Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 09-29 - (212 35th St. Variance)P.C. RESOLUTION NO.09-29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A NEW TWO -CAR GARAGE WITH A SIX-FOOT FOUR -INCH SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED SEVENTEEN FOOT SETBACK, IN CONNECTION WITH A REMODEL AND EXPANSION OF TWO EXISTING NONCONFORMING DWELLING UNITS AT 212 35TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NW 30' MEASURED ON NE & SW LINES OF LOT 1, BLOCK 120, SHAKESPEARE TRACT, HERMOSA BEACH. The Planning Commission does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Steve Lust and Kesa Tsuda, owners of property located at 212 35th Street in Hermosa Beach, seeking a Variance from Municipal Code Section 17.44.090(C) Off -Street Parking Location, to allow a new two -car garage with a 6-foot 4-inch front yard setback, rather than the required 17 feet (replacing an existing one -car garage with a nonconforming 3-foot 1-inch setback), in connection with a remodel and expansion of two existing nonconforming dwelling units. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance (VAR 09-2) on October 20, 2009, at which time 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 subject 3,000 square foot lot located at the southeast corner of Manhattan Avenue and 35th Street is 30 feet wide by 100 feet deep. 2. The subject lot is currently developed with two nonconforming dwelling units built in 1951 with a total of three parking spaces. A one -car garage attached to Unit 2 provides parking for Unit 1, which fronts Manhattan Avenue and a two -car garage fronting Bayview Drive provides parking for Unit 2. A 100 square foot expansion was constructed in 1998. 3. The existing two dwellings units exhibits the following nonconformities: • Density: existing two units, rather than one unit, are located on the 3,000 square foot lot • Lot coverage: existing 66.9% rather than the maximum allowed 65% • Front yard setback (Manhattan Ave): existing 3.67-feet, rather than the required 5- feet • Side yard setback: existing 1.75-feet (north) and 2.9-feet (south), rather than 3-feet on each side 1 • Rear yard setback (Bayview Dr.): existing 2.25-feet on ground level and zero setback on the second level, rather than 3-feet on the ground level and 1-foot on the second level • Separation between buildings: existing 3-feet rather than the required 6-feet • Open space: existing no open space for Unit 1 (Manhattan Ave) and 364 square feet for Unit 2 (Bayview Dr.), rather than 300 square feet for each dwelling unit • Parking: existing 1 space for Unit 1 (nonconforming setback and depth) and 2 spaces for Unit 2 (nonconforming to depth), rather than 2 spaces (8.5-ft wide by 20-ft deep inside garage) for each unit and 1 guest space if the space is directly accessible to both units. 4. The applicant is proposing to remodel and expand both units by a total of 954 square feet of floor area, resulting in a total of 3,009 square feet. A two -car garage with a setback of 6 feet-4 inches is proposed to replace the existing one -car garage serving Unit 1 (Manhattan Avenue). A Variance is requested to allow this reduced setback rather than the required 17-foot setback. The applicant states that retaining the existing driveway off of 35 h Street (rather than reorienting it to Manhattan Ave.) will minimize the amount of demolition required for the existing structure (Unit 1). The proposed improvements will also reorient Unit 1 so the entrance to the unit fronts 35th Street. 5. Pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections 17.52.030.A.2 and 17.52.035.B.3, expansion of nonconforming use buildings is limited to a cumulative total of 500 square feet when less than two parking spaces are provided for each dwelling unit. In order to exceed that amount, the site must provide at least two conforming parking spaces for each unit and the expansion must not exceed 50% of existing floor area. If the existing three parking spaces were maintained, then expansion would be limited to 400 square feet, in addition to the previous 100 square foot addition in 1998. The applicant stated that a 400 square feet addition on the property as an alternative that would not require a Variance is not financially viable and would result in architectural inconsistency for the two dwellings. Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the following findings pertaining to the application for a Variance pursuant to Section 17.54.020 of the Municipal Code: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that exceptional circumstances applicable to the property exit. The subject lot is a corner lot of rectangular shape with 30-foot width and 100-foot depth. The lot is not unusual, shallow or small as compared to neighboring properties in the same zone. The 3,000 square foot lot with 30 by 100 foot dimensions is typical of corner lots in the vicinity and is larger than 88 of the 108 lots in the same zoning district withinn the vicinity, including the adjoining two lots on the same block which also take access from Manhattan Avenue. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated the Variance is necessary for the preservation of property rights possessed by other properties in the vicinity. The applicant currently enjoys the ability to have two dwelling units (which in itself is a nonconforming condition) on an R-2 zoned lot and is not constrained from extensively remodeling the units while meeting the code, by either reorienting parking or reducing the expansion to 400 square feet or less. Within the adjacent R-2 area, most properties with two units provide livable area under 2,000 square feet, with a few ranging up to 2,900 square feet Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission is unable to make all the findings required by Section 17.54.020(B) and hereby denies the request for a 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: Chairman Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Darcy NOES: Allen ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None L 91 • t ♦ • I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 09-29 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 October 20, 2009 and memorialized on November 17, 2009,E PeteVbfN4n, Chairman men Robertson, Secretary Date Var212 35t` St