TITLE
Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing, consider the Belmont Heights Community Association's appeal, and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve a Standards Variance allowing the reconstruction of a second home, demolished without a permit, at
237 Roycroft Avenue within the Single Family Residential zone. (District 3)
DISCUSSION
The proposed project is the reconstruction of a single-family home on the west side of Roycroft Avenue between Vista Street (north) and East Broadway (south). The subject property, an interior lot, measures 6,350 square feet and is located in the R-1-N zone (Single-Family District with Standard Lots). The property currently contains a rear, 926-square-foot guesthouse atop a four-car garage and the footings of a former two-story, 1,925-square-foot single-family front unit. The rebuilding of the front unit, demolished during a small home addition and remodel project in July 2012, is the subject of this request.
On May 10, 2012, plans for a complete remodel of the front unit along with a 108-square-foot front entry addition were filed with Development Services. As part of the remodel, all interior walls of the two-story home were to be removed. Planning corrections issued on May 15, 2012 sought information on the extent of exterior wall removals (removal of more than 50 percent of exterior walls constitutes a demolition) and clarification of the front entry addition height, among other things. Subsequent discussion with the applicant's contractor highlighted the consequences of a potential demolition and the need for a reduced entry addition height.
Plan revisions were made, and on June 18, 2012, building permit BADD135068 was issued for the remodel-addition. Approved plans indicated the removal of only 20.5 linear feet of the structure's exterior walls, all in the area of the front entry addition.
During construction, however, all exterior walls were removed, and the structure was stripped to its footings. This action effectively transformed the project from a remodel-addition to a demolition. Per 21.27.050 of the Zoning Regulations, all rights to a nonconforming use (such as a second unit on a R-1-N lot, as is the case here) are lost if the structure housing the use is demolished. In other words, the legal-nonconforming status of the property to have two residential units was essentially forfeited with the demolition.
The original request was for Standards Variances to reinstate the nonconforming density status of the front unit and an allowance to rebuild the home to its previous nonconforming height of approximately 31 feet 7 inches (as measured, due to the lot's sloping nature, from the grade plane connecting the average top-of-curb elevation and the average rear property line elevation).
The Planning Commission heard the case on September 20, 2012. The staff report and minutes are provided in Exhibit A. At the hearing, neighbors spoke both in support of and in opposition to the rebuild request. Opposition was focused on enforcement of the R-1-N zone's maximum density of one unit per lot. The neighborhood was rezoned from R-2 (Two-Family Residential) in January 1998 after a six-year community effort to reduce the area's density. This position was reiterated by the Belmont Heights Community Association (BHCA) in their submitted comment letter and oral testimony.
After presentations by eight speakers, including the applicant, and a lengthy discussion behind the rail, the Planning Commission approved the Standards Variance allowing the home rebuild but denied the Standards Variance request to rebuild at a height exceeding the R-1-N zone's height maximum of 25 feet. On September 27, 2012, the BHCA appealed the home rebuild decision to the City Council. The appeal, provided in Exhibit B, was filed within the prescribed timeframe in accordance with the Municipal Code. Because the applicant did not appeal the Planning Commission's denial of the height variance, this request is not part of the appeal and therefore not under consideration.
The Planning Commission approval of the rebuild was based largely on the fact that the proposal would be consistent with the prevailing neighborhood development pattern, which typically features a smaller structure at the rear of the property and a larger, primary structure on the front-half. Their denial of the height variance request was based on the subject lot's sloping nature, which results in height measurements being taken from a grade plane that's higher than the standard top-of-curb grade, and staff's findings in favor of eliminating the home's previous height nonconformity. Findings supporting the Planning Commission's determination on the home rebuild variance are attached for the Council's review and consideration.
This matter was reviewed by Assistant City Attorney Michael Mais on October 30, 2012 and by Budget Management Officer Victoria Bell on October 23, 2012.
TIMING CONSIDERATIONS
The Long Beach Municipal Code Section 21.21.504 requires City Council action within 60 days of receiving an application for appeal. The subject appeal was received on September 27, 2012.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact and no local job impact as a result of the recommended action.
SUGGESTED ACTION
Approve recommendation.
Respectfully Submitted,
AMY BODEK, AICP
DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
APPROVED:
PATRICK H. WEST
CITY MANAGER