Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05-17-1988.. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MAY 17, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. DeBellis. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. DeBellis, lngell, Peirce, Cfimn. Compton Comm. Rue Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve the minutes of April 19, 1988, as submitted. Noting the abstentions of Comm. DeBellis and Chmn. Compton, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes of May 3, 1988, as submitted. Noting the abstentions of Comm. DeBellis and Chmn. Compton, so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-35, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119557 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 722 9TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 24, TRACT 223. Noting the abstentions of Comm. DeBellis and Chmn. Compton, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-36, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119655 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1181 CYPRESS, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE SOUTHERLY 32' OF LOT 14, TRACT 780. Noting the abstentions of Comm. DeBellis and Chmn. Compton, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. lngell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-38, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1113652 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 600 11TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE WESTERLY 38' OF LOT 3, BLOCK 78, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. Noting the abstentions of Comm. DeBellis and Chmn. Compton, so ordered. P.C. Minutes 5/ 17 /88 MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-39, ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #19579 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 530 MONTEREY BOULEVARD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 19, TRACT 1074. Noting the abstentions of Comm. DeBellis and Chmn. Compton, so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No citizens appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119588 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1061 LOMA DRIVE Chmn. Compton stated that he would abstain from discussion on this matter since he is the architect of record on this project. He turned the gavel over to Vice-Chairman Peirce. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 12, 1988. This project is in the R-3, multiple­ family residential zone. The general plan designation is high density residential. The lot size is 27 60 square feet. The applicant proposes to construct two units. Each unit will be approximately 1800 square feet and will contain two bedrooms and two and a half baths. The design of the units will be two stories and a mezzanine over a partial subterranean garage. The project will provide two parking spaces per unit and four guest parking spaces. Two guest parking spaces are required for the development, one for the two units and one for on-street parking lost along Loma Drive. The guest parking spaces will be located within the 17' garage setback area. The plan conforms to the open space requirements as amended by the City Council at their meeting of April 12, 1988. Countable open space at ground level is 145 square feet per unit. Each unit will also provide 71 square feet of open space on a second-story deck and an 85 square foot deck located on the mezzanine level; therefore, each unit will provide 30 l square feet of countable open space. There is also an 83 square foot deck located on the second floor that is not included in the open space calculation since the deck is totally covered. Private storage and trash areas are not specified on the plans. A condition of approval is to require revised plans to indicate the location of the areas designated for trash and storage. The plan conforms to all other planning and zoning requirements and is consistent with the surrounding uses. Public Hearing opened at 7:38 P.M. by Comm. Peirce. Michael DeVere, 1808 West 255th Street, Lomita, representing the design architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that there is ample room to provide for the trash facilities and storage area. 2 P.C. Minutes 5/17/88 Public Hearing closed at 7:39 P.M. by Comm. Peirce. Comm. Peirce asked whether this project meets all the standards of the condominium and zoning ordinances. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. Comm. Peirce felt that the facade of the building is quite plain and would benefit by some architectural treatment, particularly on the north and south elevations around the windows. Public Hearing reopened at 7:40 P.M. by Comm. Peirce. Mr. DeVere stated that it would be possible to add some architectural treatment on the facade of the north and south elevations. He stated that they could add some horizontal banding around the windows as well as other treatments. Public Hearing closed at 7:42 P.M. by Comm. Peirce. ~ OTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. De Bellis, to approve staff's ecommendation, Resolution P.C. 88-40, with the addition of a condition requiring that here be architectural treatment on the north and south facade and that such treatment hall be approved by the Planning Director. Comm. Peirce noted that no landscaping plan had been provided with the plans. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce None Chmn. Compton Comm. Rue ZONE CHANGE FROM MANUFACTURING ZONE TO R-2 ZONE OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 601 7 615 7 AND 619/621 SECOND STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 12, 1988. This request was received for a zone change at 615 2nd Street. This is an area of general plan/zone inconsistency. The general plan has this area designated as medium density and is zoned M-1. The applicant is requesting to change the zone to be consistent with the general plan; that is, R-2 zoning. There are three contiguous lots that remain within the inconsistency zone which should all be rezoned. Now the property owner at 601 2nd Street has also notified staff that he wants to rezone his property as well. Therefore, staff is recommending that all three lots be rezoned, and thereby brought into consistency. Staff recommended that this matter be continued to a specified date one month from now since public noticing only stated a rezone for 615 2nd Street. Staff will assume the responsibility for the mailing of the notices which will include the rezone at all three lots. 3 P.C. Minutes 5/ 17 /88 MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting one month from now. No objections; so ordered. AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ADDITION OF A IO­ FOOT BY 13-FOOT DANCE FLOOR AT 1334 HERMOSA AVENUE, BESTIE'S Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May l O, 1988. In 1978 and 1980, the Board of Zoning Adjustments approved conditional use permits to allow the service of alcoholic beverages and live entertainment at this location. On September 3, 1986, the environmental staff review committee approved a negative declaration for dancing and recommended that the Planning Commission incorporate all conditional use permits for the establishment into a single document. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of October 7, 1986, continued the request for dancing at Bestie's until the applicant could return with an audit indicating a food versus alcohol percentage comparison. The applicant has submitted income statements for months ending January 31, 1988, and February 29, 1988, which were prepared by Ginny Brown and Associates, which is a restaurant accounting firm. The income statements indicate a drastic improvement in the food to alcohol sales ratio. For the first two months of 1988, Bestie's total sales consisted of 54 percent food and 46 percent alcohol sales. The applicant has also reduced the size of the proposed dance floor to l O feet by 13 feet since the Planning Commission meeting of last October 7, 1986. The previously proposed dance floor would have occupied 286 square feet. The dance floor is intended for use as after-dining entertainment for restaurant customers. Judging from the size of the floor, staff would agree with the applicant that the dance floor is not intended as a primary use, but rather as an accessory to the restaurant. The music will be provided via recordings played by a disc jockey. Staff finds no problem with the proposed small dance floor. However, staff has decided to void conditional use permit BZA 154-384, which permitted live entertainment due to the fact that the use has been suspended for more than one year. The proposed resolution incorporates all other conditional use permits and the current conditional use permit set forth in Article 10 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code. City staff has inspected the remodeled room and dance floor and finds it to be an improvement that is in compliance with all City codes. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit amendment subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 7:50 P .M. by Chmn. Compton. James Legge, 612 N. Sepulveda, Bel-Air, consultant working with the owner on this project, addressed the Commission. He stated that Bestie's increased the food sales. They are now attempting to increase sales and make better use of the space. Many customers had requested a small area for dancing since there is background music at the restaurant. 4 P.C. Minutes 5/17/88 Mr. Legge stated that sales have increased dramatically since improvements have been made at the establishment. He stated that he and the owner have gone over all of the conditions in the CUP and agree with them and will abide by them. Comm. Ingell stated that he is amazed at the remarkable improvements at Bestie's. He complimented Mr. Legge on the fine job they have done. Public Hearing closed at 7:52 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 88-41. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Chmn. Compton None None Comm. Rue REZONE OF AREA 7 FROM R-2 TO R-1 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 12, 1988. According to the City Council schedule for zone changes, Area 7 should be considered at this time. He displayed a map of Area 7 on the overhead projector while presenting the staff report. Staff has considered Area 7 as one area instead of separating it into sub-areas as was done in Areas 9 and 2. There were no areas within Area 7 which could be considered distinctly different, except for the fact that east of Prosp.ect Avenue, there is a large percentage of lots having two units. Area 7 has a total land area of 338,753 square feet. There are 73 lots, with a current number of 91 dwelling units. The average number of units per lot is 1.25 with an existing density of 11.70 units per acre. The existing zoning for Area 7 is R-2, with a general plan designation of low density. Under the current R-2 zoning ordinance, there are a potential of 162 units (using 1,750 square feet per unit). Under the previous R-2 zoning ordinance, there were a potential 146 units, with a two unit maximum. There is a potential number of 73 units under the proposed R-1 zone change, with one unit per lot. There are no lots with nonconforming units under the current R-2 allowable density; there are 20 lots with nonconforming units under the current R-1 ordinance. Ten units in Area 7 were constructed within the last 10 years; 15 units were constructed 10 to 20 years ago; 8 units were built 20 to 30 years ago; and 58 units are over 30 years old. The 1922 land use map designation for Area 7 was R-1; 1930 and 1943 land use map designations were R-2. The 1956 and 1978 zoning map designations were both R-2. There are 19 lots in Area 7 under 3500 square feet; 23 lots over 3500 square feet; 26 lots over 5250 square feet; and 5 lots larger than 7000 square feet. 5 P.C. Minutes 5/17/88 ,,...... According to the general plan, the subject area should be rezoned to R-1, and the rezoning would be in accord with advisory measure EE passed in 1980. Seventy-three percent of the total area is single-family dwelling units, and with the exception of one lot with four units, the other 27 percent of the lots have only two units. The majority of lots with two units are on the east side of Prospect Avenue; 48 percent of those lots have two units. Only 17 percent of the lots west of Prospect Avenue have two units. Because the majority of the lots with two units are east of Prospect Avenue, staff provided an alternative recommendation, which would be to rezone this area to R-2B. Staff believes this area is large enough to stand on its own and not be considered "spot zoning" if it were to be rezoned R-2B. Overall, staff could find no other reasons that Area 7 should be spared from rezoning. It does not possess features which make it different from other areas slated for rezoning. Based on the number of existing single-family dwellings and the general age of the existing structures, this