11 Responses to “Neighbors Start Petition, Find Lawyer to Fight Lot Merger; City Council to Hear Ocean Blvd. Appeal on Tuesday”
Comments
January 19th, 2012
Why not allow the merging of the two lots, The homes there are not desirable except for the views and the new owner can improve on the looks of the neighborhood
January 19th, 2012
I have been told there are over 80 signatures from residents who live on Ocean Blvd.
January 19th, 2012
That is very interesting information Dan. I was going to ask how many people who signed the petition were property owners on Ocean and the 200 block vs renters from other areas. There are only about 80 houses ON Ocean. So what that tells me is the billionaires with the 2 and 3 lot mega houses got their front row seats and don't want anyone else to join the party. The fact is large new homes on joined lots have two beneficial aspects for the community, one is lowered density, and more important is they increase property values which also benefit via higher property taxes. Ocean Blvd and the 200 block being about the only R-1 single family districts in old CDM are distinctly different from most of the rest of CDM which mostly consists of condo properties and 1940-50's duplexes. The older properties for the most part aren't "cottages." They are simply old duplexes that raise the density, bring in lower income renters ("income" being relative in this case) and reduce property values. When the older properties are torn down and replaced by large new condos or lots are doubled up to build large homes, stable OWNERS move in vs renters. As I've stated before it sounds like this is a private legal issue having to do with a possibly flawed original drafting of the CCR's for that property. A new house on the Point would benefit everyone in the area both visually and with an increase to property values. It seems the new owners of this property on Ocean have made reasonable concessions and are within their rights to build to 14 feet. Perhaps there are still ways to reduce or mitigate impact on the upslope views, but I think it is time to get this project moved forward for the communities benefit. I also do not like this movement by NIMBYS to restrict construction of full sized homes in CDM. That is what has made the town desirable to builders and residents. You take this away and you end up with a town full of old cheap garage apartments and renters and destroy what remains of our already decimated property values.
January 19th, 2012
The issue is the right of two homeowners to continue to have the ocean views that were guaranteed by the 1951 agreement. Why should we allow community newcomers to throw their nouveau money around and negatively impact our valued long-term neighbors? The Guida’s were fully aware of the height restrictions when they purchased the lots on Ocean and discounted the purchase price accordingly. The Guida’s should not be allowed to gain financially at the expense of our neighbors. ENOUGH!!!
January 19th, 2012
Idetect the odor of a spectulator. The only people who benefit from an increase in property values are those speculators. The people who merely want to live out their lives in CdM are not happy to see their taxes increase.
January 19th, 2012
The size and/or configuration of a proposed house to be built on the combined parcels is not the issue before the city. There were no building plans submitted to the planning commission when it made its ruling to overturn the approval of the lot merge. The issue is whether or not a lot merge in this particular location is appropriate and compatible with the surrounding development. Pursuant to the zoning code, the approval of the lot merge must not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood or be detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood. While lot mergers within the city and more particularly in CdM have been approved without significant opposition, they were approved based upon their individual merits. As Jamie points out, lot mergers are not a bad thing, however, one must dig deeper into the specifics of this case in order to make a judgment that is consistent with our zoning code. The reason lot mergers require a hearing is because each and every case is different and each case must be reviewed based upon its own unique merits. Lot mergers are not uniformly acceptable in all cases. Sometimes the impacts are too great to approve, otherwise, lot mergers would be allowable without discretionary review. Pre-merge, these two lots, at 7,217 and 6,483 square feet, are significantly larger than the 3,600 square foot typical lot size in CdM. Combined, these lots will total 13,699 square feet allowing for a home of over 15,000 square feet to be built. While there are parcels of this size in CdM along Ocean Boulevard, they are the exception and not the rule. Unlike lots created at the time of the original subdivision of CdM, the subject lots were created more recently via a re-subdivision of the original CdM lot subdivision. The parcels subject to the merge are 2 parcels of a 5 parcel re-subdivision that occurred in the 1950s. These 5 lots at that time were 4 lots. In order to make each of the lots more developable, they were reconfigured into 5 lots, resulting in 5 lots that are inherently tied together through their configuration, access easements and restrictive height covenant. The merging of these two lots exacts an extreme hardship for the remaining three lots and other nearby lots. On a general note, lot mergers are not without impacts. When 2 lots are merged, sideyard setbacks along the common or merged lot line disappear. After a merge, the elimination of these sideyard setbacks renders the combined lot with more buildable area than the sum of the buildable area of the lots before they were merged. This allows greater building mass and density than if the lots were not merged. Further, open space is lost in the area of these disappearing sideyard setbacks. While this impact in many cases can be negligible, in this case it is significant. We should not chastise applicants from making bold applications, nor should we chastise imbedded residents from trying to protect what they have. We should simply employ consistency in applying the codes that govern our community. In this case, as evidenced by the planning commission’s diligent review and the support of several hundred residents signing a petition affirming their support for the planning commission’s decision, the city council should deny the applicant’s appeal and reject the lot merge.
January 20th, 2012
WOW Jamie why such a renter hater? I am not a renter but shut up!
January 20th, 2012
The Guida's purchased these two lots AFTER they had read the covenants recorded against the land. Someone must have told them before escrow closed that they could easily get the lots merged and build whatever they wanted to. I'd really like to hear who it was that sold them on this brilliant idea. The home they plan on building is over 10,000 square feet, with a basement that holds a bowling alley and would actually be 5 feet above the street level. Add that to the 14 foot 1st story and you have a building that at the lowest level would be 19 feet tall.
January 20th, 2012
Thanks Mory, you forgot to tell me to leave town. Everyone else tells me to shut up AND move for daring to express an opinion. So much for democracy. I don't hate renters, my tenants make it possible to live nicely. But they don't have cards in the game and millions of dollars on the table.
January 22nd, 2012
This situation reminds us that there is no substitute for the advice of a good Realtor and Attorney when making a major real estate purchase. I am sure that the 1951 agreement was dislcosed to the new owners during their due diligence period in the purchase. Whether or not it was fully explained or understood we will never know.
January 23rd, 2012
No don t want you to leave town .....Jamie! Yes I agree with Mark I hope the info about 1951 was disclosure was explained to buyer . If not bad job on the agents who sold this properties ohh ya SURTEERE.
