Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Res 96-03 - 1996-02-07 RESOLUTION NUMBER 96-3 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE NO 95-5, PERMITTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR SIDE YARD SETBACKS, ON-SITE PARKING AND THE PROHIBITION OF CURB CUTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MAJOR REMODEL AND ADDITION AT 225 6TH STREET, SEAL BEACH THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE Section 1 On December 13, 1996, DaVid and Ellen Fnedman (the "Apphcants") filed an application for Vanance 95-5 With the Department of Development SeTVIces SpecIfically, the applicants are seelang to vary from the reqUIred Side yard setback requlTements m conjunction WIth a proposed addition of a second story to the front umt at 225 6th Street, Seal Beach The subject property IS nonconformmg due to madequate SIde and rear setbacks as well as inadequate on-sIte covered parlang and a curb cut The subJect property has two (2) dwelbng umts and prOVIdes four (4) covered parking spaces (one of which IS a tandem parlang space within a carport) Section 2 Pursuant to 14 Cabf Code of Regs ~ 15025(a) and ~ II A of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows The apphcatlon for Vanance No 95-5 IS categorically exempt from review pursuant to the Cahforma EnVironmental Quabty Act pursuant to 14 Cabf Code of Regs ~ 15301 (ExIsting Uses), because the apphcatlon IS for an exIstmg use wluch IS not expanding m excess of 50% of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, and, pursuant to ~ I 506 1 (b)(3), because It can be seen With certamty that there IS no possibihty that the approval may have a slgmficant effect on the enVIronment Section 3 A duly notIced pubhc heaTing was held before the Planmng Comnusslon on January 19, 1996 and continued to February 7, 1996 to conSider the apphcatlon for Vanance No 95-5 At the pubhc heanng the apphcants and theIr agent spoke In favor of the request, one person spoke m OppOSition, two people wrote m support and two people wrote m OppOSitIon SectIOn 4 The record of the heanngs ofJanuary 19, 1996 and February 7, 1996 mdlcate the follOWIng (a) On December 13, 1995, David and Ellen Fnedman filed an apphcatlon for Vanance 95-5 With the Department of Development Services (b) SpeCIfically, the apphcants are seeking to vary from the reqUIred SIde yard setback requirements m conjunction With a proposed addItIon of a second story to the front umt at 225 6th Street, Seal Beach The subJect property IS nonconformmg due to 10adequate SIde and rear setbacks as well as madequate on-site covered parkmg and a curb cut The subJect property has two (2) dwelhng umts and prOVides four (4) covered parking spaces (one of whIch IS a tandem parkmg space wlthm a carport) (c) The subJect property currently contains a one-story smgle family reSidence at the front of the property and a detached two-car garage With a second umt above at the rear of the property (d) The subJect property IS legally descnbed as Lots 23, 25 and the Southwest 10 feet of Lot 27 of Block 105 of Bay CIty Tract The property IS also descTlbed as Orange County Assessor's Parcel #199-023-26 and IS commonly referred to as 225 and 225'1:z 6th Street D'\ \VAAlANCES\9S5 REsol.UT1ON BC Be . Planmng CommiSSIOn Resolution No 96-3 February 7, 1996 (e) The subject property IS rectangular 10 shape and contams approxunately 7,050 square feet oflot area (60' x 1175') (f) The subject property IS considered nonconformmg due to madequate side yard setback on the northerly (3 5 feet, 6 feet reqUIred) and southerly (I 5 feet for a carport roof, 6 feet required) sIdes, inadequate rear yard setback (5 75 feet, 9 feet required), madequate on-sIte parking (3 legal spaces + 1 tandem space, 4 legal spaces required) and finally, due to the presence of a curb cut off of 6th Street (g) The subJect property IS surrounded on all Sides by a mixture of smgle fanuly and multifamIly reSIdential uses 10 the Residential High DenSity zone (RHO) (h) The CIty has received two (2) letters opposing the proposed vanance and three (3) letters supportmg the request SectIon 5 Based upon the facts contamed 10 the record, mcludmg those stated 10 S 4 of this resolutIon, and pursuant to S S 28-80 I through 28-803 and 28-2500 through 28-2502 of the City's Code. the Planmng CommiSSion hereby finds as follows (a) Vanance 95-5 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 and multlple family reSidential uses The use IS also consistent WIth the remalmng elements ofthe City's General Plan as the poliCIes of those elements are consIstent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element Accordmgly, the proposed use IS consIstent WIth the General Plan (b) The subject property IS 60 feet Wide, 240% wider than the majonty oflots WIthin Old ToWll Due to the extra lot Width the property IS reqUired to provide a Side yard setback of 6 feet The property proVIdes a 3' -6" setback