Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-18-1988MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 18, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:33 P.M. by Comm. Rue. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue Comm. Edwards, Chmn. Peirce Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Sally White, Recording Secretary Comm. Rue acted as Chairman of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. lngell, to approve the minutes of September 6, 1988, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the minutes of October 4, 1988, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm. Ketz suggested that the words "and fauna" be removed from Resolution P .C. 88- 86, Condition No. 3(a). MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 88-86, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 1522-1524 AND 1530 LOMA DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 11 AND 12, HISS ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Suite 9, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and suggested that copies of the staff reports be made available to the audience. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #19969 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 918 7TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM 9/l.0/88) MEETING Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 13, 1988. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of September 20, 1988, continued this matter because the site was located 1 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 , . in a general plan/zoning inconsistency area. The zoning was R-2B, with a general plan designation of low density. The City Council, at their meeting of October 11, 1988, adopted Resolution No. 88-5188, which amended the general plan for this area from low density residential to medium density residential thereby correcting the inconsistency. This project is located in the R-2B zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 4800 square feet. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-unit condominium. Unit A will be approximately 2200 square feet. Unit A will be approximately 2700 square feet. Each unit will contain three bedrooms and two and a half baths. Unit B wil1 also have a game room located on the lower level. Staff analyzed the game room of Unit B and has determined its conversion potential into a bootleg to be minimal. The game room will have no exterior access and will have no separate bathroom facilities. The architecture of the building is contemporary. The units will be detached and will have two floors over a partial subterranean garage. Architectural treatments include tile roofing, stucco siding, skylights, and decorative railings. The plans conform to all planning and zoning requirements. Open space is provided on second and third level decks. Parking meets or exceeds code. Unit A will have three enclosed parking spaces; Unit B will have two. The proposed development also provides one guest parking space. No on-street parking is lost as a result of curb cuts. The third enclosed parking space provided for Unit A utilizes a unique "tandem" situation. The triangular parking layout would not be permitted for required parking. However, since this is added parking for the unit, that is, not required by code, it should be allowed. This area may also be used as workshop and/or storage area. The site is located in an R-2B zone. The surrounding uses vary and include condominiums, large apartments, and older single-family homes. The proposed development is similar to other developments on the block. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map for a two-unit condominium project, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 7:40 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Fran Baker, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated that this project provides a nice architectural treatment to the two detached units. The parking exceeds code requiremen t s. The detached units provide a desirable parking situation, and there is an adequate turning radius, providing for a safe access to the street. Ms. Baker stated that this project is in complete compliance with all code requirements. She stated that this project has been delayed because of the inconsistency issue; therefore, staff has been consulted at length to ensure that the project conforms in all aspects. 2 P .C. Minutes l O /18 /88 Jim Housley, 934 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, also speaking on behalf of his neighbors, addressed the Commission. He stated that from his measurements, he has determined that the structure will project four to five feet beyond that of the other buildings on the street. He asked whether the Planning Department has checked the setbacks. Mr. Schubach stated that the Planning staff has checked the setbacks and stated that the structure will not project beyond the other buildings. He stated that the measurements could be checked again if so desired. Mr. Housley requested that the measurements be more carefully examined. Chmn. Rue asked what the typical setback is on this street. Mr. Housley stated that they are approximately an additional four to five feet from what this project is proposing. He continued by stating that, if this structure does project further than the others, it will make backing out of driveways dangerous. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, also representing the applicant, pointed out that there is a great variation in setbacks on the street due to the various ages of the homes; some were built in 1902 and 1904, others in the l 960's and 1970's. Much of the new construction was built to the current development standards. Ms. Srour stated that much time and effort has gone into this project to ensure that it complies with all requirements and blends in well with the surrounding area. She requested the Commission to keep in mind the wide range of ages of the homes on the street. The project is in keeping with development taking place today. Public Hearing closed at 7 :48 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Ingell felt that it is important to have additional setback information in regard to the averages on the street before making a final decision on this project. He noted that this structure will be in existence for many years; therefore, the proper setback should be provided. Comm. Ketz agreed that additional setback information is necessary. MOTION by Comm. Ket-, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this matter to the next meeting so that staff may provide additional data on the average setbacks on this street. Chmn. Rue asked how the setback data was obtained. Mr. Schubach stated that examination took place via a "drive by" by staff. He stated that he would caution the planning staff to very carefully examine the setbacks in the future. Chmn. Rue stated that the plans are very nice. He also noted that the project is four to five feet below the maximum height allowed. Further, the lot coverage is only 59 percent as opposed to the allowed maximum of 65 percent. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce 3 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 CONDffiONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 120093 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMJNIUM PROJECT AT 618 6TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM 10/4/88 MEETING) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 13, 1988. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of October 4, 1988, continued this matter and directed staff to return with information regarding the front yard setbacks of other structures on the block. Staff has reviewed the setbacks for this area and has determined the average setback of the block to be 15.5 feet. The Planning Commission may impose a condition of approval to require the applicant to provide a larger setback than the code requires if appropriate findings can be made, that is, compatibility with the established character of the neighborhood. Staff is recommending a minimum setback of ten feet. The largest setback required in any R-1 residential zone is ten feet. Therefore, a larger setback would be difficult to justify. This project differs from the 845 15th Street project where the City Council imposed a 19-foot setback requirement for a proposed condominium development. In that instance, the 19-foot setback was imposed because of existing setbacks and loss of view. Loss of view is not an issue for this project. The project is located adjacent to a large condominium which projects to within five feet from the front property line. There is no ocean view because of the view obstruction from a hillside. If a setback is approved which is larger than required by code, this setback should apply to all other discretionary projects. Staff is also researching a setback study which will impose setbacks for individual blocks, similar to the R-3 zone. