HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 05-721
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
RESOLUTION NO.05-72
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE
LOT COVERAGE AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, AND
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE VALUATION INCREASE FOR A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO ALLOW AN
ADDITION AND REMODEL OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING, RESULTING IN 70.9% LOT COVERAGE RATHER THAN
THE MAXIMUM 65%, A 214% VALUATION INCREASE RATHER
THAN THE MAXIMUM 100%, AND PROVIDING NO OPEN SPACE
DIRECTLY ADJACENT AND ACCESSIBLE TO A PRIMARY LIVING
AREA AT 311 31IT STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT. 23,
BLOCK 117, SHAKESPEARE TRACT
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve and order as follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by Thomas and Barbara Zondiros, owners of the
property located at 311 31st Street seeking Variances to allow an addition and remodel of an
existing legal nonconforming single-family residence resulting in 70.9% lot coverage rather than
the 65% maximum, a 214% valuation increase rather than the 100% maximum, and no open
space directly adjacent and accessible to a primary living area rather than the required 180 square
feet.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the application for the Variances on December 7, 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 lot is considered a "small lot" under the R-1 development standards, as it is 2100
square feet.
2. The Variance to the maximum allowable valuation increase of 100% for a
nonconforming structure is needed because the proposed expansion and remodel results in a
214% increase in valuation. Pursuant to Chapter 17.52 of the Zoning Ordinance, the maximum
allowable valuation increase for an expansion and remodel of an existing nonconforming
structure is 100%.
3. The Variance to lot coverage is needed because the proposed addition causes lot coverage
to be increased by 296 square feet (approximately 14%) to accommodate an enlarged garage,
resulting in 70.9% lot coverage rather than the required 65% maximum.
4. The Variance to open space is needed because the proposed open space will not be directly
adjacent and accessible to a primary living area rather than having 180 square feet directly adjacent
and accessible to a primary living area.
1
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
28
29
Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings pertaining to the application for a Variance to allow an addition and remodel of
an existing legal nonconforming single-family residence resulting in 70.9% lot coverage rather
than the 65% maximum, a 214% valuation increase rather than the 100% maximum, and no open
space directly adjacent and accessible to a primary living area rather than the required 180 square
feet.
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limited to the physical conditions
applicable to the subject property because the lot is considered a "small lot" on a walk street with
the only garage access off a narrow 10-foot wide alley at the rear of the property. Because the
garage access is limited to the rear of the property, the requirement that 60% of the usable open
space be located adjacent to primary living areas cannot be provided adjacent to primary living
areas on the ground floor without significantly reducing the buildable area of the project.
2. The owners wish to exercise a property right, possessed by others in the neighborhood, to
construct a single family home to meet current standards of livability and to be a reasonable size.
The Variances to open space and lot coverage are necessary for this dwelling to maintain the
primary living area on the ground floor without also being forced to significantly reduce the
building footprint, and provide parking which is not currently provided. The Variance from the
maximum valuation increase for nonconforming structures is needed in order for the dwelling to
reach a size that is comparable to other dwellings in the neighborhood. The property fronts on a
walk street that effectively provides open space and is a desirable feature enjoyed by other
properties with a walk street orientation. The combined conditions of the small lot and narrow rear
alley parking access create an unusual hardship in providing open space that is directly accessible to
the primary living area yet contiguous with the walk street, and therefore denies a property right that
other similar walk street properties enjoy.
3. The project will not likely be materially detrimental to property improvements in the
vicinity and Zone since the project complies with all other requirements of the Zoning Code, and is
not inconsistent with development in the neighborhood.
4. The project is not unusually large or out of scale with other new projects in the
neighborhood, and is otherwise in conformance with most of the- requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance and the General Plan.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing, and since the Planning Commission can make all 4
required findings as required by Section 17.54.020 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning
Commission hereby approves the requested Variances from the lot coverage and open space
requirements, and maximum valuation increase subject to the following conditions of approval.
1. The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with
submitted plans received and reviewed by the Planning Commission at their
meeting of December 7, 2005.
E
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
VOTE: AYES: Allen, Hoffrnan, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 05-72 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 December 7, 2005.
Ron Pizer, Chairman
7ecember 7 2005
Date
I VARR311
a
Sol Blumeecretary
3