Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1962_09_11 (Special Hearing - 2666 Strand)Public Heari ng on Carl E. and Mary E. Johnson Variance at 2666 Strand 9/11/62 Wm. Holli¥;sworth, attorney for f Johnsons -Am seeking approval for some t hing already done. Mr. Johnson acquired the property in 16 -the pr operty appeared to consist of three units. Believe Mr. Johnson acted in good faith i n purchasing it as three units. In 1956-57, he divi ded what was once a big room i nto two bedrooms, added a bathroom and made it i nto a three bedroom unit. He did it without any permits. He was not aware, since he was doing the work himself - didn't think it was necessary. There was an existing r oom already being used and had been used as a rental unit. Mr. Johnson says a kitchen and bath already existed. He did not add to the overall square f ootage of the unit. He improved the unit as it did exist. I submit a petition signed ·by neighbors asking approval. From t he applicant south in t he same block, six of the possible sites are already multiple. You're not creating , something already not prevalent - perhaps more than 50% -not aski ng i'or a new use not already allowed for that property. Asking that be use it as a three bedroom rather than a one bedroom.. This property has been rented·for many, many years as a t hree unit. The changes were not structural in nature, and a three-car garage exists on t he property. Comm. Black -Believe t hey are asking ~or a zone amendment and not a variance. In 1956 it was the thinking of ~he P.C. that this property should be R-3, but the owners from 18th Street north, almost 100%, filed a petition requesting that this property be zoned R-1. We took a survey of the property at t hat ti me , and it was sanething over 40% of the properties R-2. The City Council granted the request of the property owners, and they zoned this property R-1. In my opinion, nothing can be changed unless you change the zone. If enough of these property owers want to act together and present an application -don't think it's within the power of t his P.C. to grant a variance for another unit in an R-1 zone. Something we cannot do. It's an R-1 zone. We cannot, in my opinion., grant this man permission to build anything else on his property other than what was on there at the t i me it was zoned R-1. Mr. Joel Edwards, Manhattan Beach, owner of property at 3030 Manhattan Avenue - Knew this property in 153 or '54, and the conditions described i n the l etters were quite evident then. Being Strand property, the price was high and due to the fact there was so much extensive work -the wiring was bad -I didn't get the property. There were existing three units prior to 1956. Mr. Johnson acquired the property, and it's almost a marvel the way he has improved the property. The neighborhood i s quite enhanced by this piece of property. Comm. Miller -When it was decided to remodel, why wasn't a building permit taken out at t hat time? Why did he wait six years to file, Mr. Edwards -Believe the owner had some visits from Mr. Trott -not at Mr. Trott's instigation. Considering ill aspects, he should not be troubled -whatever i s necessary for you people - Comm. Miller -This 40% -chances are that 60 or 70,i of the Strand homes have guest apartments that are not ·r ented. A very high percentage where you can have your own guests i n rooms t~t can be altered. Seems to me if we granted t his one variance we would then set a precedent that anybody who wants to pick up an extra $100 or $200 a week could do the same thing. Johnson Public Hearing 2 Mr . Edwards - I am aware that the great number of people there wanted it to remain as R-1. Comm. Black -In my op1.ru.on, what this man is asking f or i s an R-2 use of his property, which this Connnission cannot grant. If we granted this variance, in my opinion, any property owner from 18th Street n orth could take us to court, and it would smack of spot zoning. Spot zoning i s not allowed. It smacks of something that is very disagreeable. What this man is asking for is for an R-2 zone on this one lot in an R-1 zone. If they would ask for an R-2 zone in this district, tbis P.C. could act, and maybe the man could put his different apartments in there. Donna Morgenstern Axton -Have lived more than 20 years next door. The place was R-3 way before 1956. Comm. Johnson -The zone is presently R-1. It's a nonconforming building. We are aware that there are nonconforming uses all over town. Mr. Hartwell, 1039 W. 35th St., Los Angeles 7 -Have been a visitor at the Johnson property for the last couple of years -First, if there is clear evidence that the