Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Res 6354 2013-02-25 RESOLUTION NUMBER 6354 A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-21 FOR A SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL AT 247 17th STREET, SEAL BEACH (CUP 12-21) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE: Section 1. On October 3, 2012, Robert and Nancy Beck ("the applicants") submitted an application for a conditional use permit ("CUP") to allow a short- term vacation rental at a non-conforming property located at 247 17th Street (the "subject property"). Section 2. The City may approve a CUP only if the City can make certain findings that the use will be compatible with surrounding uses. SBMC Section 11.5.20.005(B) provides that' an applicatiori;•.for a CUP requires special consideration to ensure that a use can .be' de,Signed, located, and operated in a manner that will be compatible with surrouhding`•uses and not interfere with the use and enjoyment of properties in.the vicinity. SBMC Section 11.5.20.020(A) provides that a CUP only can be granted if'the reviewing body finds, based upon evidence presented at the hearing, the proposal as submitted, or as modified, conforms to all of the following criteria: "1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and with any other applicable plan adopted by the City Council; "2. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district with use permit approval and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code; "3. The site is physically adequate for the type, density and intensity of use being proposed, including provision of services, and the absence of physical constraints; "4. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect uses and properties in the surrounding neighborhood; and "5. 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 3. The subject property is a 25-foot wide lot approximately,2500 square feet in area located in the City's Planning Area 1. It is zoned for Residential High Density (RHD-20), and its current zoning permits only one unit on the subject property. The subject property is developed with a non- conforming duplex comprised of a unit with two bedrooms and one bathroom and a unit with three bedrooms and two bathrooms. The side yard setbacks are three feet wide. There are only 2 on-site parking spaces; the Municipal Code requires 2 covered spaces per unit. Thus, the site does not conform to applicable City's zoning standards because the property has: (a) inadequate off-street parking; and (b) too many units on such a small lot. The City's General Plan designates the property for high density residential uses. A goal and objective of the Land Use Element of the General Plan for Planning Area 1 is to maintain the small town character of the City. The Land Use Element states: "Although it is recognized that the area will have businesses that serve residents and visitors, the goal is to prevent the visitor-serving uses from overwhelming the area at the expense of the small town character." The surrounding uses are .single family and multiple family residences. There are no legal vacation rentals in the vicinity. Resolution Number 6354 Section 4. A duly noticed continued public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 7, 2012 and December 5, 2012 to consider the application. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission received and considered all evidence presented, both written and oral, regarding the subject application. After the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to deny the application. Thereafter, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 12-34 containing the findings and determination of the Planning Commission in support of its decision to deny the application. The applicants appealed the decision of the Planning Commission. Section 5. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on February 11 , 2013 to consider the appeal. The Council considered oral and written evidence, including both testimony and written material submitted by the applicants. Co-applicant Robert Beck spoke in favor of the CUP. Six Seal Beach residents—including the family that lives next door to the subject property and the owner of another property in close proximity to the subject property— spoke in opposition to the CUP. The record of the hearing includes the following facts, which the City Council finds to be true and correct: a. The subject property contains a non-conforming, two-story residential duplex. The property is nonconforming in the following respects: (1) Density: the Zoning Code permits only one dwelling unit on the subject property, but it contains two units; and (2) Inadequate On-site Parking: the Zoning Code requires two covered parking spaces for each unit but the subject property has only one on-site parking spot for each unit. b. The subject property is located on 17th Street in an area of Old Town Seal Beach characterized by narrow residential lots with narrow setbacks, many of which are developed with non-conforming structures. The subject property is surrounded by residential uses, including a single family home next door. There are no other legal vacation rentals in the neighborhood. 