which IS 6" greater than the 3' setback reqUIred for a 25 foot WIde lot Therefore, the preexlstmg nonconformmg sItuatIon prOVIdes a greater side yard setback than the maJonty oflots 10 Old Town which are 25 feet 10 WIdth Additionally, the property prOVIdes one of the few large rear yards 10 Old ToWll Through this proposal the applicants are seekmg to preserve the apprOlomately 2,070 square foot rear yard In essence, the current prOVISIons of the Code favor properties whIch are more nonconformmg Where a property whIch IS over denSIty (I e too many dwelling units for the property size) and has two (2) tandem parking spaces could perform the proposed addition through the Issuance of a condItional use pemut, this application must seek a vanance because there IS adequate room to proVIde the reqUired parlang Therefore, there are specIal property related circumstances WhICh, through the stnct applicatIOn of this Chapter, deprive the subject property ofpnvlleges enJoyed by other property 10 the same viClruty and zone. (c) The grantmg of thIs vanance would not be the grantmg ofa specIal pnwege 1Oconslstent With other limItations on other properties 10 the same vlclmty and zone Specifically, due to the property's lot width the property prOVIdes a large rear yard and can physIcally provide the four (4) reqUired parkmg spaces at the rear Had the property been narrower thIs request could have been processed as a conditional use permit The CIty has granted several conditional use permits for slmtlar requests Most recently the City approved CUP 91-5 permlttmg a 1,210 square foot second story addition at 208 4th Street where the property was nonconformmg due to legally preexlstmg tandem parkmg In Ihat and other 10stances the property was too narrow to allow the reqUired on-site parkmg AdditIOnally, vanances for sllnilar requests have been granted over the years, most recently bemg Vanance 95-4 at B-21 Surf sIde where the dwelling extended one (1') foot mto the Side yard Also, recently approved were Variance 94-2 at 1603 Seal Way In 1994 where the garage extended two and a half(2 5') feet mto the rear yard setback and Vanance 91-3 at 241 5th Street where the eXlstmg residence extended one (I') foot mto the reqUIred Side yard setback Page 2 D \. \'YAAlANCEB\.gS0!5 REsoLunoN Be BC . . Planning COllln"MlOn Re.olullOn No 96-3 February 7, 1996 (d) The property provides four (4) functlomng covered parkmg spaces as requIred by the Code Due to the locatIOn of the carport at the front of the property and the fact the carport is open to public view and the elements, the tandem space IS not likely to be used solely for storage In fact, the tandem space IS now used as a functlomng parkmg space A requITement to relocate the parlang spaces to the rear of the property would serve no purpose, other than to eliminate the property's large rear yard (e) The existing curb cut, southerly side yard setback and rear yard setback are legally preexisting conditions whIch will not be altered or affected by the proposed addition Section 6 Based upon the foregoing, the Planmng CommissIOn hereby approves Vanance 95-5, subJect to the following conditions 1 Vanance 95-5 IS approved for the addition ofa 1,521 square foot second floor to the front umt at 225 6th Street, Seal Beach 2 The plans shall be amended m such a manner as to provide the reqUIred side, front and rear yard setbacks for all new construction proposed through this request 3 The applicants shall bnng the eXlstmg dwellmg to current Code reqUIrements, mcludmg electncal, plumbmg, mecharucal and fire, as required by the bUlldmg department 4 The proposed additIon and the remamder of the eXlstmg front dwelling shall be equipped WIth fire spnnklers acceptable to the Director of Development Services 5 The two (2) parkmg spaces prOVIded by the carport, as well as the two (2) spaces provided WIthIn the garage, shall not be used for storage and shall remain free and clear to parkmg for four (4) cars as requIred m Section 28-802 of the Code 6 All construction shall be m substantial compliance With the plans approved through Vanance 95-5 7 The two-car garage shall be reconverted to a functional 18' x 20' garage consistent With the plan subJlUtted 8 This Variance shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant m the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notanzed and returned to the Planmng Department, until any fees greater than the $250 depOSit have been paid, and until the ten (10) day appeal penod has elapsed PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planmng Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meetmg thereof held on the 7th day of February, 1996 by the followmg vote Brown, Campbell, Dahlman, Law, Sharp AYES COmJJUsslOners NOES CommiSSIoners ABSENT COmJJUssloners Patncla E Campbell, Chair erson Planmng Commission e W1uttenberg, Secretary Planning COmJJUsslOn Page 3 D \ \YARlANCES\9s.5 REsoumoN BC Be