HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA_Minutes_1972_02_22MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL, HERMOSA BEACH ON FEBRUARY 22, 1972, AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. Pledge of allegiance led by Vice Chairman Basila. ROLL CALL: Present: Comms. Lee Alton, Mitchell Basila, Clayton Schubert, Richard W i 11 i ams. Absent: Chmn. Gene Ostermann AGENDA ITEM l: Approval of minutes. Comm. Williams made a motion, seconded by Comm. Schubert, that the minutes of the February 7, 1972 meeting be approved. AYES: Comms. Basila, Schubert, Williams NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm. Alton (Absent from February 7, 1972 meeting.) ABSENT: Chmn. Ost~rmann AGENDA ITEM 2: Secretary of the Board, Lee Al ton, read Agenda I tern 2 as fol lows: 11Appl ication for realignment of lot lines by Manhattan-Pacific Investment Company on property located on the NE corner of Prospect Avenue and 24th Street, legally described as Lots 15 through 21, Walter Ransom Co.1s Redondo Home Tract. This realignment would create six parcels in I ieu of the existing seven parcels.11 No correspondence from property owners. Public hearing opened at 7:34 p.m. Mr. Allan Juckes, 32 Pony Lane, Rolling Hills Estates, representing Manhattan-Pacific Investment Company, appeared before the Board. He stated he requested the realign-ment in order to be all0.ved to put four units on each lot, but he later discovered that under the R-P zoning he would only be allowed a duplex on each lot. However, he decided to pursue his variance request and later return and ask for a variance to develop with four units each. Mrs. Betcone, Assistant Zoning Administrator, pointed out to the Board that Mr. Juckes could develop the site as one parcel and put on one unit for every 600 sq. ft. of land area which would allow him approximately 30 units. Mrs. George Zavislan, 1253 -21st Street, representing the Women's Club asked to speak. She said the property adjacent to Mr. Juckes1 property was a,,1ned by the Women's Club and they were interested in what is planned on subject property --rezoning, etc. and how it would affect their property. The Board pointed out that this hearing was not for the purpose of rezoning the property~ only to realign the lot 1 ines. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the variance. Public hearing closed at 7:48 p.m.
PAGE 2 -MINUTES OF BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MEETING, FEBRUARY 22, 1972 The Board felt that granting the variance would have the desirable result of lower density of development than if parcel was developed on a combined lot basis. A motion was made by Comm. Schubert. seconded by Comm. Williams, to grant the variance. AYES: Comms. Alton, Basila, Schubert, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: Chmn. Ostermann Comm. Schubert made a motion, seconded by Comm. Williams, to adopt Resolution BZA 154-66 granting a lot realignment to Manhattan-Pacific Investment Company for the following reasons: I. It would be complying with the criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance for the division of parcels of land. 2. The realignment of these lots would be in conformity with the intent and purposes of the comprehensive general plan. 3. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 4. It would increase the lot widths over the existing lots that a re now there. 5. It wil 1 result in considerably lower density than if parcel was developed on a combined lot basis. AND FURTHER, that this variance is granted subject to the following conditions: I. That final parcel map is submitted to the Public Works Director for app rova I . 2. That lot split is recorded as prescribed by the subdivision reg u 1 a t i on s • Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Cornms. Alton, Basila, Schubert, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: Chmn. Ostermann AGENDA ITEM 3: Secretary of the Board, Lee Al ton> read Agenda Item 3 as fol lows: llAppl ication for a variance from Mr. and Mrs. Erik R. Watts on property located at 3318 Strand, legally described as Lot 13, Shakespeare Beach Tract. Applicants request the follow~ ing variation: In north and south sideyards at rear I ine, an 81611 high fence with arch to extend three feet into each sideyard. Three vertical columns within 31
PAGE 3 -MINUTES OF BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MEETING, FEBRUARY 22, 1972 south sideyard to extend 101 high, said columns supporting horizontal beam running paral lei with sideyard.11 No correspondence from property ONners. Public hearing opened at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Erik R. Watts, 3318 Strand, appeared before the Board. He said he purchased subject property l½ years ago as a legally non-conforming duplex in an R-1 zone. He converted it to a single family residence at the request of the City. He obtained a building permit for this remodeling; however, he replaced portions of his brick wall in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and without benefit of a permit or inspect-tion. Comm. Alton asked if an analysis of the brick wall had been made by a structural engineer. Mr. Watts said no. Mr. Alton felt if variance granted, a structural analy-sis should be required to be certain wall not a safety hazard. Mr. Alton added he felt the 11hardship11 in this case difficult to believe when Mr. Watts did not get permits. Mr. Watts said he did not knOd the work required a permit. No one appeared in opposition to variance request. Public hearing closed at 8:15 p.m. The Board said that the fences in north and south sideyards do not extend to the rear property line as advertised. They clear the rear 1 ine by 61 to 81 (running parallel to 1 ine), and the Board wishes it made clear to Mr.