HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Res 6773 2017-10-23RESOLUTION NUMBER 6773
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL
DENYING AN APPEAL AND DENYING VARIANCE 17-1
TO PERMIT A 71 SO. FT ADDITION OF HABITABLE
SPACE, FOR A NEW BATHROOM AND CLOSET, TO AN
EXISTING DUPLEX, ON A NONCONFORMING
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 156 12TH STREET IN THE
RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RHD -20) ZONING AREA
THE SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Patrick and Romy Mahoney ("the applicants"), submitted an
application to the City of Seal Beach Department of Community Development for
Variance (VAR) 17-1 to allow a 71 square -foot addition of habitable space, for a new
bathroom and closet, to an existing duplex on a nonconforming property in the
Residential High Density (RHD -20) zoning area, which is nonconforming due to density,
parking and setbacks, at 156 12'" Street.
Section 2. This project is determined to be a Class 1 (Existing Facilities)
Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15301 of the Guidelines for the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) for the
permitting of an addition to an existing single-family residence that is less than 50% of
the existing square footage.
Section 3. A duly noticed meeting was held before the Planning Commission
on October 2, 2017 to consider the application for VAR 17-1. At this meeting, the
Planning Commission received and considered all evidence presented, both written and
oral, regarding the subject application. Following the public hearing, the Planning
Commission voted and approved Resolution No. 17-24, denying VAR 17-1.
Section 4. The applicants timely appealed the Planning Commission's
decision by submitting an Appeal Application to the City Council on October 5, 2017.
Section 5. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on
October 23, 2017 to consider the applicants' appeal and application for VAR 17-1. At
the public hearing, the City Council received and considered all evidence presented,
both written and oral, regarding the subject appeal and application. All persons present
who wished to address the Council regarding the matter were permitted to do so. Based
on substantial evidence in the entire record of the hearing, the City Council finds the
following facts to be true.
A. The applicants submitted an application to the CommunitX
Development Department for Variance VAR 17-1 for a proposed project at 156 12
Street, Seal Beach, California.
Page 1 of 4
Resolution 6773
B. The subject property is a rectangle -shaped parcel with a lot area of
approximately 2,937.5 sq. ft. or (.07 acres). The property is approximately 25 feet wide
by 117.5 feet deep. Most of the surrounding properties consist of lots that range from 25
to 50 feet in width and 110 to 117 feet in length and abut an alley at the rear, as does
the subject site. The site is surrounded on all sides by residential uses.
C. The subject property is currently developed with a one-story
residential unit and a detached second unit above the two -car garage at the rear of the
property. The subject site is located on the east side of 12"' Street between Electric
Avenue and Ocean Avenue. The subject site is surrounded by residential properties.
The subject property is located in the Residential High Density (RHD -20) zone.
D. The Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC §11.2.05.015) requires all
properties in the RHD -20 zone to provide a minimum side yard setback of three (3) feet.
E. The Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC Table 11.2.05.015)
requires all properties in the RHD -20 zone to provide a minimum 2,178 square feet of
land area per each residential unit.
F. The Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC Table 11.2.05.015.A.1)
requires all properties in the RHD -20 zone to provide two off-street parking spaces per
dwelling unit.
G. The applicant is proposing to add a 71 square -foot addition of
habitable space to the front unit for a new bathroom and closet.
H. The subject site is nonconforming based on density, parking and
setbacks.
I. Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC §11.4.40.010) provides that a
lawful nonconforming structure may be used, occupied and maintained in its current
size and configuration, and that an owner may perform non-structural repairs and
interior alterations to structures that are nonconforming or contain nonconforming uses,
provided the structure is not enlarged, the life of the structure is not extended or the
nonconforming use is not expanded. With regard to multi -unit residential structures, the
Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC §11.4.40.030) provides that multi -unit residential
structures may not add any habitable space
Section 6. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
Section 7. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those
stated in the preceding Section of this resolution and pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20 of the
Seal Beach Municipal Code, the City Council makes the following findings of fact:
A. The variance does not conform in all significant respect with the
General Plan and with any ordinances adopted by the City Council. The General Plan
Land Use Map designates the subject property as Residential High Density and the
subject site is not consistent with the residential density for the area. The Seal Beach
Resolution 6773
Municipal Code requires that all properties in the RHD -20 zone have minimum side yard
setbacks of three feet. The subject property has only a 4 -inch side yard setback on the
northern side of the garage and a 2 -foot 8 -inch side yard setback on the southern side
of the garage. The density requirements in the RHD -20 zone permit one residential unit
on the subject site, but the site currently contains two units. Also, under the applicable
zone district development standards, the site requires two off-street parking spaces per
dwelling unit. However, the site only contains two garage spaces, which make the site
deficient by two parking spaces based on the existing need of four garage spaces for
the two units. The applicants proposal to add 71 square feet of habitable space to the
existing nonconforming duplex that is nonconforming due to setbacks, density and
parking does not comply with the requirement set by SBMC §11.4.40.020.
B. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, and application of the
Zoning Code does not deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning district classification. Residential
properties in the RHD -20 zone have a typical lot width of 25 to 50 feet and a typical lot
depth of 110 to117 feet, and are abutted by an alley at the rear of the property. Typical
lots in the RHD -20 maintain a minimum side yard setback of three feet, a density of one
dwelling unit per 2,178 square feet and two parking spaces for each dwelling unit. The
subject site has no unique characteristics such as size, configuration or topography that
make this lot different than others in the same zoned area. The lot is flat and is
consistent with the physical characteristics of the lots in the vicinity and zoning district.
Existing development on the subject site would be allowed to remain, and the applicants
may still add a bathroom and closet within the existing habitable space of the front unit
with the approval of a minor use permit. Application of the Zoning Code development
standards would not deprive the subject property from utilizing the existing uses.
C. Approval of the variance would constitute a grant of special
privileges to the applicants, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity and zone district in which the property is situated. The applicants are requesting
to add a 71 square -foot addition of habitable space to the front unit for a new bathroom
and closet. Approval of this addition would not be consistent with the minimum side yard
setbacks, density and parking requirements applicable to surrounding residential
properties in the RHD -20 zone. The applicants' request is inconsistent with the RHD -20
zone in which it is located because the proposal includes adding habitable square
footage to, and expanding, a nonconforming property. The applicants are seeking a
special privilege or reduction beyond what is applicable to surrounding properties in the
RHD -20 zone, because other properties in the same zoning area, with these same
restrictions, are not allowed to increase the size of the building with habitable space.
D. Authorization of the variance does not substantially meet the intent
and purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located, and will be
detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working in the
neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. The subject site is located in the
RHD -20 zone which is developed with a mix of single family and multi -family
residences. The applicant is proposing to add a 71 square -foot addition of habitable
space, for a new bathroom and closet, onto the front unit, on a lot that is already under-
Resolution 6773
parked and too dense. The side yard setbacks of the garage do not meet the minimum
footage requirement of the zoning district, and are too narrow to allow fire and police
access. The proposed addition of habitable space will not be consistent with
surrounding properties. The applicants proposal will not comply with all development
standards required by the Seal Beach Municipal Code.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby denies the
appeal and denies Variance (VAR) 17-1 as the findings for the Variance cannot be
made.
Section 9. The documents, staff reports, appendices, plans, specifications,
and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this resolution
is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the
Community Development Department, City of Seal Beach City Hall, 211 8th Street, Seal
Beach, CA 90740.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach City Council at a
regular meeting held on the23d day of October , 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members: Massa-Lavitt, Varipapa, Deaton, Sustarsic, Moore
NOES: Council Members: None
ABSENT: Council Members: None
ABSTAIN: Council Members: None
Massa-Lavitt, Mayor
A
L. Roberts, City
STATE OF CALIFORNIA f
COUNTY OF ORANGE }
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
I, Robin Roberts, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 6773 on file in the office
of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the Seal Beach City Council at a
reg*r gieetog Petopn the 23`d day of October , 2017.
Robin L. Roberts, City Clerk