area has a good potential for rezoning to R-1. Comm. Peirce discussed the zoning map and asked about lots in the area already zoned R-1. Mr. Schubach stated that some of the lots between 18th Street and Prospect are zoned R-1. Those lots would not have been noticed. Chmn. Compton asked Mr. Lough to explain what would happen to condominiums in this area if the zoning were changed to R-1. Mr. Lough discussed the present state of the law, explaining that the condominiums could probably be rebuilt because condos are considered to be separate, legally constituted entities. He noted, however, that this could change in the future. Comm. Ingell asked the Planning Director to explain to the audience why this issue is before the Planning Commission. Mr. Schubach explained that the general plan was adopted in 1979. Since that time, the City has gradually attempted to make the zoning consistent with the general plan. Area 7 is currently shown as a low density area on the general plan; therefore, to be consistent, the area should be rezoned to R-1, low density. The City Council directed staff to schedule hearings for the proposed rezonings, and the areas are being addressed one per month until completed, which could be the end of this year. Public Hearing opened at 8:10 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Lowell Sterritt, 1619 Golden Avenue, Hermosa Beach, between Prospect and 17th Street on one side and 16th Street on the other side. He brought the property as R-2 in 1954 and has paid taxes for years on the R-2 zoning. He has no intention of ever building another unit on his property. He opposed the proposed downzoning, stating that he felt it would devalue his property. He stated that it might become necessary to sell his property in the future, and R-2 would be worth more than R-1. He concluded by stating he has lived on this property since he purchased it 34 years ago. 6 P.C. Minutes 5/17/88 Richard Holmes, Lot 7 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, which is 40 feet by 140 feet. He considered the lots on 17th Street to be large enough to accommodate two units and still meet the open space requirements. He has over 5600 square feet. If the property is rezoned to R-1, he felt that the property value would be lowered, and that he would not be able to refinance the property. Further, he felt he would not be able to sell the property already there, which is R-2, because the unit would be nonconforming and no bank would want to give a loan on a nonconforming building. He suggested that the Planning Commission recommend that the property remain R-2; otherwise, there could be a lawsuit from him. He stated that he has lived at the property for over ten years. Wayne Durrell, 1737 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, Lots l and 2, which are R-2 and registered as two separate lots even though there is only one dwelling unit. The property was purchased by his grandmother in 1940, and he took it over in 1983 when she died. He planned to tear down the one old structure and build two new units. This will not be possible if the zoning is changed to R-1. Chmn. Compton explained that Mr. Durrell would still be able to build two units so long as the current unit does not straddle the property line and it was merged. If there are two legally constituted lots, a unit could be built on each lot if the lots are large enough. Mr. Schubach stated that if Mr. Durrell has not already received a merge notice, chances are the lots will not be merged; however, he suggested that the Durrells contact the Planning Department for further information. Kathleen Berlin, owner of 1010 17th Street and 1030 8th Place, Hermosa Beach, vehemently opposed the proposed downzone. As she stated in her letter to the Planning Commission, she had intended to tear down the older unit and rebuild two new units as retirement nears. The property was purchased specifically for that purpose. She stated that her lot on 17th Street, as well as others west of Prospec4 are very unique because of their large size of 40 feet by 140.15 feet, with the exception of the lot on Prospect. Leland Ferro, speaking on behalf of his mother Violet Ferro, who owns Lot 10 of Angeles Heights Tract, which fronts on Golden Avenue and abuts the school grounds. He stated that he lives 400 miles away and knew nothing of this proposal until ten days ago when he received something in the mail. Mr. Ferro noted that he got out of a sick bed in order to attend this meeting. If he could not continue his testimony at the hearing because of illness, he requested the right to speak at a later time. Mr. Ferro opposed the proposed downzoning stating that it would adversely impact the property value. He continued by discussing what has historically happened in the area. Mr. Ferro stated that his mother is 87 years old, and the home in question is her family home. The property would have been sold before and developed as an R-2 property; but in deference to his mother, the property has remained in the family because of sentimental value. The income derived from this property helps his mother live comfortably and independently. Mr. Ferro stated that he has not had adequate time to study this issue fully in order to determine how much income would be lost as a result of zoning from R-2 to R-1. He noted that taxes have been paid on this property for years based on the R-2 zoning. He stated that between $50,000 and $100,000 could be lost as a result of the proposed downzoning. 7 P.C. Minutes 5/17/88 Mr. Ferro stated that this property has been zoned R-2 for the entire 55 years it has been ~ in his family. His mother may want to sell this property at some time in the future if it becomes necessary to have the income due to failing health and the high cost of health care. Mr. Ferro stated that, if necessary, he will submit further findings in writing in the event this matter goes to a court case. Chmn. Compton noted that the Planning Commission is merely an advisory body to the City Council. He suggested that comments be submitted in writing to the City Council. Mr. Ferro stressed that he was requesting the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that the area be left as R-2. Rich Hergenrather, 846 18th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked for clarification of the area to be rezoned. Mr. Schubach stated that Mr. Hergenrather is not located in Area 7; therefore, his property is not subject to the proposed rezone. He continued by pointing out Area 7 on the map. Bill