Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10-04-1988MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COM MISSr <::>N MEE HELD oN ocToBER 4, 19&&, AT 7 :3o P .. ~ _ IN rttl'NG OF THE crry CITy HALL COUN OF HERMOSA CIL CHAMBER M eeting called to order at 7:30 P.lVI_ by Chrr>n p . • e1rce . .Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Edwards, IngeU, Ke-tz R None ' _ue, Chmn p • • • e1rce Michael Schubach, Plann.i.ng n· Sally White, Recording Sec:re-t~rector; James P. Lou h . ry g ' C1ty Attorney; APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chmn. Peirce stated that the approval of minutes f would be continued until the next meeting so th~t th e meeting of Se t chance to read them. th e Commissfone~ ember 6, 1988 s Would have ; MOTION by Comm. Inge 11, ~econded by Com rn. Edw September 20, 1988, as submitted. Noting the abstent·ards, to approve th . objections, so ordered. 10ns of Comms R e minutes of • ue and Ketz, no ,APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirc A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMM I SSJ e, to approve Res . BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITigN OF THE CIT~ut1on P.c. 88-7 9 -reNTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120077 FOR A THR.EEN~L USE PERMIT ft HERMOSA LOCATED AT 835 15TH STRE~T, LEGALLY DEsc~IT CONDOMINIUM D VESTING FIORINI, ALLAN TRACT. Notmg the abstentio lBED AS LOT 6 PROJECT objections; so ordered. ns of Comms. R.ue ' HEFFNER, and Ketz, no MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards 82 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION to approve Resol . EACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENT A TI OF THE CIT Ut1on P.c. 88- ~ESUBDIVIDING A THREE-LOT PLANNED UNIT DEVi PARCEL y JI.p HERMOSA RIGINAL TWO LOTS AND ADOPTING AN ELOPMENT BA 1120'109 gECLARATION AT 228-234 TWENTY-NINTH STR.E.E:NVJR.ONMENTAfI< INTO THE cornms. Rue and Ketz, no objections; so ordered. • Noting the b NE9A TIVE a stent1ons of MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edward A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSios, to approve Res . ~i'ACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMEND!~ OF THE CITy 0 ~J10n P.c. 88- f-lANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIB G THE ZONIN HERMOSA ~ND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRON MEN: A~ NEGA nJf AND SHOWN ~ ~AP By abstentions of Com ms. Rue and Ketz, no ob1ect1ons• 50 0 d DECLARATION N H!: MAP ' r ered. • ot1ng the 1 P.c. Minutes 10/4!5l.2 MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve Resolution P .C. 88- 84, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT MOVING THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF THE EASTERLY 45 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK D, TRACT 1677, 15 FEET TO THE WEST AND THE MERGER OF THIS PORTION OF LOTS WITH TWO ADJACENT PARCELS THUS CREATING TWO PARCELS OF 2490 SQUARE FEET EACH, COM MO NL Y KNOWN AS 520 8TH STREET. Noting the abstentions of Comms. Rue and Ketz, no objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /120093 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 618 6TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 26, 1988. This project is located in the R-2 zone, with a general plan designation of medium density. The lot size is 4323.8 square feet. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-unit condominium. Each unit will be approximately 3063 square feet and will consist of four bedrooms and two and a half baths. Each unit will also provide a bonus/workshop room located on the lower level. The bonus/workshop room does not have any plumbing fixtures, and there is no outside access; therefore, the potential for a conversion to an illegal dwelling unit is minimal. However, a condition of approval should prohibit any plumbing fixtures from the bonus/workshop area. The plans conform to all planning and zoning requirements. Open space is provided on a ground level patio and second story decks. The proposed parking meets the minimum requirements. Only one guest parking space is required for the site since no parking spaces are being lost due to curb cuts. The design of the building is contemporary architecture. The two units will be attached through a common wall. Architectural treatments include stucco siding, some glass block, and metal pipe railing. Staff has some concern over the lack of architectural detail on the east and west elevation. The west elevation is a solid stucco wall, approximately 98 feet in length, with some glass block. As a condition of approval, plans should be revised to show added design treatments on the east and west elevations; that is, slightly recessed portions of the building, awnings, bay windows, etc. The site is located within the R-2 zone; however, the block is primarily developed with single-family dwellings and some multiple-family dwellings. There is a two-unit condominium development located directly to the west of the site. Most of the older developments have large setbacks, greater than five feet; however, the condominium to the west has a five-foot setback. The existing condominium is also built to the allowable height; therefore, the potential for view blockage should be minimal. Staff has received another two-unit condominium development for a site located two lots to the east at 640 6th Street. This project will be heard before the Planning Commission in November. 2 P.C. Minutes 10/4/88 Mr. Schubach recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map for a two-unit condominium, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Comm. Rue asked whether there is any view potential from the second floor of this project. Mr. Schubach was not certain whether there is or is not a view from the second floor. He stated that staff has noted concern over the existing blockage due to the existing development. Public Hearing opened at 7:37 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Fran Baker, 82 0 Manhattan A venue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated that the applicant has read the staff report and agrees with the comments and recommendations. She stated that the architect has had discussions with staff and is working with staff on the issue of revising the elevations. Comm. Rue asked for clarification as to what changes would be made to the elevations and the breaking up of the facade. Ms. Baker was not certain what the exact revisions would be; however, she noted that the proposed landscaping would add to the appearance of the project. She stated