied in the affirmative, explain ing that the s taf f has asser te d that this
project does in fact need a variance. Staff f e el s that the appropriate f ind ings can be
made in this case based on the topography of this site. Of course, the final decision is
left to the Commission.
Mr. Lough stated that the Commission can recommend that the Building Department
change its interpretation in the future; however, this app licant can b e delayed while the
issue is being resolved. He noted, also, that the issue may take so me time before it
comes to a final determination.
Chmn. Compton stated that his only concern, if the variance is approved, is with the
he ight . He r ecommended some wording stating that the pro ject c anno t exceed 25 feet
above the existi ng groun d le ve l. He noted that a variance goe s wit h the land, and he
expressed concern that someone could return in the future to request an additional four
and a half feet over the height limit.
Mr. Lough stated that a variance can be approved based on atsp:ec.ific-prnject. He stated
that only a certain portion of the property has a unique problem with the grade.
Chmn. Compton asked whether Mr. Silverstein would object to a two-week continuance
of this matter.
Mr. Silverstein had no objection to a continuance. He asked why the method of
measurement is different now from the formula used ten years ago.
Comm. Peirce explained that there has been a misunderstanding between the Planning
and Building Departments in regard to the measuring of project.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to (1) continue this item to the
next meeting of the Planning Commission; (2) ask the Building Department to measure
this part icu lar p iece of property according to the strict interpretation of Building Code
Section 208; (3)have staff return with a recommendation as to whether or not this
applicant actually needs a variance; (4) if a variance is determined to be necessary, what
amount of the variance is necessary, and how was the particular opinion arrived at.
Mr. Silverstein commented on the issue of the 29 feet, stating that it is from the bottom
of the hill. He was not certain whether the r etai ning wa ll rebuil t approxim a t ely three
years ago has an impact on the land or not, but it should not have. Thi ngs hav e remained
static in the area for ten years.
Mr. Lough stated that a continuance would pro vide st af f with the neces sary time to
redraft the conditions based on the issue of th e ease ment that this applicant has
provided.
6 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
Comm. DeBellis noted concern that there are conflicting interpretations within the
various City departments. He asked what would happen if it is deemed that the
Commission's interpretation is the accurate interpretation, and he questioned whether
the Building Department can be compelled to follow the interpretation that way.
Mr. Lough explained that the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City
Council; they can recommend that the code section be interpreted as recommended by
the Commission.
Comm. DeBeliis noted concern that this applicant will have to wait indefinitely for a
final decision.
Mr. Lough noted that the variance can be approved conditionally, based on the fact that
if a variance is not actually necessary, the applicant can proceed with the project. The
Building Director can then be requested to provide additional information for the next
Planning Commission meeting.
Comm. Ingell noted concern that it has not been absolutely determined whether or not
this applicant actually needs a variance. Now the proposal is to have the applicant wait
even longer before commencing on his project.
Comm. Rue noted concern over the Building Department's interpretation of Section 208.
Comm. DeBellis asked if the City Attorney could provide an interpretation of Section
208 for the next meeting. Mr. Lough replied in the affirmative.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. DeBellis, Peirce
Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton
None
None
(MOTION FAILS)
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, t o approve staff's recommendation
to grant the variance based on the following findings : (1) that the maximum allowable
height in the R-1 zone is 25 feet ; (2) the applicant is proposing an addition t o the master
bedroom which may exceed the maximum allowable height; (3) the new addition will not
exceed the height of the existing roof; (4) the topography of the lot drops 38.2 feet in the
rear; (5) the present method of calculating height makes a second story expansion
impossible; (6) the variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right
possessed by others in the vicinity; (7) the variance will not be detrimental to surrounding
properties since there are no neighbors to the rear which would have their views blocked;
and (8) the variance will not conflict with the provisions of the general plan.
Chmn. Compton suggested a condition stating that an exceptional circumstance is that
this lot has a high center point based on the two points being used for the measuring.
Comm. Rue did not favor such a condition, stating that he did not want to bind the City
to such an interpretation at this time.
Mr. Lough suggested a modification to the motion regarding Condition No. 3, the lot line
adjustment.
7 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Rue as maker and accepted by Comm. Ingell
as second, to change the wording of Condition No. 3 to reflect that the applicant may
submit and have approved by the City Attorney an easement (or, in the alternative,
sufficient title) which would give him the perpetual right to occupy that area.
Comm. Peirce stated that he would vote against the motion, s tating that the Plann ing
Commission cannot decide an issue with insufficient materials and information. It has
not been determined whether this applicant does in fact need a variance. He felt that
the issue should be continued until the height issue can be clarified.
Chmn. Compton noted, however, that staff feels a variance is necessary in this case.
Comm. Peirce disagreed, noting that staff is to provide the Commission with
information. It is up to the Commission to interpret the code; if the Commission feels
that an error has been made, a recommendation should be sent to the City Council.
Comm. Rue felt that the problem is one existin g between various departments within the
City in regard to procedure. He did not fee l that an applican t should be made to wait
needlessly because of conflicting views within the City. He felt that, from the staff
materials provided, there is ample evidence to make the required findings necessary to
grant this variance.
Comm. Rue felt it would be appropriate to add an additional condition stating that if it is
determined that the variance is unnecessary, the request shall become null and void upon
the ruling of the City Council.
Mr. Lough suggested that such a condition not be included in the motion. He continued
by explaining his opposition to such an inclusion.
Comm. Rue felt that it is inappropriate to make an applicant wait before beginning a
project because of errors on the part of the City. He noted that time is valuable, and
homeowners should not have to wait.
Mr. Lough discussed with the Commission the procedures and options available to the
Commission in th is par ticu lar request. He noted that it is well within the purview of the
Commission to disagree with a staff recommendation.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comm. Rue, Chmn. Compton
Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce
None
None
(MOTION FAILS)
Comm. DeBellis explained his "no" vote, stating that he had no object ion to this
particular project; however, he does not feel the topographical situation is unique to this
property.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to (1) continue this item to the
next meeting of the Planning Commission; (2) ask the Building Department to measure
this particular piece of property according to the strict interpretation of Building Code
Section 208; (3)have staff return with a recommendation as to whether or not this
applicant actually needs a variance; (4) if a variance is determined to be necessary, what
amount of the variance is necessary, and how was the particular opinion arrived at.
8 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
~-Comm. Peirce stated that if this project does not exceed 25 feet based on a different
interpretation of the measurement, this applicant can go forward with the project with
no further delay.
Mr. Lough stated that the City Council must first agree with the Planning Commission's
interpretation of the measurement; if they agree, then the applicant may proceed.
Comm. DeBellis asked about the cost of appealing a decision of the Commission. Mr.
