HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES-97-5880 (VARIANCE APPROVAL/2429 MYRTLE)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 97-5880
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 2429
MYRTLE AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 24, TRACT 1031
The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by Tun and Jane Berry, owners of real property located at
2429 Myrtle Avenue in the City of Hermosa Beach, seeking a variance from the side yard requirement of
Section 17.08.030(c) of the zoning ordinance relative to a substantial remodel of an existing single-
family residence with nonconforming sideyards.
Section 2. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 17, 1997, at
which the Commission heard and considered written and oral testimony regarding the requested
variances. In its P.C. Resolution No. 97-45 the Commission approved the requested variance to allow a
2.2 foot side yard on the south side of the property, and denied the request for a zero side yard on the
north side of of the property.
Section 3. The decision of the Planning Commission was timely appealed by Daniel Valenzuala,
John and Kathy Dunbabin, and Bo Webber asserting that the Commission had erred in its determination
of the allowable height of the remodeled structure, and further that the project did not qualify for receipt
of a variance.
Section 4. The City Council conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing to consider the
appeal on July 22, 1997, at which considerable testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was
presented to and considered by the Council. Testimony was received from the applicants and their
attorney, the appellants and their attorney, and other interested persons.
Section 5. Based on the evidence received at the public hearing, the City Council makes the
following factual findings:
1. The subject residence was initially lawfully constructed in 1922 at its original location. At
some point thereafter, the zoning ordinance was amended to require greater sideyards than are provided
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
by the structure, thus making it legal nonconforming structure pursuant to Section 17.52 of the
Municipal Code.
2. The applicants desire to remodel and add to their residence without adhering to the now 1
applicable side yard requirements contained in the zoning ordinance Section 17.08.030(c), requiring a
three (3) foot side yard. In order to do that they need a variance pursuant to Chapter 17.54 of the
Municipal Code.
3. On the south side of the property, the structure encroaches ten (10) inches into the required
side yard. In order to cure that nonconformity, the applicant would be required to completely demolish
an existing basement and first story wall and fireplace/chimney structure, which are not proposed to be
affected by the remodel. The Planning Commission found that the longstanding existence of this
substantial structure encroaching a small degree in the required side yard created an exceptional
circumstance justifying the grant of a variance.
4. On the north side of the property, the applicants proposed to maintain a storage area and I
stairway/landing in the side yard. The Planning Commission found that this element could be removed
from the project without hardship and denied the requested variance for the north side of the property.
The applicants did not appeal this finding, and it is not the subject of this appeal.
5. A considerable amount of testimony during the public hearing was devoted to the staffs
determination of allowable height of the proposed remodel, which is not a part of the variance
application. Staff determined that existing eastern corner point elevations could not be established due
to substantial erosion on the property and that significant variations existed relative to adjacent
properties. Under those circumstances, the zoning ordinance definition of "building height" and "grade"
(Section 17.04.040 of the Municipal Code) dictates that height be measured from the elevation of
nearest public improvement, and accordingly, staff used the street elevations on the east side of the
property and the corner points on the west side as the basis for the height calculation for the proposed
structure. The Commission accepted this determination. Appellants argued that staff was mistaken to
utilize the "nearest public improvement" standard.
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6. The evidence concerning height demonstrated that the eastern portion of the property had I
suffered from substantial erosion and that significant variations existed at the eastern corner point
elevations with adjacent properties.
Section 6. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the City Council makes the following
findings pertaining to the application for a variance from the side yard requirements of the zoning
ordinance on the south side of the property:
1. There are exceptional circumstances relating to the property in that the existing structure has
been in its present location for many years, encroaches only nominally in the side yard, and would
require substantial demolition and disruption of the property to be removed. The lot is narrow, and little
would be gained by moving the south wall of the existing basement, foundation and chimney ten (10)
inches to the north and demolishing the fireplace structure (which would be necessary to maintain
adequate widths for two parking spaces). The variance involves only 15% of the total perimiter of the
structure, which otherwise will comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements.
2. The variance is necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
properties in the vicinity, many of which are either similarly nonconforming or have received side yard
variances similar to or more intrusive than the variance sought herein. Absent the variance, the
applicants will not be able to make use of an existing and fully functional basement level two -car garage
and fireplace/chimney, which would have to be destroyed to obtain exact compliance with Zoning
Ordinance requirements.
3. The requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity in that it is relatively minor, the new wall will be constructed
without windows on the lower floor, and the two windows on the upper floor will be recessed as to
comply with the required side yard dimension for openings pursuant to the Uniform Building Code.
4. The proposed variance does not conflict with and is not detrimental to the General Plan, in
that the remodel constitutes an improvement of an aging structure in the low density General Plan
designation, and the R-1 Single -Family residential zone and brings the structure into greater conformity
with development standards than at present.
511
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Section 7. As regards the calculation of the height of the structure, the City Council concurs
with the staffs determination of height based on the elevation of the nearest public improvement. The
evidence presented to the Council supports the conclusion that there exists a significant variation at the
corner points with adjoining properties, and that the staffs determination of height is reasonable and
consistent with the methodology set forth in the zoning ordinance under these factual circumstances.
Section 8. The City Council finds that the variance is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15305 of the State CEQA Guidelines, in that
it allows a minor setback variance and does not result in any change in land use or density.
Section 9. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission's approval of the requested
variance is hereby sustained, subject to the following conditions:
1. The project shall be consistent with submitted plans modified pursuant to the
conditions noted below. Any further minor modifications to the plan shall be
reviewed and may be approved by the Community Development Director.
a) Plans shall be revised to comply with the minimum required 3-foot side yard
requirement along the north side yard.
2. The Variance is specifically limited to the existing 2.2-foot south side yard, and
applicable to the situation and circumstances that result relative to the proposed
expansion and remodeling of the existing structure, including the maintenance of the
existing fireplace structure, and is not applicable to the development of new
structures or any future expansion.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of August, 1997.
PRESIDENT of e City Council and YOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California
ATTEST: 1 n APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY CLERK - 'F V CITY ATTORNEY
-4-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF ]HERMOSA BEACH
I, Naoma Valdes, Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the
City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 97-5880 was duly and regularly passed, approved and adopted
by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at an Regular Meeting of
said Council at the regular place thereof on August 12, 1997.
The vote was as follows:
AYES:
Benz, Bowler, Edgerton, Oakes, Mayor Reviczky
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
DATED: August 18, 1997
Deputy City Clerk