HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 05-05 - (Denying CUP and Variance 1301-Manhattan Ave)
1
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
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 05-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PERMANENT DECK COVER
ON THE SECOND FLOOR DECK, AND SEASONAL TENT ON THE UPPER FLOOR DECK TO EXCEED THE 30-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AT UNION CATTLE COMPANY RESTAURANT AT 1301 MANHATTAN AVENUE The Planning Commission does hereby resolve and order as follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by Allen Sanford, owner of the restaurant, Union Cattle Company, located at 1301 Manhattan Avenue, seeking a Conditional Use Permit Amendment and a Variance to allow to allow a permanent deck cover on the second floor deck, and seasonal tent on the upper floor deck and to allow these deck structures to exceed the height limit.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance on January 18, 2005, 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 is requesting approval of a Variance to maintain an existing deck cover and seasonal tent structure located on the 2nd and 3rd level decks respectively, which exceed the height
limit, and which were constructed without required permits. These alterations also require
amending the Conditional Use Permit for the restaurant with on-sale alcohol. 2. The illegal condition surfaced as a code enforcement action in October 2004 when the City’s code enforcement officer discovered the structures and issued a notice to remove the illegal
structures.
3. The second floor deck is adjacent to the banquet room on the second floor of the building. A deck cover trellis structure was permitted for this deck when the restaurant was Einstein’s,
equipped with a retractable canvas roof, and is shown on the approved plans for Union Cattle
Company. However, the deck cover that was issued a building permit was below the existing roofline, and sloped down at a much lower ceiling clearance than the new cover in order to comply with the 30-foot height limit. The newer structure extends above the existing roofline creating a much higher clearance, and exceeds the height limit by as much as 6 feet at the peak of the sloped
roof. The proposed seasonal “canvas” tent, which also is considered a structure, is located on the
upper most level deck, and is 8-9 feet above the height limit at its highest point. 4. Variances are necessary for both proposed structures as they exceed the 30-foot height limit for the C-2 zone, and cannot be considered as elements that are allowed to exceed the height limit
pursuant to Chapter 17.46.
Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the following findings pertaining to the application for a Variance:
2
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
1. The applicant has not demonstrated that exceptional or unusual conditions exist with respect to the physical conditions of the property. The lot is fairly typical of lots in the vicinity sloping from east to west, and with the construction of the building in 1997 it is clearly a site that can accommodate a fairly substantial development project, with two levels of parking and two floor levels above, which include the subject restaurant which contains ample interior seating and banquet
areas in addition to the exterior seating. 2. The proposed Variance is not necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right. The relatively recent development of the property has established a variety of commercial uses demonstrating that that a substantial property right is currently being enjoyed by several businesses
on the property including the subject restaurant. The applicant appears to be seeking to obtain a special privilege, well beyond the substantial property rights currently enjoyed, to exceed the height limit otherwise applicable to surrounding properties, and to convert areas that were always constructed and intended to be outdoor dining in order to partially enclose and weather proof these spaces.
3. The project may potentially be materially detrimental to property improvements in the vicinity and zone since the project as constructed may marginally obstruct some views, or access to sunlight, of adjacent properties. While the construction apparently does not obstruct prominent westerly views to the ocean from properties directly to east, it potentially has impact on other views
from a southerly or northerly direction, or at angles from the northeast or southeast. 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 and since the Variance is necessary to amend the
Conditional Use Permit the Commission hereby denies the requested amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. VOTE: AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: Koenig
ABSENT: Allen CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 05-5 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 January 18, 2005.
Sam Perrotti, Chairman Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary January 18, 2005 Date
F:\B95\CD\PC\2005\01-18-05\cupamend1301-resolution.DOC