Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Res 93-20 - 1993-04-07 .. ,. '. ". RESOLUTION NUMBER 93-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING V ARlANCE NO. 93-2, A REQUEST TO VARY FROM THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF PLANNING DISTRICT III IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE REMODEL OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT A-I03 SURFSIDE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOL VB Section 1 On March I, 1993, Dave and Linda Chamberlain ("The Applicants") filed an application for Variance 93-2 with the Department of Development Services The applicants seeks to vary from the height requirements of Planning District III in conjunction with the remodel ofa single family dwelling at A-I03 Surfside Specifically, the applicants requested the height of the structure be measured from the minimum flood elevation, rather that the crown of Surfs ide Avenue as specified in the Code Section 2 Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs ~ 15025(a) and ~ 11 B ofthe City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows The application for a reconsideration of the conditions ofapproval of Variance 93-2 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif Code of Regs ~ 15303 (New Construction of Small Structures), because it involves the remodel and addition to a single-family residence not in conjunction With the building of two or more units, pursuant to ~ 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because the proposal involves a minor alteration in a land use limitation and does not involve either a property in excess of20% slope or a change in land use or density; and finally, pursuant to ~ 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3 A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on Apnl 7, 1993 to conSider the application for Variance No 93-2 At the public hearing testimony was presented both for and against the project Section 4 The record of the hearing on April 7, 1993 indicates the following (a) On March 1, 1993, the Dave and Linda Chamberlain submitted an application for Vanance 93-2 to the Department of Development Services (b) The applicant is requesting to vary from the height reqUirements of Planning District III in conjunction with the remodel ofa single family dwelling at A-I03 Surfside SpeCifically, the applicants are requesting to use the minimum flood elevation as the base point for measuring the allowed 35 foot height of the structure Under this proposal, the remodeled structure would measure approximately 36V:. feet in height as measured from the crown of Surfside Avenue (c) The subject property is legally described as Orange County Assessor's Parcel Number 178-462-38 and is located Within the private community of Surfside The subject property is roughly rectangular in shape with an area of approximately 1,667 square feet The width of the subject property is approximately 2501 feet with a depth of approximately 66 5 feet (d) The subject property currently contains a three-story single family dwelling with an area ofapprOlomately 3,670 square feet (including the two-car garage) The subject property is located within a flood zone with ItS existing grade approximately 1 5 feet below minimum flood elevation Therefore, the floor level of the structure must be a minimum of approximately 1.5 feet above grade C \AMIPR.O\DOCs\VAR\RQJ..2 BeC be .. of'.' "I . Plannmg ConunW,1011 Resolution No 93-20 (e) Variance 93-2 The City has received no written responses to its mailed notice regarding Section 5 Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in ~ 4 of this resolution, and pursuant to ~~ 28-2500, 28-250 I and 28-2502 of the City's Code. the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows (a) Variance No 92-4 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "low density residential" designation for the subject property and permits single family dwellings. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan (b) There are no special property related circumstances which, through the stnct application of this Chapter, deprive the subject property ofpnvileges enjoyed by other property in the same VICinity and zone Specifically, there a many properties in Surfside as well as wltlun Old Town which are located below the minimum flood elevation Because the applicant can make substantial productive use of his property In the manner that other properties in the zone are used without exceeding the established height limit, there are no special property related circumstances which depnve the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone with regards to the variance from the height standards (c) The granting of this variance would be the granting ofa special pnVllege Inconsistent with other limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone Specifically, there a many properties in Surfside as well as Within Old Town which are located below the minimum flood elevation Because the applicant can make substantial productive use of his property in the manner that other properties in the zone are used without exceeding the established height limit, there are no special property related circumstances which deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone with regards to the variance from the height standards Section 6 Variance 93-2 Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 7th day of April, 1993 by the following vote AYES Commissioners Dahlman. Fife. Law. Shall' NOES Cormrussioners Soukuo ABSENT Commissioners --- ~p :ife Planning Ite Whittenberg, Secretary Planning Commission C\AMlPRO\DOCS\VAR\R9J..2 BCCbc Page 2