Schubach stated that an appeal costs $348.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce
Comm. Rue, Chmn. Compton
None
None
MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to direct the City Attorney
to prepare an opinion of Municipal Code Section 208. No objections; so ordered.
VARIANCE TO PROVIDE GUEST PARKING IN A 15.5-FOOT SETBACK RATHER THAN
THE REQUIRED SEVENTEEN FEET AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A PROJECT
LOCATED AT 1101 VALLEY DRIVE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 23, 1988. On July 14, 1986, the Building
Department notified the property owner of the existence of an illegal dwelling unit on
the site. The owner had been attempting to correct the problem by obtaining a permit
for the additional unit. A variance is needed for the required parking.
The staff review committee, at their meeting of December J, 1987, recommended that a
negative declaration be granted for this project with a mitigation measure to upgrade the
fire hydrant.
The applicant is attempting to obtain a permit for an illegal dwelling unit. Building
records indicate that a single-family dwelling has been permitted on the site. An on-site
inspection by the Building Department indicated that there are two units on the site.
The site is zoned R-3, with a general plan designation of high density. The site is
approximately 4640 square feet which is large enough to accommodate the requested two
units. There will be no substantial changes to the existing structure.
Since the applicant is requesting a permit for the added dwelling unit, the parking must
conform to the present code. Section 1151 of the zoning code requires two parking
spaces per unit, plus one guest parking space. Therefore, this site requires five parking
spaces. No parking is being lost as a result of any curb cuts since the curb is painted red.
The applicant is proposing to use the existing garage for two parking spaces. Two
additional parking spaces will be provided in tandem in an area west of the garage. The
applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 15.5-foot garage setback to be included as
guest parking rather than the required seventeen feet. An approval of this variance will
allow for two guest parking spaces.
The site is located on the corner of Valley Drive and 11th Street. The applicant has an
area along the easterly side of the garage that can potentially accommodate an
additional parking area that will not require any variances. Staff believes that a curb cut
9 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
so close to the intersection will create a safety hazard; therefore, the alternative is to
allow the 15.5-foot setback to be counted as a parking space.
An unusual circumstance of the site is a 1.5-foot strip of land between the sidewalk and
property line of the site. This strip of land, added to the existing 15.5-foot garage
setback, will give the site a seventeen-foot garage setback. The location of the site also
has the benefit of public parking spaces in lots nearby.
Building records indicate that there are no permits for the added kitchen, the tub in the
bathroom, and the fireplace. A recommended condition of approval is to require that the
applicant obtain building permits for those additions. A condition of approval should also
be to require the applicant to upgrade the site pursuant to Fire Department
requirements.
The site conforms to all other planning and zoning regulations including open space and
setbacks; therefore, staff recommended approval of the variance subject to the
conditions specified in the resolution.
Comm. De Bellis asked whether the code requires parking spaces to be covered. Mr.
Schubach explained that parking spaces, any or all, may be uncovered so long as there are
enough spaces to conform to the code requirements.
Comm. DeBellis discussed the residential zoning analysis and noted that several areas are
designated as "not to scale." He asked if staff feels comfortable recommending approval
since the plans are not to scale. He noted concern over the open space and whether or
not the second unit meets the minimum size standards. Also, the plans do not show the
location of the storage and trash areas.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff will ensure that the analysis i5,,correct. He noted that the
applicant, at the request of staff, had returned with further information which satisfied
staff; however, the new information was not incorporated into the report. He stated that
a condition of approval can be added requiring that the project meets all requirements.
Comm. Ingell asked whether the proximity of public parking lots has any bearing on
residential or commercial parking standards. Mr. Schubach replied in the negative.
Comm. Ingell asked about the 1.5-foot strip of land. Mr. Schubach explained that the
strip is part of the right of way.
Comm. Peirce asked about the age of the additions to this property. Mr. Schubach stated
that it is uncertain as to when these additions were made, noting that it is difficult to
make such a determination merely by viewing the additions.
Public Hearing opened at 8:40 P.M. by Chmn. Compton.
Kenneth Morrisey, 1101 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the
Commission. He stated that the new structure was approved in 1976. He has owned the
property for a year and a half. He explained that the previous owner built a master
bedroom with bathroom upstairs. There was a patio area which was enclosed and turned
into a kitchen. Therefore, the previous owner lived upstairs, and the downstairs was
rented out as a separate unit.
Mr. Morrisey was informed that there was not adequate parking at the site when he went
to obtain a permit. He is now attempting to conform to all requirements.
10 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
Public Hearing closed at 8:42 P.M. by Chmn. Compton.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 88-30, to grant the variance, with the addition of a condition requiring
that the zoning analysis for this project must be correct. Further, that the appropriate
findings are contained in the resolution.
Comm. Ingell commented on Finding D in the Resolution: "The site has a 1.5' strip public
right-of-way between the sidewalk and the property line; D(a) this 1.5' strip of land,
added to the existing 15.5' setback, will give the site the required 17' setback." He asked
for clarification on the wording.
Chmn. Compton did not feel the approval would set a precedent which would become a
problem in the future. He hoped that in the future, small areas of public right of way
such as this could be utilized without having to obtain a variance.
Mr. Schubach suggested changing the wording of Finding D to state that the equivalent of
a seventeen-foot setback will be provided.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION to modify Finding D to state that the equivalent of a
seventeen-foot setback will be provided. Amendment accepted by Comms. Peirce and
Rue as maker and second of the motion.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton
Comm. DeBellis
None
None
Comm. DeBellis explained his "no" vote, stating that he did not feel it is a good
precedent to allow the use of public rights of way as back-up.
MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD BEDROOM AND
BATHROOM TO A TWO-UNIT CONDOMIN[UM PROJECT LOCATED AT 429 BAYVIEW
DRIVE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 29, 1988. The Planning Commission, at their
meeting of September 2, 1986, approved a conditional use permit and tentative tract map
#17679 for a two-unit condominium project.
Condition No. 3 of Resolution P .C. 86-41 approving a two-unit condo states "The
proposed development shall be consistent with submitted plans including all architectural
features; any modification shall be submitted for approval to the Planning Director."
Staff reviewed the plans and has determined the revisions to be extensive and may create
potential problems. Since these revisions are significant, staff is requesting the Planning
Commission to review the modifications for their approval.
The proposed revisions include converting a large garage-level storage area of Unit B to
a bedroom with sliding glass door and a bathroom, and adding a bathroom to the lower
bedroom of Unit A. Staff is concerned about potential bootlegs which can be created at
the site. The lower-level bedrooms, with added bathrooms and separate exterior doors,
can create ideal illegal units. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the addition
of the bedrooms, but denial of the bathrooms or doors.
