Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 09-17 - (450 30th St.-Legal Det.)P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 09-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DENYING A LEGAL DETERMINATION FOR AN APARTMENT OVER A GARAGE AS A SEPARATE, SECOND DWELLING UNIT AT 450 30th STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 26, BLOCK 126, SHAKESPEARE TRACT, CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 17.60 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Jeff and Kim Sussman, seeking a legal determination that a second dwelling unit at 450 30th Street be declared legal and city records be corrected, including a determination specifically that an apartment over a garage at the rear of the property is legal nonconforming. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 16, 2009 to consider the request, at which time the Staff Report, testimony and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Section 3. Based on the Staff Report, testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: 1. The R-2 zoned site was approved for one unit in 1955. A 400 square foot rumpus room and bathroom were added over the garage by permit issued in 1964 accompanied by a recorded Affidavit and Agreement precluding use of this space as a dwelling unit, and the permit was finaled in 1965. 2. The 400 square foot second unit in question is nonconforming as to current zoning standards pertaining to density (1750 square feet of lot area per unit required), dwelling size (600 square feet for a studio or one bedroom dwelling required) and parking (3 spaces per unit required), and without a lot survey it is not easy to determine whether the improvements may be nonconforming to setbacks, open space or other provisions. 3. The property was zoned R-2 in 1964/1965. Section 500 of Article 5 of Zoning Ordinance No. N.S. 154 in effect at that time allowed "a two-family unit [duplex], provided that detached one -family dwelling will be allowed if one existed on the lot on the effective date of this ordinance [June 19, 1956] provided all yard requirements are conformed to." Although an attached second unit (duplex type structure) could have been permitted, a second, detached residential unit would not have been allowed under the Zoning Ordinance at the time of construction in 1964/1965 because a detached one -family unit did not already exist on the lot in 1956. 4. While the Assessor's 'Single Residential Property Appraisal Record' appears to indicate that a second unit was added to the tax roll in 1965, there is no evidence that the city approved or supplied to the Assessor information that the space was a legal second unit, and it is not clear why the Assessor's records were modified to show two units. While the owner alleges that the 1965 improvements may have authorized the second unit as a legal unit because the Assessor started assessing the second unit in April 1965, close to the time the building permit for the rumpus room and bathroom was fmaled„ there is no evidence that the City, as the building authority, approved installation of the kitchen and use of the area as a separate, dwelling unit. 5. Evidence presented by the owner that in 2001/02, 2006/07 and 2008/09, the property was assessed landscape and/or lighting tax rates applicable to two units is not conclusive evidence of two legal units because assessment data is based on the Assessor's records which were erroneous, and hence, the assessments do not in and of themselves provide a new source of information demonstrating that the unit was consistent with the zoning code (as a dwelling unit) when constructed. 6. City field inspections in 1975 and 2001 indicated that the property was potentially being used for two units, although notations on the reports raised questions as to the legality; however, the City's Residential Building Report issued in 2001 at the time of sale to the current owners indicated only one unit to be legal. Moreover, information provided or available to the current owners who purchased the property on March 23, 2001 included the recorded Affidavit and Agreement restricting the use of the area to accessory uses only (which should have appeared in a title report issued at the time of purchase) and the Residential Building Report dated February 28, 2001 stating the property contained one unit. While the owner has supplied more than 10 letters supporting the application, the adjacent property owners stated that, based on personal knowledge, prior to the current owner the space was used as an office and was not rented as a second unit. 8. While the owner has referenced past legal determination cases at 1533 Manhattan Avenue/1534 Palm Drive, each case is unique and the facts and findings cannot necessarily be translated to other cases, and the disposition of cases may differ depending on the evidence presented in each case. Nevertheless, in the case of 402 8th Street (where a second unit was declared legal nonconforming) the Residential Building Report for that site stated the property contained a single family unit plus living quarters in part of the garage. In the case of 1533 Manhattan Avenue/1534 Palm Drive (where a fourth unit was validated), and the evidence presented was stronger to indicate that the unit may have been legally constructed prior to 1959 and presumed valid under Section 17.60.020. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, pursuant to H.B.M.C. Section 17.60.080, the Planning Commission declares the approximately 400 square foot second unit (apartment over garage) at 450 30th Street to not be a legal nonconforming unit. 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: Darcy,Hoffman,Perrotti,Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. No. 09-17 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 June 16, 2009. Ron Pizer, Chairman K � o � e 6if,ecre—tary July 21, 2009 Date M