HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 02-471
2
3
4
s
6
i
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
RESOLUTION NO.02-47
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW
A 2.8 FOOT REAR YARD RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 5 FEET AND
GREATER THAN 65% LOT COVERAGE TO ALLOW AN AS -BUILT
CONDITION FOR A TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT NEAR
COMPLETION AT 222 CULPER COURT
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve and order as follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by Dan Mellilo owner of property at 222 Culper
Court, seeking approval of a Variance from the rear yard setback requirement of the R-3 zone, to
allow a 2.8 foot rear yard rather than required 5 feet and a Variance from the Lot Coverage
requirement of the R-3 zone to allow the lot coverage of the building to exceed the maximum
allowed 65%.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing to
consider the application for a Variance on November 19, 2002, 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 Planning Commission approved the construction of a 2-unit condominium project
on the subject property at their meeting of January 16, 2001. The design, approval, and subsequent
construction of the project were based on a survey that contained incorrect information regarding
the depth and overall square footage of the lot. Consequently, upon submittal of the final map
containing the correct lot boundary information, it was discovered that the building had been
constructed too close to the rear property line, and because the lot area was less than the original
survey, the building was constructed to contain more than the maximum 65% lot coverage.
2. The original survey incorrectly depicted the depth of the property along the north side
property line to be 57.09 feet and at the south side property line as 42.7 feet. The correct dimensions
are 55.08 feet along the north and 41.24 feet along the south side property line. The design and layout
of the building on the site, including the City's approval was based on the original survey, and the
building was constructed consistent with the plans. The lot size based on the original survey was 2,894
square feet, it is now shown to actually be 2,770 square feet. Subsequent to the City's discovery of this
discrepancy, the surveyor (Denn Engineers) submitted a survey with the new building identified. It
shows the rear of the building with a 2.8 foot setback rather than the required 5 feet. Based on this
information, the City cannot proceed with approval of the final map.
3. The applicant is seeking Variances to remedy the situation caused by the surveyor error
in order to avoid the hardship of demolishing a portion of the building. The building has been
constructed with a 2.8 foot setback to the property line, and with a lot coverage that calculates to be
67% due to the decreased lot size. Given that the building steps along the angled rear property line this
1
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1S
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
deficient setback is not continuous but steps along the rear line of the building. The basis for the
request is that the project was constructed pursuant to approved plans, and pursuant to the information
available at the time of construction. Further, the applicant argues that resulting impact is not
significant given the unique situation that, despite this error, a 5-foot clearance is available to the top of
the retaining wall on the adjacent property to the east which would otherwise appear to be the property
boundary line. Also, the this retaining wall abuts a common driveway for a large condominium
development which is similar to an alley. If considered an "alley" the setback requirement would be 3-
feet.
Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings pertaining to the application for a Variance:
1. Exceptional circumstances do not apply to the property or circumstances of this case, as
the reason for the building being constructed out of compliance with the setbacks and lot coverage
requirements of the R-3 zone have no connection to the physical characteristics or conditions of the
property, and are instead due to faulty information provided by the surveyor.
2. The Variance is not necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed
by other properties in the vicinity as other remedies are available for the project, such as demolition
and reconstruction or purchase of neighboring property and a lot line adjustment.
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. 02-47 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 19, 2002.
Roil Pizer, Chairm n
November 99.2002
Date
Varr222deny
Blunlen- ld, �aecretary
Sol
01