11 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
Unit B will also have some modifications to the second-level floor plan. The closets will
be modified, as well as the bathrooms to allow for a stairway to be added leading to the
proposed ground-level bedroom.
The plans were originally approved prior to the changes in the parking requirements and
garage se t backs. This two-unit condo was approved with two parking spaces per unit. No
guest parking was required. The proposed modifications will not change the planning and
zoning requirements, including parking.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the applicant's request to add the
desired bathrooms, but to approve the addition of a bedroom to Unit B.
Chmn. Compton discussed with staff the blue line drawings for this project. There was
confusion between the depiction of Unit A and Unit B on the plans. Comm. Peirce noted
that on the xeroxed sheet given to the Commission, Unit A should actually be Unit B.
Public Hearing opened at 8:50 P.M. by Chmn. Compton.
Michael Hubbard, 444 Roscrans Avenue, Manhattan Beach, applicant, addressed the
Commission. He purchased the project while it was under construction; after a
reevaluation of the plans, he decided to modify the project to enlarge the bedroom by
removing the workshop.
Mr. Hubbard discussed the bootleg issue and stated that he has no intention of providing
for a bootleg. He stated that one must enter the house and go down stairs to enter the
bedroom. This fact would not be desirable to creating a bootleg. There is no possibility
of entering from the outside.
Mr. Hubbard stated that the sliding glass doors can be replac.:ed by w.irrdows in. both
units. He noted that these units will be very expensive, and there is no desire to create a
bootleg. All entry into the units will be from the front doors.
Mr. Hubbard discussed the plans, stating that they are correct. He stated that there are
bathrooms on the first floors of each unit. He stated that the master bedrooms need to
be located on the first floor with the master bathrooms. He stated that he will remove
all exterior entrances into the master bedrooms. He stressed that he is not attempting
to create a bootleg.
The Commissioners expressed confusion over the plans presented to them.
Mr. Hubbard stated that each unit has two master bedrooms, one each on the upper and
lower levels. He stated that the previously proposed first-floor workshop was not
feasible, so he decided to transform the workshop into a bedroom and bathroom.
Pete Tucker, 235 34th Street, project superintendent for Hubbard Development,
addressed the Commission. He clarified the plans by explaining the Unit A should be
Unit B, and Unit B should be Unit A. He explained that the Unit A workshop will be
turned into a master bedroom and three-quarter bath. One must enter the unit, go up
stairs to a landing, and then go down additional stairs to enter the master bedroom. He
stated that the sliding glass door can be removed. Unit B has a master bedroom which is
shown on the approved set of plans. As the plans exist now, one would have to go
upstairs to use the bathroom; therefore, a three-quarter bath is being proposed for the
lower bedroom. This addition would make the project more viable.
12 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
Mr. Tucker continued by discussing Unit A and stating that he would like to build a wall
across the back portion of the garage and turn the storage area into the bedroom and
bath. On Unit B the only request is to add a three-quarter bath.
Comm. Rue asked whether there will be access from the Unit A garage into the
bedroom. Mr. Tucker replied in the negative. He stated that the exit from the garage is
on the north side of the building, which goes into the sideyard. There is a door from the
garage into the unit, and one must enter and go up stairs to a landing and then back down
more stairs to enter the bedroom.
Comm. lngell asked whether there is an entrance from the garage into the bedroom in
Unit B. Mr. Tucker replied in the affirmative, stating that that is already existing and
shown on the approved set of plans.
Comm. Rue asked whether it is possible to close the entry from the garage to the
bedroom in Unit B. Mr. Tucker stated that it is possible, but then one would have to walk
outside to enter the house. The issue then becomes a safety concern.
Public Hearing closed at 9:02 P.M. by Chmn. Compton.
Comm. Peirce asked whether staff's opinion to deny this request has changed after
hearing the explanation and clarification given by the applicant and Mr. Tucker.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff obtained the working drawings from the Building
Department. Those drawings were reviewed, and they apparently did not show the
bathroom. Staff then obtained a copy of the reduced plans from their own file, which do
show the bathroom. Somewhere along the line, a bathroom was removed, which staff did
not view as a problem. This is probably why the situation was not previously mentioned
by the applicant.
Mr. Schubach noted, however, that there is still some staff concern regarding a potential
bootleg unit because of the sliding glass door to the exit. This applicant may have no
intention of creating a bootleg; however, future owners may. He stated that a condition
of approval should be to require the replacement of the sliding glass door with a window.
MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded for discussion by Chmn. Compton, to approve
Resolution P.C. 88-29, with an amendment that Condition 2(a) be changed to say: "The
proposed sliding glass door shall not be allowed."
Chmn. Compton stated that he would go along with the motion because it seems to be
the popular belief that it isn't whether or not the owner wants to create a bootleg; it is
how the physical reality of what is approved creates a bootleg. He personally did not
agree with this opinion. He felt that if a person wants to come along later and replace
the window with a sliding glass door, it can be done; and there is very little the City can
do about it.
Chmn. Compton stated that approval would basically allow a basement bedroom with no
means of egress other than a window. He noted concern that this could be potential fire
hazard. He pref erred that there be a door from the bedroom to preclude the fire hazard.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comm. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue
Chmn. Compton
None
None
13 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
Recess taken from 9: 10 P.M. until 9:18 P.M.
Chmn. Compton acknowledged the large number of people in the audience waiting to
address Agenda Item No. 10; therefore, he noted that the Commission would hear Item 10
and then return to Item 9.
REZONE OF AREA 2 FROM R-2 TO R-1 AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM 3/15/88 MEETING)
Mr. Schubach stated that, as requested by the Commission at their previous meeting,
Area 2 has been divided into four sub-areas based primarily on lot sizes and/or view
corridors. He used an overhead projector to show the various areas as they were
discussed.
Area 2A
Mr. Schubach gave staff report on Area 2A. This section has a total of nine lots with ten
units. There are four lots of 3500 square feet or larger. All of the units are over 35
years old except one unit. The average age of the dwelling units is 44 years. Eighty-eight
percent of the lots have single-family dwellings.
Historically, the 1930 land use map was R-1; 1943 land use map was R-2; 1956 zoning
map was R-2; and 1978 zoning map was R-2. This area is unique in comparison to the
surrounding subdivision; the original six lots were approximately twice as large as the
abutting lots. Two of the lots have been divided into five smaller lots, leaving four lots,
of which three could have three dwelling units each; the fourth large lot could have two
dwelling units.
In regard to height, this area should not have any additional view blockage caused by
adjacent taller R-2 structures since the blocks to the south and southwest are zoned R-1.
Beyond the fact that four of the existing nine lots are large enough to meet existing R-2
standards, there seems to be no other justifiable factors for maintaining the R-2 zoning.
