Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBZA_Minutes_1982_08_02MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS1MENTS OF THE CITY OF HERM)SA BEACH HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL ON AUGUST 2, 1982, AT 7 : 30 P .M. Meeting called to order at 7 : 33 P .M. by Chrrn. Moore Pledge of Allegiance led by Clum. Moore ROIL CAIL PRESENT: Conms. Cutler, Merrill, Williams, Chnn. Moore ABSENT: Comns . DeBellis, Ebey, Toth ALSO PRESENT: Laurie Duke , Staff liaison Corrms. DeBellis, Ebey, and Toth had excused absences. APPROVAL OF MINUI'ES Motion by Corrm. Williams , seconded by Conm. Cutler, to approve the July 19, 1982 minutes, as submitted. No objections. So ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS None coNSmr CALENDAR None PUBLIC HEARINGS VARIANCE BZA 154-475 -1654 Loma Drive Applicants : Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Bishop Mrs . Duke gave staff report. She stated that the property was located in the R-3 zone, Iredium density residential. The existing and proposed lot density was 18.19 du/ac. Th.e lot area was 2,395 sq. ft. The existing lot coverage was 33%, and the proposed lot coverage was 58%. The existing floor area was 847 sq. ft., and the proposed addition was 1,026 sq. ft. She stated that the applicants were requesting permission to add rrore than 40% to an e.xisting single family dwelling with a nonconforming south sideyard setback of 1 ft. arid a north sicleyard setback of 2' 3 1/2" in lieu of the 3' required. The addition would conform to present code requirements. She noted that this plan contained the ingredients which have in the past caused the Corrmission to require a deed restriction as a condition of the variance. An inspection of the premises on July 28, 1982 indicated the existing to be in conformance with plans submitted. .. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS'IMENTS MmUTES -August 2, 1982 • VARIANCE 'BZA ·ts4~475 •• _ '1654 T.oma Drive (Cont.) Chnn. Moore asked whether there were any extensions of the existing encroachnEnt to the sideyard setback caused by the addition. Mm. Duke replied in the negative, adding that the applicants net the C:Ode regarding setbacks. Public Hearing opened at 7 :40 P .M. Page 2 Austin Blankinship, 516 17th Street, Manhattan Beach, building contractor of the project, noted that the applicants had no intention of adding another unit. The doors were requested for rreans of an entry from the sideyard. Jane Bishop, 1654 Loma Drive, Herrrosa Beach, applicant stated that they use the house in question as a sUl!IIEr hOIIB; however, ·they wish to retire and would like a larger hOOE. Chrrn. Moore asked the applicant if she would accept staff's reconmmded conditicn to request a deed restriction limiting the building to single family use. Mrs . Bishop rep lied in the affirmative. No one appeared to speak in favor of the variance. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the variance. Public Hearing closed at 7:43 P.M. Cornn. Willians stated that the only way to avoid a bootleg problem is through the original design. She noted that the design of this addition is ideal for a bootleg 1nit. Motion by Corrm. Merrill, seconded by C01ID11. Cutler, to approve Variance BZA 154-475 including staff's recoTIIIEI1dation of a deed restriction. Crnm.. Moore explained to the audience the force and effect of a deed restriction.. AYES: NOES: Comns. Cutler, Merrill, Williams, Chrrn. Moore None ABSENT: Comns . DeBellis , Ebey, Toth Chrrn. Moore stated that the Board' s decision may be appealed by writing to the City Co1ncil within 10 days. Required Findings: l. . . . bec.ause the original structure was built prior to 1932 which predates existing sideyard requiremmts; reconstructing the building in order to neet the sideyard variance would be an 1ndue burden; BOARD OF ZONlliG ADJUS'IMENTS MINUI'ES -August 2, 1982 VARIANCE BZA 154-475 -1654 I.Dma Drive (Cont.) and the addition itself nEets the current sideyard requ.iren:ents and all other particulars in the Zoning Code. 2. . . . because there is no other way to add to this building than to apply for the variance; the ability to enjoy the developrrent of a person Is property has been enjoyed by other persons in the sane vicinity and zone, and it does conform. Page 3 3. . .. because the addition rreets all requirements of the Zoning Code and, therefore, on its face, does not interfere with police or safety access to the property or interfere with light, air circulation; a substantial m.nrber of neighbors signed a petition in favor of the project; and there was no negative input either in writing or at the public hearing. 