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map for the two-unit condominium project, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Comm. Ingell asked how staff is currently measuring the existing setbacks. Mr. Schubach explained that the City has aerial photographs which are to scale which depict, within inches, the setbacks. He continued by explaining the way in which the property lines are measured in relation to the setbacks. Chmn. Rue asked whether discretionary projects set precedents. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, stating that there should be a generalized consistency policy with regard to these projects. He cautioned the Commission against making decisions arbitrarily. Public Hearing opened at 7:53 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated that this project was begun many months ago. Both the applicant and architect are very experienced. They have consulted at length with representatives from the Building and Planning Departments to ensure that this project is in compliance. 4 P .C. Minutes 10 /18 /88 Ms. Srour stated the importance of continuity and consistency being applied to these project approvals. She stated that the applicant is not interested in setting precedents, but merely in providing new homes for the community. Ms. Srour stated that this project meets or exceeds all of the code requirements. She stated that two weeks ago, a meeting occurred with the designer, City staff, and the City Attorney. The direction from the City Attorney on this matter was that the plans originally submitted did meet all of the setback requirements. She noted that this project is located at the bottom of a hill and will be next to a brand new building. This neighborhood is a mixed-use area, and the homes have been built over a wide span of time. She stated that the R-2 development standards are well developed in this particular area. Ms. Srour continued by discussing the setback and stated that the five-foot setback is maintained only for a small portion of the entire width of the lot; the average setback proposed is actually 18 feet from the front property line. The sideyard setback is six feet; the code requirement is only four feet. Ms. Srour stated that this building is of a contemporary design; however, it will not have a flat facade, but one which will undulate. She stressed that the average setback for the project will be 18 feet. Ms. Srour stated that in all previous discussions with staff, they never indicated that this project was a problem; therefore, she requested that direction be given so that it is not many months before a project can proceed. Ms. Srour stated that the applicant is willing to accept staff's recommendation that the front setback be increased to ten feet. She requested that the plans be approved at this time, with the condition of a ten-foot setback. The plans would remain exactly the same, as would the exterior elevation. Ms. Srour stated that Mr. Stevens has met with the planning staff and submitted revised side elevations depicting the embellishments. She understood that these revised elevations were acceptable to the staff. Further, the building with the increased setback has been reviewed by staff, and staff finds it to be acceptable. Ms. Srour requested that the Commission develop a consistent approach to this street in regard to setbacks. In response to a question from Chmn. Rue, Ms. Srour explained that the original parameters of the project are still the same. Now, however, at ground level, the minimum setback will be increased to ten feet, rather than five feet. Overall, the adjacent portions of the building which were originally set back 17 feet will now be set back 22 feet. Ms. Srour stated that the building was condensed in order to provide for the additional setback. Parking has been maintained as was the turning radius. The garage interior has not been changed. The square footage per unit is now a little smaller than was originally proposed. Joe Mogel, 1812 Speyer Lane, Redondo Beach, project developer, addressed the Commission. He explained that nothing was done until after meeting with staff and the City Attorney. After being asked to provide a ten-foot setback, the entire project had to be reduced five feet. He stated that extra room was created by reducing the size of the 5 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 bonus room by five feet. He explained that the bedrooms and closet were shrunk several feet in order to acquire additional space. Also, one of the bathrooms which originally had two pullmans, was reduced to one pullman. Three feet was reduced from Unit A, and two feet was reduced from the smaller Unit B. Footage was gained by reducing other areas of the units by one to two feet in various locations. Rod Merl, 45 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, owner of 632 6th Street, supported the staff recommendation of a ten-foot setback. He felt that ten feet would be reasonable considering the prevailing setbacks on the street. Mr. Merl encouraged the Commission to address the issue of uniformity in regard to setbacks as well as the issue of open space. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, did not feel that enough setback information has been presented in order for the Commission to make a decision on this project. He questioned the accuracy of the measurements presented. He acknowledged that the aerial photographs are good; however, he stated that the right-of-way and property line must also be located in order to make an accurate measurement; and property lines are very difficult to locate without a survey. Mr. Compton felt it is a mistake for the City to penalize condominium developments in the City. He stated that such action would promote the building of more apartments, which in his opinion would be undesirable since no discretionary approval would be required because apartments can be built to the setbacks in place. Mr. Compton suggested that those areas having problems with setbacks be more carefully studied to determine whether additional setbacks should be required; and all new projects should be required to conform. Mr. Schubach stated that the aerial photographs are very accurate and do show the exact locations of property lines. He stated that each of the setbacks on the block was averaged based on the official public right-of-way map showing property lines and the aerial photographs. Mr. Schubach stated that staff is currently preparing a setback study which will be presented to the Commission next month. He stated that new setback requirements are being proposed for the entire City. He stated that there is currently a flaw in the code in regard to the setbacks required for apartments versus those required for condominiums. This flaw will soon be corrected. Mr. Schubach continued by explaining in more detail how measurements are taken based on the aerial photos and right-of-way maps. Edward Sarkisian, 625 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, voiced concern over the City arbitrarily changing setback requirements, noting that there are current standards in place. He felt that it is more desirable to encourage condominium development rather than apartment development, noting the issue of pride of ownership. Mr. Sarkisian felt that once the rules are set, people should abide by them. Rod Merl noted, however, that this project is being proposed in the R-2 zone; therefore, no apartments could be built there. He noted that the lots are very deep. The condominium ordinance clearly states that setback requirements can be based on the relationship to the lot size. He stressed that condominiums require different standards 6 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 