SUBJECT: APPEALS--VARIANCE 97-3 & BUILDING HEIGHT DETERMINATION

LOCATION: 2429 MYRTLE AVENUE

APPELLANTS: VALENZUELA, DUNBABIN, WEBBER

MYRTLE AVENUE

APPLICANT: JIM BERRY

2429 MYRTLE AVENUE

HERMOSA BEACH, CA

REQUEST: TO APPEAL THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION DECISIONS:

1. TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO ALLOW EXISTING NONCONFORMING SOUTH SIDE YARD OF 2.2' TO BE MAINTAINED FOR A GREATER THAN 100% REMODEL AND EXPANSION

2. TO USE THE NEAREST PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AS THE BASE ELEVATION FOR BUILDING HEIGHT. (MEASURED FROM THE FLOW LINE OF THE STREET)

Recommendations

1. To sustain the Planning Commission decision to grant the south side yard Variance by adopting the attached resolution.

2. To sustain the Planning Commission decision to use the nearest public improvement as the basis for measuring building height by minute order.

Background

At their meeting of June 17, 1997, the Planning Commission considered the requested Variances to maintain nonconforming side yards for an expansion and remodel that exceeded 100% increase in valuation. The Planning Commission granted the Variance for the south side yard (2.2 feet rather than the required 3 feet), and denied the request relative to the north side yard (0' rather than 3 feet).

The Commission also addressed the issue of the building height measurement pursuant to their authority under Section 17.04.040 to resolve disputes regarding the base elevation, and supported staff's recommendation to use the nearest public improvement (determined to be the flow line of Myrtle Avenue).

Project Information

ZONING: R-1

GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential

LOT SIZE: 2,993 square feet

EXISTING USE: Single-family dwelling

EXISTING FLOOR AREA: 1,478 square feet

PROPOSED FLOOR AREA: 3,396 Square Feet

PERCENT INCREASE IN VALUATION: 135%

The subject lot is located on the west side of Myrtle Avenue with access from the west on Ozone Court. The lot slopes fairly steeply to towards the ocean from Myrtle Avenue to Ozone Court, with an elevation change of about 15 feet, with most of this change on an abrupt slope just west of Myrtle Avenue. The lot is currently developed with a one-story (two levels) single-family dwelling located on the low, westerly portion of the lot. The existing dwelling was constructed in 1922 and is currently nonconforming to side yard requirements on both sides of the lot.

The applicant is proposing a substantial remodel and expansion project, involving the removal of the rear walls and rear (easterly) portions of the existing house and the construction of three new levels east of the existing dwelling. The project incorporates a new entry and orientation on Myrtle Avenue, and maximizes height up the slope to take advantage of ocean views.

Analysis

VARIANCES

Existing side yards are nonconforming to the current requirement of 10% of lot width, or 3 feet. The south building wall is proposed to be maintained, leaving a side yard of 2.2 feet rather than 3 feet. The north side of the house includes a garage level storage area and entry landing above, and a rear bedroom, which are located on the north property line. The remodel plans call for correcting the yard problem at the bedroom, but to maintain the storage and landing area at the property line.

In considering the Variance requests, the Commission based their decision on the following required findings, as required by State and Local laws:

1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved.
2. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right .possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
3. The granting of the 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. The Variance is consistent with the General Plan

The Planning Commission determined that the findings could be made relative to the request for the south side yard, and further determined they could not be made for the north side yard.

The unusual and unique circumstance of the existing structure and the location of the masonry fireplace in the middle of the structure was the basis for supporting the first finding. The existing two parking spaces fall on each side of the fireplace structure with adequate widths to comply with parking requirements. The existing width of the southerly space could not be maintained if nonconforming yard was corrected. In considering removing or moving the fireplace structure, the integrity of the existing structure would be compromised, probably requiring complete demolition.

The preservation of the fireplace was deemed a substantial property right, and was the basis for the second finding. Further, several other properties in the vicinity have been granted Variances to side yards to maintain similar property rights.1 The fact that other similar side yards exist in the vicinity, and that Variances have been granted to maintain said yards in conjunction with expansion projects, was the basis for the third finding. Consistency and compatibility with surrounding single family projects all located in the same Low Density General Plan category was the basis for the fourth finding.

Given the scale of the expansion/remodel project staff previously recommended that the applicant consider demolishing the existing house to build a new one, in complete compliance with zoning requirements. The applicant, however, proceeded with the plans as submitted in order to maintain the fireplace and entry landing. While findings for a Variance were made for the south side yard situation, as noted, the Commission did not believe findings could be made to justify a Variance for the north side yard. The structural issues were not the same, and further, since a new main entry will be available from the Myrtle Avenue side of the lot, and interior access is provided from the garage level, a substantial property right would not be lost.