17th Street is a single lane, one-way street, with parking on both sides of the street, and is narrower than most streets in Old Town. This makes the parking and circulation problems in the neighborhood of the subject property particularly acute. c. Co-applicant Robert Beck spoke on behalf of the applicants. He stated the applicants own two properties in Seal Beach that they rent occasionally on a short-term basis, and that the City recently granted a CUP for the other property. He stated that he typically rents the subject property for longer terms during the winter, but rents it for short-term vacation rentals during the summer. He represented that he bought the property with an existing duplex in 2006. However, short-term vacation rentals were not a permitted use in 2006, even with a CUP. At no time have the applicants provided any information that the duplex was built as a short-term vacation rental business, or that they acted in reliance upon any zoning that permitted rental of the duplex for periods less than 30 days. He claimed that the applicants had spent a considerable amount of money tailoring the property for short-term rentals (such as by providing furnishings), but he also has admitted that, after making those improvements, the subject property is often occupied by long-term tenants. He offered no evidence as to how the impacts of the use on surrounding uses could be mitigated to make such use compatible with surrounding residential uses. d. Renting of the property on a short-term basis has resulted in a regular turnover in short-term renters and a more intense level of use than that which typically occurs in residential properties. e. Neighboring property owners and residents presented evidence that: (i) short-term renters of the subject property create excessive noise during their vacation stays without regard to the concerns of neighboring long-term residents; -2- Resolution Number 6354 (ii) due to the very nature of a "vacation rental," renters are usually on vacation and tend to participate in activities, such as loud parties, that adversely affect neighbors; (iii) the constant influx of strangers into the neighborhood creates concern for the safety of children and families; (iv) short-term renters of the units compete with day visitors for extremely scarce parking spaces during the summer, the most congested period for Seal Beach because of its beach; (v) the operation of multiple vacation units on the subject property negatively impacts an already deficient parking and traffic circulation environment; (vi) the operation of multiple vacation units on the subject property, which is nonconforming because it is too dense and lacks adequate on- site parking, exacerbates the density of the area and demand on scarce parking resources; (vii) adjacent property owners have to place prospective buyers on notice of excessive noise and nuisance generated by the use of the subject property as a vacation rental; (viii) the operation of short-term vacation rentals on the subject property depreciates the value of residential property in the neighborhood; (ix) the frequent turnover of renters during the summers leads to extreme traffic congestion on 17th Street, which is more narrow than current Municipal Code requirements; (x) residents have moved out of the area because of the lack of available parking spaces, which is exacerbated by the turnover of short-term renters; (xi) short-term renting of the subject property has essentially converted a residential lot that is already non-conforming because it is too dense and lacks adequate parking into a commercial motel, but without the parking that would be required of a motel; and (xii) 17th Street has become virtually impassable during the summer due to renters checking in and out and cleaning crews operating once or twice a week at the subject property, who often double park on the narrow street, thus creating a safety hazard. Section 6. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including but not limited to those stated in this Resolution, and pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, the City Council makes the following findings: a. Use of the subject property as a short-term vacation rental is inconsistent with the General Plan because the excessive noise, high demand on scarce parking resources, and other adverse impacts from the use of the subject property as a short-term vacation rental are incompatible with the residential designation of the neighborhood. The City's General Plan designates the property for residential uses. A goal and objective of the Land Use Element of the General Plan for Planning Area 1 is to maintain the small town character of the City. The Land Use Element states: "Although it is recognized that the area will have businesses that serve residents and visitors, the goal is to prevent the visitor-serving uses from overwhelming the area at the expense of the small town character." If the applicants are permitted to operate a short term vacation rental on the subject property, the additional vehicles and visitors that will frequent the property will overwhelm the primarily single-family developed residential -3- Resolution Number 6354 neighborhood and create excessive vehicular traffic and noise. Thus, such a use, at that location, is contrary to maintaining the small town character of the City and will overwhelm the area at the expense of the City's small town character and its residents. b. The applicants have provided no evidence that the property cannot be used as a residence or long-term rental property. Even without a CUP, the applicants can rent the units for 30 days or longer, as they have since they purchased the subject property. Likewise, the applicants have not met their burden