than apartments. Benjamin Gilmore, 625 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted concern that, based on recent City actions, people will soon be all over the City with measuring tapes in hand trying to determine setbacks. He felt that the entire approach to the problem is very strange. Mr. Gilmore noted the importance of developing a general plan. He noted concern that there are many thousands of lots in the City which need to be thoroughly studied. He stated that the current rules must be followed and not arbitrarily changed. Elizabeth Srour stated that she is very interested in proceeding with the project. The concerns of the Commission and neighborhood have been addressed. This project complies with all code requirements. She asked that the study of setback standards be segregated from this project. She asked that the Commission approve the project at this time. Public Hearing closed at 8:21 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue noted that a relatively new building to the west of this project has a five-foot setback. He noted that the condominium ordinance was drawn to achieve consistency with the surrounding areas. He felt that that is happening; however, setbacks sometimes need to be larger in order to mitigate the encroaching bulk of large condominium projects. Chmn. Rue noted, though, that the architect and applicant have drawn plans which conform to all code requirements. This project is one structure from the end of the block, and there is no view blockage. He applauded the applicant for returning with revised plans showing the larger setback. Comm. Ingell favored the ten-foot setback, stating that it would fit in with the neighborhood and because the building will be there for many years. Comm. Ketz agreed that the ten-foot setback would make this project more compatible with the neighborhood. She noted that this is only the second new project on the block; and the older buildings are all set back further. Chmn. Rue addressed the concerns of citizens who feel the City is acting arbitrarily in regard to changing the setbacks. He noted that staff is currently studying this issue and will be submitting a report to the Commission very soon. He noted that the setbacks will soon be more consistent throughout the City. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, including the condition requiring a ten-foot front setback, for a two-unit condominium project at 618 8th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce Chmn. Rue stated that any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. 7 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 CONOmONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 120176 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 620 10TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 12, 1988. This project is located in the R- 2 zone, with a general plan designation of medium density. The lot size is 4104 square feet. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-unit condominium. Unit A will be approximately 2100 square feet, and Unit B will be 1800 square feet. The units will each contain three bedrooms, three baths, and a study/den. Unit A will also have a family room. The architecture of this building is contemporary. The units will be detached and will have two floors over a partial subterranean garage. The units will also have a roof deck. The overall design of the units is good; however, the plans do not identify materials to be used for architectural treatments. A condition of approval will require architectural treatments to be identified. The plans conform to all planning and zoning requirements except for required turning radius. The turning radius will need to be increased or the entrance of the garage to be widened. Open space is provided on a rooftop deck. Required parking spaces also meet code; each unit will have two enclosed spaces. There will also be one guest parking space. No on-street parking will be eliminated. The site is zoned R-2; however, the primary use on the block is single-family dwellings. There are two duplexes and some commercial development located to the east. Most of the existing residential developments are older, single-family homes. The proposed condominium will be the first condominium on the block. The older homes have large setbacks. The Planning Commission may impose a condition of approval to require plans to provide a larger setback if appropriate findings can be made, that is, compatibility with the established character of the neighborhood. Staff is recommending a minimum setback of ten feet. The largest setback required by the code is ten feet in the R-1 zone. However, the Planning Commission may choose to require a setback equal to the average setback of the existing structures. Staff has calculated this average to be 14 feet. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the two-unit condominium and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution, including the requirement of a ten-foot front yard setback. Mr. Schubach stated that staff will more carefully study the setbacks in the future. He felt that it is important for developers and homeowners to realize the the five-feet is the minimum requirement only; it is important for them to understand that other considerations are taken into account, such as the character of a neighborhood. Comm. Ingell felt that it is necessary to know exactly how the setbacks are calculated as each project comes before the Commission. He suggested that staff go over this issue very thoroughly in order to clarify this matter for the Commissioners. Mr. Schubach explained how staff calculates the setback measurements. He noted that staff studies the most current projects, all of which require a survey. The survey markers are assumed to be accurate. The markers are then measured with scales on the 8 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 maps and aerial photographs. Staff can then determine the exact placement of a structure on the property. Right-of-way widths are also measured and taken into account. He felt that the method comes within inches of being accurate. Public Hearing opened at 8:33 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. Maria Boughman, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, designer representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated that she has worked with staff on this project, and the plans drawn and submitted were conceptually approved by staff. She felt that it would be arbitrary and unfair at this point for the Commission to require an additional five feet of setback. Ms. Boughman noted that this will be the first condominium on the block; however, there are certain to be more in the future. Most of the homes currently on the block are quite old and will probably not be there much longer. Future condominiums will be built to the existing code, which requires a five-foot setback for the R-2 zones. Ms. Boughman felt that this project will enhance the neighborhood. If the additional five feet of setback is required, very little space would be gained; also no views are blocked by having the five-foot setback. Ms. Boughman noted concern over the Commission changing the requirements arbitrarily at the meeting. She asked that the condition requiring a ten-foot front setback be waived. She had no problems with any of the other conditions. In response to questions from Chmn. Rue, Ms. Boughman stated that the building treatment would be stucco; roof would be composition shingle; and the entire front setback will be landscaped with planters. Public Hearing closed at 8:38 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue noted that no opposing testimony was given at the public hearing; therefore, he could see no reason why this project should not go forward. He stated that the project meets or exceeds all requirements, and lot coverage is only 52 percent as opposed to the allowed 65 percent. In response to a question from Chmn. Rue, Mr. Schubach stated that the average setback in this neighborhood is 14 feet. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation as written, including the requirement for a ten-foot front yard setback, for a two-unit condominium at 62 0 10th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce Ms. Boughman felt that the ten-foot setback requirement is arbitrary. Chmn. Rue stated that decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. 