HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - Resolution Denying MUP 12-1 (B-86 Surfside)RESOLUTION NUMBER 12 -1
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL
BEACH DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE,
MINOR USE PERMIT 12 -1, TO CONSTRUCT
A NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL
FEATURE IN EXCESS OF THE 35 -FOOT
HEIGHT LIMIT AT B -86 SURFSIDE AVENUE,
SEAL BEACH
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH
DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On January 12, 2012, Arthur Patino ( "the applicant ")
submitted an application to the City of Seal Beach Department of Development
Services for Minor Use Permit (MUP)12 -1.
Section 2. The applicant is seeking approval of MUP 12 -1 for the
construction of a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 35 -foot
height limit. Specifically, the applicant is requesting to construct an
approximately 10' -3" by 10' -3" covered roof access structure and an
approximately 9' -10" by 11' -3" solid roof patio cover to exceed the height limit by
Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was scheduled to be
held before the Planning Commission on February 1, 2012, to consider the
application for Minor Use Permit 12 -1. Due to the absence of the project
applicant at that meeting, the Commission voted to continue the hearing to the
regularly scheduled meeting of February 15, 2012. At the Public Hearing of
February 15, 2012, the Planning Commission received and considered all
evidence presented, both written and oral, regarding the subject application.
Section 4. The record of the hearing of February 15, 2012,
indicates the following:
a. On January 12, 2012, the applicant submitted an application
for Minor Use Permit 12 -1.
b. A duly noticed public hearing was scheduled to be held
before the Planning Commission on February 1, 2012. Due to the absence of
8
the project applicant at that meeting, the Commission voted to continue the
hearing to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 15, 2012.
c. At the public hearing of February 15, 2012, the Planning
Commission received and considered all evidence presented, both written and
oral, regarding the subject application.
d. The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH: Single family residences in the Residential Low
Density (RLD -9 - Surfside) zone.
SOUTH: Single family residences in the Residential Low
Density (RLD -9 - Surfside) zone; Beach.
EAST: Single family residences in the Residential Low
Density (RLD -9 - Surfside) zone.
WEST: Single family residences in the Residential Low
Density (RLD -9 - Surfside) zone.
e. The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area
of approximately 1,232 square feet. The property is approximately 29' -0" wide by
41' -8" deep.
f. The proposed CRAS and solid roof patio cover will have roof
lines, roofing material, and siding that is architecturally compatible with the single
family dwelling under construction.
g. The proposed CRAS has a plan view footprint of
approximately 100 square feet and the solid roof patio cover has a roof area of
approximately 120 square feet.
h. The plan view footprint for the CRAS is larger than
necessary to accommodate the subject request.
i. Solid roof patio covers do not fall under the definition of
permitted non - habitable architectural features
j. The CRAS and solid roof patio cover, as currently proposed
by the applicant, would substantially impair primary views from surrounding
properties.
k. Staff has received a letters from the Surfside Colony
Architectural Review Committee and an adjacent neighbor expressing their
opposition to the proposed project.
Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record,
including those stated in Section 4 of this resolution, which the Planning
Commission finds to be true and correct, and pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20 of the
9
Seal Beach Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following
findings:
a. The proposal is not consistent with the General Plan
because it would introduce a type of residential use that is not allowed in the
subject land use district under a Minor Use Permit.
b. The proposed CRAS is allowed within the applicable zoning
district with use permit approval. However, the covered roof access structure is
not a type of structure that is allowed to exceed the established height limit with
use permit approval.
c. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of
the proposed use would not be compatible with and would adversely affect uses
and properties in the surrounding neighborhood because the proposed project
exceeds the area necessary to accommodate the subject request and contains
components that are not allowed under the zoning code.
d. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the
proposed use at the location proposed will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed
use.
Section 6. Based on the findings made in Section 5 of this
Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby denies Minor Use Permit 12 -1,
without prejudice.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the
day of , 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners
NOES: Commissioners
ABSENT: Commissioners
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
10
Sandra Massa - Lavitt
Chairwoman of the Planning Commission
Jerome Olivera, AICP
Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission
11