Gray, 1115 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he owns the following properties in Hermosa Beach: 1007 17th Street; 1015/1017 17th Street; 1111/1113 17th Street; and 1115/1117 17th Street. He noted that he had submitted a letter to both the Planning Commission and City Council dated May 16, 1988. Mr. Gray stated that 1007 17th Street is a lot of 40 by 140 feet and directly abuts the back of two lots on Prospect on which the owners will be able to erect two units. He stated that two lots within 100 feet of his home will be allo.wed.to build two units. He felt that the downzoning would be inconsistent logic for this particular area. Mr. Gray stated that he is a long-term resident. The property deed shows 17th Street to be Reservoir Street. He has worked in Hermosa Beach since the l 940's, and he met and married his wife in the City. Mr. Gray stated that he has purchased his property over the years and improved it with the intent of providing for the future of his children. Mr. Gray stated that he planned to build another duplex at 1007 17th Street to provide income retirement. The building would be two-story, two-bedroom units and with more than the required number of off-street parking spaces. The adjacent unit, which he built at 1015/1017 17th Street, contains six garages and an additional six outside parking spaces for cars. Mr. Gray pointed out that, even though there is a building moratorium in ef feet in the City, the City allowed a single-family home to be built on two lots across the street from his home. This house completely covers the lot, is over 5000 square feet, contains five or six bedrooms, and yet the City required only two off-street parking spaces. He noted concern over future parking problems at this very large home. Mr. Gray stated that he read in the Daily Breeze that the City Council feels that they have a mandate to reduce the density in the City. He therefore asked several questions of the Planning Department: (1) How many dwelling units are in Hermosa Beach? The Planning Department answered: The best figure we have is the 1980 census which 8 P.C. Minutes 5/17/88 indicates that there were 9633 dwelling units; (2) How many dwelling units in the area are being considered for downzoning? The Planning Department answered: That number is not available, but if you call back, I will total up the number of units that we have presently; and with those that are being considered at the next Planning Commission meeting, I think it is approximately 80 percent of those being downzoned. The numbers received were: Total number of lots being downzoned, including those in Area 7 are 679; total dwelling units on the above lots is 1089. Mr. Gray stated that if the above numbers are accepted as being approximately 80 percent of the total to be downzoned, the numbers will increase as follows: total lots to be affected by the downzoning would be 849; total dwelling units presently on these lots would be 1362. Again, the 1980 census and the number of dwelling units was listed as 9633. Mr. Gray continued by explaining that, assuming that all the 849 lots were built up to the R-2 maximum, an additional 336 dwelling units would have been added. If there has been a zero increase in the number of dwelling units since 1980 (which is hard to believe), then after all the dust has settled from downzoning, the City fathers have protected the City from an increase in dwelling units, not cars or bedrooms, which amounts to 336 units or a 3.5 percent reduction in dwelling units. He questioned whether this really reduces the City's density problem. Mr. Gray stated that the question must then be asked, are the City fathers making wise use of resources entrusted to them in this time-consuming and labor-intensive effort, when it appears that they do not really have a plan for reducing density. Mr. Gray suggested that it would be better to first develop a plan to get resident automobile parking off the public streets, thereby reducing the so-called density problem. Mr. Gray requested that if the large lots in Area 7 must be downzoned, a clause be added stating: "If a natural or unnatural disaster causes the total destruction of any multiple residences in this area, it may be rebuilt in its entirety providing it has not been sold outside of the owning family after the date creating this downzoning." He noted that at any time, a multiple-family dwelling could be destroyed. Mr. Gray felt that this issue has become a college textbook example of how to downzone someone else's property. He felt that the present piecemeal method of holding hearings is a divide and conquer example of a college course in city planing. He did not feel that this approach is appropriate. He stated that there are places in Hermosa Beach which are large enough to accommodate large numbers of people so that City-wide hearings on downzoning can be held on all the areas at the same time, rather than in piecemeal segments. He felt that by the present approach, the rules and regulations of the City, County, and State are being violated. He further doubted the legality of the findings, and he has been advised by attorneys that there is an excellent chance of a lawsuit relating to the inverse condemnation of property. Mr. Gray felt that all members of the Planning Commission and City Council may be separately and collectively held liable due to loss of property values. He asked that the downzone plans be abandoned and that the moratorium on R-2 construction be lifted. As a citizen of the City, a taxpayer, and a resident voter, he strenuously objected to these actions. Paul Matthis, 1714 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that he was confused when he originally voted on Proposition EE. His lot is 50 by 165 feet at 1712/1714 Prospect 9 P.C. Minutes 5/17/88 Avenue. His lots are huge, and he built a second house with the intention of his son living in the second house. He felt that the downzoning would result in a loss of retirement income on which he had been depending. He stated that he was told by the City Council that houses rarely burn down in the City. He didn't feel that was an adequate answer. He then asked in a more serious tone what would happen, and the City Council told him to make sure he has good fire insurance. He felt that more appropriate answers must be given to the citizens. Mr. Matthis thought that Proposition EE was to ensure that there would not be highrises on the Strand; not that people would be downzoned. Mr. Matthis asked that his lots be allowed to remain as R-2. He stated, however, that he would have no objection to a rezone to R-2B. Chmn. Compton explained the difference between R-2 and R-2B. He also noted the importance of interested citizens attending the City Council hearings on this matter. Bill Gray again addressed the Commission. He asked about R-2B and what areas are being proposed for the R-2B designation. Chmn. Compton explained that staff recommended that the large areas east of Prospect be rezoned to R-2B. Mr. Gray suggested that all the lots in Area 7 be recommended for a zone change to R- 2B, noting that the lots on the west side of Prospect are also very large. To divide Area 7 into two halves would be spot zoning. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, stressed that it will be possible next year to change the general plan in order to bring the ger;ier,al plan and zoning into conformity. She stated that to change the zoning and make these properties legal nonconforming will accomplish nothing. She noted that people with legal nonconforming properties must pay huge fees to the City every time that want to do something with the property. Ms. Burt felt that it is unfair to allow so many new condominiums for new people, while at the same time taking away property rights from the old people who have lived in the City for years and paid taxes. She stressed that this situation is not fair or equitable. Ms. Burt stressed for the benefit of the audience that the general plan can be changed, rather than the zoning, in order to bring both into conformity. Ella Mae Buggy, 1620 Golden Avenue, Hermosa Beach, purchased her two R-2 lots in 1959. She stated that both lots are L-shaped. She opposed any downzoning, stating that if her two lots were merged into one, she could have only one unit. She stated that she has considered building a second unit on her property. The downzoning would greatly devalue her property. Chmn. Compton explained that unless Ms. Buggy's property straddles the property line, she will not be affected by the merger ordinance. He asked whether this particular area has been included in the lot merger ordinance. Mr. Schubach believed this area was included; however, he suggested that Ms. Buggy come to the Planning Department so that he could check the maps before giving a definite answer to Ms. Buggy. 10 P.C. Minutes 5/17/88 Gary Oates, 917 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, opposed the downzone. He stated that he originally had favored a rezone to R-1 because he thought it would reduce the parking problems; however, after listening to the testimony, he decided that R-1 would not reduce the problem. He noted that his main concern is in regard to parking problems in the area. Mr. Oates suggested that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the area remain R-2 but require that people provide more parking than is currently required in order to alleviate the problem of people driving up and down the streets looking for parking spaces. He suggested that this would be a reasonable compromise. Carl Kirstner, 1720 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, concurred with all of the comments made by Mr. Matthis. He stated that his objection to the rezone is the fact that if one of his units is destroyed, he would be able to rebuild only one of them. He also opposed because of the fact that it will be more difficult to refinance the property if it is rezoned to R-1. He felt that it would be unfair to even consider a rezone to R-1. Mr. Kirstner stated that his lot is over 8000 square feet and is on the east side of Prospect. He felt his lot is large enough to accommodate a duplex. He felt that the real problem in the City is 19-foot houses on 25-foot lots. Mr. Kirstner felt that if something was legally built, the owner should be able to rebuild in the event one of the units is destroyed. He questioned whether someone would even be able to obtain insurance on a duplex which is nonconforming. Paul Daly, 1714 Golden Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that he is in the process of developing an approach to handle development of this property. He stated that he is prepared to take action if the City downzones his property. He stated that he purchased his property as R-2, and he will not tolerate the City downzorung. it to R-1. Comm. Peirce stated, however, that a property owner does not possess by law the right to maintain his property at the zoning at which it was purchased. He stated that courts have upheld the rights of cities who have done just what Hermosa Beach is doing now. Mr. Daly stated that he is prepared to bring a lawsuit if it becomes necessary. He threatened to bring a class action suit against the City based on the loss of people's property values. Lee Ferro, on behalf of Violet Ferro, again addressed the Commission. He brought up the point that his mother's lot, Lot No. 11, is one of the largest lots in the City, and it is zoned R-2 which is all they ever wanted it to be zoned. He stated that he does not want to split or subdivide the lot; he merely wants to maintain it as R-2. The location of this lot is near the school site and is one lot within a total of ten lots. He continued by discussing the number of dwelling units which would be allowed in the area. Mr. Ferro stated that this area is 94.44 percent already developed. He stated that by rezoning this particular lot to R-1, Lot No. 11 would then become the only lot of the total ten lots which would be zoned R-1. Mr. Ferro stated that this lot has been R-2 for 55 years. He stated that his father had intended to develop this property in 1964, and he put in a communal driveway and sewer line in order to be able to build two units at some time in the future. He stated that he could produce a signed statement from the previous building director indicating this fact, which would prove that there has been an intention to build two units on the lot. He 11 P .C. Minutes 5/ 17 /88 .. noted that they were unable to continue with the development due to a lack of funds . Mr. Ferro discussed the open space issue, stating that Lot 11 abuts five acres of open space. He stated there are not many lots in the City which abut so much open space. Public Hearing closed at 9:10 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Chmn. Compton explained for the benefit of the audience the reason that the Planning Commission is holding these public hearings. Mr. Ferro stated that he lives 400 miles away; he wanted to ensure that he will receive