The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Res 93-09 - 1993-03-03 RESOLUTION NUMBER 93-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 92-4, PERMITTING LESS THAN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON AN IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOT LOCATED AT 254 SIXTH STREET, SEAL BEACH THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE' Section 1 On December 2, 1992, the Ericksen Family Trust ("The Applicant") filed an application for Variance 92-4 with the Department of Development Services The applicant seeks to vary from the required side yard setbacks and to allow a curb cut along Electric Avenue in conjunction with the construction ofa new single family dwelling at 254 Sixth Street, Seal Beach Section 2 Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs ~ 15025(a) and ~ II B of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows The application for a reconsideration of the conditions of approval ofMPR 19-91 is categoncally 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 construction ofa new 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 February 17, 1993 to consider the application for Variance No 92-4 Written evidence was submitted against the project by Geraldine West and Michele Brendel. At the public hearing the applicant spoke in favor of the request and 3 people spoke in oppositIOn Section 4 The record of the hearing on February 17,1993 indicates the following (a) On December 2, 1992, the Ericksen Family Trust submitted an application for Variance 92-4 to the Department of Development Services (b) The applicant is requesting to vary from side yard setback requirements and is requesting a curb cut along the side street side of a corner lot located at 254 Sixth Street, Seal Beach The applicant's proposal is in conJunction with a proposed new single family dwelling on an irregularly shaped lot (c) The subject property is legally described as Lot 54 in Block 106 of Bay City, in the City of Seal Beach, as shown on a map thereof recorded in Book 3, Page 19 of Miscellaneous Maps, In the office of the County Recorder of said County (d) The subject property IS an irregularly shaped lot located on the southeasterly corner of Sixth Street and Electnc Avenue. The subject property has a front street dimension of 47 60 feet with a rear alley dimension of 13 01 feet The subject property has an area of approximately 3,561 square feet (e) The subject property formerly contained an older single family dwelling which was located half on the subject lot and half on the adjacent lot to the south located at 252 Sixth Street The applicant recently razed the single family dwelling and is constructing a new C\AMIPRO\DOCS\VARWl2-4 BCCbc " Plarmlog Commwnon Re!lolutton No 93-9 single family dwelling at 252 Sixth Street The subject lot is currently vacant awaIting approval from the City for a new single family dwelling (t) Variance 92-4 The City has received two 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, 28-2501 and 28-2502 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows' (a) Vanance No 92-4 is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "high 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) Due to the rear width and configuration of the subject property there are special property related circumstances which, through the strict application of this Chapter, deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. Specifically, required adherence to side yard setback requirements would result in a 45 foot rear setback, 500% of the minimum required 9 foot setback Because the applicant can make substantial productive use ofhls property in the manner that other properties in the zone are used Without two points of vehicular access, 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 requested curb opening (c) The granting of this variance would not be the granting ofa special pnvilege inconsistent with other limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone Specifically, due to the irregular shape and configuration of the subject property, with a rear lot width of only 13 feet, a double wide garage, as can be accommodated on regular shaped parcels, cannot be provided on the subject property without a substantial increase in the rear yard setback and loss of habitable space Because the applicant can make substantial productive use of his property in the manner that other properties in the zone are used without two points of vehicular access, the granting of this variance would be the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with other limitations on other properties In the same vicinity and zone with regards to the requested curb opening (d) Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes ensure there will be adequate water supply and utilities for the proposed use (e) The Planning Commission hereby affirms that it independently reviewed and analyzed proposed Negative Declaration No 93-1 prior to acting on the variance application and hereby finds as follows (1) Negative Declaration No 93-1 was prepared by City Staff and therefore reBects the independent judgment of the City, (2) There is no substantial evidence in the record which would support a fair argument that approval of the application might have a significant environmental impact, (3) Approval of thIs application involves no potential for adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and will not have an adverse impact on fish and wildlife and directs the Director of Development Services to file the appropriate De Minimis Impact Finding for the California Department ofFish and Game Certificate of Fee Exemption C \AMIPRO\IXJCS\VAR\R9'Z-4 Bt.C be Page 2 , -. Planmng ConunISSIOD Resolutll:m No 93-9 Section 6 Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Variance 92-4, subject to the following conditions 1 Variance 92-4 is approved for the construction of a new single family dwelling at 254 Sixth Street with less than the required side yard setback for the northwesterly comer of the garage (6" minimum setback required). 2 No curb opening on Electric Avenue will be approved 3 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay a parks and recreation mitigation fee of$10,000 to offset impacts to the City's park and recreation facilities resulting from an increase in the City's housing stock of one dwelling unit. 4 A minimum of 40% of the required front yard setback shall be landscaped, per Section 28-801 5 The two (2) required garage spaces will meet the mimmum municipal Code dimensions of 9'x20' PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of March, 1993 by the following vote A YES CommIssioners Fife. Law. Sham. Soukup NOES Commissioners ABSENT' Commissioners Dahlman I. Whittenberg, Secretary Planning Commission C\AMIPRO\DOCS\VAR\R92-4 BCCbe Page 3