that the applicant is willing to work with staff and will comply with the staff recommendations. She noted that the revisions will not be major. Rod Merl, 485 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, owner of 635 6th Street, stated that he does not object to a two-unit condominium project at this site; however, he noted concern over the quality of the neighborhood due to the character of recently-built condos in the area. He urged the Planning Commission to consider the appropriateness of projects within the city and in regard to how they fit into the neighborhoods. He urged the Commission to consider the larger setbacks, stating that he feels five feet is not adequate on lots of 100 feet or deeper. Mr. Merl stressed that the Commission should not look at the minimum standards in the condominium ordinance as the maximum for projects. He noted concern over "boxy" projects in the City, and he said that the decisions made by the Planning Commissions set a pattern for the future. Mr. Merl stated that he would be affected by this project because it is located directly next door to his property. He felt that the main concern should be with the quality of projects. He felt that the sides of this proposed project are very blank and that the setback is inadequate. He suggested that the setback pattern for the street as a whole be taken into consideration before approving this project. Public Hearing closed at 7:43 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce agreed that there is concern over the setback of this project. He noted that the condominium ordinance states that projects should be in concert with the rest of the neighborhood. He noted, however, that findings have not been presented to show that this project should be denied based on the setbacks. He urged staff to provide this type of information in the future. 3 P.C. Minutes 10/4/88 Comm. Edwards asked what power the condominium ordinance provides in regard to setbacks on certain projects. Mr. Schubach stated that it is necessary to have findings in order to require setbacks in excess of those required by the ordinance. He stated that staff has not done this in the past; however, the issue is arising more frequently. Staff could begin examining setbacks and requiring additional space if it is determined that other dwellings in the area are set back further on the property. Comm. Edwards felt that, since this issue is arising more frequently, it would be wise if staff had setback information which could be provided to designers so that they do not need to redesign projects after appearing before the Planning Commission. Mr. Schubach noted that staff is currently conducting a study on this issue, and information will soon be forthcoming to the Planning Commission. Comm. Edwards questioned whether staff could return with additional information on the distance of other setbacks in the neighborhood of this project. He suggested that this matter be continued until such information can be provided. Mr. Lough explained that the only time the Commission can take testimony on a project is during the public hearing, and he noted that the public hearing had been closed. He stated that no evidence was given during the hearing which would compel the project to be denied. He stated that any information staff would provide at a future time would, therefore, be outside the public record. Chmn. Peirce suggested that the public hearing be reopened so that additional testimony could be heard. Comm. Edwards noted, however, that the issue has been raised that staff did not have time to go out to measure all of the setbacks in the area. He felt that additional information is necessary in order for the Commission to make it final decision in regard to whether or not this project should be required to provide additional setback area. Mr. Lough felt that the issue is that the Commission has insufficient information to make the particular finding that a larger setback should be required. He noted that, even though the setback issue was raised at the hearing, raising an issue does not constitute providing evidence. He stated that it is necessary for this body to act with specific factual findings to back up its decisions. There must not only be findings, but also a legal basis for the findings. Chmn. Peirce noted, however, that sometimes staff can err and fail to provide all of the information necessary for the Commission to make a final decision. He noted that the setback issue was discovered only at the last minute. He felt that it is necessary for condominiums to fit into the neighborhoods in which they will be built; therefore, it would be appropriate to further study the setbacks in this area so that this project does not overwhelm the rest of the street. • Public Hearing reopened at 7:50 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Edward Sarkisian, 625 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he favors growth in the community. He has looked at the plans for this project, and he feels that design modifications to the project would be appropriate because the present project would not fit in well with the neighborhood. He felt that the west side of the project is too stark, 4 P.C. Minutes 10/4/88 and the setbacks should be larger than five feet. He suggested a seven-foot setback be required. He felt that the current project is too "boxy." Fran Baker reiterated that the applicant is working with staff on the issue of modifications to the plans for the west elevation. She noted that this project is being constructed directly to the east of another project with a five-foot setback. She noted that this project does conform with the requirement, and to require a larger setback at this time would be an arbitrary decision. She stated that the applicant will abide by the Commission's decision, but she requested that a decision be made at this time. Ms. Baker felt that this is a valid project with merit. Comm. Rue asked Ms. Baker whether architects attempt to design projects which will fit into specific neighborhoods. Ms. Baker replied in the affirmative and continued by explaining that architects are professionals and have pride in their work. Sam Perroti, 650 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that the setbacks at his property are 18 to 20 feet , as are most of the other existing houses on the south side of the block. He continued by discussing this neighborhood and the various setbacks. Rod Merl noted that concern has been raised over the setback issue. Also, the applicant is being required to modify the plans, and he felt that those revised plans should be reviewed by the Commission before a decision is made on this project. Public Hearing continued at 7:59 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to continue this matter until the next meeting so that staff can provide additional information on the setbacks of all buildings on 6th Street from Ardmore to Pacific Coast Highway. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Edwards asked whether staff could implement a new rule requiring new projects to conform with other currently existing homes in an area. Mr. Schubach noted that staff is currently very small; but information on that suggestion will be provided at the earliest possible date. Comm. Edwards suggested that new permit applicants be informed that the setback requirement issue is under study for possible future change. Projects can then be designed with an eye toward that change. Mr. Schubach stated that staff can inform applicants of that issue. VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE BUILDING TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 1522-1524 AND 1530 LOMA DRIVE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 22, 1988. This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The parcel is 8000 square feet. 5 P.C. Minutes 10/4-/88 The Planning Commission, at their meeting of April 7, 1988, adopted Resolution P.C. 87- 22, which approved a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map for a six-unit condominium at the subject property. Construction has commenced on the six-unit condominium project. The original plans approved by the Planning Commission indicated a five-foot front yard setback. However, during construction, the building was inadvertently placed within the front yard setback. As a result, the site now has a front setback of 2.39 feet to 3.26 feet and a larger rear yard setback. The error occurred because of a mislocation of the survey pins. The pins were placed assuming a 30-foot wide street. The public right-of-way along Loma Drive is 35 feet; 20 feet is paved. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks require four additional feet. The Loma Drive public right-of-way narrows to 20 feet about one block to the east. The tentative parcel map approved by the Planning Commission shows a 35-foot wide street. During construction inspections, the Building Department never questioned the location of the building. Survey pins are assumed to be accurate since they are placed by a licensed surveyor. Setback measurements are then taken from the survey pins. The applicant states that the location of the new structure falls in line with buildings to the north and south. On the east side of Loma Drive, an apartment building development requires a three-foot setback as designated by the zoning map. However, the zoning code requires condominiums to provide a minimum five-foot setback. Other new condominiums are located on Loma Drive; however, these condominiums provide a 17- foot setback and therefore make it difficult to visually line the building. The building presently has a five-foot wide planter in front which encroaches into the public right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to cut back the planter to the front property line. If a variance is approved, the applicant is also proposing to landscape the school district hillside located behind the subject property, and he states that the school district has approved of the landscaping. Staff has researched the possibility of vacating a portion of Loma Drive since the entire width of the street is not being utilized. The Public Works Department has informed staff that the Street and Highways Code requires streets to be a minimum of 40 feet in width. Further, the code states streets, public rights-of-way, and alleys less than 40 feet shall not be reduced in width. However, an ordinance allowing encroachment permits for the purpose of creating setbacks in cases where the full width of the street will obviously never be improved may be a good idea and a solution to this problem. Staff recognizes the difficulty and financial burden to relocate the building or cut back the wall. However, staff is unable to determine the required findings which justify granting the variance. The site is not unusual because of size, shape, or topography. The site is typical of most lots in the area. The granting of this variance could set a precedent to grant other post-construction variances when mistakes are discovered. If the Planning Commission approves the variance, staff would then recommend leaving the planter in the front, even though it encroaches into the right-of-way, since the right­ of-way is not being totally utilized. Chmn. Peirce asked at what point during construction this error was discovered. 6 P.C. Minutes 10/4/88 Mr. Schubach replied that construction was quite far along, stating that stuccoing had begun on the walls. Comm. Ingell asked about the width of Loma Drive. Mr. Schubach explained that the width varies from 20 to 40 feet from one end of the street to the other. It is 20 feet at the north end of the street near the church. He stated that it would be possible to widen the street to its fullest at that particular point. At this time the area is being used for driveways, -parking, and landscaped areas. Comm. Edwards asked how the error was discovered. Mr. Lough stated that the applicant discovered the error and brought it to the attention of the City. The City otherwise may have never discovered this mistake. Public Hearing opened at 8:10 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Patrick KilJen, 312 South Catalina, Redondo Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission. He explained that this mistake was discovered during the course of construction in the month of August. When the condominium map was being prepared for the Department of Real Estate, another surveyor who was preparing the map to be submitted discovered a discrepancy between the survey he was doing and the one which had originally been submitted for this project. The main issue was whether the center right-of-way of the street should have been measured at 30 feet or 35 feet. Mr. Killen stated that at the time the error was discovered, the design group, owners, and builders discussed the problem. Both surveyors studied the situation to ascertain the actual problem. As it turned out, the first survey was incorrect. Mr. Killen stated that there are peculiarities with the monumenting and alleys for Hermosa Beach streets, explaining that