9 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 r CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /120040 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 851 LOMA DRIVE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1988. This project is located in the R- 3 zone with a general plan designation of high density. The lot size is 2780 square feet. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-unit condominium project. Each unit will be approximately 1900 square feet and will consist of two bedrooms and three baths. Each unit will also provide a loft area on the mezzanine. The plans conform to all planning and zoning requirements. Open space is provided on ground-level patios and on decks located on the second floor and mezzanine level. Parking meets or exceeds requirements; each unit will provide two enclosed parking spaces. There will also be four guest parking spaces. Two guest parking spaces are required since one on-street parking space is lost due to curb cuts. The design of the units utilizes a contemporary theme. There will be two floors and a mezzanine located over a partial subterranean garage. Architectural treatments include some glass block, stucco siding, and deck to break up large walls. The overall design will be consistent with surrounding properties. The site is located in the R-3 zone. The immediate area is developed with high density residential units. There are several similar developments, some presently under construction, on this block. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map for a two-unit condominium project, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 8:43 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, project designer, addressed the Commission and stated that all sides of the building have been given architectural treatment. There are four parking spaces per unit. He felt that this project would be an asset to the neighborhood. Public Hearing closed at 8:47 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue felt that the plans are very attractive. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation as written, approving a two-unit condominium project at 851 Loma Drive. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 REZONE OF AREAS 4 AND 6 FROM R-3 TO R-1 AND AREA R-1 FROM C-3 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 13, 1988. The subject areas under consideration for zone changes were scheduled at this time for consideration by the City Council as part of an effort to comply with the voter's advisory measure EE. AREA4 Area 4 has a total land area of 13,710 square feet. There are three lots, with a typical lot size of 4570 square feet. There are currently three dwelling units, with an average of one unit per lot. The existing density is 9.5 units per acre. The existing zoning is R-3, with a general plan designation of low density. The potential number of units under the current R-3 zoning ordinance is nine; the potential number of units under the previous R-3 zoning ordinance was eleven. There are no nonconforming units under either the R-3 or R-1 zoning. All three units were constructed over 30 years ago, and each lot has one unit. The 1922 land use map was not indicated; 1930 land use map was commercial; 1943 land use map was R-3; 1956 and 1978 zoning maps were both R-3 designations. All three lots are over 3500 square feet. Based on advisory measure EE, the subject property should be rezoned to R-1. Staff believes that the current R-3 zoning is a classic example of spot zoning, since the area consists of only three small lots and is surrounded by other zones, mainly R-1. Another reason for rezoning the area to R-1 is the existing single-family units on each lot and the small size of the lots. The rezoning will result in a potential density reduction of 66 percent; a total number of three units will be allowed, as opposed to nine units. Public Hearing opened at 8:54 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. Coming forward to address the issue were: Stan Shaw, 661 Porter Lane, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and discussed the streets in Area 4. Noting that he is surrounded by commercial and condominiums, he felt it would be unfair to be rezoned from R-3 to R-1. Chmn. Rue noted that the adjacent properties are all R-1 in this area, both on Porter Lane and Gould. It is a fact that there is commercial development to the east on Pacific Coast Highway. He felt that the current situation is a typical example of spot zoning and does not fit in with the neighborhood. Comm. Ingell agreed, stating that those comments are true especially in this case where no nonconforming uses would be created by rezoning to R-1. There are three units on three lots in Area 4, and the area abuts other R-1. He felt it would be inappropriate to allow these properties to be developed to R-3 standards when the other uses are R-1 on three sides. 11 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 Comm. Ketz agreed, stating that density will be reduced by rezoning to R-1. She also felt that traffic produced by R-3 zoning would not be appropriate in an R-1 area. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to rezone Area 4 from R-3 to R-1. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: AREA5 Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 13, 1988. Area 5 has a total of 37,500 square feet. There are ten lots, with a typical lot size of 25 by 100 feet or 50 by 100 feet. There are currently ten dwelling units in the area as well as a pre-school. The average number of units per lot is one, with an existing density of 10 units per acre. The existing zoning is R-1, and the general plan designation is general commercial. The potential number of units under the current R-1 zoning ordinance is ten as was the potential under the previous R-1 zoning. No units would be allowed under the proposed C-3 zoning. There are two lots with nonconforming units under the R-1 zoning. Two units were constructed within the last ten years; two within the past 10 to 2 0 years; and six were constructed over 30 years ago. The 1922 land use map was R-1; 1039 land use map was R-3; and the 1943 land use map was R-2. Both the 1956 and 1978 zoning maps were R-1. Four lots are below 3500 square feet; and six lots are over 3500 square feet but under 52 50 square feet. The subject area is essentially a mix of single-family dwellings and duplexes, except for a pre-school located on Lots 4, 5, 6, and half of 7. Four of the ten units are less than 20 years old, and none of the property is owned by commercial property owners to the east. Each lot is generally owned separately, except for those lots which are merged with residential development over the property lines. Because of the multiple ownership and relatively new development in the area, staff believes it would be unrealistic to zone this property to C-3 at this time. Further, it could result in these properties being developed separately with undesirable commercial development with access on a local street and no frontage on Pacific Coast Highway. He suggested that Area 5 not be rezoned to C-3; rather, the general plan designation should be amended to low density residential. Also, a result of C-3 zoning could be lots on both sides of a dwelling unit becoming commercial; in other words, a veritable hodgepodge. Comm. Ingell discussed the pre-school, zoned commercially, and asked what would happen if it were torn down. He noted that there is no highway access to that location. 