HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Res 09-48 - 2009-01-060
RESOLUTION NUMBER 09-48
9�
A RESOLUTION OF THE
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DENYING VARIANCE 09 -6 TO
EXISTING REAR YARD FENCE
REAR AND SIDE YARD SETBI
CENTRAL WAY, SEAL BEACH.
PLANNING
SEAL BEACH
ALLOW AN
WITHIN THE
kCKS AT 222
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE:
Section 1 . On September 7, 2009, Louis and Pamela Mannone (the
"applicants ") applied for Variance 09 -6 with the Department of Development Services
and to allow an approximately 400 square foot addition to an existing non - conforming
residential property and maintain an existing legal, non - conforming fence on their
residential property located at 222 Central Way, Seal Beach (the "subject property ").
Section 2 . Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § II.A of
the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for
Variance 09 -6 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 (Minor
Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because the request is for a minor alteration in land
use limitations in an area with an average slope of less than 20% and no changes in
land use or density are involved; and, 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. Duly noticed public hearings on Variance 09 -6 were
previously held before the Planning Commission on October 21, 2009; November 4,
2009; and December 9, 2009. At the public hearings, the Planning Commission
received and considered all evidence presented, both written and oral, regarding the
subject application. Due to staff's error, however, the required Public Hearing notices
did not reference that portion of the variance request pertaining to the non - conforming
fence and the Planning Commission could therefore not hear that aspect of the request
at that time. After the close of the public hearing on November 4, 2009, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution 09 -35 approving those aspects of Variance 09 -6 that
did not include the non - conforming fence.
Section 4 . A duly noticed public hearing to consider that portion of
Variance 09 -6 that requested to maintain an existing non - conforming fence on the
1 of 4
Planning Commission Resolution No. 09 -48
Variance 09 -6 — Fence Portion
222 Central Way
January 6, 2010
subject property was held before the Planning Commission on December 9, 2009. The
record of that hearing indicates the following:
(a) On September 7, 2009, Louis and Pamela Mannone
applied for Variance 09 -6 with the Department of Development Services. The
applicants are requesting approval to maintain an existing, legal non - conforming fence
along the rear property line. The fence is non - conforming because it is located on the
lot line. Section 28 -2316 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code currently requires rear yard
fences along alleys to be set back from the property line by 5Y2 feet.
(b) The subject property has approximately 50 feet of
frontage on 3 rd Street and 117.5 feet of frontage along Central Way, and is rectangular
in shape.
(c) The surrounding land use and zoning are as follows:
NORTH: Single and multiple family residences in the Residential High Density
(RHD) Zone.
SOUTH: Single and multiple family residences in the Residential High Density
(RHD) Zone and Residential Medium Density (RMD) Zone.
EAST: Single and multiple family residences in the Residential High Density
(RHD) Zone.
WEST: Single and multiple family residences in the Residential High Density
(RHD) Zone.
(d) The subject property is one of only 25 such properties
within the old town area, out of over 1,200 total properties, that have a similar
configuration with the garage access taken from the side street.
(e) Because of the existing development on the lot and
because of existing obstructions within the alley, both of which are to remain,
compliance with the Code required setback for the rear yard fence from the alley would
not result in a substantial improvement of vision clearance or vehicle maneuverability
within the alley.
Section 5 . Based upon the facts contained in the record, including
those stated in Section 4 of this Resolution, which the Planning Commission hereby
finds to be true and correct, and pursuant to §§ 28 -2407, 28 -2500, 28 -2501, and 28-
2502 of the City's Code the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
(a) Variance 09 -6 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 residential land uses in
accordance with certain development standards. The existing rear yard fence, although
not in accordance with the setback standards of the City's current Zoning Code, was
2 of 4
Planning Commission Resolution No. 09 -48
Variance 09 -6 — Fence Portion
222 Central Way
January 6, 2010
constructed in accordance with all City codes in effect at the time of construction, and
does not adversely impact the adjacent properties. The use is nonetheless consistent
with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, including the Land Use
Element.
(b) The strict application of Chapter 28 of the Municipal
Code does not deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in
the same vicinity and zone, in that, based on the development existing on the property,
it would be physically possible to locate the perimeter fence currently existing within the
rear yard and side yard setback areas in a location that fully complies with the
development standards of the Residential High Density (RHD) zone.
(c) The granting of this variance will constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with other limitations on other properties in the same
vicinity and zone. The proposed Variance for maintaining a perimeter fence located
within the existing rear yard and side yard setback areas is not compatible with the
requirements of the RHD zone and with other conforming properties within the zone.
(d) The requested variance to maintain the current zero
setback for the rear yard fence would be detrimental to adjoining properties as the
variance requested would allow for a non - conforming situation to remain that would
restrict vehicle maneuverability and vision clearance within the rear alley.
Section 6 . Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby
denies Variance 09 -6.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal
Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 6th day of January 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners Deaton, Galbreath, Larson, and Massa - Lavitt
NOES: Commissioners None
ABSENT: Commissioners Bello
ABSTAIN: Commissioners None
Ellery Deaton
Chairperson, Planning Commission
3 of 4
Planning Commission Resolution No. 09 -48
Variance 09 -6 — Fence Portion
222 Central Way
January 6, 2010
Mark Persico, AICP
Secretary, Planning Commission
4 of 4