downstairs apartment was used as an apartment before 1956, cantt he continue this use? Secondly, it is my understanding he's asking for a variance. Haven1t heard why he couldn't get a variance. Mr. Hugo Lizza, 2702 Strand - I represent a group of people who were responsible for that R-1 zone. We feel that our R-1 zoning is important to the investment for our single-family dwellings. If we increase the capacity of these adjacent homes, we would devaluate our larger family homes. Feel the line was pretty well drawn in 1956. Everybody understood in 1956 they could use their property without further enlargement. We would like to see it held that way. We feel one variance here, there will be others. Are we going to have R-1 -hold it -or go to another type of zoning? If there is a majority who want to change the zoning, that would be fine. John R. MacFaden, 3301 Strand - I am President of the Hermosa Beach Property Owners Associati un. I fought to have R-1 put in from 18th Street to the north city boundary. The planner the city had hired had decided that R-3 could be built on the Strand.-R-3 permitted hotel and any type of multiple units on the Strand. We wanted to raise our families in single-family residences. The majority wanted R-1 zoning. Came back from the Korean War in 1952. Mrs. English took me down to see this place. Did live at 2217 Borden and found out we couldn't live with the zoning there. Hate to disagree with Donna and Mr. Thompson and Mr. Morgenstern, but that property in question was never a rental unit. It may have been, rented, but had it been, under any consideration, it was highly substandard, It was'used as change quarters. I personally told Mr. Johnson when he was digging under the house if he was going to put in an apartment, it was nonconforming, I am the one as President of the H.B,Property OWners and my own little family -that wants to live up there and maintain this property as R-1 until it is legally designated as something else. Believe if Mr. Johnson had had a little legal advice before he renovated this, it would ·have been better. Don't think we need any advice from Manhattan. Don't think Manhattan1 s example is as good as Hermosa1 s. If we 1re going to maintain zoning, Metts maintain it. If not, let's go be,erk. That property could never legally have been rented as an apartment, and when they showed it to me, they said, this is two units.· Will agree, Mr~ Johnson has done a magnificent job of improving his house, but on the other hand, he was well warned ahead of time. He knew the law. Johnson Public Hearing 3 Mr. Wilkinson, 2140 Strand -Agree with the other people -Mr. Johnson has done a tremendous job. One of the main facg_ors we have to face is the face that we do have a zoning law governing that area. It's R-1. It's acknowledged that there are a lot of nonconforming residences with rental units over the garage. By the same token, where we consider two and more rental units, think we destroy the value of this R-1 zone and endanger the entire picture of the Strand from 18th Street north. I ask that it be kept the way it is. Public hearing closed and re-opened on request of Applicant's attorney, who asked for opportunity to give rebuttal, stating that he was taking the premise that it was a three-unit, thinking they already had that right. Mr. MacFaden -~Mr. Beverly represented the Plaintiff and the matter was in court, and they r eferred it back to the P~C. more of a courtesy than anything else. Think Mr. Trott could give us some background on this property, and if the house ever was registered as a three unit, it can certainly be found in the housing archives of the city. Certain from my own experience this was never a rental unit and never was rented to my knowledge. Might have had pfople living in it prior to the time Mr. Johnson took control of the property. It was vacant for several years. Quite a number of facets about this property. Hearing closed and Commissioners discussed amongst themselves --- Chairman Hales -These items in use prior to the ordinance have the right to conti~ue in that use after the ordinance was adopted until such time as a change is required or in case the building is substantially damaged. Comm. Hamilton -How long has it been zoned R-1? How long before '56? Mr. Trott -It was R-1 prior to 1956. Chairman asked Btito give proper history. Mr. Trott -Had a call that there was an additional unit added on to the premises - approximately eight months ago. Was originally one room and some kitchen facilities and bathroom. Looked like to me -my opinion -that where this kitchen was, it apparently had been a laundry room and had