However, the factor of the existing one dwelling unit per lot, except on one lot, and the
age of the existing dwelling units would qualify for potential rezoning.
Furthermore, the rezoning would help the City provide a mixture of large R-1 zoned,
single-family lots. The City has only a small supply of large R-1 lots, particularly west
of Valley Drive.
Public Hearing reopened at 9:23 P .M. by Chmn. Compton.
Robert Garson, 2258 Monterey Boulevard, Hermosa Beach, strongly opposed the proposed
downzone of Area 2A. He described his property and gave background information on the
history of the property. He purchased this site specifically for the purpose of the second
structure providing income during his retirement years. He opposed the fact that if the
structure was destroyed, he could not rebuild to what it is now. He noted that he could
lose a great sum of money. He has invested much money into the main structure and the
rear structure.
14 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
Area 2B
Mr. Schubach gave staff report for Area 2B. There are currently 61 lots in the area, with
91 units. There is one lot in excess of 3500 square feet. There are 70 units over 30 years
old, and the average age of the units is 45 years. Fifty percent of the lots have single
family dwellings.
Mr. Schubach discussed the historical issue of the land use maps and zoning maps and
their varying zoning during the years.
The lots within this sub-area all fall within the approximate range of 2600 to 3100 square
feet; most lots are slightly larger than 2900 square feet. If two of these lots were
assembled, enough area would exist to have t hree units under the current R-2 standards.
Along Park Avenue, the slope is easterly, resulting in the dwellings on the west side to be
at a much higher grade, thereby blocking the westerly ocean view even if the additional
five feet of height were allowed as it is in the current R-2 zone.
Along Monterey, the west side is already zoned R-1 and is on the downside of the slope;
view b l ockage should therefore be mi nor t o no ne on the eas t which rises above street
grade . 24 t h Street faces a north/sou t h direct i on. A "windshi e ld" survey indicates that
t he slo p e o f the area and the adjacent R-1 z oning wou ld lim it any substantial view
blockage.
Overall, staff cannot find reasons that this sub-area should be spared from downzoning.
It does not possess features which make it different from other areas slated for the
downzoning. To the contrary, the age of the dwelling units, hist or ical factors, lot sizes,
and number of lots with single-family dwellings indicates the po t en tial opportunity for
rezoning.
There is an alternative. Because some view blockage may occur because of the lower
height of 25 feet allowed in the R-1 zone versus 30 feet allowed in the R-2 zone, the
Planning Commission may recommend studying this matter carefully to consider possibly
allowing a 30-foot height limit in the R-1 zone under certain circumstances.
Harold Sterns, owner of 2416 Park Avenue, Hermosa Beach, opposed the proposed
downzone. He recently retired and would like to return to Hermosa. He read to the
Commission a letter dated April 4, 1988, he wrote opposing the downzone. He also
handed out photographs showing that there are houses in this area which have built to
three stories. He stated that on Silverstrand, across from Mr. Sterns' property, there is a
30-foot structure.
Mr. Sterns requested that he be allowed to build three stories to a height of 30 feet.
There are many other three-story houses in this area, some of which are single-family
and some which are multiple-family dwellings. He felt that he should be allowed to also
build to three stories, noting that it would improve the neighborhood and increase the
City's tax base.
Mr. Sterns also requested that he be sent notices of any Planning Commission or City
Council actions taken in regard to this property, noting that he does not presently live in
the City.
Mr. Sterns submitted to the Commission the plat map, letter which he read, and the
photographs which he discussed.
15 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
Chmn. Compton stated that the houses Mr. Sterns discussed are not technically three
stories; they most likely have subterranean levels. The Commission and Mr. Sterns
continued by discussing the photographs and the issue of three stories versus three levels.
Albert Wiemans, 336 24th Street, Hermosa Beach, opposed the proposed downzoning. He
asked why a timetable is being adhered to and why there is so much pressure to act on
this matter immediately.
Mr. Wiemans referred to a letter he wrote dated April 1, 1988, which outlines his
objections to the proposed downzoning. He passed out copies of the letter and then read
the salient points aloud. He also passed out a copy of a petition signed by 26 people in
the neighborhood who oppose the downzone.
Mr. Wiemans suggested that the general plan be changed to conform to the zoning, rather
than changing the zoning to comply with the general plan. He stated that the downzone
will create a financial burden on many people in the area.
Mr. Wiemans stated that in the event the Planning Commission makes a recommendation
to the City Council to approve a plan seeking to downzone any portion of Area 2, he and
the property owners will consider taking legal action by filing a petition with the court
seeking an order to restrain such vote by the City Council.
Mr. Wiemans continued by discussing zoning and various height limitations.
Mr. Wiemans concluded by demanding the following: (l) that the proposed downzoning of
Area 2 be abandoned; (2) that the general plan be developed along more realistic
objectives by taking into cons ideration (a) the fact that Area 2 has had R-2 zoning for
more than 30 years; (b) most of t he property owners have already made use of the R-2
zoning to develop their lots; (c) Area 2 is particularly suitable for R-2 zoning because
most of the lots have rear access; (d) Area 2 is adjacent to the school site, which is
slated for R-2 zoning to attract purchasers in the event that the school activities are
discontinued; (3) that the general plan be brought into conformity with the existing R-2
zoning for Area 2; (4) that the additional limitations and restrictions on the R-2 zoning
brought about in 1979 be repealed.
Blair Smith, 316 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, opposed the downzoning. He stated that he
will try to obtain additional signatures on a petition to oppose this proposal. He
questioned whether the City Council would acknowledge such a petition from so many
citizens who oppose this measure.
Mr. Smith felt that it is ridiculous the way the city has attempted to shove this matter
down the throats of citizens. He suggested that if ten separate areas are going to be
downzoned, they should all be addressed at one time, as opposed to the current piecemeal
process.
Mr. Smith stated that he is contemplating suing the City in regard to this downzone. He
suggested that the City change the general plan rather than the zoning. He also noted
that EE was merely an advisory measure, not mandatory.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, strongly opposed the downzone. She has
been fighting this issue for many years. She stated that it is wrong for the City to
downzone, thereby making the property legal non-conforming. People who want to do
work on their properties must then pay large fees to the City because the property is
non-conforming. She stated that most of these properties will remain, whether they are
remodeled or not.
16 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
Ms. Burt stated that the general plan designation for the area is R-2. She suggested that
the City go after the condominiums, not the homes. She stated that the density problem
is not people; it is cars, garages, and parking. Much of the problem could be alleviated if
people were required to park in their garages.
Ms. Burt stated that leaving the area R-2 will not make the area more dense since the
land can only accommodate a certain number of units; therefore, why downzone and
make the properties legal non-conforming?