they vary in width from block to block. This accounts for how the problem occurred. Mr. Killen stated that, after discovering the error, it was decided that the appropriate action would be to inform the City immediately. He noted that it is possible that staff never would have discovered the error otherwise. It was only because of the exacting standards of measurement used by the second surveyor that this mistake was noted. A variance was then applied for in August. Once the error was discovered, construction on the project stopped except for the taping of the drywall which continued because that contractor was in the middle of a draw for payment. This building is in substantial conformance with the current zoning ordinance. Mr. Killen explained that when the foundations were being poured, the City inspector came out and verified the location of the building and footings. The inspector signed the certificate of approval at that time. Mr. Killen noted that this project does line up with the other buildings to the north and south on the street. No one ever questioned that this building could be in error. He stated that, because of the location of the garages, it would not be possible to shave back the building to conform; otherwise, the building would be nonconforming. Mr. Killen stated that the project currently encroaches 30 inches into City property on one end and 20 inches on the other end. He said there would be no problem with 7 P.C. Minutes 10/4/88 maintaining the existing encroachment into the City right-of-way, if that were the desire of the Comm iss ion, in order to allow the planter to be as large as it is width-wise. In this way, the planting could be more substantial. Mr. Killen stated that much discussion took place with regard to actions which could be taken to mitigate this problem. The idea of installing curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on the block was rejected by the Public Works Department because the other lots on the block are not large enough to accommodate this improvement. Mr. Killen continued by stating that the issue then arose of the hillside behind this project and which is contiguous to many other lots on the block. The hillside, which is approximately 500 feet long, now has dead trees and shrubs. The hill is the westerly slope of the Hermosa Valley School, and the officials at the school stated they would welcome improvements to the hillside. It was then proposed that they would clean up the hillside and remove all trash and debris, trim existing growth, and plant new iceplant, which would be watered and maintained until it roots. Mr. Killen stressed that this project was built per plans as submitted to the Commission for approval; nothing has changed other than the fact that the rear yard is now a little larger, and the front yard is smaller. The units are exactly the same. Mr. Killen displayed a color rendering which was presented to the Commission at the time the project was initia1ly approved. Mr. Killen stated that because of the unique situation with the streets in the City, perhaps the Building Department should more carefully scrutinize surveys in order to avoid these problems in the future. Mr. Killen stressed that no one had anything to gain by purposely making this error. Mr. Killen continued his presentation by showing slides which depict this project in relation to the other structures on the street, and he discussed the alignment of the various buildings. Clarke Kugler, 234 East Carson Street, Carson, preparer of the original survey, addressed the Commission. He stated that he has done approximately 250 surveys in Hermosa Beach, and this is the only one that has been in error. He stated that he takes pride in his work, has a good reputation, and this was an honest mistake on his part. He noted that Hermosa Beach has a unique situation with its streets, in that it is difficult to determine the location of the rights-of-way lines. Mr. Kugler stated that many people use the public rights-of-way for their own purposes. When the original survey was done, there was a wall at the very front of the property, and many other properties on the street had walls right at the property lines. The wall placement presented a problem in locating the property line. Mr. Kugler stated that there are special circumstances in this case, one of which is the fact that the rear unit is the larger of the units. He felt that the view and perception of this property by people to the east of the property is helped by having the larger rear setback. He also stated that there are few properties which have the large slope behind them. He stated that a finding could be made that there is a unique topography at the rear of this site. 8 P .C. Minutes 10 /4 /88 Mr. Kugler stated that the Commission need not worry about setting a precedent in this case because variances are each taken on their own merit. He stressed that no one would purposely make this error, since there is nothing to be gained by it. Mr. Kugler concluded by stating that he takes great pride in his work, and this was an honest mistake on his part. Sherry Kaye, 531 Pier Avenue, Space No. 36, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the narrowness of streets in the area. She felt that to allow buildings to encroach into the 17-foot setbacks will create problems for the future. Jerry Olguin, felt that the completed project will be an asset to the neighborhood. He stressed that this was an honest mistake, and no one had anything to gain by it. He urged the Commission to approve the variance. David Murphy, 1502 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, felt that this project will be an asset to the City. He would like to see this project completed so that the street can return to normal. Public Hearing continued at 8:35 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Ketz asked for clarification on the setback requirements in the City. Mr. Schubach stated that five feet is required for condominiums; three feet is required for apartments. He was not certain of the rationale behind having different setbacks for condos and apartments; however, staff is currently studying the issue of requiring additional setbacks. Public Hearing closed at 8:37 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce stated that the Commission has two options: (1) grant the variance and require the developer to do the proposed landscaping; or (2) deny the variance. Chmn. Peirce felt that this was an honest mistake, and the surveyor has come forth admitting his error. He felt that