SUBJECT: APPEAL OF VARIANCE 99-10

 

• LOCATION: 1250 8TH STREET
• APPELLANT: PARK LEE
• APPEAL: PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A VARIANCE TO ALLOW ALL REQUIRED PARKING INCLUDING GUEST PARKING IN TANDEM.
• CONTINUED FROM APRIL 5, 2000 MEETING

 

Recommendation:

To sustain the Planning Commission's denial of the requested Variance by adopting the attached resolution.

 

Background:

• LOT SIZE 3,754 Square Feet
• EXISTING FLOOR AREA 1,612 Square Feet
• PROPOSED ADDITION: 2,230 Square Feet
• ZONING: R-1
• GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential
• ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Categorically Exempt

 

Analysis

The Planning Commission denied the Variance request on January 10, 2000 on the basis that it could not make the four mandatory findings for approval. The proposed project involves remodel and expansion to an existing building with a tandem garage and a 17 foot setback/guest space in order to comply with the parking requirement of three spaces. The existing structure has non-conforming side yard conditions which are to be corrected in the proposed remodel. The only non-conforming condition not proposed to be corrected is the provision of three required parking spaces in tandem utilizing an existing 9'-6"wide garage. The applicant is requesting a Variance to provide all required parking in tandem (two unit spaces in tandem with the guest space also in tandem). Section 17.44 of the Zoning Ordinance states the following:

"Tandem Parking means one automobile parked after or behind another in a lengthwise fashion. In this title, tandem parking is limited to not more than one automobile behind another. "

By providing the parking in tandem through a Variance, the owner can avoid reconfiguring the existing garage and driveway to accommodate a standard side by side garage with required 17' garage setback.

In order to grant a Variance, the City Council must make the following findings:

1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limit to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved.

The lot is not unusually small and is similar to other R- I sized lots in the vicinity. (A "small lot" under R- I development standards is 2,100 square feet or less.). The lot is similar in character and configuration with surrounding lots. The lot width of 37.5 feet is typical along the subject block. The lot slopes north to south with a difference in elevation of 7.83 feet and east to west with a difference in elevation of 6.71 feet. The sloping lot presents difficulty in creating an enlarged driveway which conforms to the maximum 12.5% slope permitted in the Zone Code. As currently configured, the driveway has a slope of 10.9%. If the property were to be reconfigured adding an adjacent garage parking space in a typical side to side parking configuration, the slope becomes excessive (approximately 18 - 20 %) in the new driveway area. While this slope condition presents construction difficulties relative to adding a typical two-car garage to the existing structure, it can be accomplished by extending the run of the driveway, adding retaining walls to the west and reconfiguring the floor level above the garage. Such reconfiguration is extensive and costly as the applicant has noted in the attached letter, but is not inconsistent with the scope of the overall project which is proposed to include removal of the two building exterior side walls to make the side yards conforming, relocation of the existing garage to make the garage setback conforming and the addition of a new second floor level.

The existing structure as situated on the lot is not grounds for a Variance. The applicant is making this request because of the cross slope of the lot which prevents the construction of a standard garage below the existing dwelling with the minimum 17 foot setback and the maximum 12.5% driveway slope. This slope condition which the applicant must design around is not extraordinary relative to other properties in the vicinity. A new conforming garage can be created by providing the required setback and minimum interior dimensions, however, the existing dwelling would have to be substantially reconfigured to elevate a portion of the first floor level and set the garage parking further under the existing dwelling so that the driveway does not exceed the maximum allowed slope of 12.5%. If the garage was setback approximately 9' (26' from back of sidewalk) the slope would meet the maximum of 12.5%.

2. The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by properties in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.

The owners wish to exercise a property right, possessed by others in the neighborhood, to expand an existing substandard dwelling. The Variance may be necessary to retain the existing dwelling with an expansion to reach a size that the applicant finds comfortable and comparable to neighboring homes, but its difficult to support the finding the Variance is necessary to preserve a substantial property right, since it is clearly possible to either retain this structure with an expansion/remodel of up to 100% of the existing valuation, or demolish this structure and build a new home in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.

3. The granting of the Variance will not he materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.

The project will not be materially detrimental to property improvements in the vicinity and zone, since the project as proposed complies with all other requirements of the Zone Code and because the Variance would permit the required number of parking spaces (three) in conformance with the R- I development standards.

4. The Variance is not contrary to the General Plan. The project is not unusually large or out of scale with the neighborhood, and would substantially improve the property with a modern single family home, in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The project would benefit the neighborhood with a substantially improved property.

If the Variance is not granted for the tandem parking, the project will be considered a non-conforming remodel in excess of 100% of the project valuation which is not permitted. Staff believes that this is a substantial building renovation that justifies complying with parking standards and that there are other options to construct the project, which do not require a Variance. While it is possible to support the project relative to the third and fourth findings, it is not possible to support the first and second findings in order to grant the Variance request.

 

C.C. RESOLUTION NO.

 

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF A REQUESTED VARIANCE FROM OFF-STREET PARKING (SECTION 17.44), TO ALLOW more than two vEhicle TANDEM PARKING AT 1250 8 ^TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS WEST 12.5 FEET OF LOT 44 AND ALL OF LOT 45, BLOCK 140 OF REDONDO VILLA TRACT.

 

The City Council does hereby resolve and order as follows:

 

Section 1 . An appeal was filed by Park Lee owner of real property located at 1250 8 ^th street in Hermosa Beach, seeking to appeal the Planning Commission denial of a Variance from Section 17.44 to allow three car tandem parking.

 

Section 2 . The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing to consider the application for a Variance and expansion and remodel to a nonconforming building on January 18, 2000, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission.

 

Section 3 . The City Council conducted a duly noticed de novo public hearing to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the Variance on May 9, 2000, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council.

 

Section 4. Based on the evidence received at the public hearing, the City Council makes the following factual findings:

 

 

2. The applicant is proposing a 2,230 square foot expansion to a single-family dwelling.

 

3. The proposed expansion otherwise complies with all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.

 

Section 5 . Based on the foregoing factual findings, the City Council makes the following findings pertaining to the application for a Variance:

 

 

Section 6. The project is Categorically Exempt from the requirement for an environmental assessment, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Sections 15303 Class3 (b) and 15315 with the finding that the project is in an area with available services.

 

Section 7 . Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby sustains the decision of Planning Commission and denies the requested Variance.

 

PASSED AND APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 2000

 

Agendas / Minutes Menu     Agenda