notice of the next hearing on this matter. Chmn. Compton stated that notices will be sent out in regard to the rezoning action. Public Hearing reopened at 9:13 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Car 1 Kirstner again addressed the Commission and asked whether any precedent has been set which states that a city cannot downzone property which has already been developed. Mr. Lough replied that such a downzone would create a nonconformity; however, the building is allowed to remain as a legal nonconforming use until it is destroyed or falls into misuse. Comm. DeBellis noted that it is within the purview of the elected officials of the City to change the zoning. He stated that no individual has a legal right to maintain the zoning on property. Mr. Kristner stated, however, that the City has a moral obligatioo to the residents of the City. Public Hearing closed at 9:17 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. DeBellis complimented Mr. Gray on his fine presentation; however, he disagreed that this is a textbook case in city planning. He stated that the City is attempting to comply with the State mandate that the general plan and zoning be brought into consistency. He noted that individuals voted for and passed Proposition EE. He noted that if this issue is again voted upon, it could backfire and what was once advisory could become mandatory. Comm. DeBellis stated that the procedure being used by the Planning Commission in regard to holding the hearings is better than if the issue were mandatory. Further, if the issue were mandatory, citizens would not even be receiving individual public notices. As the matter stands now, citizens have at least two opportunities to speak on the matter, once at the Planning Commission level and again at the City Council level. Comm. DeBellis felt that it might be reasonable that Area 7 as a whole be rezoned to R- 2B. By looking at the number of lots under 3500 square feet, there are only 19 lots of the 73, or 26 percent, that could not build two units anyway; therefore, this would result in a reduction of 19 units. Comm. DeBellis continued by discussing the larger lots, stating that only five lots would be able to build two units under the R-2B zoning; therefore, this would result in a reduction of ten units. Lots over 5250 square feet would be allowed at least three units 12 P .C. Minutes 5/ 17 /88 under current R-2 zoning; however, if they were rezoned to R-2B, they could build only a maximum of two units. This would result in a reduction of 26 units. Added together, there would be a reduction of 55 units if the area is rezoned to the R-2B zoning designation. He felt that this would be a significant density reduction under R-2B as opposed to R-2. It would also preserve property rights to a certain extent. Comm. lngell also favored recommending that all of Area 7 be rezoned to R-2B. Comm. Peirce noted that Area 7 is surrounded on four sides by R-1. The lots to the west of Prospect are large; however, they are not developed to the R-2 standard, whereas the lots to the east are developed as R-2. Comm. Peirce believed that the lots to the west of Prospect should be downzoned to R- 1. In regard to the large lots to the east of Prospect, if they were rezoned to R-2B, a small pocket of R-2B would be created in an R-1 area. He felt that this could be considered as spot zoning. He stated that he was still undecided about the area east of Prospect. Chmn. Compton stated that the City is very old, and lots were developed many years ago. He continued by discussing how those tracts were zoned many years ago. He stated that the reasons are compelling to rezone all of Area 7 to R-2B, stating that there could be density reduction, but at the same time property values would not be decreased by rezoning to R-2B. Comm. DeBellis stated that he favored R-2B only because of the large lot sizes, not the value argument or the threats of lawsuits. He felt that the Planning Commission has tried to take into account the viewpoint of citizens. He concluded by stating that he could favor a rezone to R-2B for all of Area 7. He felt that if people are willing to hold the number of units to two on large lots because of the. R.,-21?>,,,,zoning, that would be a tremendous concession on the part of the homeowners. Comm. DeBellis noted that fewer than half of the homeowners in Area 7 appeared to oppose the proposed rezone to R-1. Comm. DeBellis noted that many of the houses in Area 7 are very old and should probably be upgraded. He stated that it is not certain whether this would be accomplished quicker if the zoning were R-1 or R-2B. Comm. lngell noted that only one letter had been received in support of staff's original recommendation. He felt that there should be more communication from the public so that the Planning Commission would be informed of the sentiments of the community. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to recommend that all of Area 7 be rezoned to R-2B. Comm. DeBellis asked for clarification on the difference between R-2 and R-2B zoning. Mr. Schubach explained that R-2B has all the same requirements of R-2, with the exception that there can be only a maximum of two units per lot. He noted, however, that the R-2B ordinance should be amended in order to delete the old reference to zero lot line development. He stated that that wording should be removed. Comm. Ingell suggested that staff take the appropriate steps to remove the wording relating to zero lot line development. 13 P .C. Minutes 5/ 17 /88 .. / AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Chmn. Compton Comm. Peirce None Comm. Rue Recess taken from 9:37 P.M. until 9:45 P.M. HEARING OF DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUP L.M. 88-3 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 10, 1988. He stated that 55 Notification of Intent to Merge Lots letters were mailed on February 25, 1988. Three people requested hearings for appeal. The number of lots already developed on 25-foot parcels per block are as follows: 1549 Golden Avenue, 47 percent; 701 Longfellow, 22 percent; and 1212 15th Street, 56 percent. The Planning Department has determined that the lots included in L.M. 88-3 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. The parcel at 1549 Golden Avenue is composed of two 30 by 100 foot lots. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this structure is a two-unit dwelling. The property at 701 Longfellow Avenue is comprised of a 30 by 100 foot lot and a 20 by 100 foot portion of an adjacent lot. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this structure to be a one-unit dwelling . . The letter received from the property owners requesting a lot merger hearing also states that the property is not subject to the lot merger ordinance. The owner, Madeline Dexter, states that the east portion of her lot is owned by Maud Harris, her aunt. Records from the tax assessor's offices states that Madeline Dexter is the owner of the entire parcel. There is no record of the lot being divided. If the owner recorded a lot division without city approvals, she is in violation of the State Subdivision Map Act. If in fact two individuals have a pecuniary interest in the property, then at best, they are partners in ownership of the two recognized existing lots. The property at 1212 15th Street is comprised of two 30 by 100 foot lots. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this structure to be a two-unit dwelling. Staff finds these lots to be subject to merger since less than 80 percent of the block has been split and the contiguous parcels are held by the same owner. Staff cannot determine any reasons to exempt these lots from being subject to merger. Chmn. Compton asked whether the fact that there are two units on two of these properties makes any difference as far as the merger is concerned. Mr. Schubach stated that having two units does not make any difference. 14 P .C. Minutes 5/ 17 /88 r 1549 Golden Avenue Owners: John and Dorothy Schmidt Comm. DeBellis noted that a letter had been received from the owners of 1549 Golden Avenue requesting a continuance of this matter to the meeting of July 5 because they were unable to attend tonight's hearing. He noted, however, that the City Council will be changing the manner in which the lot mergers are done. Therefore, in several weeks, lot mergers will no longer be coming before the Planning Commission for appeals. He asked what the purpose would be for this matter being continued in light of the upcoming changes. Mr. Lough stated that the purpose would be the same as it now; that is, to determine whether the properties meet the standards for merger. He stated that since this item was probably noticed under the old merger procedures, the old procedures would apply in this case. He noted that it is up to the discretion of the Commission to decide whether or not to continue an item. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue the matter of 1549 Golden Avenue to the Planning Commission meeting of July 5, 1988. Chmn. Compton felt it would be unreasonable to merge the lots in a case where a two­ unit existing building straddles the property line. He felt that there would then be a two­ unit apartment situation, rather than the potential of the unit being torn down later and putting up two homes. Mr. Schubach noted, however, that the units are nonconforming and are in the R-2 zone. Chmn. Compton noted that there are two units, and tmeEe:,,is probably inadequate parking. If the lots are merged, and the units are town down, they would only be able to build one unit; therefore, to him, this situation would mean that those two units will remain for a long time, and the owners may even try to add on to them. He felt that this would be counterproductive. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Chmn. Compton Comm. Peirce None Comm. Rue 701 Longfellow A venue Owner: Madeline Dexter Rebecca Dexter Kovich, daughter of Madeline Dexter, addressed the Commission. She explained that the parcels are not 20 feet and 30 feet, but rather two 25-foot parcels. She stated that she had the grant deed showing that the extra five feet was given to Maud Dexter, Madeline Dexter's aunt, in 1912. Ms. Kovich explained that Madeline was taking care of all the taxes; approximately ten years ago, she asked if she could receive the tax paperwork for both properties in one package; this is probably where the problem began. 15 P .C. Minutes 5/ 17 /88 .. Chmn. Compton felt that additional paperwork would be necessary to determine the status of this property. Ms. Kovich stated that a deed was recorded showing that there were two 25-foot parcels. Mr. Lough stated that it is difficult to determine whether the deed given to him was the last deed prepared. He also stated that information from the assessor's office is in conflict with the deed. He stated that there are several options available to the Commission in this case: (1) vote not to merge based on the pr esented evidence ; (2) vote to merge based on the evidence; (3) continue the matter until more information can be obtained by the applicant, such as a preliminary title report. He noted that there is currently conflicting evidence. Chmn. Compton stated that, based on the evidence before the Commission, this would be a case where he would favor a merger since both lots are only 25 feet. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. lngell, to continue this matter to the meeting of July 5, 1988, in order to allow the applicant time to obtain more information on this matter, such as a preliminary title search. Ms. Kovich stated that she has no objection to a continuance. Comm. Peirce asked what the purpose would be for a continuance, noting that if it is proved that there are actually two 25-foot lots, 25-foot lots are not large enough to be developed and probably should be merged anyway. He urged that the matter not be continued unless there is compelling evidence to prove that the lots should not be merged. Chmn. Compton felt it would be appropriate to obtain more,lrnifo mationbefore making a final decision on this matter. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Chmn. Compton Comm. Peirce None Comm. Rue 1212 15th Street Owner: Community Baptist Church c/o James C. Williams Comm. Peirce noted that a letter had been received from Community Baptist Church. Chmn. Compton stated that he felt the same way about this property as he does for the property located at 1549 Golden Avenue. There are currently two 30 by 100-foot lots with a duplex straddling the property line. He was unaware of the parking situation, but he assumed that it is not adequate by today's standards. Chmn. Compton felt that the only end result of merging these two lots would be to create a situation whereby the duplexes would remain for a long time. He stated that this property is in an area where most of the homes are developed to the R-1 standard. He felt that it would be reasonable that at some time in the future these would be allowed to be developed into 30 by l 00-foot single-family homes. 