faith has been shown by the developer. Comm. Rue asked whether staff felt that the planter would create any problems. Mr. Schubach replied in the negative. He noted, however, that it would be necessary to obtain an encroachment permit as part of the variance approval. He felt that it would be a good idea to allow the planter to remain, and he did not feel it would impede traffic. Comm. Edwards asked what legal responsibility the City is under in this case, since the Building Department signed off on the project. Mr. Lough stated that the City is exempted from liability in errors such as this, according to the Government Code provision which addresses this issue. Chmn. Peirce asked whether granting this variance would set a precedent for the future. Mr. Lough noted that, even if all findings are met, the City is under no obligation to grant a variance. He stated that each variance request is addressed on a case-by-case basis. The Commission is not bound by law to look to past recommendations in regard to whether or not to grant such a request. 9 P.C. Minutes 10/4/88 MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve the request for a variance to allow the building to encroach into the front yard setback at 1522-1524 and 1530 Loma Drive, based on the following findings: (1) there are unusual features of the size, shape, and topography of this site which would justify the granting of a variance; (2) other properties adjacent to this project are along the same line, and the project is in conformance with that line; (3) the variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right possessed by others in the vicinity; and (4) the variance will not be injurious to the welfare of the general public. Further findings include: (1) an honest mistake was made on the part of the surveyor, and no benefit was gained by the builder or owner because of this error; 12) the building is no larger now than was originally proposed; however, the rear yard is larger; (3) landscaping work will be done to the benefit of the Hermosa Beach City Schools. As a further condition, the planter shall be allowed to remain in the right-of-way; and an encroachment permit must be obtained from the City for said planter. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Peirce as second and agreed to by Comm. Rue as maker, to require the developer to attempt to return the hillside to its natural coastal dune state; that is, to require the planting of native flora and fauna, such as coastal sage, as opposed to the proposed ice plant. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Edwards, agreed to by Comm. Rue and Chmn. Peirce as maker and second, that the developer be required to submit a written report detailing the cause of this error. Said report shall be submitted to the Planning Department for study and to serve as a caution for future surveyors in the area. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None HEARING OF DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUP 88-8 Comm. Edwards asked how many lots have been merged to date. Mr. Schubach stated that approximately 1,000 lots have been merged into 500 lots. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 28, 1988. Each parcel was discussed individually in order to avoid confusion. Chmn. Peirce stated that in order for parcels not to be merged, one of the four following criteria must be met: , (1) the structure does not straddle the property line; (2) the property is not owned by one person; (3) that 80% or more of the block is developed; or ( 4) the lots are not substandard in size. Hearing opened by Chmn. Peirce. 2032 Prospect Avenue This parcel is comprised of two lots with a total parcel area of 4370 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 55% of the individual lots have been developed. Staff can determine no reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The site is zoned R-1, with a 10 P.C. Minutes 10/4/88 general plan designation of low density. Katherine Hamilton, 2032 Prospect, applicant, opposed the merger of her lots. She stated that these parcels were purchased as two lots to provide income for retirement purposes. She disagreed with staff's statement that only 55% of the lots have been developed, stating that 80% is the more accurate figure. She stated that sometimes the houses on the block are counted differently, thereby accounting for the difference in percentages. She felt that the method of figuring the percentages is arbitrary. Mr. Schubach stated that the definition used for "development" does not vary when the staff does its calculations. Comm. Rue asked whether there is a charge to people who appeal a lot merger decision to the City Council. Mr. Schubach stated that there is no charge. Comm. Edwards stated that this parcel meets all of the criteria for merger. He noted that there must be evidence presented in order for the lots not to be merged. MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 2032 Prospect. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None 2016 Prospect Avenue and 2010 Prospect Avenue 2016 Prospect Avenue is comprised of two lots for a total parcel size of 5100 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 25% 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 parcel is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. 2010 Prospect Avenue is comprised of two lots for a total parcel size of 5475 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 25% of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all the standards for merger. The parcel is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. Alex Steel, 2010 Prospect, Hermosa Beach, representing the owners Albert and Jean Wilhelm, opposed the merger of this parcel as well as his own property at 2010 Prospect Avenue. He stated that there is no conformity in the neighborhood as a result of the mergers. He further opposed, based on the fact that the merger would decrease the property value. He requested that the parcels be allowed to remain as they are. He stated that the City is 20 years too late in trying to correct past problems. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to merge the parcel at 2016 Prospect, based on the fact that there is no reason to exempt the property from merger; also, to merge the parcel at 2010 Prospect Avenue for the same reason. 