HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 03-63RESOLUTION NO.03-63
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
28
29
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUESTED VARIANCE
TO ALLOW A GREATER THAN 250 SQUARE FEET ADDITION ON A
PROPERTY CONTAINING THREE UNITS WITH LESS THAN TWO
PARKING SPACES PER UNIT AT 1427 MONTEREY BOULEVARD
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve and order as follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by William Febbo owner of real property located at 259
1427 Monterey Boulevard in Hermosa Beach, seeking a Variance from Section 17.44.140(B), to
allow a greater than 250 square foot expansion to a property with less than two parking spaces per
dwelling unit.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the application for a Variance on November 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. The subject lot is zoned R-1 and contains 2,909 square feet with a dimension of 29.09'
in width X 100' in depth.
2. The subject property is currently developed with a single story home on the front part of
the lot with a single car garage, and a two-story stacked duplex on the rear with a two -car garage
with access to the alley. City records show that the single -story home was constructed in 1931 and
was partially remodeled in 1986. No records are available regarding the original construction date
of the apartment in the rear, but it was determined to be a legal two units in 1974. In 1984 it was
substantially remodeled and expanded pursuant to a Variance granted by the City Council, allowing
the expansion despite nonconforming side yards and nonconforming parking. The current use as
three units is a nonconforming use in the R-3 zone, as the lot size only permits 2 units. The
property is also nonconforming with respect to front and side yard requirements, parking, parking
setback requirements, open space, and separation between buildings, summarized as follows:
Front Yard: 0 rather than required 2 feet
Side Yard: 2.1 and 2.2 feet on the south side rather than the required 3 feet (10% of lot width),
including a fireplace encroachment to closer than 30" to the property line on the north side.
Parking: three spaces existing rather than the required 6 spaces plus 2 guest spaces
one space per unit plus one guest rather than two spaces per unit.
Parking Setback: 2 feet instead of 3 feet on the alley; 14 feet instead of 17 feet on the street.
Open Space: 324 square feet is available at grade between the units, which is well below the
total of 900 square feet for 3 units. Also, no open space is adjacent to primary living levels.
Separation between buildings: 5 feet rather than 8 feet.
3. The proposed project involves adding a second floor and roof deck to the single -story
dwelling located in front, and expanding the existing garage to a 2-car garage with a 17-foot setback
from the sidewalk. The proposed remodel and addition will bring the property into conformance
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
28
29
with the front yard setback except for the front entrance balcony, and while it will increase parking
for the front unit and bring it up to code, and increase open space, it will not bring the property into
conformance with any of the other nonconforming conditions.
4. Pursuant to Section 17.52.030 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding additions to
nonconforming buildings, a building may increase up to 50% in valuation. However, the parking is
subject to Section 17.44.140(B), which limits expansion of properties containing one space per unit
to a maximum of 250 square feet. Therefore, a Variance is being requested to add more than 250
square feet, while maintaining less than two spaces per unit for the property.
5 The applicant is proposing an 898 square foot expansion to the front dwelling unit,
resulting in an increase in valuation of 34.5%.
Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings pertaining to the application for a Variance:
1. There are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances relating to the property
because the lot is typical in size, topography and shape for the neighborhood and the same vicinity
and zone. The lot width of 29 feet, while smaller than the majority of lots on the same block, and
slightly smaller than typical 30-foot wide lots throughout the vicinity, is similar in size and width to
other 29-foot lots in the vicinity. Also, the difference in width of these 29-foot wide lots is not
exceptional or extraordinary as compared to the typical lot width of 30-feet in the vicinity.
2. The Variance is not necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right
possessed by other properties in the vicinity as the existing improvements on the property already
consist of three dwelling units for a total of 2,638 square feet structure, and thus the owner enjoys a
property right which is in parity with surrounding development. Further, reasonable alternatives are
available to the applicant to modify the project in order to comply with the parking requirement,
which would allow expansion to the front dwelling unit.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies the requested
Variance.
VOTE: AYES: Hoffinan, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Kersenboom
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 03-63 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 November 18, 2001
Peter Hoffnan, Chkirr
An
November 18 2003
Date
ecretary
Varreso 1427Monterey