HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 97-611
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. 97-61
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
DENYING A VARIANCE FROM LOT COVERAGE AND
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A PROPOSED
SINGLE-FAMU.,Y DWELLING AT 220 4TH STREET
The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as
follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by Mark Poucher, owner of real property located at 220
4th Street of Hermosa Beach, seeking a Variance from the maximum lot coverage requirement of
Section 17 .16. 070 and of the Zoning Ordinance and building height requirement of Section
17.16.020(A) of the Zoning Ordinance relative to a proposed new single-family residence .
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing to
consider the application for a Variance on October 21, 1997, 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:
1. The applicant desires to construct a new residence without adhering to the now applicable
maximum lot coverage requirement of 65% and maximum height requirement of30-feet as contained
in the Zoning Ordinance Sections 17. 16.070 and l 7.16.020(A).
2. The proposed new single-family structure would result in lot coverage of 6.8% over the
maximum of 65% and a building height 4.8 higher than the maximum 30 feet.
Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual :findings, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings pertaining to the application for a Variance from the lot coverage and height
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance:
1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances relating to the size, shape,
topography or location of the property to justify, or cause a need to vary from the lot coverage and/or
height requirements of the R-3 zone. The slope and terrain of the subject lot is similar with
surrounding lots, and the while the lot is small it is also similar to other half-lots throughout the City,
and can be developed with a single-family home in compliance with zoning requirements.
2. The Variance is not necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right or privileges
possessed by other properties in the vicinity, as the applicant may enjoy the use of an adequately sized
single-family home, consistent with similar homes in the area, and enjoy several privileges and property
rights associated with that use. The additional rights and privileges sought by the Variance request, to
expand beyond what is proportional to the lot size, and to exceed the height limit are not currently
possessed by most other properties in the vicinity.
1
.,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
3. Granting the requested Variances may be potentially detrimental to surrounding properties
as extra building mass and height would be constructed, marginally increasing obstruction of view
corridors, and resulting in slightly more bulk than appropriate or proportional for such a small property.
4. Granting the Variances would result in a project that would potentially be inconsistent with
the established character of the neighborhood and, therefore, inconsistent with the general goals and
objectives the General Plan. While several surrounding properties were constructed to a maximum
height of35 feet, pursuant to the old requirements of The R -3 zone, there are several other structures
in the vicinity, including. the adjacent property to the east which are only one or two stories.
5. Pursuant to State and local law, a Variance may only be granted when, because of special
circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, and topography, location or
surroundings, that the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance deprives such property of privileges
enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.. Based on the
foregoing :findings, the Variance, therefore, cannot be granted.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies the subject
12 Variance.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
VOTE: AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comm. Perrotti, Schwartz, Pizer, Chmn. Tucker
None
None
Comm. Merl
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 97-61 is a true and complete record of the
taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their
regular meeting of October 21, 1997.
Date
2