4. . .. because it does not change the current use which is within the limits of the general plan. ¥..otion by Crnm. l"'bore, seconded by Comn. Merrill, to approve the above Findings. AYES: Comas. Cutler, Merrill, Williams, Chim. Moore NOES: None ABSENT: Conms . DeBellis , Ebey, Toth VARI.ANGE BZA 154-476 -2604 Henmsa Avenue Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. Alan Neiger Mrs. Duke gave sta£f report. She stated that the property was located in the C-1 zone, TIE.diun density residential. The lot area was 1, 934 sq. ft. The existing and proposed lot density was 45 du/ac. The existing and proposed lot coverage was 81. 61% The existing floor area was 1,466 sq. ft, and the proposed addition was 774 sq. ft. She stated that the applicants were requesting permission to add 52.79% to an existing nonconforming two-unit building that had existing setbacks as follows : Front, 0' at stairs with l' minimum required; North sideyard, 2.05 in lieu of 3' required; South sideyard, O' with 4+" encroachrrEJJ.t onto City property of building and an ex:is ting 8 1 first floor deck and ramp; Rear, 2 .15 in lieu of 3' required. She stated that the applicants wished to continue the sarre nonconforming sideyard setbacks with the new construction. In addition, the following nonconfonrrities existed on this property: There is no required parking provided; the existing structure exceeds the allowable lot coverage., being 81. 61% and does not provide the required 400 sq. ft. of usable open space. She noted that an inspecticm. of the premises was made on July 28, 1982 by the Building Department and was found to be in confonmnce with plans submitted. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUI'ES -August 2, 1982 VARIANCE Bl.A. 154-476 -2604 Herrrosa Avenue (Cont.) Cornn. Williams noted that there were two house nurcbers on the property. Mrs. Duke stated that the City's records carry it as 2604 Hernosa Avenue, and the unit on the side is 115 26th Street. Chnn. Moore asked if the only addition were an the west side of the building. Page 4 Mrs. Duke replied in the affinnative. She added that the applicants will have to ask the City Cmncil to continue the 4" encroachnEnt upward. At that tinE, the applicants will also need to ask for a record of an encroa~nt penni.t for the ramp and raised deck on 26th Street. Crnm. Moore asked what was on the property i.mrediately to the north. Mrs. Duke replied that the use is comrercial. Corrrn. Williams stated that a beauty shop is located :irrnEdiately to the north. Public Hearing opened at 7:58 P.M. Fran Baker, Triad Design Associates, 200 Pier Avenue, Henrosa Beach, representing tihe applicant, stated that the applicants were asking for approval of the variance for the following reasons: Because the building was built in 1915 and of such a configuration that no rrodification of it could bring it into conformity. Without a variance, there would be no way to irrprove the property without tearing down the building. Denolishing the building would be an extrerrely expensive proposition for the owners. She noted that m.teh of the surrounding area does consist of older nonconfonning buildings, and variances of this type have in the past been requested and approved. She stated that granting the variance would enhance the commnity by :i.nproving the outward appearance of the building. She added that there would be no change in use. Alan Neiger, 2600-2604 Henmsa Avenue, Hernnsa Beach, applicant, stated that at the tiIIE he bought the house, both addresses were used. He stated that the building was possibly a comrercial building at one tilffi. He noted that the house is too small for his family. He clcU11Ed that there had never been any parking on the location. He stated that what was once a garage is now an office/bath. He subrni.tted signatures of 46 persons in favor of the variance. Corrm. Williams noted concern for the fire hazard on the north side of the house. Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue, 1!38, Triad Designs, Hernnsa Beach, stated that he had spoken with the City Attorney in regard to giving testim:my during the public hearing. He stated that he was appearing to point out sorre • BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUI'ES -August 2, 1982 Page 5 VARIANCE BZA 154-476 -2604 Henrosa Avenue (Cont.) technical problems . He stated that , due to 1'1r. Neiger' s present condition, he has sone limitations as to his abilities to earn a living and to get around. At the present tm , his place? is adapted to his wheelchair uses . He noted that the only view that would be interrupted by this addition is from a kitchen window'. Gus Garcia, 2606 Herrrosa Avenue, Henrosa Beach, stated that he owned the property irrnEdiately to the north. He spoke in favor of granting the , proposed variance. No one else spoke in favor of the variance. Eugene J. Kasper, 125 26th Street, Henrosa Beach, stated that he lived directly to the east of the property in question. He spoke in opposition by stating that he did not believe that the applicant's request was for a variance to the Zoning Code but a request to dismiss the Code entirely. He stated that he had invested a considerable sum of nnney into his property, and this addition would lower the value of his property. He noted that. • his current partial view of the ocean would be totally obliterated by the applicant's proposed seccmd story. He noted concem that the applicant would not provide parking for himself, his tenants , or his guests . He noted that the applicant's building currently does not IIBet Code for allowable lot coverage nor for required usable open space. yet he requested nore than a 50% addition to the structure. He added that the applicant was aw-are of the structure's limitations when he bought it as a beach house. He believed that the Code should be declared null and void if this variance were granted. Public Hearing closed at 8:25 P.M. Corrm. Merrill stated that he would abstain from vote due to witnesses who appear from the City Council. He stated that he could not render a fair ju.dgIIEn.t due to the testimmy given at the public hearing. Mrs. Duke stated that the applicant must go before the City Council for an encroachnEnt permit. Crnm. Moore stated that the City Council aeniber was involved with the issue, and the Corn.ciJ.nErrber had indicated that he would abstain from vote when it reached the Council level. Chnn. Moore stated that the request is a minor extension. of the building. He stated that he would be in favor of the variance. He noted that the view is a sensitive issue in Henrosa Beach; hO'irJ'ever, views are not protected if a building ~ets C.Ode. The view encroachrrent in this case is not related to the variance problem. Corrm. Cutler noted concern for the view encroachnent to the neighbors to the east. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS'IMENTS MINUI'ES -August 2, 1982 Page 6 VARIANCE BZA 154-476 -2604 Hemosa Avenue (C.ant.) Coom. Williams stated that she would be in favor of the variance if the applicant gave up the additional unit and redesigned the project. She noted that she was against the variance with the unit and no parking. Comn. Cutler believed that this requested variance was asking too much of the com:nunity. Motion by Chim. Moore to approve Variance BZA. 154.476. Motion died. Motion by Cornn. Williams to deny Variance BZA 154-476. Motion died. Mrs. Duke inforIIBd the Board that the applicant was willing to sign a deed restriction that if he sells the property, the existing nonconforming second unit would be abated. Motion by Chrm. Moore, seconded by Cornn. Merrill, to approve Variance BZA 154-476 with the additional condition that a deed restriction be put on the property that when and if this property is sold, the incone unit be abated and that it return to a single uiit status. AYES: NOES: Comn. Williams, Chim. Moore Cornn. Cutler ABSTAIN: Comm. Merrill ABSENT: Camus. DeBellis, Ebey, Toth Conm. Williams asked what would happen if the property were sold and it went COIIIIETCial. Mrs. Duke replied that it would have to conform to cormercial. Clmn. Moore stated that the variance was approved, and it may be appealed within 10 days by writing to the City Council. Required Findings: 1. . . . because the property was built before existing C'.ode; it is unusually shaped property; the property is unusually bounded, having streets on three sides and cormercial property on the fourth side. 2. . . . because many other properties in the same vicinity and zone have been granted variances considered minor by the Board to allow them to be expanded which would be denied by this property if the Board did not grant the variance. 