11 P.C. Minutes 10/4/88 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 1836 Hillcrest Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None This parcel is comprised of two lots with a total parcel size of approximately 3400 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 only 36% 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 parcel is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. Sherree Riley, 1836 Hillcrest, opposed the merger of her lots, stating that many in the City have split their lots and built on 25-foot lots already. She questioned what percentage of Hermosa Beach people have split lots and built on the 25-footers. She also opposed based on the potential monetary loss. She questioned whether the City really does have the right to merge her parcels. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 1836 Hillcrest. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None 1026 21st Street This parcel is comprised of three lots for a total parcel size of 6370 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles all three lots. Building records indicate this parcel to contain two units. Staff has determined that no lot contained in this block has been developed separately. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The parcel is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. Staff received a letter from the owner, Joan Brown, requesting the Planning Commission to merge this parcel into two parcels. Ms. Brown states that this site would provide each parcel with a 40-foot frontage; however, the parcel does not have enough land to provide each parcel with the minimum standard of 4000 square feet. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant would like a continuance in order to have a survey done; therefore, staff recommended that it be continued. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to continue this matter for one month, to the first meeting in November. No objections; so ordered. 1922 Hillcrest This parcel is comprised of two lots with a total parcel size of 4000 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 36% of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this 12 P .C. Minutes 10 /4 /88 parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The parcel is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. Dino Vlachos, 17911 Shambly Circle, Huntington Beach, owner of 1922 Hillcrest, opposed the merger of his lots based on the fact that the main reason he purchased the property 25 years ago was that it was a double lot. He stated that if the City merges his lots, his only recourse is to file a lawsuit. He felt that merging would substantially reduce his property value. He stated that his property is unique, in that it is on the top of a hill. He felt this action is arbitrary and capricious. MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 1922 Hillcrest Avenue. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None 2039 Hillcrest Drive The parcel is comprised of two lots with a total parcel size of 4-000 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 36% 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 parcel is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. Elizabeth Bunch, 2039 Hillcrest, opposed the mer:-ger of her lots based on the fact that her property value would be substantially reduced. She has lived there for 30 years. She stated that in her neighborhood, 80% of the existing houses have already been developed as one house to one lot. She stated that only she and one other neighbor have homes straddling the property line. She said she is nestled among 20 two-story houses, each on one lot. She was informed by the Planning Department that "neighborhoods don't count; only blocks." Ms. Bunch questioned whether the lot mergers have been appropriately advertised. Ms. Bunch questioned the definition of a "block." She stated that Hillcrest Drive goes all the way from 21st Street to 16th Street with no intersecting lines; whereas Prospect and Rhodes to the east and west have 19th Street and 20th Street intersecting them. She continued by discussing the layout of the streets in this area. Ms. Bunch presented photographs depicting her house and the neighborhood. Mr. Schubach stated that the code contains a precise definition of "block," particularly in regard to lot mergers. Comm. Edwards noted the importance of people gathering solid evidence to present to the Commission during the public hearings in order to substantiate their claims. Comm. Rue hoped that the City Council would take into consideration cases such as this one where a small house is totally surrounded by larger developments. He noted the importance of accepting the reality of a situation, rather than merely following definitions. 13 P .C. Minutes 10 /4 /88 Chmn. Peirce did not feel that the issue of a definition of "block" is applicable in this case, noting that this is an unbroken block. MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 2039 Hillcrest Drive. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None 1919 Hillcrest Drive This parcel is comprised of three lots with a total pa rcel size of 6000 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 36% 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 parcel is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. John Coleman, 1919 Hillcrest Drive, asked for a definition of a "developed lot." He continued by discussing the various lot widths on the block. He stated that his house straddles only two lot lines; the third lot line is that of a sideyard. Chmn. Peirce stated that a survey or other evidence must be presented to verify this information. Mr. Coleman stated that this lot would be more in character with the rest of the neighborhood if it were split into two lots of 37 1 /2 feet wide each. He said that the creation of a 75-foot lot, as proposed, would be inappropriate, noting that a very large house would be built on such a large lot. Mr. Coleman opposed the merger, based on the fact that there could be a substantial loss of property value. Mr. Coleman stated that he would like a continuance in order to obtain further information on lot lines. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this matter until the first meeting in November, so that the applicant can return with addit i onal information in regard to which lot lines the structure actually straddles. No objections; so ordered. 2208 Borden, 2218 Borden, and 2306 Borden Rick Thompson, owner. (No one appeared to speak on these properties.) 2208 Bordon is comprised of one and a half lots with a total parcel size of 4224 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 no residential lots have been developed separately. The lots located on the west side of Borden are commercial. