Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 03-131 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 RESOLUTION NO.03-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT STANDARD OF THE R-3 ZONE AND THEREBY DENYING A REQUEST TO ALLOW TWO UNITS ON A 2,611 SQUARE FOOT LOT LOCATED AT 1220 SUNSET DRIVE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 8, TRACT 1851 The Planning Commission does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section L An application was filed by Victoria and Andrew Igloi owners of property at 1220 Sunset, seeking approval of a Variance from the lot area per dwelling unit standard of the R- 3 zone as set forth in Section 17.16.090 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the development of two units. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Variance on March 18, 2003, 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. Section 17.16.090 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the "minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall not be less than 1,320 square feet, which means that a minimum of 2,640 square feet is required on any lot to develop two dwelling units. 2. The subject lot contains 2,611 square feet and, therefore, does not contain sufficient lot area to qualify for two units pursuant to Section 17.16.090. 3. The lot area per dwelling unit standard of the R-3 zone is derived from the General Plan density ranges. In the High Density Residential category the range goes up to a maximum of 33 units per acre, which equates to one unit per 1,320 square feet. 4. The property is one of 7 similar lots on the block between Loma Drive and Sunset Drive between Pier Avenue and 1Ith Street that are also 30 feet wide that contain slightly less than 2,640 square feet. Five of the seven lots are currently developed with 2-units and are nonconforming uses as they are nonconforming to lot area per dwelling unit standard of the R-3 zone, while the subject lot and lot 6, at 1305 Loma Drive, are developed with conforming single family dwellings. Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the following findings pertaining to the application for a Variance: 1 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s 26 27 2e 29 1. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do not apply to property involved since 6 other lots in this block share almost exactly the same circumstance and contain a lot area slightly below the threshold for an additional unit, and other lots throughout the City share this conditions (with a lot size falling below the threshold for an additional unit). 2. A Variance is not necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity of the subject property since the current zoning regulations afford the same rights as other similar properties in the vicinity whether they are currently developed with one or two units, and it is possible to develop a single-family dwelling to a scale and size as permitted by the development standards of the R-3 zone. The applicant argues that the vast majority of properties within the vicinity also within the R-3 zone are developed with two or more units, and failure to grant this "minor" variance in the lot area per dwelling unit standard for this lot violates the owners rights to avail themselves of the same rights and opportunities. While it may be true that a majority of other lots in the vicinity are developed with multiple units, this applicant's argument fails to note that these developments on similar lots are nonconforming to current codes, and thus these same properties could not be redeveloped with two new units or 2-unit condominiums as they are nonconforming uses, and are limited by Chapter 17.50 of the Zoning Ordinance. The other lots developed with two or more units are located on properties that are larger, either 30-feet x 100-feet or 40-feet x 100- feet and therefore, have sufficient land area to allow two or more units under the R-3 standards. When considering these facts, it is clear the property right the applicant is seeking is not possessed by other properties in the vicinity, and to the contrary, if granted would be granting a privilege not otherwise possessed by other property owners. 3. A Variance would potentially be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which it is located because it would add one more unit and would double the density on the subject lot with consequences on both congestion and traffic. Further while only one additional unit arguably is not materially detrimental, the cumulative impact could certainly be material if this Variance sets a trend or precedent and similar Variances are granted. 4. The granting of the Variance will conflict with the provisions of and be detrimental to the Hermosa Beach General Plan as the subject property is located in the land use category High Density Residential with a maximum density range of 33 units per acre, and if the property were developed with two units the subject lot would have a density of 33.36 units per acre. Further, The General Plan Land Use Element clearly states in Policy 1.1-1 that residential development at greater densities than permitted by the General Plan land use designation are prohibited. This statement is not qualified with any flexible standard or methodology whereby a larger area can be used to base the calculation on, depending on the circumstances. In fact, if the standard were so flexible, it would be impossible to implement the General Plan in any practical or equitable way since the density could be calculated wherever one wanted to pick and choose the area or boundaries for calculation depending on their desired result. Therefore the density standard must logically apply to the project area only. In this case the density on the subject lot clearly is inconsistent with and conflicts with the maximum density allowed by the General Plan. 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 5. To grant a Variance the Commission must make all four required findings pursuant to Section 7.54.030 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to State Government Code as follows: 1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property involved; 2) The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question; 3) The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located, and 4) The Variance is consistent with the General Plan. As stated above, the Commission is unable to make any one of these required findings. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies the subject 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. AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 03-13 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 March 18, 2003. Ron Pizer, Chairm, n. March 18, 2003 Date Varr1220sunset "Blumenf ld, §ecretary 3