HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 01-041
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2s
26
27
28
29
RESOLUTION 01-4
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED VARIANCE
TO ALLOW ROOF ELEMENTS THAT EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMIT TO COVER
MORE THAN FIVE (5) PERCENT OF THE ROOF AT 1303 HERMOSA AVENUE
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 29, BLOCK 14 HERMOSA BEACH TRACT
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve and order as follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by 1303 Hermosa Avenue L.L.0 the ground lessee and
owner of the building at 1303 Hermosa seeking a Variances from Section 17.46.010 to allow roof
elements that exceed the height limit to exceed five percent coverage of the roof.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing to
consider the application for the Variance on January 16, and February 20, 2001, 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 applicant has installed roof elements, which include an elevator shaft and
equipment room and 1 VAC unit on the roof top of the subject building. These elements in
aggregate exceed 5% coverage of the roof.
2. The subject three story building contains approximately 7,000 square feet in three
stories and is located on a building side with only a 27' depth, containing a roof area of 2600 square
feet.
Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings pertaining to the application for Variances from guest parking and from garage
dimensions:
1. There are exceptional circumstances related to the physical conditions of the property. The
building site and roof area is unusually small at 2,600 square feet, which causes the elevator
shaft and equipment room to cover 5% of the roof area. Yet, the required size for an
elevator and equipment room does not vary proportionally with the size of a typical
building in the area. Further, the limited size of the building and site reduces the ability to
locate all mechanical equipment within the structure or elsewhere on the site. Thus strict
application of the roof top area restriction would preclude the placement of any additional
structures on the roof including HVAC units which are required for the project. This would
deny the project parity with development conditions of surrounding properties.
2. The Variance is needed to preserve and enjoy a substantial property right to operate the
commercial building in a conventional manner consistent with other properties in the
vicinity and zone. Many of the surrounding buildings have a similar or greater amount of
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
roof top equipment, because they contain a larger building footprint, or exceed the 5%
limitation because they are legal non -conforming to the requirement. The project requires a
modern heating and cooling system consistent with other buildings in the area. Unless a
Variance is granted, the project cannot enjoy a substantial property right possessed by other
adjacent properties because it cannot operate the commercial building in a conventional
manner consistent with other properties in the same vicinity and zone.
The additional roof coverage will not be materially detrimental to property improvements in
the vicinity as the roof equipment will be screened from view, and have no greater visual
impact than roof equipment typical of a more conventionally sized commercial building in
the area. The building contains roof top equipment similar in size and proportion to other
property in the area. The roof top contains only an elevator and elevator equipment room,
condenser units related to the building's heating and cooling and screening (required under
the approved Precise Development Plan) which can be found on any downtown roof top.
The visual impact from the street is no different than 5% coverage would be on a building
with the same scale and frontage that had a more typical commercial lot depth of 60 feet.
4. The proposed Variance is consistent with the General Plan as the roof equipment is not
unusually large or out of scale with neighboring development. The building contains roof
top equipment similar in size and proportion to other property in the area and this
equipment is an essential feature for operation of a new retail building which is consistent
with the revitalization goals for the downtown.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Variance
from Section 17.46.010 relating the roof elements that exceed the height subject to the following
conditions:
The project shell be consistent with submitted plans reviewed by the
Planning Commission at their meeting of January 16, and February 20, 2001.
Any further minor modifications to the plans shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
VOTE: AYES: Hoffman, Pizer, Tucker, Kersenboom, Chairman Perrotti
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 01-4 is a true and complete record of the
action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their
Sam Perrotti, Chairman
d V L9 /
Date
Varr1303rev
regular meeting of February 20, 2001
Sol l lw me feld, Secretary