of showing that the use is compatible with surrounding uses, or that conditions can be imposed to mitigate adverse impacts arising from a short term vacation rental to ensure compatibility with surrounding residential uses. For instance, they did not offer a noise mitigation plan or offer to rent additional parking spaces in the area to accommodate their short-term rentals. Further, due to the high density of the area, the narrow lot and narrow street, and inadequate parking, many of the negative impacts simply cannot be mitigated. c. The subject property is not physically adequate for the type, density and intensity of use proposed due to physical constraints. The property is non- conforming because it is too small for two units, and lacks adequate on-site parking. Evidence was presented that demonstrates that the constant turnover of new renters increases density and places an unacceptable burden upon scarce street parking. The neighboring residences are so close that there can be no effective buffer for the sort of noise and other negative impacts created by short-term occupancy of a nonconforming duplex, especially during summer, when windows are typically open. The street is so narrow that the addition of multiple vehicles for vacation renters and cleaning crews at the subject property exacerbates the demand on scarce parking resources in the area, because the subject property cannot accommodate the cars of such visitors on-site. d. 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. Vacation renters will increase the number and frequency of visitors and guests and therefore exacerbate noise, traffic congestion and other adverse land use impacts. The subject property is very close to the adjacent residences, including the single-family residence next door. Noise from short-term renters disturbs .the rights of such neighbors to peacefully enjoy their own property. Testimcirny from the next door neighbor testified that since they moved to the block in the spring of 2012, there have been frequent noise disturbances from the short-term:rehters. e. The operation of a short-term vacation rental at the subject property is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons residing in the vicinity. Vacation rentals increase the number and frequency of visitors and guests and therefore exacerbate noise, traffic and other land use impacts. A steady stream of new renters could pose a threat to families and children. Vacation renters, their guests, and cleaning crews will cause congestion on 17th Street, thereby creating a potential safety hazard. The fire department and police department may be hindered in responding to fires and emergencies. f. The applicants presented no evidence that the short-term rental of the property can be designed, located, and operated in a manner that will be compatible with surrounding uses and not interfere with the use and enjoyment of properties in the vicinity. Based upon the evidence presented by residents, the current use of the property as a short-term rental has interfered with the use and enjoyment of properties in the vicinity. Due to the physical constraints, including the property's non-conformities, the narrow width of both the lot and the street, and inadequate parking, the City cannot impose conditions that would ensure such use would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Section 7. Based upon the record of the hearing, including the facts stated in Sections 1-6 above and the substantial evidence entered into the record, and -4- Resolution Number 6354 pursuant to State law and the City's Municipal Code, the City Council hereby exercises its independent judgment and finds that the subject property is not an appropriate site for short-term vacation rentals. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the application for CUP 12-21 for a short-term vacation rental at 246 17th Street. The City Council's decision is based upon each of the foregoing totally independent and separate grounds, each of which stands alone as a sufficient basis for its decision. Section 8. The Council's decision to deny the short-term rental of the subject 111 property will not impair the applicants' ability to use the property as a residence or as rental property, consistent with the zoning of the property. The decision will not require the removal of any structures under any circumstances. The applicants will still be able to use the existing structure for the use for which it was built: residential use. Likewise, the applicants will still be able to rent the property for periods of 30 days or longer, just as they have done in the past. Section 9. Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Procedure and Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 1.20.015 govern the time within which judicial review, if available, of the City Council's decision must be sought, unless a shorter time is provided by other applicable law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of February, 2013 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members I-,'L. €AI aA 1J 4Liiij/ 4 Qi NOES: Council Members ABSENT: Council Members ABSTAIN: Council Members '7 " / ' =o SEAL 9F''�, A EST: -\��APOBgtFC'., Mayor *, . //ii SNef : Cr Clerk 42G'F' p._�.. : Qc ' MINT STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } - I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 6354 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of February , 2013. faJt - '.I /u / City lerk -5-