HEIGHT MEASUREMENT

Because of the dispute about height determination in this case, including correspondence from neighboring property owners that the pre-existing corner point elevations should be used, the height calculation was referred to the Planning Commission Staff maintains that the project conforms to the maximum allowable height using the elevation at the nearest public improvement.

In its original evaluation of this property for the basis of the height measurement along Myrtle Avenue the Building Division recognized that elevations at the east corner points, which are eight feet west of the Myrtle Avenue sidewalk, are on an abrupt slope, and also have been modified by added fill dirt making it difficult to obtain accurate base elevations at these corner points. Given this circumstance, and the disrepair of the sidewalk, the elevation at the nearest public improvement was used (the flow line of the west gutter of Myrtle Avenue2) as the base for interpolating height from the upper side of the lot. This approach is consistent with the current definition for grade, which in part states "In cases where there significant variation in elevations between adjacent properties at corner points the point of measurement shall be based on the nearest public improvement or an alternative point within 3 horizontal feet, which based on supporting evidence, represents existing unaltered grade." Staff maintains that the only nearby point which can safely be assumed to represent unaltered grade is the street elevation.

There is only a slight difference (about 8 inches less at the top of the roof deck railing) between staff's method of calculating building height and the applicant's proposal (119.01 rather than 119.75). Also, in reviewing recent and past building construction along Myrtle Ave., the resulting two story scale and approximate 21-foot height from the street level would be consistent with the scale of two other two story homes on the west side of the street. (The most recent project on the west side of the street, 2459 Myrtle, is also a two-story/three level project with a finished building height at approximately 21 feet from the street level. The building height for that project was interpolated from the east corner points at the choice of the architect, however, in that case if the street level would have been used it would have made little difference)

The Planning Commission rejected the option to require that the applicant to hire a soils engineer to use soil borings to establish the depth of the recent fill at the east corner points. With that information it would be possible to determine the base corner point elevations that existed before the recent fill, and either establish the height measurement based on that point, or, pursuant to the grade definition "in the absence of supporting evidence...at 1/2 the difference between the adjacent elevation and the elevation on the property in question." Either of these options, however, assume that the grade levels before the recent filling (8-feet from the street) are good representations of unaltered grade, and ignore the possibility that erosion, excavation or cutting may have occurred since the streets were constructed.

Summary of Options for Determining Grade for Height Measurement:

1. Refer to elevation of nearest public improvement.
2. Refer to elevation point within three horizontal feet of the corner point which based on evidence represents unaltered grade.
3. Utilize an elevation which is 1/2 the difference between the adjacent elevation and elevation in question at the corner point in the absence of supporting documentation.
4. Determine previous unaltered elevation for corner points based upon geotechnical study of unfilled and filled portions of property.
5. Use geotechnical study for southeasterly corner point where ground level may be historically lower than other locations along the block and use the existing corner point at northeasterly corner which is consistent with properties along the block.

---

1. ariances were granted at other nearby properties to allow substantial expansions to existing structures while maintaining and extending nonconforming yards, as follows: 2432 Myrtle Avenue (side yards 2.6 and 2.7 feet rather than 3 feet and front yard of 2' rather than 5'); 318 24th Street (side yard of 2' rather than 3', front yard of 0' rather than 5'); and, 2418 Manhattan Avenue (side yards of 2.3' and 2.5' rather than 3'; front of 9.8' rather than 10', and rear yard of 2.3 feet rather than 3 feet)
2. he nearest public improvement is actually the sidewalk, however, it is clearly in disrepair and has subsided and staff did not feel it would be appropriate to estimate the elevation of the sidewalk prior to this movement. Instead the westerly flow line was used as the best representation of unaltered grade .

RESOLUTION NO. 97-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ON APPEAL, TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FROM THE SOUTH SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW A 2.2-FOOT SIDE YARD TO REMAIN FOR A GREATER THAN 100 PERCENT EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AT 2429 MYRTLE AVENUE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 24, TRACT 1031

WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 22, 1997, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the subject Variance and to consider oral and written testimony on the matter, and;

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Variance at their meeting of June 17, 1997, and approved the request subject to conditions as contained in Planning Commission resolution 97-45, and;

WHEREAS, after considering the decision of the Planning Commission and their record of decision, and the testimony at the public hearing, the City Council agrees with the Planning Commission, and agrees with the findings and the conditions contained within Planning Commission Resolution 97-45, which are incorporated herein by reference;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY SUSTAIN THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH IN P.C. RESOLUTION 97-45

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 1997,

Agendas / Minutes Menu | Back to Agenda | Top of Page