HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 00-061
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2s
29
RESOLUTION NO.00-6
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO
ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING TO PROVIDE A 3'-2" SIDE YARD AT THE GROUND
FLOOR RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 4 FEET, AND AN INTERIOR
GARAGE DEPTH OF 19'; AND APPROVING A GREATER THAN 50%
EXPANSION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING WHILE MAINTAINING A NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD
AT 635 HERMOSA AVENUE LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NW 47.5'
OF LOT 15, BLOCK 7, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT
The Planning Commission does hereby resolve and order as follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by Randy Rosenberg owner of real property located at
635 Hermosa Avenue, seeking a Variance from the minimum required side yard, and the minimum
required parking stall depth, in connection with the proposed expansion and remodel of a single
family home, and requesting a greater than 50% expansion and remodel to an existing
nonconforming single family dwelling, and to remove more than 30% of the exterior walls,
pursuant to Chapter 17.52 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing to
consider the application for a Variance on January 18, 2000, 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 desires to remodel and expand an single family home with an existing
nonconforming side yard of 3'-2" rather than the required 4 feet, and to expand the dwelling at the
ground floor which extends this nonconforming side yard, and provide a garage depth of the 19-feet
rather than the required 20 feet, and exceed 50% increase in valuation, which requires Variance
from Sections 17.16.040 and 17.44.100(A) of the Zoning Ordinance, and Planning Commission
approval of a greater than 50% increase in valuation to a nonconforming building pursuant to
Chapter 17.52.
2. The proposed remodel and expansion otherwise complies with all requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance.
aecton 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings pertaining to the application for a Variance:
1. There are exceptional circumstances relating to the property because the lot is
uniquely situated with access from the side only, making the circumstances unique and arguably
"exceptional and extraordinary". While there are many "half -lots" scattered in the R-3 and R-2
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
areas (50+) throughout the City only a few front on walk street leaving the only access from a side
street.
2. The Variance is necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial properly right
possessed by other properties in the vicinity because the side lot access does not allow the project to
meet all the following requirements: minimum parking stall depth; side yard; and parking setback
requirements. Therefore the owner is prevented from expanding the home without a Variance from
at least one of these requirements.
3. The project will not be materially detrimental to property improvements in the
vicinity and Zone since the Variance only involves minor variations to yard and parking stall
dimensions.
4. The proposed Variance does not conflict with and is not detrimental to the General
Plan because the project is not unusually large or out of scale with the neighborhood, and is
otherwise in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings:
1. The existing nonconforming side yard to be maintained are not significant or
unusual in regards to compatibility with neighboring properties;
2. The scale of the proposed expansion is reasonable, and is consistent with planning
and zoning requirements for the R-2 zone and does not warrant requiring the current
nonconforming side yard to be brought into conformance;
3. Approval of the expansion/remodel is consistent with the intent and goals of
Chapter 17.52 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Section 6. The project is Categorically Exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, Section 15301 e(2) with the finding
that the project is in an area with available services and not in an environmentally sensitive area
Section 7. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the subject
Variance, and greater than 50% expansion to a nonconforming building subject to the following
Conditions of Approval:
The project shall be consistent with submitted plans reviewed by the
Planning Commission at their meeting of ;January 18, 2000, and revised in
accordance with the corrections noted below. Any further minor
modifications to the plan shall be reviewed and may be approved by the
Community Development Director.
a) The scope of the expansion and remodel as shown on submitted plans
shall be reduced to a maximum of 100% increase in valuation
b) The rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 5 feet.
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
is
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
2. The Variance is specifically limited to the situation and circumstances that
result relative to the proposed project and is not applicable to the
development of new structures or any future expansion.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for demolition and construction, the
contractor shall verify the structural integrity of the proposed walls to be
retained with a structural inspection approved by the Community
Development Director, with details incorporated on construction drawings.
This may require further additional structural pest inspections and/or an
inspection by a structural engineer.
4. Upon issuance of building permits the project shall proceed in compliance
with the scope of work outlined on the plans and any further demolition or
construction contrary to said plans will result in project delays in order for
the City to review project modifications, and may require new plan
submittals and Planning !Commission review to proceed with construction
work.
AYES: Hoffman, Schwartz, Pizer, Vice -Chair Ketz, Chairman Perrotti
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 00-6 is a true and complete record of the
action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their
r' regular meeting of January 18, 2000
� r
Sam Perrotti, Chairman
0?�_,5--ng
Date
Sol Blumenfeld, S cr ` 'y
varreso635
3