Ms. Burt stressed that this proposal is harassing the citizens of the City. She felt that
long-term citizens should be left alone.
Area 2C
Mr. Schubach gave staff report on Area 2C. Area 2C has a total number of 58 lots with
82 units. There are no lots 3500 square feet or larger. The 1932 land use map designated
this area all R-2; the 1943 land use map designated this area all R-2. The 1956 zoning
map designation was R-2, as was the 1978 zoning map.
There are 69 units over thirty years old in this area. The average age of the dwelling
units is 40 years. Fifty-nine percent of the lots have single-family dwellings.
The lots within this sub-area fall within the approximate range of 2250 square feet to
3000 square feet. Some of these lots, therefore, are so small that even prior to the
density reduction ordinance, only one unit could be built. Assembling two of these lots
would still only result in two units being allowed. Assembly of three lots in some cases
would result in enough area for four units, but not in all instances.
Myrtle Avenue along the west side will remain R-2 zoned, but will not cause view
blockage to the proposed R-1 area on the east side of the street because of the
significant slope of the lots on both sides of the street in conjunction with the City's
method of measuring height. Dwellings on Silverstrand and 25th Street should not have
view blockage impact because of rezoning since the abutting lots will also be R-l.
It should be noted that in this sub-area or the other areas, it has been observed that there
are virtually no developments at this time built to a 30-foot height.
The area is currently surrounded by R-2 zoning. However, if the area to the south and
southeast were to be rezoned to R-1 as proposed, then this area would be an extension to
that area.
Staff cannot find grounds for exempting this area from rezoning except for the fact that
it will result in some nonconformity in the area. However, if this factor is of primary
concern, then the opportunity to lower density throughout the City is lost.
Staff believes the nonconformity issue can and should be resolved by means other than
avoiding downzoning areas.
John Dunbabin, 2432 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, opposed the downzone. He
discussed the issue of view blockage. His house is built to 30 feet, so there probably will
not be a blockage in front of him; however, he felt that fifty percent of the neighbors
will have a view blockage. He suggested that the issue be studied further. With the
present height interpretation, there is bound to be a view obstruction to many. He noted
17 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
that the ocean view adds substantially to property value. He felt that the laws should be
fair to everyone. He felt that there are inconsistencies with the property across the
street which is 30 feet, and the other side of the street will be limited to 25 feet.
Steve Peterson, 2460 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, opposed the downzoning. He felt
that the lower density issue has already been met; now the issue is conformity with the
general plan. He feels that there has been an oversight because of the height issue. He
suggested that the City Council be advised to address the issue of consistency in the
general plan in this specific area.
Mr. Peterson then suggested that the size and height of the buildings be addressed. He
stated that the downzoning will substantially affect property values. He felt that many
people will lose their views because of the downzoning. He suggested that consideration
be given to a special zoning designation in the R-1 zone to allow for R-2 setbacks and
height in certain R-1 zones.
Steve Taylor, 2468 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, opposed the downzoning. He noted
concern over the different height limits on the same street and the potential view
blockages. He suggested studying the possibility of allowing a higher height for the east
side of Myrtle Avenue.
Ned Taylor, 2468 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, opposed the downzoning. He
questioned how the density issue would be resolved by lowering the height.
Dean Nata, 2467 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, opposed the downzoning. He passed
out copies of a drawing he did depicting measurement of height and street elevations.
He continued by discussing the drawing.
Mr. Nota felt that the reduction in height limit, the increase of open space, the parking
ordinance as it now exists, and the issue of the small lots will squeeze the people in the
area too much. He felt that the properties would not be able to be redeveloped within a
reasonable level. He felt that the marketability will go beyond the capabilities of the
area.
Mr. Nata continued by discussing the staff report. He felt that, contrary to the staff
report, the views on the street will be adversely affected. He explained this by
discussing the measurement of height in relation to the various street elevations.
Mr. Nota stated that his two main concerns are the view and the ability of the residents
to improve or redevelop their property in a manner which is consistent with existing
single-family homes. He feels that there is a necessity for an overlay zone in this
particular area.
Area 2D
Mr. Schubach gave staff report on Area 2D. There are a total of 48 lots with 82 units in
this area. There are 43 lots over 3500 square feet. Thirty-two lots exceed 6700 square
feet. 3350 square feet is the minimum area for one unit in the general plan.
The 1930 and 1943 land use map designations for the area were R-2. The 1956 and 1978
zoning map designations were R-2. Thirty-six units in the zone are over 30 years old.
Thirty lots have two or more units.
18 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
This sub-area does have some significant differences in comparison to the other three
sub-areas. All but a few of the lots within this area are large enough to have two units,
and almost half are large enough to have four units under the current R-2 standards.
View blockage would not seem to be an issue since only a few of the lots may possibly
have an ocean view.
Fifty-six percent of the lots are under 30 yea rs old, and 62.5 percent of the lo ts have two
or more units. Of the la rge (6700 square feet) lots, 59 percent have at leas t two units,
and 63 percent are less than 30 years old. The average age for units on the large lots is
24.8 years which is relatively new compared to the other sub-areas.
Because of the relative new age of the dwellings, the large size of the lots, the number
of lots already having two units, and the general plan minimum standard of 3350 square
feet of area per dwelling unit in the low density areas, a new zone such as R-lA may be
possible for the easterly portion of sub-area 2D. This area would include only the large
lots over 6700 square feet except three smaller lots adjacent to Valley Drive. The
maximum number of units recommended for this area would be two units per lot for lots
of 6700 square feet or larger.
This recommendation would reduce density from 33 percent to 50 percent, since under R-
2 zoning these lots could have three to four units.
A text amendment would be necessary to create an R-lA zone. If the City Council were
to adopt such a recommendation, staff would then prepare and set for public hearing
before the Planning Commission an ordinance for recommended adoption.
Comm. DeBellis asked for more clarification of a new zone designation. Mr. Schubach
explained the reasoning behind proposing an R-lA zone.
Ron Hobbs, 544 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, discussed the lot sizes in area 2D,
explaining that they are very large. He agreed with the new proposal presented by staff
for Area 2D. He also felt that the City Council would agree with the proposal. He asked
that the Commission consider this option as an innovative alternative as opposed to
straight downzoning.
Dorothy Gunot, 527 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked what happens if this proposal is
not approved. She felt the area would then just be downzoned to R-1. She continued by
discussing the fact that she lives in a condo, and she is not clear as to what the status on
her property will be.
Joel Beckett, 2424 Silverstrand, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the school property,
stating that if that site is not rezoned to open space, there could be a problem with the
surrounding properties.
Public Hearing closed at 11:08 P.M. by Chmn. Compton.
