HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 06-12 - (320 and 440 Massey Ave)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
RESOLUTION NO, 06-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO
ALLOW AN ADDITION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING CHURCH
TO EXCEED THE 25-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT OF THE R-1 ZONE AT 320
AND 440 MASSEY AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1
THROUGH 8 AND LOTS 21 THROUGH 40, HERMOSA HEIGHTS
TRACT, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 9, BLOCK 87, 2ID ADDITION
TO HERMOSA BEACH
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve and order as follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, owner
of the property located at 320 and 440 Massey Avenue seeping a Variance in order to allow the
construction of a new addition and remodel of the existing church to exceed the 25-foot height limit of
the R- I zone.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
application for the Variances on February 21, 2006, at which testimony and evidence, both written and
oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission.
Section 3. Based on the evidence received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission
makes the following factual findings:
I . The property is 89,669 square feet, and is surrounded by smaller residential properties in the
R-1 zone.
2. A convex slope condition exists along the north property line (on 5rh Street). However, even
with the use of top of convex slope elevations as the basis for the height measurement the proposed
church addition will still be 11.86 feet over the maximum height limit.
3. The applicant states that the church has not been renovated since it was originally constructed
in 1959, and that the addition and remodel is needed to provide greater handicapped access, a more
contemporary "in -the -round" seating layout for the main worship/assembly area, and more pleasing
esthetic changes.
4. The new seating plan for the main worship area is less efficient than the existing long, nave -
style seating plan and will decrease the amount of seating available within the main worship area.
Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings pertaining to the application for a Variance from the maximum height limit of the R-
1 zone:
1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limited to the physical conditions
applicable to the property involved because even though some unique conditions exist with respect to
the slope and large size of the property, these conditions are not so exceptional that the property should
be exempt from the height provisions of the Zone Code, nor do they justify an addition that is over 11
feet above the height limit in the R-1 zone. Also, these unique conditions actually provide more
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
28
29
opportunities and options for a substantial amount of development in compliance with the height
standards than would be possible on any of the surrounding smaller lots.
2. The Variance is not necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by
other properties in the same vicinity and zone primarily because the proposed additional square footage,
revised seating plan for the main worship/assembly area, and other improvements can be accomplished
through other design options which do not require a Variance from the height limit. Furthermore, when
the Planning Commission originally approved the CUP for the church use in 1958, they allowed the
church to be built to a maximum height of 65-feet as measured from the first floor finished grade. By
approving a CUP that allowed the church to be built using a 65-foot height limit, the 1958 Planning
Commission granted the church use a property right and privilege not possessed or enjoyed by other
properties in the neighborhood. The purpose of a Variance is to ensure parity with surrounding
properties, and approval of the Variance will increase an existing privilege not possessed by other
properties in the vicinity and zone.
3. The granting of the Variances 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
because the proposed addition and remodel as constructed will reduced the seating capacity of the main
worship area, will not obstruct any access to sunlight, and may have at worst a minor impact on views
of some neighboring properties.
4. The Variance is consistent with the General Plan because the project does not bring up any
issues or concerns that directly conflict with the General Plan, as there is no substantial change in the
use of the property.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing, and since the Planning Commission cannot make all 4
required finding as required by Section 17.54.020 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission
hereby denies the requested Variance.
Section 6. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 any legal challenge to the
decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made within
90 days after the final decision by the City Council.
VOTE: AYES:
Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 06-12 is a true and complete record of the action
taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular
meeting of February 21, 2006.
Peter Hoffman,
February 21, 2006
Date
Sol Blumenipld, Secretary
VARR320