HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 05-51P.C. RESOLUTION NO.05-51
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE RECONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION OF
A BUILDING DAMAGED MORE THAN 50% REPLACEMENT COST ON A PROPERTY
CONTAINING TWO DWELLING UNITS WHICH ARE A NONCONFORMING USE AT
1928 THE STRAND
The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as
follows:
Se�. An application was filed by Cynthia Vix owner of real property located at 1928 The
Strand, requesting to reconstruct and expand an existing building damaged more than 50% on a
property containing a nonconforming use, pursuant to the exception allowed under Section
17.52.070(B 1) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a hearing to consider the application on August
16, 2005, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, were 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 property contains two dwelling units, with the rear unit attached to the two -
car garage. The existing structures were constructed prior to the 1920's with the earliest records
showing a permit for alterations to the house, garage, and apartment in 1922. The front unit was
substantially damaged in 2004 as result of an accidental fire during a remodeling project. The two units
on the property are a nonconforming use because the lot size is not sufficient to qualify for two units in
the R-2 B zone. The structures are also nonconforming to yard, lot coverage, open space, and parking
requirements.
2. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct and expand the front unit, increasing its size
from 1,034 square feet to 1517 square feet. The reconstruction will bring the structure into conformance
with front yard and side yard requirements, and make the property conform with lot coverage
requirements, while existing nonconforming conditions with respect to rear yard, open space, and
parking will remain
Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings:
1. Pursuant to Section 17.52.070B, which otherwise prohibits restoration of nonconforming
buildings damaged more than 50% of replacement cost, the subject project qualifies for the exception of
sub -section B 1, which allows complete restoration of damaged nonconforming structures. Pursuant to
this section, the rebuilt structure is being made as conforming as possible to current zoning standards,
and the project is consistent with the guidelines of Section 17.52.070(B1) since the density of residential
uses does not exceed 45 units per acre, the project complies with the height limit, the restored building is
similar to the damaged building, and the cause of damage was accidental.
2. The scale of the proposed reconstructed building, even thought its being enlarged, is reasonable,
and is consistent with planning and zoning requirements for the R-2 zone and the provisions for
expanding buildings containing nonconforming uses as set forth in Chapter 17.52;
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
2a
29
3. Approval of the expansion is consistent with the intent and goals of Chapter 17.52 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
4. While the expansion is not consistent with Section 17.44.140B pertaining to expanding
residential uses nonconforming to parking requirements, and containing only one parking space per unit
(since the amount of expansion is 500 square feet rather than the maximum 250 square feet) the
Planning Commission is recommending an amendment to this section to allow 500 square feet.
Approval of this project is contingent upon the City Council adopting this text amendment.
5. The project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, Section 15301 e(2) with the finding that the project is in
an area with available services and not in an environmentally sensitive area.
Section a. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the
reconstruction and expansion of an existing nonconforming dwelling unit, damaged more than 50%,
subject to the following Conditions of Approval:
1. The project shall be consistent with submitted plans. Minor modifications to the plan
not involving any further expansion or remodel may be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director.
2. The approval of this proposed amount of expansion (483 square feet) is contingent upon
City Council adoption of the Planning Commission recommended text amendment to
increase the amount of allowed expansion for a nonconforming use containing one
parking space per unit from 250 square feet to 500 square feet. Should the Council not
adopt this amendment, the amount of expansion of the structure as compared with the
damaged structure shall be not exceed 250 square feet:
3. The applicant shall submit all required plans and reports in two steps to comply with
the City's construction debris recycling program including manifests from both the
recycler and County landfill, prior to final approval of building demolition and issuance
of building permits, and prior to project final approval
4. Upon issuance of building permits the project shall proceed in compliance with the
scope of work outlined on the plans and any further demolition or construction
contrary to said plans will result in project delays in order for the City to review project
modifications, and may require new plan submittals and Planning Commission review
to proceed with construction work.
VOTE:: AYES: Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Allen, Hoffinan
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 05-51 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 August 16, 2005.
Ron Pizer, Chairman Sol BlUmenle d, Secretary
Au ust 16, 2.005
Date
F AB 95\CD\PC\2005\08-16-05\NRR 1928. DOC