3 .... because the use of the property is not significantly changed; the addition of height does not block the view any m::>re than is well encompassed in the zoning profile allcJwed for that property if developed as a new structure; 46 signatures from property owners in the presurred same vicinity and zone have been received in favor of the project; there was sOIIE opposition at the public hearing. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS'IMENI'S MINUTES -August 2, 1982 Page 7 VARIANCE BZA 154-476 -2604 Hennosa Avenue (Cont.) 4. . .. because it does not change the current use of the property; the deed restriction limits the duration of this variance to sorre extent. Motion by Chrm. Moore, seconded by Corrm. Williams, to approve the above Findings. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comns. Merrill, Williams, Chnn. Moore Cornn. Cutler Comns . DeBellis , Ebey, Toth VARIANCE BZA L54-477 -3419 ~..anhattan Avenue Applicants : Mr. and Mrs. Peter Rodgers Mrs. Duke gave staff report. She stated that the property was located in the R-3 zone, R-1 due to lot size. The general plan designation was high density residential. The lot area was 1664. 21 sq. ft. The existing and proposed lot density was 26 .17 du/ac. The existing lot coverage was 63. 48%, and the proposed lot coverage was 6 7. 84% She stated that the applicants were proposing to add a deck and attic over the second story of an existing single family dwelling. This requires that two exits be provided from this third story area. Che of these exits will be requested from the Board of Appeals in the form of a Rien.riard ladder. This request of the Board of Zoning Adjustrrents is to be allowed a stair leading from the second level to the .deck encroaching into the required sideyard of 3. 84 '-to within 1. 35' of the property line.· This sideyard abuts 35th Place. The stair increases the lot coverage by 72.62 1/2 sq. ft. or 4.36%. Corrm. Williams asked if the height limit were within Code. Mrs. Duke replied :in the affirmative, noting that they are building to 28 1/2 ft., and the allowable is 35 ft. Omn. Moore asked if any opposition had been submitted. Mrs. Duke replied in the negative. Public Hearing opened at 8:51 P.M. Patrick Ki.Han, 125 Manhattan Beach Blvd., Manhattan Beach, architect for the project, stated that the lot coverage will be pushed over the 65% limit via the stairwell which is a second-level stairwell leading to the third-story deck. He noted that the deck will provide an ocean view. No one spoke in favor of the proposed variance. No one spoke in opposition to the proposed variance. Public Hearing closed at 8:53 P.M. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS'IMENTS MINUTES -August 2, 1982 VARIANCE BZA 154-477 -3419 Marihattari Avenue (Cont.) Motion by Conm. Williams, seconded by Chrm.. r;toore, to approve Variance BZA 154-477, an exceptional circumstance being that if the Board were to insist on an interior stairway, a significant armunt of square footage would be lost, and there is no reasonable alternative to the outside stairway. AYES: NOES: Comns. Cutler, Merrill, Williams, Chim. Moore None ABSEID': Comns. DeBellis, Ebey, Toth Required Findings: 1. ... because the construction project requires sooe other solution than an interior stairway to avoid a significant impact on the square footage to the second floor. 2. . .. because other properties have been able to be developed in this vi.cini ty and zone and have required variance to do so. 3. . . . because the basic project does not restrict air, police, fire safety; the variance encroachnent is at the second story level and does not affect IIOvenent of people on the ground floor and is along an alley. 4. . .. because it does not change the use of the structure. Motion by Chrm. Moore, seconded by Conm. Cutler, to approve the above Findings. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: REVIEWS None Comns. Cutler, Merrill, Williams, Chrrn. Moore None c.ooms. DeBellis, Ebey, Toth MISCELLANEOUS Page 8 Mrs. Duke stated that the Board granted a variance to the property at 318 24th Street. The property had since been sold and the new owner requested an extension of the variance. She stated that the new owner is requesting an extension of one year. Motion by Cornn. Merrill, seconded by Chrrn. Moore , to grant an extension of the variance at 318 24th Street, No objections. So ordered. Motion to adjourn at 9 :00 P.M. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS'IMENTS MIN\JI'ES -August 2, 1982 Page 9 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes -were approved at a regular ~~~;. the Board of Zorrlng Adjustirents of the JJ&: ~ NFAL\SE~ '' ~ DATE '