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The parcel is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. 14 P.C. Minutes 10/4/88 2218 Borden is comprised of one lot and two adjacent half lots with a total parcel size of 4125 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 no residential lots have been developed separately. The lots located on the west side of Borden are commercial. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The parcel is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. 2306 Borden is comprised of two full lots and a small portion of a third, for a total parcel size of 4125 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 no residential lots have been developed separately. The lots located on the west side of Borden are commercial. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The parcel is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, to merge the lots at 2208 Borden; 2218 Borden; and 2306 Borden. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 733 24th Place Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None Louis Mathews, owner. (No one appeared to speak on this property.) This parcel is comprised of two lots for a total size of 5413 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 12% 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 parcel is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcel located at 733 24th Place. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None 631 24th Street Sandra Kreeswirth, owner. (No one appeared to speak on this property.) This parcel is comprised of two lots for a total size of 5406 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 12% of the individual l ots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meets all standards for merger. The parcel is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. 15 P.C. Minutes 10/4/88 MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 631 24th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None 740 24th Street This parcel is comprised of three lots for a total parcel size of 8109 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this lot to be a legal four-unit site. Staff has determined that only 24% 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. However, since the total parcel size is 8109 square feet, a lot line adjustment would allow for two parcels, each with a minimum of 4000 square feet. Staff recommended that the lot line adjustment be approved with a deed restriction stating that the two parcels cannot be sold separately so long as a structure is straddling the lot line. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. Barbara Adams, 740 24th Street, owner, introduced her representative, Cheryl Vargo. Ms. Vargo asked for clarification on the code section. Chmn. Peirce asked whether the applicant wishes to have these parcels merged into two lots. Ms. Vargo replied in the affirmative; however, she stated that the applicant would prefer to have the three lots remain as they are. She stated that there are special circumstances in this case, in that this property is located in the multi-use corridor and is surrounded on two sides by commercial development. With the merger, either one very large, or two rather large, single-family residential parcels would be created. This owner has been "sandwiched" in either by commercial development or 25-foot developments. This property does not meet the 80% criteria; however, the rest of the block does. Ms. Vargo stated that, if nothing else can be done, the applicant would pref er to have the lot line adjustment allowing for two parcels of just over 4000 square feet each. Mrs. Adams asked that the fee be waived for the lot line adjustment. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant does not need to pay the fee for the lot line adjustment. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the lots into one parcel for property at 740 24th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None 16 P.C. Minutes 10/4/88 MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to split the parcel at 740 24th Street into two parcels, with a lot line down the center; and to include a deed restriction that the parcels cannot be sold separately until the building straddling the property line is removed. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None Recess taken from 9:47 P.M. until 9:55 P.M. 554 2nd Street and 552 2nd Street 554 2nd Street is comprised of one lot and ten feet of an adjacent lot for a total parcel size of 3500 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 56% 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. 554 2nd Street and the adjacent parcel, 552 2nd Street, have the same owner, Berta Gomez. 552 2nd Street is comprised of one lot and fifteen feet of an adjacent lot for a total size of 4000 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 56% of the individual lots have been developed. Staff cannot determine any reason to exempt this parcel from merger since the site meet s all st andards for merger. The parcel is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. Colleen Berry, representing Ms. Gomez {who speaks very little English), addressed the Commission. She stated that Ms. Gomez owns only 554 2nd Street, not 552 2nd Street as presented in the staff report. A discussion took place in regard to which lots actually have a structure straddling the property line. Ms. Berry presented a survey for 554 2nd Street showing a structure straddling only lot 9, not lots 7 and 8. Mr. Schubach stated that staff has erred in that no house is straddling lot 7 or 8; the only straddling structure is over lot 9. He suggested that the matter be continued until staff can resolve this matter. Ms. Berry presented a consolidated tax statement for clarification. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this item to the first meeting in November so that staff can present accurate information. No objections; so ordered. 