Comm. DeBellis thanked the Planning Staff for the fine job they did in preparing the
additional information as requested by the Commission. He felt that a better decision
can be made by the Commission based on this further input.
Chmn. Compton agreed, stating that he felt a real analysis has now been provided.
19 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
Comm. Rue stated that he has discussed this issue with many people over the past few
weeks, and there are many who feel that downzoning may be a short-term loss of capital;
however, it usually turns out to be a long-term gain. He noted that developers will lose,
because they can put only one unit on a piece of property. He believes that people have
property rights which should be respected.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to accept staff's recommendation
that Area 2A be rezoned to R-l since these large lots are bounded on three sides by R-1.
Comm. DeBellis agreed that downzoning can result in a long-term gain. He noted that
this very thing happened to him when he sold his property.
Comm. lngell stated that most of the objections voiced by citizens regard the height and
setbacks. The issue of two units does not appear to be the main issue. He felt that in
the long run, downzoning will not lower the value of property. He suggested that the
method of evaluating height be studied.
Chmn. Compton agreed that Area 2A should be rezoned to R-1 based on the fact that it
is surrounded on three sides by R-1. Also, this area has some of the largest R-1 lots in
the City. Based on these factors, he would support the downzone of this particular area
to R-1.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. DeBellis, lngell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton
None
None
None
Comm. DeBellis stated that Area 2B is more complicated because of the fact fifty
percent of the lots have single-family dwellings, and fi.fty percent have multiple
dwellings. In reality, however, by the zoning passed a year and a half ago, the issue is
one of non-conformity, rather than what the zoning should be.
Chmn. Compton stated that he has a client who purchased a duplex in this area for an
extraordinary amount of money. The client is planning to tear down the duplex and
construct a single-family dwelling. The completed value will be almost $800,000. He
noted that many sales in the area have been that high; therefore, he did not feel that the
property values would drop by rezoning.
Chmn. Compton felt that the areas should be addressed in terms of a second scale of
zoning in the R-1 area. He intended to include a motion to begin the process of starting
an R-lB zone which would allow for a 30-foot height limit and R-2 setback standards in
the R-1 zone.
Comm. Rue agreed with Chmn. Compton's suggestion; especially considering views, the
height of existing buildings, and the effect on future development in the area.
Comm. Rue stated that discussion has not taken place on the issue of low-cost housing,
especially granny flats. Because of the present zoning, the lots are not large enough to
support a second unit; therefore, the best that can be done is to attempt to maximize the
view so that the view corridor can at least be maintained.
Comm. Ingell felt that the main issues are the height and views. He noted that because
of the present restrictions, only one unit can currently be put on the lots. Therefore, he
would support a motion to downzone the area to R-1.
20 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to accept staff's
recommendation to rezone Area 2B from R-2 to R-1.
Comm. Ingell asked how to begin the process of studying the height issue.
Mr. Lough explained that after the motions on the zone changes are approved, another
separate motion should be made recommending that a height study be done.
Chmn. Compton noted that in all of Area 2B, there is one lot, out of a total of 61, on
which two units could be built.
Comm. Rue stated that the motion could include a recommendation that the height limit,
as well as other parameters, be studied.
Mr. Lough agreed; however, he thought Comm. lngell's suggestion was to undertake a
separate study of the height issue. He noted, though, that the motion can be amended.
Comm. Ingell wanted to convey to the City Council the fact that height limit appears to
be the main concern involved in this issue. He suggested that this fact be incorporated
into the recommendation.
Chmn. Compton asked if the maker of the motion would be amenable to an amendment
to the motion to include the alternative staff suggestion in regard to height.
Comm. DeBellis stated that it would depend on the wording.
Comm. Rue hoped that the amendment would be to recommend that the zoning be to R
lB, with a height limit of 30 feet.
Comm. DeBellis discussed the issue of leaving the area R-2, stating that only one unit
can be put on the lots in any event. The only difference in leaving the area as R-2 would
be that it would be inconsistent with the general plan.
MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. DeBellis to allow a substitute motion to be made.
MOTION by Comm. Rue to recommend to the City Council a rezone of area 2B from R-2
to R-lB; further that the R-lB zone have a 30-foot height limit and R-2 setback
requirements. (MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.)
Comm. Peirce stated that such a motion cannot be made because there is currently no
zoning designation of "R-1B" in the City. He said a zone cannot be created without first
having a public hearing.
Mr. Schubach noted, however, that the motion is merely a recommendation to the
Council.
Chmn. Compton suggested that two separate motions be made; one to establish an R-1B
zone, and another to recommend that this area be rezoned to R-lB.
MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Ingell, that the proposed R-1B zone be
established with the attendant text amendments; that the zone would allow for a 30-foot
height limit; that the zone would have the R-2 setback standards; that the zone be low
density, single-family, with a minimum lot size of 4000 square feet.
21 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
Comm. DeBellis noted, however, that if the square feet is included, people can combine
lots. He suggested that the motion contain all desired development standards.
Comm. lngell suggested that the R-1B zone be the same as R-1, with the exception of
the height and setback requirements.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Compton and Comm. Ingell, as maker and
second, to clarify that the motion suggests that the R-lB zone is to be the same as R-1,
with the exception of height and setback standards.
Comm. Peirce asked about all the other people in the City who have not had the benefit
of being rezoned to the proposed R-lB zone. He felt that the motion is merely to
recommend the studying of an R-1B zone, noting that such a zone cannot be created at
this time. He felt that a recommendation to R-lB would be a "non-action" because there
is currently no such zone. The area would then go into limbo.
Mr. Schubach stated that this would not be the case, noting that the action is merely a
recommendation to the City Council. The Council will then decide whether or not they
agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation. This would be no different from
other recommendations to the Council.
Comm. DeBellis stated that the noticing could be a problem, though, noting that people
were advised that the area was being rezoned from R-2 to R-1, not R-lB.
Mr. Schubach stated that the notice contained a proviso stating that the area would be
rezoned to R-1 or such other zone as deemed appropriate.
Mr. Lough stated that the issue has been addressed at the public hearing so there is not a
problem. A problem could arise, however, if the Council agr,ees that the area should be
rezoned to R-lB because there is currently no R-lB designation in the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Lough suggested that the recommendation be to rezone the area to R-1; then a
separate motion can be made to recommend to the Council that the proposed R-1B
standards be adopted.
Comm. De Bellis felt that Mr. Lough's recommendation is appropriate. If desired, the
new zone could be created; other property owners would then have the possibility of
being rezoned to R-1B as opposed to R-1. He felt that the proposed designation does not
apply just to this particular area, but also to other areas of the City as well.
SECOND TO THE MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. Ingell. MOTION DIES FOR LACK
OF A SECOND.