16 P .C. Minutes 5/ 17 /88 .. Chmn. Compton discussed properties in the surrounding neighborhood. He felt that the original purpose of the lot merger ordinance was to prevent the splitting of 50-foot lots into two lots, thereby allowing 19-foot shotgun houses to be built on 25-foot lots. He felt that 30 by 100-foot lots are large enough to accommodate single-family homes. The extra five feet makes all the difference in the world in regard to parking, He could, therefore, see no reason to merge these lots, particularly since there are two units there. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to not merge the lots at 1212 15th Street, and to maintain those as Lots 84 and 85. Comm. Peirce noted that that area is already heavily developed on the smaller lots. This property already has two units on it; therefore, he feels this to be an exceptional case. Comm. DeBellis noted that one of his criteria for not merging lots in the past is in cases involving long-term owner/residents, and that is not the case in this issue; therefore, he would vote against the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Chmn. Compton Comm. DeBellis None Comm. Rue LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO GRANT TWO FEET OF 1782 VALLEY PARK AVENUE TO 572 18TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 11, 1988. Lot line adjustments are not subject to the Subdivision Map Act requirements but require approval of a Certificate of Compliance which shall be recorded with the deeds of the sHpJ,ect parcels. No tentative map, parcel map, or final map can be required as a condition of approval of the lot line adjustments. The existing lot at 572 18th Street is 4275 square feet. The lot at 1782 Valley Park Avenue is approximately 6180 square feet. Both lots are zoned R-1. The requested lot line adjustment is to correct for a 2.0 foot conveyance of land grant deeded and recorded without benefit of a lot line adjustment. The conveyance of land is for an existing wall located on the location of the proposed adjustment which was accidentally constructed on the wrong side of the property line. The resulting lot sizes after the adjustment will create lots of 4385 square feet and 6070 square feet. Both lots, therefore, will still conform to the minimum lot requirements of 4000 square feet. The proposed lot line adjustment will also help correct a nonconforming sideyard condition at 572 18th Street in which a variance was granted in conjunction with a remodel project. The existing sideyard setback is 2.02 feet. The adjustment will create a sideyard of 4.08 feet and bring the sideyard into conformance with the building code. The proposed lot line adjustment will also correct for a chimney which encroaches over the existing property line. Both lots will conform with other planning and zoning requirements of the R-1 zone. Staff recommended approval of the lot line adjustment as described in the Certificate of Compliance. 17 P.C. Minutes 5/ 17 /88 Max Halfon, 350 South Figeuroa, Los Angeles, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that the staff report is quite complete. He was satisfied with everything contained in the report and the proposed resolution. He stated that both he and the applicants are in agreement with the lot line adjustment. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation. No objections; so ordered. STAFF ITEMS a. Staff • ecial studies of (1) R-3 setback standards for condominiums and a ina tion o f the 17-foot setback off alle of 50 b 50 lot m 5 3/88 meeting MOTION Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to direct that the issue of R-3 setback standards for condos and apartments be placed on the list of items to be studied by staff. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to direct that the issue of elimination of the 17-foot setback off alleys be placed on the list of items to be studied by staff. Noting the objection of Comm. DeBellis, so ordered. Mr. Schubach noted that the 17-foot setback issue is already being studied by staff. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to include the issue of 50 by 50-foot lots on the list of items to be studied by staff. Comm. DeBellis suggested, however, that all three of the above issues be studied by staff, even though he opposed studying the elimination of the 17-fa.!:),t,:,setback issue. He noted that all three issues are actually development standards and should all be studied. No objections; so ordered. b. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for 5/24/88 City Council meeting MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to appoint Chmn. Compton to act as Planning Commission liaison at the City Council meeting of 5/24/88. No objections; so ordered. c. City Council minutes of April 26, 1988 No comments. d. June meeting for Southwest Area Planning Council Mr. Schubach noted that money is available in the budget if anyone would like to attend the meeting. COMMISSIONER ITEMS a. Noise report from Police Department Comm. Peirce noted that the noise issue has been going on for a year and a half for various reasons. He felt that this issue is very important, and he felt that action 18 P.C. Minutes 5/17/88 ... should be taken in a timely fashion. He felt that the noise issue is very important as it relates to conditional use permit enforcement. He felt that the City Council should be aware of the fact that nothing is actually happening with regard to the noise studies. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to direct staff to send a memo to the City Council advising them of the Planning Commission view that noise enforcement is very important; further, that the Police Department should be provided with whatever is necessary to ensure that the noise measuring equipment is working properly. No objections; so ordered. Comm. DeBellis noted concern over the noise problems in town, especially with the bars downtown. He felt that the situation is totally out of control, and the only way to help the problem is to use the noise equipment. b. Alternative Schedule for rezonin g Mr. Schubach explained the schedule set up for the rezoning issue. c. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda Mr. Schubach explained the tentative future Planning Commission agenda. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to adjourn at 10:33 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 May 17, 1988. ~~~~-__,,., ~(c~ Schu bach, Secre tary Date 19 P .C. Minutes 5/ 17 /88