· Watts in the event his variance is granted that he may not continue fence to the rear property 1 ine. A motion was made by Comm. Williams, seconded by Comm. Schubert, that the variance be granted. AYES: Co11YT1s. Basila, Schubert, Williams NOES: Cormn. Alton ABSENT: Chmn. Ostermann Comm. Alton made a motion that if the variance was adopted in the affirmative. a condition be included calling for a structural analysis of the brick wall by a qualified structural engineer. The motion died for lack of a second, after Cecil Wade, Senior Building Inspector, assured the Board that the Building Department would see that all the codes were complied with, and that if deemed necessary a structural analysis would be required. Comm. Schubert made a motion, seconded by Comm. Williams, that the safety factor of the wall be left in the hands of the Building Department. All ayes, so ordered. Corm,. Alton made a motion, seconded by Comm. Williams, to adopt Resolution BZA 154-67 granting the variance for the following reasons: 1. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved.
PAGE 4 -MINUTES OF BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MEETING, FEBRUARY 22, 1972 2. That this variance is necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property rig~t possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. and denied to the property in question. 3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. AND FURTHER, that this variance is granted subject to the following conditions: I. That all necessary permits be taken out within fifteen (15) days of this date, and that failure to comply will make the variance null and void. z. The fence may not be continued to the rear property line but must remain at its present location, which is approx-imately six to eight feet from this I ine. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Comm. Basila, Schubert, Will iarns NOES: Corm1. Al ton ABSENT: Chmn. Ostermann AGENDA ITEM 4: Secretary of the Board, Lee Alton. read Agenda Item 4 as follows: 11Application for a variance from Mr. and Mrs. William Woodbury on property located at 808 Strand, legally described as Lot 2, Block 9, Hermosa Beach Tract. Applicants request a variance to erect an additional unit to be attached to an existing single family residence, and omit providing for the 200 sq. ft. of outdoor space as required in the R-3 zone.11 No correspondence from property owners. Public hearing opened at 8:30 p.m. Mr. William Woodbury, 808 Strand, appeared before the Board. He explained that he owns a single family residence on an R-3 lot, and he would I ike to add to it to make it a duplex. Under the R-3 zoning, even a duplex is required to have 200 sq. ft. of open area {even though not required in an R-2 zone). He added that he had the necessary open area but not the configuration called for in the Zoning Ordinance. No one, present opposing variance. Public hearing closed at 8:35 p.m.
PAGE 5 -MINUTES OF BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MEETING, FEBRUARY 22, 1972 The Board discussed the fact that Strand properties are unique in that they have direct access to the beach for recreational purposes. If denied, applicant could add a roof deck to meet open space requirement, but it would be an unattractive and impractical solution to the problem. They feel they set a precedent when they granted a similar variance recently on 20th Street. Comm. Alton made a motion, seconded by Comm. Basila, to grant the variance. AYES: Corruns. Alton, Basila, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: Chmn. Ostermann ABSTAIN: Conm. Schubert Comm. Alton made a motion, seconded by Comm. Basila, to adopt Resolution BZA 154-68 granting the variance for the following reasons: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved. 2. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question. 3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the prop-erty or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. 5. That the plans which were submitted as evidence in the pub] ic hearing include a 240 sq. ft. recreation room adjacent to a 136 sq. ft. brick patio. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES; Comms. Alton, Basila, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Ostermann ABSTAIN: Comm. Schubert Meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Lee Alton, Secretary <: 1,u;~ Mitchell Basila, Vice Chairman