Chmn. Compton feels it is important to let the City Council know that this particular
area is sensitive; therefore, he feels the recommendation should include the R-1B zone
wording.
Mr. Lough strongly recommended that the Planning Commission send a spokesman to the
City Council hearing on this matter so that their view can be made known.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seco nded by Chmn. Compton, to recommend that Area 2B be
rezoned to R-lB. The R-lB wou ld have all of the development standards of R-1, with the
exception of the 30-foot height limit and the setback standards of R-2.
22 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
Comm. Rue stressed that Area 2B is very sensitive to view; therefore, he favored making
this recommendation.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton
Comms. DeBellis, Peirce
None
None
MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to recommend the establishment
of an R-lB zone, including text amendments that would contain all the elements of the
R-1 zone with the exception of the height which would be 30 feet, and the setbacks,
which would be those of the R-2 zone.
Chmn. Compton stated that the motion is intended to create a general category of R-lB
for the entire City, not just Area 2B.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton
Comm. Peirce
None
None
MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to rezone Area 2C from R-2 to
R-1.
Comm. DeBellis noted that Area 2C is 59 percent single-family, and the majority of the
lots are not large enough to construct more than one unit.
Comm. Rue stated that Area 2C is also one which is heigmt.~sensitive, noting that the
west side of Myrtle Avenue is R-2 and can be developed to 30 feet. He felt that that
issue should be addressed.
Comm. DeBellis did not feel that the west side of Myrtle Avenue has lots large enough to
build more than one unit. He noted that that side of the street could be built to 30 feet;
however, the west side of Myrtle Avenue is not at issue tonight. He suggested, then, that
this might be an area which is a candidate for the proposed new zone designation.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue
Chmn. Compton
None
None
Chmn. Compton asked whether the Commission deems Area 2C to be sensitive.
Comm. Rue felt that it is. He had hoped there would be a recommendation to the
Council to study the west side of Myrtle Avenue in regard to the height issue and its
being rezoned to the proposed R-lB standard.
Comm. Ingell was under the impression that that was the intent of the previous vote. He
therefore withdrew his vote on the previous motion. He agreed that Area 2C is indeed
height sensitive.
Comm. DeBellis did not feel it would be appropriate to recommend a rezone to R-1B
until such time that the proposed R-lB zone has been studied. That is the reason for his
making a motion to rezone to R-1.
23 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to reconsider the vote on the
previous motion.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton
Comm. Peirce
None
None
MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to rezone Area 2C from R-2 to
R-1.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. DeBellis, Peirce
Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton
None
None
MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to recommend that Area 2C be
rezoned to R-lB (with the same specifications as voted for in Area 2B).
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton
Comms. DeBellis, Peirce
None
None
MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to recommend that Area 20 be
rezoned from R-2 to R-lA as proposed by staff. This pertains only to lots in excess of
6700 square feet, and there will be a maximum of two units on those lots in excess of
6700 square feet.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton
Comms. DeBellis, Peirce
None
None
MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve negative
declarations for Areas 2A through 2D.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton
None
None
None
Comm. Peirce explained his "no" votes, stating that he feels all four areas should be
rezoned to R-1. He felt that by increasing the height and setbacks, the bulk is being
increased; therefore, the areas would be essentially downgraded. Even though one would
be living in an R-1 area with a view, such a recommendation to rezone to R-lB would be
penny wise and pound foolish.
Comm. DeBellis explained his "no" votes, stating that he would have preferred to have
Areas 2A, 2B, and 2C all be R-1; and have area 2D be R-2. If a subsequent zone had been
created, he would have favored rezoning to the new zone.
24 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
VARIANCE TO EXCEED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF WALL IN SIDEY ARD
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2919 HERMOSA VIEW DRIVE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 29, 1988. The review committee at their
meeting of February 18, 1988, recommended a negative declaration for this project and
recommended that the Planning Commission review the code section on fences on corner
lots since this situation is not unique, but justifiable findings are impossible.
Section 1215 of the zoning ordinance allows a fence along the street sideyard or a corner
lot to be a maximum of 36 inches. The applicant is proposing to construct a wall four
feet to six feet along the street sideyard.
The single-family dwelling at the site is presently under construction. The design of the
dwelling has its main entrance along 30th Street where the fence is being proposed. The
grade of the sidewalk along 30th Street drops about eight feet from the front to the back
of the site. A portion of the finished floor of the dwelling is below the sidewalk.
Staff cannot determine any unusual circumstances that justify granting the variance.
The site is typical of most corner lots in the vicinity. The applicant states reasons for
requesting the variance are privacy and to prevent litter from being thrown into the
yard. Owners of every lot in town would be desirous of attaining these goals.
The Building Director recommended that the Planning Commission review the fence
requirements for corner lots. Requests for six-foot walls on corner lots are not unusual.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the request to allow a six-foot
wall along the sideyard and to determine whether a study to amend the present
requirement is necessary.
Public Hearing opened at 11:56 P.M. by Chmn. Compton.
Jim Collis, currently living at 651 15th Street, Manhattan Beach, applicant, addressed
the Commission. He stated that he has lived in the home since it was built in 1965. He
decided to do some extensive remodeling. At the time it was planned, he was advised
that there would not be a problem with the wall along 30th Street. He took out a
building permit. During the course of construction, the building inspector came out and
informed him that he was given incorrect information in regard to the wall. He was then
advised to go before the Planning Commission to request a variance.
Mr. Collis felt that the City should be trying to encourage the use of usable sideyards.
He said he could have built to wi thin five feet of the C ity sidewalk; however, he didn't do
that because he wanted to use the sideyard as well as the other parts of the yard in the
rear.
Mr. Collis stated that this situation is unique, in that the property fronts on Hermosa
View Drive, the property backs up to Ardmore, and the side is on 30th Street. The main
access is from Hermosa View Drive, not 30th Street.
Mr. Collis noted that there is an extreme grade difference from Hermosa View Drive to
Ardmore Avenue. Effectively, if a six-foot wall were built according to the code, it
would be within five feet of the building. There would then be five feet inside the fence,
and five feet outside the fence. There would then be two areas not usable for anything.
He currently has a five-foot sideyard on the southerly side of the home which is good
only to walk down the side of the house.
25 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
Mr. Collis stated that it would be good planning to encourage the use of sideyards. He
circulated a petition within the neighborhood, and there were no objections to his
proposal. He noted that there are other houses in the area with walls as high as ten
feet. He feels that the proposed wall is consistent with the area. He noted that there is
heavy traffic on the streets surrounding his property. Also, there is a lot of trash thrown
from cars by people in the area. He is trying to create more privacy.
