Loading...
231, Permit an existing accessory b, Staff ReportsMEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 6, 2002 CRAIG NEALIS, CITY MANAGER YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER 31 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD — VARIANCE FOR STABLE CONVERSION IN FRONT YARD. In 1979, the property owners of 31. Portuguese Bend Road, Dr. and Mrs. Wishner, applied to the Planning Commission for a Variance to convert a structure that was originally built as a stable to a playroom. The structure was located in the front yard setback and encroached into the roadway easement, thus the requirement for a Variance. The Planning Commission denied the request to convert the structure into a playroom, stating that the structure was in an "undesirable location" and that a stable use was more appropriate in that location. The property owners appealed the Commission's decision to the City Council. The City Council reversed the Commission's decision and approved the conversion. A location for a future stable, to be located in the side yard, was designated on the plans. Copies of the Planning Commission and City Council minutes regarding this case are attached. „4 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ci1y 0/eo Pfi..y DPP INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957 NO. 2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIF. 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 E-mail: cityofrh@aol.com FEBRUARY 6, 2002 CRAIG NEALIS, CITY MANAGER YOLANTA SCHWARTZ, PRINCIPAL PLANNER 31 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD — VARIANCE FOR STABLE CONVERSION IN FRONT YARD. In 1979, the property owners of 31 Portuguese Bend Road, Dr. and Mrs. Wishner, applied to the Planning Commission for a Variance to convert a structure that was originally built as a stable to a playroom. The structure was located in the front yard setback and encroached into the roadway easement, thus the requirement for a Variance. The Planning Commission denied the request to convert the structure into a playroom, stating that the structure was in an "undesirable location” and that a stable use was more appropriate in that location. The property owners appealed the Commission's decision to the City Council. The City Council reversed the Commission's decision and approved the conversion. A location for a future stable, to be located in the side yard, was designated on the plans. Copies of the Planning Commission and City Council minutes regarding this case are attached. Printed on Recycled Paper. HEARING ON APPEAL, ZONING CASE NO. 231, DR. STANLEY WISHNER 750 6.z7., • Mayo "Swanson opened a hearing on appeal filed by Dr. Stanley Wishner, 31 Portuguese Bend Road, on denial by the Planning Comm scion of a request for a front yard variance for an existing structure in the front yard. The Mayor asked that the record show that all members of the Council received an excerpt from the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on June 5, reporting the Commission's action. Councilman Crocker suggested that since the basis for the denial was the proximity of the structure, which was built as a stable but is now used for storage, to a proposed residence. addition, the Council could consider requiring that the building be modified so that 50% could be used as a stable and 50% could be used for storage, with a requirement that the entry to the stable be more than 35 feet from the residence and the storage portion of the building could be closer to the proposed residence addition. To enforce the stipulation with regard to use, Councilman Crocker said a covenant could be required from the owner. Mr. Kinley said such a covenant could lead to further litigation to enforce, and he advised against it. Councilman Heins- heimer said it was contrary to the characteristic of the community to require that an existing stable be removed, or that the use be changed to accommodate a residence addition. Mayor Swanson said the structure was built in 1944, before the zoning ordinance was in existence, and was not in conflict with any regulations at that time. The problem now exists because the Wishners wish to add on to their home in the only practical manner, which brings the accessory building into conflict with their plans. Commissioner Pernell said he would like to hear from the appellant. Dr. Wishner said he wished to add three bedrooms and two baths, while trying to maintain the character of the community and preserve the atmosphere of his property. Dr. Wishner said a lot of work had gone into the project before the problem became evident, and he asked that progress of the residence addition not depend on removal of an existing building. Councilman Heinsheimer asked for clarification of the matter with regard to requiring a front yard variance for a structure in the front set back, and he asked whether an additional variance was necessary if the structure was not to be used as a stable. Mr. Kinley said the only request made to the Planning Commission was for a front yard var- iance for an existing structure in the front set back, and the word "stable" was not used in the motion of denial by the Commission. Mr. George Shaw, architect for Dr. Wishner, displayed the plan and he advised the Council that an area for a stable with access to it was. provided in a legal location as required by the ordinance. In a straw vote of the Council Mayor Swanson determined that all mem- bers of the Council were agreeable to leaving the building as it is. Councilman Pernell said he was concerned about the future use under new ownership, since the building does look like a stable. The City Attorney said the Council could attach a condition prohibiting future use of the building as a stable. Councilman Crocker moved that the Council over rule the decision of the Planning Commission and grant a front yard variance on condition that the building not be used to house animals. Councilman Rose secon- ded the motion. The City Manager advised the Council that she was concerned about a lack of consistency in approving the variance for the