12 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 Mr. Schubach noted that that site is three combined lots. He stated that staff has no strong opinion regarding the zoning at that particular location. Coming forward to address this issue were: Dorothy Olvise, 727 Longfellow, Hermosa Beach, purchased the pre-school in the 1950's. Just prior to the purchase, it had been rezoned from R-2 to R-1. She did not feel it would be wise to rezone the property to C-3. She hoped that the City could make up its mind in regard to the appropriate zoning. Richard Black, 732 Longfellow, Hermosa Beach, favored allowing the R-1 zoning to remain. He submitted a petition signed by 56 residents favoring the R-1 zoning with legal nonconforming usage. He stated that Longfellow is already very crowded, and additional commercial usage should not be encouraged in that area. Patricia Tacotta, 738 Longfellow, Hermosa Beach, presented photographs depicting the neighborhood in question. She favored R-1 zoning with a general plan amendment to low density. Were this property rezoned commercial, she stated that it would be very difficult to obtain insurance on her home as well as loans on the equity. She did note, however, that she feels the zoning at the pre-school should be residential. She said the school is compatible with the residential use, and any other commercial development probably would not be compatible. Jack Hutchins, 723 Longfellow Avenue, favored rezoning to R-1; however, he did not favor rezoning the school to commercial, stating that any other commercial usage would be incompatib le with the neighborhood because of increased traffic and parking problems. He questioned whether the pre-school is currently operating under a conditional use permit. Dorothy Olvise stated that the preschool is in fact operating under a conditional use permit at the present time. Arlene Held, 2966 La Carlita Place, suggested that the boundary for Area 5 be extended to 30th Street so that there is a straight line of all the same zoning. She continued by discussing the various uses in the area. Mr. Schubach stated that staff will be studying that area at a future date; however, the Commission can take no action on that area at this time. Mel Tacotta, 738 Longfellow, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over providing front access into this area. He did not favor rezoning the preschool to C-3 based on concerns over traffic and parking problems in the area. Chmn. Rue stated leaving the pre-school zoned as it is would not be a problem because the City is currently studying a process whereby amortization of conditional use permits occurs. He stated that the pre-school does not create any problems in the neighborhood at this time. Chmn. Rue noted that the pre-school will be allowed to continue as it is at this time. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to rezone all of Area 5 from C-3 to R-1; and that there be a general plan amendment for this area from general commercial to low density residential, the general plan amendment hearing to be scheduled for the next quarter. 13 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 Comm. Ketz felt that to change this zone to C-3 would be going against planning principles in an R-1 zone. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: AREA6 Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce Area 6 has a total land area of 39,082 square feet. There is only one lot in Area 6, with a current number of 64 dwelling units. The existing density is 70 units per acre. The existing zoning is R-3, with a general plan designation of low density. The potential number of units under the current R-3 zoning ordinance is 29; the potential under the previous R-3 zoning was 35. The potential number of units under the proposed R-1 zone change would be two or approximately six with a street dedication. The 64-unit condominium project was built 16 years ago. It is nonconforming under both the R-3 and R-1 zoning. The 1922 and 1930 land use maps were R-1; 1943 land use map was R-2. The 1956 zoning map was R-1; 1978 zoning map was R-3. This one lot is over 7000 square fe et. The a rea puts the City "bet ween a rock and a hard place." It is another classic example of illegal spot zoning. However, the property is already developed with high density residential development and is only 16 years old. To rezone it now would make a relatively new unit nonconforming; and in terms of reducing density, would accomplish nothing. Although the City Attorney has indicated that density can be restored in cases of destruction by fire, this opinion may not be accurate in the future as case law changes. Further, the development would still be held to the other R-1 standards. Related to the concerns of the property owners, staff believes the lesser of the two evils is to leave the property zoned R-3 and to amend the general plan designation from low density to high density. Coming forward to address this issue were: Paul Herman, 2411 Prospect Avenue, board president of the homeowners' association, urged the Commission to leave the zoning R-3 and approve staff's recommendation. Mr. Herman continued by discussing the various reasons why he does not favor rezoning this property to R-1. He noted concern over people not being allowed to rebuild their units in the event of fire or earthquake. He felt that the rezone would devalue property values. Mr. Herman asked the Planning Commission to grant a variance for this building so that in the event any Act of God occurs, the property owners would be allowed to rebuild to the present number of units. 14 P .C. Minutes 10/18/88 Betty Pluff, 2411 Prospect, Hermosa Beach, noted that when this development commenced, it was approved by the City. She felt that it would be unfair to rezone the property at this time. She favored R-3 zoning. Mike Swanson, 2411 Prospect, Hermosa Beach, favored retaining the R-3 zoning. Jackie Alfick, owner of a unit at 2411 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, asked for clarification of "spot zoning." Mary Wallace, 2411 Prospect, Hermosa Beach, asked what would happen in the event the building is destroyed and the number of units that could be rebuilt. Paul Herman, 2411 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, asked what right the City has to rezone this property. He again requested that the Commission grant a variance for the property so that it could be rebuilt to 64 units if necessary. Chmn. Rue stated that it is not within the purview of the Planning Commission to grant a variance at this time. Public Hearing closed at 9:39 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to leave the zoning in Area 6 as R-3. Also, that there be a general plan amendment for this area. Chmn. Rue stated that the zoning in this area progressing from commercial to R-3 to R- 1 is a fairly logical flow of zoning. Also, there is R-P zoning across the street from this development. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce Mr. Schubach explained that this issue must still go before the City Council. The residents will receive notice of the public hearing. Recess taken from 9:41 P.M. until 9:50 P.M. CERTIFICATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT211 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA SALOON Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1988. In 1975 the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit to reopen the subject business with alcoholic beverages. On Dece m ber 21, 1981, the Board of Zoning Adjustments .approved a resolution granting a condit ional use permit. However, the resolution was either lost or not produced for entertainment. According to the City Attorney, the best method for resolving this problem is to have the Planning Commission confirm the proposed resolution. On September 22, 1988, an attorney for the adjacent property met with City staff. His claim is that the conditional use permit applicant misrepresented to the City the number 15 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 of parking spaces at the subject property. He also requested a copy of the conditional use permit for entertainment. Staff has located the minutes of the public hearing and was able to produce a resolution from those minutes and the original staff report. The proposed resolution imposes the conditions that were discovered by examining both the minutes and staff report. The conditions are typical of those imposed by the BZA for similar uses. Staff should be able to provide the attorney with a conditional use permit resolution for the subject property; that is why a certified copy is necessary. In regard to the attorney's claim, the issue of parking is not relevant for several reasons: (1) There was common parking of ten spaces prior to Mr. Polak's fencing off the access from 2nd street. The application form did not specify "private" or "common"; (2) No finding in the conditional use permit was made regarding the amount of existing parking; (3) No condition of approval was made regarding parking; (4) No City or state ordinance requires parking in conjunction with the issuance of a conditional use permit; and (5) The condition "subject to all other applicable state or local ordinances or regulations" is not being violated since existing non-conforming developments, i.e., no parking, are allowed to be maintained so long as 50 percent of the existing structure is not destroyed; or, of course, the structure is not deliberately demolished. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission confirm the proposed resolution approving a conditional use permit, subject to the specified conditions. Comm. Ingell stated that it would seem plausible that the Hermosa Saloon should have a copy of the conditional use permit. Mr. Schubach stated that that is not necessarily true, as the original document may have never been produced at all, since it could have been misplaced. Chmn. Rue noted that the original application for the CUP contained a statement stating that there were ten off-street parking spaces available. He asked whether shared parking was allowed at that time. Mr. Schubach stated that it would be necessary for him to research the zoning code in effect at that time in order to answer that question. Hearing opened at 9:53 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. No one appeared from the Hermosa Saloon to address this issue. John Slawson, 2522 Artesia, Redondo Beach, attorney for one of the parties involved in the litigation with the Hermosa Saloon, addressed the Commission. After researching this matter, he has ascertained that no conditional use permit was ever prepared for this establishment. He stated that everyone in the City seems satisfied with the resolution which was prepared based on the resolution and minutes. He stated that he had no opposition to certification of the proposed CUP. Mr. Slawson stated, however, that the purpose of his appearance at this time is to indicate to the Commission his feelings that misrepresentations were given to the City in order to obtain the original conditional use permit. He stated that there were never ten parking spaces available to the Hermosa Saloon; there are only four spaces now. Based on this, he questioned whether the original CUP should be revoked. Based on the 16 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 configuration of the property and the traffic flow, he noted that conditions have changed dramatically since the time the CUP was applied for. He noted that the parking is getting much worse in this area. Mr. Slawson requested that the Commission direct staff to complete an investigation to determine the actions to be taken against the owners and/or applicants both in 197 5 and 1981. In response to a question from Chmn. Rue, Mr. Slawson stated that the wall built by Mr. Polak was constructed in either 1981 or 1982; however, he was not certain whether parking was removed because of the wall construction. Mr. Schubach stated that parking was reduced because entry was previously from 2nd Street, and exiting was on 3rd Street. When the wall was constructed, the vertical angled spaces could no longer be used. In response to a question from Chmn. Rue, Mr. Slawson explained that this business is a block consisting of numerous other buildings on the lots which are all joined together; however, this is not a single, continuous building. There are multiple property owners on the street. His clients own two of the lots; there are three or four other lots owned by other people. Mr. Slawson stated that the problems began when the wall was constructed by Mr. Polak, and the owners of this CUP brought a lawsuit for a prescriptive easement to require the wall to be removed. For whatever reason, they were not diligent, and the lawsuit was dismissed. Since the lawsuit was dismissed, traffic has come onto his client's property. They have erected a fence to stop the traffic and parking on their lot, and were in turn sued by the owner. Mr. Slawson is now trying to determine whether the Hermosa Saloon is in compliance with the law. He said that the parking statements originally given in order to obtain the CUP were not accurate. He stated that the City has the authority to investigate to determine if there was misrepresentation and/or a violation of the conditional use permit which would be grounds for revocation of the permit; also, to determine whether the conditions have changed such that the Commission and/or City Council should review this matter so that the original permit could be revoked. Mr. Slawson reiterated that he is merely requesting the Commission to direct staff to further investigate this matter in order to determine what actions should be taken. Richard Sullivan, 824 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that there are many problems connected with the Hermosa Saloon. He felt that the establishment is a health hazard and a menace to the public welfare. He felt that the City has been negligent in its responsibilities to the citizens because of these problems. Mr. Sullivan stated that in 1981 he was not notified of the public hearing regarding the CUP for the Hermosa Saloon, explaining that very people were notified. He questioned the noticing procedures in place at that time. Mr. Sullivan stated that he has expressed his concerns to the manager of the Hermosa Saloon; however, nothing has been done to stop the problems. Mr. Sullivan stated that problems at this establishment include: enclosing the outdoor walkway leading to the parking lot; having extremely loud music; exposed lights; tables 17 P .C. Minutes 10/18/88 and chairs being placed in the alleyway; dancing, -which is prohibited; and excessive traffic and parking problems associated with the business. He concluded by requesting that the CUP not be certified and that the establishment be investigated before someone gets hurt there. Hearing closed at 10:13 P.M. Mr. Schubach stated that this is not the appropriate time to complain against the business because the owners have not been notified. If so desired, staff can investigate in order to determine if they are in violation of the noise ordinance or other ordinances and return with a staff report. Comm. Ingell noted concern over this issue and the fact that the City Attorney is not present. He suggested continuing this matter until Mr. Lough was present. He stated that he would like staff to provide further information such as other CUPs which were granted before and after the time this one was supposedly granted. He felt that this would be helpful in determining standard conditions as well as the form in use at the time. He also felt that copies of past minutes and resolutions pertaining to other businesses that received CUPs at that time would be helpful. Chmn. Rue noted that CUPs now have a condition providing for six-month review periods. He questioned whether that condition would apply in this case. Mr. Schubach did not feel that condition was in effect at the time this CUP was originally approved. He stated that it would be necessary for him to study this issue further. Comm. Ketz agreed that it would be appropriate to continue this item until the City Attorney is present and can clarify issues relating to this matter. She noted that she had difficulty certifying a document prepared by another board. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to continue this item to the second meeting in November; further, that a letter be sent to the owner and/or manager of the Hermosa Saloon notifying them so that they can be represented at the hearing. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Rue noted that the Commission had copies of the minutes and the resolution. The issue is whether or not to certify the conditional use permit. After that, the Commission can decide whether there are problems with the CUP and determine whether it should be set for a revocation hearing or other actions, such as applying for a new conditional use permit. Mr. Schubach favored continuing this matter until the City Attorney can be present. He also stated that he will investigate the claims made by Mr. Sullivan against the Hermosa Saloon. HEARING OF DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUP L.M. 88-9 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 13, 1988. The Planning Department has determined that the lots included in L.M. 88-9 are subject to merger pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 and State Government Code Section 66451.11-66451.21. 