been turned into a kitchen. There had been added two rooms and a bath which had been done recently. Mr. Johnson admitted to me in frorrt of a witness that he had added these two bedrooms and bath without any building,plunihng or electrical permits. Am sur~, in my opinion, that Mr. Johnson knew that that size of an addition required some type of permits. It's hard for me to believe he didntt. He thought he was improving the property. He did, but he was in violation of the zoning and building, electrical and plumbing codes. Have no way of knowing how long this original room and kitchen facilities and bath had been there, but we definitely know these other rooms were added recently. Made an inspection with Doctor Hamilton, and in one of the gar1~es, he has a sleeping room (another complaint). He had added a semi-unit \of~ of one of the garages. It has a shower and sleeping room, and it's taking up part of the garage. Again, it appears that this has not been there too long -maybe 3, 4 or 5 months. Mr. Johnson made the statement to Dr.·Hamilton and myself that this had always been there. He says he can put h.i.s car in, but it's a very small garage. Comm. Noble asked Mr. Trott -Do you feel the addition would allow any further density of thdproperty? Can there be further income developed? Mr. Trott -Don't think he could make two out of this downstairs unit------but nothing is impossible. Comm. Miller -How much excavation? Mr. Johnson~ did you do your excavation at night? Johnson Hearing 4 Mr. Johnson -Everybody was aware of it. Connn. Miller -Did you do your digging in the day time? You kept wi. thin the bounds of your house? You removed a portion of the sand that was there? Mr. Johnson -Had to get the sand out -full of termites. Co1mn. Miller -Has anybody asked you why you didn't take out a :permit? Mr. Johnson -My boy and I did all the work -was living in that area myself. Cormn. Viault -Somebody says they removed some sand in the area of the bedrooms - before the floors were there? Mr. Johnson -There were wood floors . Comm. Viault -It was a wood floor? Sand was removed, and yoijpoured a concrete slab? Mr. Johnson -Yes. Comm. Noble -Point out what was there -Mr. Johnson drew a diagram on the blackboard of the subject unit. Comm. Black -I remember this house from a long time back. As Mr. MacFaden said, during the war there were two rooms down in front and everybody was hunting a space for a bedroom for a family who moved in here, and I was called up there to try and get some gas in one of these rooms for sleeping rooms. The back part wasn't excavated at all. It was just a temporary job to provide sleeping rooms for some of the extra people. Haven't seen the place for a long time. All the rooms could be used for would be for sleepi ng. There was a laundry tray. It wasn't up to code. Would run i nto a sizable bill. It was a temporary measure to house people during the war. Collllil. Hales -When did you purchase the property? Mr. Johnson -March 28, 1956. Coriun. Hales -Were there any tenants in the buildi ng? Mr. Johnson -Don(t think it had been rented for at leaat two years. Comm.. Hales -On June 19 our present ordinance was adopted~ At what date after that did you rent it? Mr. Johnson -First week around Easter Sunday -Easter of 1956. Cop. Hales -You first rented it a week or so :~after you purchased the property? MrA. Johnson -Within two weeks. Comm. Hales -How long thereafter? Mr. Johnson -Continuously. Cotiun. lJales -How l ong did that ten~t keep the dwelling? Mr. Johnson -Until about September, but it's been rented continuously. Comm. Hales -When was this remodeling done? Mr. Johnson -Started that same summer and completed it i n t57. Hugo's friend rented our place, and we lived downstairs. Connn. Hales -Would you be willing to subject the remodeling that you have done to the Building Department to determine if i t meets the present building codes of the city? Mr. Johnson .-Yes . Comm. Hales Mr. Trott, is it agreeable with you to see if the building is within the code? Mr. Trott Mr. Johnson Co.mm. Noble -Will be hard to inspect the plumbing. -The plumbing is very simple. - I don't think that's our problem. Conm. Miller -What is the cost of the remodeling? What would you estimate you have put in this apartment? What kind of money are you talking about? Mr. Johnson -It was not more than $700 or $800, maybe $1000 at the most. Johnson Hearing 5 ~onmt. Miller -If we set a precedent here sanctifying and allowing somebody to remodel without a permit and we go ahead and allow this, what then prevents every person from doing the same thing and then renting it until they get caught?