structure, and also about the difficulty of enforcing the conditions of approval. She asked that the Council give serious thought to the precedent that they might be establishing. Mr. Kinley said enforcement could be assured either by a covenant or by a restriction on the use. Councilman Rose said he would prefer a covenant. Councilman Pernell asked why a cov- enant would be preferable to a condition attached to the approval; Councilman Crocker said a covenant would be a matter of record on the title policy. Councilman Rose amended the motion to require that the approval of the front yard variance be subject to a covenant regarding use of the structure. The motion was seconded by Councilman Crocker. The amendment to the motion carried on the following roll call' vote: AYES:' Councilmen Crocker, Heinsheimer, Pernell, Rose Mayor Swanson NOES: None ABSENT: None The motion as amended carried on the following roll call vote:. AYES: NOES: ABSENT• Councilmen Crocker, Heinsheimer, Pernell, Rose Mayor Swanson None None The City Attorney advised Dr. Wishner that as a condition of approval, he should have his attorney prepare a covenant to be forwar- ded to Mr. Kinley for approval. Mr. Shaw advised the Council that the plans for the residence 'addition show the main residence 47 feet from the road, and an item on the Council's agenda is second reading and adoption of an amend- ment to the zoning ordinance which would change the front set back requirement from 35 to 50 feet. In discussing the matter members of the Council agreed that there should not be a further delay because of_a subsequent change in the ordinance after consideration of the plans, and it was suggested that an exception be made in Dr. Wishner's case. Mr. Kinley said the ordinance could include an exclusion for all plans which have been submitted, rather than make a single exclu- sion for Dr. Wishner. Further, Mr. Kinley said the date on which the ordinance becomes effective could be delayed to accommodate the plans already submitted. ADJOURNED MEETING June 5 1979 EXCERPTS FROM/.)/ ROLLING HILLS PLANNING COMM. , MINUTES ( ZONING CASE_NO. 231, DR. STANLEY WISHNER, 31 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD 545 601 Chairman Murdock opened discussion of a request by Dr. Stanley Wishner for a variance of front yard requirements. Mr. George Shaw, architect for Dr. Wishner, submitted revised plans showing interior changes to the existing building in the front yard, also modifications to doors and windows, as discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on May 15. Commissioner Field asked whether Planning Commission action would be needed if the request for conversion of the use of the building was withdrawn and non-structural changes were made. Commissioner Hanscom said she visited the site, and it was her opinion that the Planning Commission should not permit the applicant to evade the basic require- ments of the City zoning. She said the building was built as a stable, looks like a stable, and will be too close to the living quarters if the house is remodelled according to plans submitted. Commissioners Watts and Roberts said they agreed with Commissioner Hanscom. Mr. Shaw said he had discussed the matter with Mr. McMullen, County Health Inspector, and Mr. Goodwin; Los Angeles County Engineer,. and thay had agreed that if no animals were kept in the building it is not a stable. Mr. Shaw said the revised plans show modification of the building as discussed at the last meeting. Commissioner Watts said the building should have been shown on the plans originally sub- mitted, and the residence addition should have been designed correctly. Commissioner Hanscom moved that the request for a variance of front yard requirements be denied on the basis that the building was built and used as a stable, and is called out on the plans as a stable. Commissioner Watts seconded the motion. In discussing the motion, Commissioner Field said the reference to a stable was inappropriate and should not be part of the motion. Commissioner Hanscom amended her motion by.deleting ."stable" and substituting "structure". COMMISSIONER HANSCOM WAS EXCUSED FROM THE MEETING AT 9:30 P.M. Dr. Wishner said the plan shows a proposed stable as required by the ordinance, and the building which exists on the property is not used as a stable, and is not pertinent to his application'to improve his property. He asked that the record show that he considers the reference to the structure as a stable as a basis for denying his application a hardship, and he asked that his comments be made part of the record. Commissioner Field said he agrees with Dr. Wishner that the building should not be considered a stable, and it was his opinion that the Planning Commission should address the facts objectively, and should assist the resident if possible. It was his recommenda- tion_that the Planning Commission base their consideration on an accessory building in the front yard, since it is not a stable, and provisions for a stable have been made as required. Commissioner Roberts said he agreed, and he said the Planning Commission should consider whether the plans for additional construction in the area planned would result in too much construction close to the road be - cause of the existing building in the front yard. Chairman Murdock said that Blackwater Canyon Road will be widened, but not in the area where the building is located. To clarify the matter before the Commission, Chairman Murdock said a request was submitted for a variance of front yard requirements.for an accessory ' building in the front yard set back, and the Commission should con- sider the proximity of the building to the proposed residence addition and visibility of the structure from neighboring properties. Commissioner Watts moved that the request for a variance of front yard requirements for an existing structure in the front yard be granted subject to a requirement that the structure be used for storage, that the corral fencing be removed, and that there be no use or habitation of the building by humans or animals. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Roberts moved that the request for a front yard variance be denied, with a finding that the building in the present location is undesireable. The motion was seconded,by Commissioner Field and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Field, Roberts, Chairman Murdock NOES: Commissioner Watts ABSENT: Commissioner Hanscom Chairman Murdock advised Dr. Wishner that he can appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. The Chair- man asked the City Manager to research the matter of relocating the building, to give Dr. Wishner an option to do so if he wishes. GUN1N(i UASL NO. Lail, JJkt. b'1'ANL.L''Y 61116.UNLtt, 01 k'Vtt10001 bJ L$JM'4) DZO ttt)Hil"q S[C Chairman Murdock opened the meeting of a public hearing on an 6�;�/79 • 'application by Dr. Stanley Wishner, 31 Portuguese Bend Road, for a variance of front yard requirements for conversion of an existing stable to a playroom. A letter dated May 15, 1979 from Dr. and Mrs. Richard Hoffman, 73 Portuguese Bend Road, urging that issues such as the request for conversion be determined by reliance upon concrete ordinances, was entered into the file. The Clerk reported that the hearing was duly noticed as required by law, and no comment was re- ceived in favor or opposition to the request from any residents who are within 500' of, the subject property. Chairman Murdock asked the City ;Attorney whether.a playroom, is permitted under the zoning ordinance. Mr. Kinley said there is no provision in the ordinance for a playroom, and if the existing stable in the front yard setback was constructed before the zoning ordinance was adopted, it is a non -conforming use under the ordinance. Mrs. Clifton said there is no record of a building permit for the stable. Mr. George Shaw, architect for the Wishners, advised the Commis- sion that the Wishners have never used the building.as a stable, and they wish to convert it to a playroom for their children. To comply with the requirements that a stable site be shown, the shed and an area around it would be reserved as a stable site, Mr. Shaw said. Mrs. Clifton explained that the Architectural Committee has for some time been reviewing plans for an extensive residence addition submitted by the Wishners, and the plan submitted by the architect did notashow any accessory buildings. When it was determined that there were two accessory buildings on the property, and that one of them, formerly used as a stable, was located in the easement, the matter was referred to the Planning Commission. Further, Mrs. Clifton said a subcommittee of the Architectural Committee had reviewed the final plans for the residence addition and had indicated a willingness to recommend approval of the addition without considering the proximity of the finished residence to the stable. Dr. Wishner advised the Planning Commission that his home is a small two bedroom house, and since the Architectural Committee has approved the residence addition as submitted, he would be willing to leave the building as it is, rather than ask that he be permitted to convert it to a use not included in the zoning ordinance. Dr. Wishner said he does not have a horse, and the building is not used to house animals; at present he said it is used as a shed for storing wood. Mr. Kinley read into the record uses permitted by the Zoning Ordinance in RAS-Zone Regulations, and further, he advised the Commission that the ordinance also provides that no new use may be established on a non- conforming use. Mrs. Clifton said the building is in the front yard and is only eight feet from the road easement instead of the thirty feet required. Mr. Kinley advised the Commission that the matter, before them is a request for a front yard variance for an existing building to be converted to a use not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. If, as Dr. Wishner has indicated, the request for conversion is withdrawn, a violation would still exist, since the stable would be closer to the remodelled residence than the Zoning Ordinance permits, since the addition to the residence is less than 35 feet from the building which 'was built and formerly used as a stable. May 15, 1979 Dr. Wishner said that if he is permitted to keep the building in its present state, used for storage,of wood, he would be willing to post a bond to guarantee that if at any future time the use was con- verted to a stable, he would be willing to move it to a legal location. Commissioner Hanscom said the structure was built as a stable and was formerly used as a stable, and the problem seems to be with the original submittal by the architect, which did not show all structures on the property, as required. Commissioner Field said the Zoning Ordinance provides for accessory buildings, and he asked whether the connotation "accessory building" could be given to the building being discussed. Commissioner Roberts said tha-:; if used for tack, the building would not be a stable unless animals were kept there. Mr. Kinley advised the Commission that the Zoning Ordinance provided that non -conforming use may be.continued, but not be expanded., provided that no structural alterations are made ex- cept those required by law. Commissioner Field said it might be poss- ible for the owner to have the stalls removed and other minor changes made in the doors and windows without actually making any structural alterations such as removing weight bearing walls. Mrs. Clifton said the structure looks like a stable, has been used as a stable, and it was her opinion that the County probably would not issue a building permit for a residence addition which would be less than 35 feet from the structure. Chairman Murdock closed the publichearing, and said she wished to give the architect an opportunity to submit a relabeled plan showing non-structural changes. With the consent of the applicant, Chairman Murdock ordered the matter held on the agenda, and said a field trip would be scheduled on a date to be determined. Further, she asked Mr. Kinley to research the matter of non -conforming use and report to the Commission at the next meeting.