18 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 One hundred fourteen Notices of Intent to Merge Lots were mailed on August 19, 1988. Fifteen Requests for Hearings were received. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appellants' requests for unmerger of the subject parcels. Hearing opened at 10:23 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. 1214 10th Street Owners: William and Margaret Simas This parcel is comprised of three lots; total parcel area is 7500 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this to be a legal single-family residence. Staff has determined that only 42 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. The property owner states in his appeal letter that he does not own three contiguous lots. All records available to the City indicate three lots are owned by Mr. and Mrs. Simas. William Simas, 1214 10th Street, property owner, stated that the City's description of his property is entirely incorrect. He stated that his house sits on all three lots, and there is no overhang of the property. He said he has the only 75-foot house on the block. Mr. Simas stated this is not a new hearing, but rather a continuation of the hearing started last January. He said it wasn't his fault that the City erred in its noticing procedures. Therefore, he stressed that this is a continuation. Mr. Schubach explained that the hearing in January was considered void because of noticing problems; therefore, the entire process was started over and new notices were mailed. Mr. Simas urged the Commission not to merge his parcels. He stated that he has no plans to develop this property. He stated that last January, the Commission voted four to zero not to merge his parcels. He said that merging of these parcels would reduce his property value. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, noted that this parcel consists of three lots. If they are merged, he suggested that the Commission send a message to the City Council requesting that the three lots be allowed to be split into two separate parcels. He felt that this would be a reasonable compromise. Barbara Seymour, 1233 21st Street, stated that, according to the City Council minutes of May 10, 1988, the original decision of the Planning Commission not to merge these lots was not voided. The City Council appeal was dismissed; therefore, the original decision should stand. Chmn. Rue stated that no findings have been presented to not merge the lots. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 1214 10th Street. Further, that the City Council address the possibility of splitting the parcel into two separate lots. 19 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce 1233 21st Street Owners: John and Barbara Seymour This parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 5000 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single-family residence. Staff has determined that only 18 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. Barbara Seymour, 1233 21st Street, addressed the Commission, and stated that her lots were legally unmerged. The decision at the May 10, 1988, Council meeting when the mayor's appeal was dismissed, should have rendered the original Planning Commission decision to stand. She continued by discussing Code Section 29.5-28(b) which states: "All decisions of the Planning Commission are final unless appealed." She stressed that the appeal was dismissed. Chmn. Rue asked whether the Planning Commission's action on this matter is valid. Mr. Schubach explained that the City Attorney discovered technical errors in the code; he then decided that the best way to proceed would be to renotice these properties and start the matter over, rather than fighting the issue in court. The errors involved either descriptions in the property or who received the original notices. Chmn. Rue noted, however, that there is now a new ordinance in effect. Mr. Schubach stated that this matter could be continued if so desired. Mrs. Seymour discussed the requirements for merger in place at the time the original merger hearing took place. She stated that her lots are legally unmerged at this time. She continued by discussing the emergency moratorium in effect in the City. She felt that the City is not being fair to long-term residents in the City. She stressed that her lots were legally unmerged, there was no valid appeal, and the original decision should stand according to the merger ordinance in place at the time. She also noted that the original ordinance states that the homeowner was to be sent a clearance letter; however, she has yet to receive such a letter from the City. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, suggested that this matter be continued until such time that the City Attorney can clarify the issues. Mr. Schubach cautioned that, if this matter is continued, it will run into the moratorium process. He stated that if action is taken tonight, the owner can appeal the decision to the City Council for no fee. Comm. Ingell stated that if this matter is continued, the property at 1214 10th Street should also be continued. 20 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 Chmn. Rue favored continuing this matter until such time that the City Attorney can clarify the issues. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to reconsider the vote taken on property located at 1214 10th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to continue to the next meeting the issue of properties located at 1214 10th Street and 1233 21st Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce 830 18th Street Owners: Charles and Rosemary Abraham (did not appear) This parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 5515 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single-family dwelling. Staff has determined that only 45 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. Comm. Ingell stated that this property meets all criteria for merger. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 830 18th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce 1737 Prospect Avenue Owners: Wayne and Diane Gorrell This parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 5570 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single-family residence. Staff has determined that only 15 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-2B, with a general plan designation of medium density. 21 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 Diane Gorrell handed out maps of Block 2, which is in question at this time. She discussed the development of the lots in the area. She said that this property has been rezoned to R-2B which still allows for two houses on the property as is; therefore, she could see no reason why the parcels should be merged. She said that the current structure is 78 years old and should actually be torn down. She stated that the property is currently up for sale; however, it is difficult to sell with these actions taking place. Chmn. Rue noted that this parcel meets all criteria for merger. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 1737 Prospect Avenue. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce 912 18th Street Owners: Thomas and Peggy O'Brien This parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 5515 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles two lots. Building records indicate this parcel to contain one unit. Staff has determined that 45 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. Peggy O'Brien, 912 18th Street, was outraged at the way in which single-family homeowners are being treated in this City, stating that they are being penalized for poor planning actions in the past. She stated that merging would decrease the property value. The lots were purchased so that they could be split in the future. Thomas O'Brien, 912 18th Street, gave background history on this property. He stated that in 197 5 he received a Residential Building Report indicating that if units were removed, a single-family dwelling would be allowed on each of the two 25-foot lots. He has been paying taxes on two lots all these years. He said merging would be an arbitrary action on the part of the City. He said that the City was originally planned with 25-foot lots because it was intended to be a small beach community. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 912 18th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 925 3rd Street Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce Owners: Danny and Karen Johnson 22 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 The parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 4510 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single-family residence. Staff has determined that only 43 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. Stan Bowman, Monterey Boulevard, Hermosa Beach, attorney representing the owners, stated that the owners are outraged at the actions taking place. He noted, however, that this property is currently owned by two people, and deeds have been executed and recorded in the County Recorder's Office. On that basis, the merger of the lots should be denied. He stated that he has copies of the executed deeds. Mr. Schubach stated, however, that if this action has taken place recently, it would be in violation of the moratorium which is in effect. He suggested that the matter be continued so that the City Attorney can study the deeds. Mr. Schubach suggested that the applicant submit all documents applicable to this action so that they can be examined by the City Attorney, Mr. Lough. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this matter so that the City Attorney can study the deeds. No objections; so ordered. Dan Johnson, 546 Old Mill Road, Crestline, property owner, stated that he had to travel 92 miles to Hermosa Beach to attend this hearing; furthermore, he is paying his attorney by the hour. He stated that he will file a claim in small claims court to recover his expenses at having this hearing continued. He stated that it is not his fault that the City Attorney is not present as he should be. 940 5th Street Owner: Susan Turmis This parcel is comprised of portions of two lots; total parcel size is 4870 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a two-unit dwelling. Staff has determined that none of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger; also, unmerger of this parcel will create a landlocked parcel. The zoning is --R-2B, with a general plan designation of medium density. Susan Turmis, 950 5th Street, asked for clarification on what would happen if the parcels are merged. She asked whether the property will remain R-2B. Chmn. Rue replied in the affirmative, stating that two units would still be allowed. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 940 5th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce 23 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 ~78 5th Street Owner: L.R. Baggett (did not appear) This parcel is comprised of portions of two lots; total parcel size is 4560 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a two-unit dwelling. Staff has determined that none of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all criteria for merger. The zoning is R-2B, with a general plan designation of medium density. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 978 5th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce 1001 4th Street Owner: William Magee The parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 4930 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be legal single-family residence. Staff has determined that 48 percent of the individual lots have been developed separately. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. William Magee, 1001 4th Street, stated that there are multiple units on this block; if those were included, it would meet the 80 percent rule. Chmn. Rue noted, however, that the percentage is based on the number of lots, not the number of units. Mr. Magee opposed the merger based on the fact that he will lose property value. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 1001 4th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce 1002-1004 4th Street Owners: Henry and Cecia Gomez This parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 5000 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate 24 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 this lot to be a duplex development. Staff has determined that 48 percent of the individual lots have been developed separately. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. Victoria Schneider, representing the owners, stated that a precedent has been set based on the properties owned by the Simases and Seymours. The Gomez family has owned this property for 85 years, probably longer than any other property owner in the City. The ultimate goal for this property is for it to be left as a legacy to the Gomez children. She asked that the Commission take this fact into consideration. She asked that the Commission investigate whether 80 percent or more of 4th Street has actually been developed. She stated that this decision will be appealed. Chmn. Rue noted that the owner may appeal the Planning Commission decision to the City council. He also suggested that, if so desired, the applicant pursue the 80 percent issue with staff. Greg Gomez, speaking on behalf of the property owners, stated that this property was once zoned R-2; however, the owners did not oppose the downzone at that time. He opposed the merger based on the loss of property value. He asked that the property not be merged. He stated that a merger will be appealed to the City Council. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, opposed merging this property because it would encourage the owner to maintain the old structure for a much longer period of time. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 1002-1004 4th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce 1244 2nd Street Owners: Clifton and Penee Warren (did not appear) This parcel is comprised of a lot and a half; total parcel size is 3380 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a single-family residence. Staff has determined that 71 percent of the individual lots have been developed separately. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all criteria for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 1244 2nd Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comrns. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce 25 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 1223 1st Street Owner: Wanda Polzin (did not appear) The parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 3130 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building Records indicate this lot to be legal single-family residence. Staff has determined that only 45 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of general commercial. 1215 1st Street Owner: Albert Wauters (did not appear) This parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 3390 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal single-family residence. Staff has determined that only 45 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. 1125 1st Street Owner: Janet T ootell (did not appear) This parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 4430 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a single-family dwelling. Staff has determined that only 45 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. 1140 1st Street Owner: David Locke (did not appear) This parcel is comprised of two lots; total parcel size is 4240 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a single-family dwelling. Staff has determined that 45 percent of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendations to merge the parcels at: 1223 1st Street; 1215 1st Street; 1125 1st Street; and 1140 1st Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Comms. Edwards, Peirce 26 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88 Hearing closed at 11:25 P.M. by Comm. Rue. STAFF ITEMS a.) Letter from City Manager to SCAG Regarding Appeal of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment b.) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for 10/25/88 City Council Meeting c.) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda Items d.) City Council Minutes of September 27, 1988 e.) Santa Monica Bay Project --State of the Bay Conference COMMISSIONER ITEMS None MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 11 :30 P .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 of October 18, 1988. 27 P.C. Minutes 10/18/88