42 5 Ardmore A venue This parcel is comprised of two lots except the westerly 30 feet thereof, for a total size of 6420 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this parcel to be a single-family dwelling. Staff has 17 P.C. Minutes 10/4/88 determined that 43% 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 parcel is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. Maria Del Rio, owner of 425 Ardmore Avenue, addressed the Commission. She stated that she opposed the lot merger, based on the fact that she intended to give one lot to each of her daughters. She stated that these lots were purchased approximately 25 years ago, at which time the City took the rear property under condemnation; nothing has ever been done with the land that was taken by the City, and she has been cleaning up this 30- foot area for all of these years. She requested that the lots be left as they currently exist. Mr. Schubach stated that the 30 feet in question was at one time going to be a street, Cochise A venue; however, it was never developed. It is now part of the open space _ area. That street was not utilized; it was vacated. Chmn. Peirce suggested that this matter be continued so that staff can determine whether the City desires to vacate Cochise; in which case that property would revert back to the property owner. He stated that if the 30 feet were added onto Ms. Del Rio' property, there would be enough area for the two lots to remain. Mr. Lough stated that he would like to study this issue further. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this matter to the first meeting in November so that staff can return with additional information on the vacation of Cochise Avenue; and to provide a staff report in regard to what action should be taken on this matter. No objections; so ordered. ___ .1 325 Ardmore Avenue Robert Catalano, owner. (No one appeared to speak on this property.) This parcel is comprised of two lots with a total parcel area of 4539 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this parcel to be a nonconforming commercial use. Staff has determined that 50% 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 parcel is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 32 5 Ardmore A venue. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 655 8th Place Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None Mary Funk, owner. (No one appeared to speak on this property.) This parcel is comprised of two lots for a total parcel area of 5016 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate 18 P.C. Minutes 10/4/88 this parcel to be a legal single-family residence. Staff has determined that 38% 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 parcel is located in the R-2 zone, 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 655 8th Place. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 619 8th Place Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None This parcel is comprised of two lots for a total lot size of 5016 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this parcel to be a single-family residence. Staff has determined that 38% 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 parcel is located in the R-2 zone, with a general plan designation of medium density. Deborah Regan, 619 8th Place, addressed the Commission and stated that she was unprepared to address this issue at this time. She opposed the merger based on the fact that her property value will be adversely affocted. Ms. Regan discussed the other properties located in this area. She stated that the area is becoming all multiple dwellings. She urged the Commission to not merge her lots. Ms. Regan felt that the City should attempt to make properties conform once the old structures have been torn down; not while there are still houses on the property. She also noted concern over her property taxes should the parcels be merged. Comm. Edwards stated that this particular property meets all of the criteria for merging. MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 619 8th Place. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 640 8th Place Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None The Planning Department has received a survey from the property owner indicating the main structure does not straddle the property line. The survey indicates that the main structure is 0.6' from the property line. Therefore, this property is exempt from lot merger. If any separation of the lots for the purposes of development, sale, or financing is proposed, elimination of the required parking is still prohibited or must be provided on site for each lot. Ed Pennings, 640 8th Place, owner, requested that these parcels be unmerged. 19 P.C. Minutes 10/4/88 MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to unmerge the parcels at 640 8th Place. AYES: NOES: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None STUDY OF VIEW BLOCKAGE AND HEIGHT MEASUREMENT METHOD {CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 8/2/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 26, 1988. He stated that the report being presented to the Commission at this time is a summary of techniques used by other cities in regard to view blockage and height measurement. He stated that additional information will be presented to the Commission in the future, explaining that this is merely an interim report. The final report will be finished in approximately one month. Mr. Schubach stated that most of the cities surveyed use the same methods currently employed by Hermosa Beach. Guy Bartoli, Marina del Rey, architect, stated that he is very interested in the outcome of this study. He stated that he is delaying three projects in the City until a final decision is made on this issue. He stated that he would be willing to participate in any studies on this matter. Comm. Edwards suggested that a provision be made in the study for "stacks." STAFF ITEMS a.) b.) c.) d.) Planning Department Monthly Activity Report Chmn. Peirce asked for an update on Hope Chapel in regard to the requirement that a hole in the wall on Borden Street was to be blocked. Mr. Schubach stated that Hope Chapel is currently in the process of attempting to amend their conditional use permit; therefore, no action has been taken in regard to the wall at this time. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission Liaison for 10/11 /88 City Council Meeting No one will attend as liaison. City Council Minutes of September 13, 1988 No comments on this item. City Council/Planning Commission Workshop Agenda on October 5, 1988 Chmn. Peirce invited the public to attend the workshop i! they are interested, even though no public testimony will be taken. 20 P.C. Minutes 10/4/88 COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Rue asked whether staff has been receiving more detailed landscaping plans from developers. Mr. Schubach stated that staff is still continuing to work on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue to adjourn at 10:35 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 4, 1988. Dat e 21 P.C. Minutes 10/4/88