October 8, 2001
Honorable Chairman and Members of the
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
|
Regular Meeting of
October 16, 2001
|
SUBJECT: |
NONCONFORMING REMODEL 01-3 |
LOCATION: |
1124 1st Street |
APPLICANT: |
John Mason
1124 1st Street
Hermosa Beach |
REQUEST: |
ADDITION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING
NONCONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING RESULTING IN A GREATER
THAN 50% INCREASE IN VALUE |
Recommendation/Alternatives:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
- Determine by minute order whether this project qualifies
for small lot status and thereby a reduction in required open
space.
- Determine by minute order whether this project may exceed
the maximum exterior wall removal of 30%.
- Continue this request with required renoticing and that a
variance request be included for exceeding the maximum
valuation of 100%.
OR
- Continue this matter to a date certain and require revised
plans in compliance with all zoning standards and with the
Planning Commission’s determination regarding open space
and exterior wall removal.
Background
PROJECT INFORMATION
LOT SIZE: |
2,119 square feet |
EXISTING FLOOR AREA |
1,331 square feet |
PROPOSED ADDITION: |
1,269 square feet |
PROPOSED REMODEL |
774 square feet |
PERCENT INCREASE IN VALUATION |
118% |
ZONING: |
R-1 |
GENERAL PLAN: |
Low Density Residential |
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: |
Categorically Exempt |
Analysis
The existing two-story dwelling was constructed in 1963. The
dwelling is nonconforming to current parking setback and guest
parking requirements. The existing 2-car garage is set back 9.82
feet from the sidewalk and no guest parking is available.
Chapter 17.52 of the Zoning Ordinance requires Planning
Commission approval when an expansion/remodel of a nonconforming
building exceeds 50%. The applicant is proposing to expand at the
first, second and third levels, and do renovations to the
existing interior at two levels. The expansion will increase the
dwelling from 1,331 square feet to 2,601 square feet. The
expansion and remodel taken together exceed by 18% the maximum
valuation of 100%, and remove 41% of the existing exterior walls.
Pursuant to Section 17.52.030B.1.c. Planning Commission approval
is required to remove more than 30% of the existing exterior
walls.
The proposal generally does not conform to planning and zoning
requirements as follows:
- Lot coverage will exceed the maximum of 65% by .5%.
- Open space does not meet the minimum 400 square foot
requirement (It is 234 square feet) and will have a dimension
of 7 feet rather than the required dimension of 10 feet.
However, pursuant to Section 17.08.030L.1., lots between 2,101
to 2,310 square feet may qualify for small lot status which
allows open space to be reduced to 300 square feet and have a
dimension of 7 feet, if found justifiable by the Planning
Commission for any of the following reasons:
- To achieve a consistent and comparable amount of indoor
living space with existing dwelling units in the immediate
neighborhood;
- To allow design flexibility in the application of the
open space standard in conjunction with the remodeling and
expansion of existing structures;
- To allow an innovative design which otherwise is
consistent with the goals and intent of the open space and
development standards for the R-1 zone;
- To address unusual lot configurations or topography, as
compared with surrounding lot and development patterns.
Based on the above criteria, staff finds no justification to
allow for reduced open space and even if the Planning
Commission confirms the project qualifies as a small lot and
approves the reduction in open space, as the project will still
be 66 square feet under the minimum of 300 square feet.
- Based the submitted plans the proposed expansion may be
over height, although the roof plan denotes that the proposed
expansion is exactly at the maximum height allowed. The
proposed elevation plans appear to show finished 1st and 2nd
level floor elevations to be only 7.44 feet apart. The Building
Code minimum floor-to-ceiling height for the proposed rumpus
room is 7.5 Feet. The 1st floor level could possibly be lowered
to meet the Building Code floor-to-ceiling height. Also, the
2nd and 3rd level floors-to-ceiling heights appear to be at the
minimum, and the scaled height of the proposed structure added
to the noted first level floor elevation exceeds the maximum
allowed height. It should be noted that the submitted roof plan
lacks the required data, i.e. property corner point elevations,
lot length and width, and has inconsistent roof critical point
elevations/locations vis-a-vis the submitted plan
elevations.
____________________________
Mike Schubach
City Planner
CONCUR:
____________________________
Sol Blumenfeld, Director
Community Development Department
Attachments
- Location Map
- Photographs
- Zoning Analysis
nr01-3