Mr. Collis stated that he is not requesting that the entire length of the property have a
six-foot wall. He wanted two walls, one about 32 feet, the other about 28 feet. The
length is approximately 100 feet. There will also be an extensive amount of landscaping
at the property. He stated that he plans to build a sloped wall. There are also two 35-
foot trees which will soften the effect. He plans landscaping on the inside of the wall.
He said that there are other homes built to within five feet of the property lines having
quite an impact. His project is almost eight and a half feet from the sidewalk.
Mr. Collis stated that he did not try to maximize the building on the lot. He wanted to
maintain open space, and he would like to maintain privacy in his yard.
Mr. Collis said that there are duplexes across the street where people have parties all the
time and they throw trash. Those people also park on the lawn and it is very unsightly.
Therefore, he would like to build the wall. He stated that by not allowing the wall, a
non-use is being created.
Chmn. Compton noted concern over setting a precedent in regard to allowing this wall.
Public Hearing closed at 12:13 A.M. by Chmn. Compton.
Comm. Rue asked questions about the height of the wall.
Chmn. Compton asked who gave the applicant the information about this wall.
Mr. Collis stated that the Planning Department did not even know that the ordinance
existed. A building permit for the project was taken out. He then requested that a
building inspector come out to inspect the framing. At that time, he was informed that
the wall was not allowed because a mistake had been made. The applicant was then
advised to appear before the Planning Commission to request a variance.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to accept staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 88-32, to deny the variance for a six-foot wall at 2919 Hermosa View
Drive, based on the fact that the appropriate findings cannot be made.
Comm. Ingeli did not feel that the appropriate findings could be made to grant this
variance.
Mr. Collis was permitted to again address the Commission to explain why he feels the
variance should be approved.
Comm. Rue felt that the fact this lot is surrounded by three streets is unusual. He felt
that a mitigating circumstance might be the fact that the six-foot wall would not go out
to the property line on Ardmore.
Chmn. Compton stated that he would vote against the motion, explaining that he feels
walls in excess of three feet should be allowed in the City, particularly in cases such as
this.
26 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
Comm. DeBellis agreed that there are not many homes fronting on three streets;
however, he felt that that is not a particularly germane issue so far as the height of a
fence is concerned.
Chmn. Compton noted concern that this applicant received the wrong information from
the City in regard to the building of this wall. However, he noted that that factor is not
compelling to the granting of a variance.
Mr. Collis was advised by the Planning Department to apply for a variance. Staff did not
indicate to the applicant that there was no possibility of obtaining approval. Mr. Collis
stated that the cost for the variance application was $800, and an appeal would be $300.
He felt this to be a tremendous financial burden. He felt that the City should allow
people to develop their properties within reasonable conditions.
Comm. Rue asked whether Mr. Collis would be willing to build a wall under six feet.
Mr. Collis stated that he could build a wall four and a half feet; anything less would be
pointless.
Comm. DeBellis questioned whether vegetation is allowed over six feet.
Mr. Schubach stated that he would consult the code to determine the allowable height of
vegetation.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce
Comm. Rue, Chmn. Compton
None
None
MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, based on the information
originally given to this applicant on the original submittal of plans and approvals, and
based on his lack of warning that the variance was almost impossible, to recommend to
the City Council that this applicant's fees be refunded.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton
None
None
None
APPEAL OF LOT MERGER DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUPS L.M. 88-2
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 29, 1988. Two appeals have been received
for L.M. Group 88-2. Staff finds these lots to be subject to merger since less than 80
percent of the block has been split, and the contiguous parcels are held by the same
owner.
1224 20th Place
On Monday, April 4, 1988, staff received a call from Chao-Hsing Pian, owner of 1224
20th Street, requesting a continuance of the hearing regarding a determination of the lot
merger. Due do a conflict with her job, she was unable to attend tonight's hearing.
Staff recommended that this matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
April 19, 1988.
27 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
(
Comm. DeBellis asked whether there were any legal problems with continuing this item.
Mr. Lough replied in the negative.
MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue the hearing of
1224 20th Street, to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. No objections; so
ordered.
1254 20th Street
This parcel is comprised of two slightly odd-shaped lots of approximately 3000 square
feet and 3080 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the
property line. Building records indicate this structure is a single-family dwelling.
Janet Hallgren, 1254 20th Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission
and asked that her parcels not be merged. She has been a resident owner of this for nine
years. She explained that she has two lots, one 25' by 125' and one 125' by 121 '. These
lots are unusually large and are on a corner. On her street, over 50 percent of the houses
have been developed on 25' lots. The surrounding streets have almost completely been
developed on 25' lots. She stated that her property value has dropped because of recent
City rulings. She stated that there would be no loss of parking by development of her
lot. She concluded by stating that these are very deep lots; and the corner lot would be
extremely valuable to a developer.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to not merge the lots at 1254
20th Street, based on the fact that the majority of homes in the immediate vicinity are
on 25' lots; further, based on the fact that the owner has been a resident/owner for over
20 years in the City.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton
Comm. Peirce
None
None
Ms. Wilma Burt stressed that these matters should be referred to as ''hearings," not
"appeals," stating that the word "appeal" has a specific meaning in law.
Chmn. Compton suggested that in the future these matters be referred to as ''hearings."
EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #30986 FOR AN EIGHT-LOT SUBDIVISION
AT 532, 534-540 20TH STREET
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of April 15, 1986, approved Resolution 86-25
for an eight-lot subdivision. This matter was subsequently appealed to the City
Council. The City Council, at their meeting of May 27, 1986, denied the appeal and
concurred with the decision of the Planning Commission.
A tentative tract map expires 24 months after approval pursuant to the State Subdivision
Map Act. The Planning Commission may grant the applicant an extension not to exceed
twelve months.
The applicant has been working with the Public Works Department and the Building and
Safety Departments to develop a revised grading plan which will conform with all
28 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88
necessary engineering requirements. The subdivision conforms to all zoning and
subdivision requirements.
Staff recommended approval of the extension of the tentative tract map.
MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the extension of
tentative tract map /130986 for an eight-lot subdivision located at 532, 534-540 20th
Street. No objections; so ordered.
SPECIAL STUDY 88-3 -REPEAL OF BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
(CONTINUED FROM 3/15/88 MEETING)
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to accept staff's
recommendation to undertake a comprehensive study of this matter including
amendments to Local Coastal Program and Land Use Plan prior to repealing the Specific
Plan Area. Further, to direct staff that this matter should be handled as a low-priority
item.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton
None
None
None
MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to continue the remainder of
the agenda to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, and to adjourn at 12:48
A.M. No objections; so ordered.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the
action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled
meeting April 5, 1988.
·--JW&t-
Michael Schubach, Secretary
29 P.C. Minutes 4/5/88