Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3 - CUP 12-15 (546 Ocean Avenue) - DenyTo: Planning Commission From: Jerry Olivera, AICP — Senior Planne Date: November 7, 2012 Re: CUP 12-15 — 546 Ocean Avenue i Ji 14 JA [e] :T-3'61, I aVVY At the regular Planning Commission meeting of October 17, 2012, the Planning Commission voted to deny the application for CUP 12-15. Since staff did not have a Resolution for Denial prepared at the meeting of October 17, staff is now bringing the appropriate resolution before the Commission for their review and approval and the resolution is attached hereto. RESOLUTION NUMBER 12 -25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12 -15 FOR A SHORT TERM VACATION RENTAL AT 546 OCEAN AVENUE, SEAL BEACH THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. On July 10, 2012, John Lima ( "the applicant ") submitted an application to the City of Seal Beach Department of Community Development for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 12 -15 to allow a short term vacation rental in the Residential Low Density (RLD -9) zone at 546 Ocean Avenue (the "subject property "). Section 2. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 17, 2012 to consider the application for Conditional Use Permit 12 -15. At the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission received and considered all evidence presented, both written and oral, regarding the subject application. The record of the hearing includes the following facts, which the Planning Commission finds to be true and correct: a. The subject property is located in the RLD -9 zone of Old Town Seal Beach, which is characterized by large beachfront residential lots and is commonly referred to as the "Gold Coast ". b. The subject property is presently developed with a three - level, five bedroom single - family dwelling, with a two -car garage and a swimming pool in the backyard. It is owned by Seal 546 LLC, which is a corporation controlled by the applicant and his business partner. C. The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH: Single and multi - family residences in the Residential High Density (RHD -20) zone. SOUTH: Public beach; Pacific Ocean EAST: Single family residences in the Residential Low Density (RLD -9) zone. s WEST: Single family residences in the Residential Low Density (RLD -9) zone. d. The applicant and his business partner occupy the property intermittently. When neither of them is occupying the property, they make the property available for business clients, charitable events, and vacation renters. Due to its location on the Gold Coast, the property is a uniquely attractive venue for events and large gatherings of visitors and guests. The subject property is therefore used much more intensely and by more persons than is typically the case with single - family residential properties. e. The owners have had a business license for short term vacation rentals at the property since December 2010. Since then, Planning staff and the Seal Beach Police Department have received complaints about excessive noise at the subject property on weekends and weeknights caused by people using the pool and socializing in the backyard. The Seal Beach Police Department has also responded to at least one complaint of excessive noise at the property within the past 60 days. f. Neighboring residents have complained that people using the house often stay out in the backyard at late hours any given day of the week and that this is incompatible with the neighboring residential uses, which are home to children and to adults who generally work during the week. They have also complained that the intense use of the subject property by transient visitors and guests has created negative on- street parking impacts for full -time residents. Section 3. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including but not limited to those stated in the preceding Section of this Resolution, and pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: a. Use of the subject property as a short term vacation rental would not be consistent with the General Plan because it is already used by the owners for a variety of personal and charitable events and allowing additional short term vacation rentals would only exacerbate the adverse noise, parking, and other impacts that are incompatible with the residential designation of the neighborhood. b. The site is not physically adequate for the type, density and intensity of use being proposed, including provision of services, and the absence of physical constraints because neighboring residences are so close that there can be no effective buffer for the sort of noise and other land use impacts created by short term occupancy, and because there is inadequate off - street parking on the site to accommodate the number of persons who may rent the home at a given time. 7 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 size and location of the subject property make it uniquely attractive to large groups of short term visitors. Allowing vacation renters would increase the number and frequency of visitors and guests and therefore exacerbate noise, traffic, and other land use impacts. d. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of a short term vacation rental at the subject property would be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use because it is already used on a short term basis by the owners and their business clients for parties and charitable events in a manner that creates adverse impacts, and adding short term vacation renters will only exacerbate these problems. Section 4. Based on the findings made in the preceding Section of this Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby denies Conditional Use Permit 12-15, and further finds and declares it would have denied the application based on any one of the four findings made in the preceding Section, each of which is considered by the Planning Commission to be sufficient alternative grounds for denying the CUP. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2012, • the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners M Sandra Massa-Lavitt Chairwoman of the Planning Commission Greg Hastings Interim Secretary of the Planning Commission [a