Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision Letter 9-15-161 RESOLUTION NO. 1971 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE VARIANCE NO. ZV 16-01 AND, SINGLE-FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. SFADR 16-24 WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AT 40 W. SIERRA MADRE BOULEVARD WHEREAS, on April 22, 2016, an application was filed by Ms. Gianella Salazar (“Applicant”), for the design review of several minor additions totaling 209.5 square feet to an existing one-story residence at 40 W. Sierra Madre Blvd., Development Services Case No. Single Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 16-24; and WHEREAS, on August 16, 2016, an application was filed by the Applicant for a Zone Variance to allow a 111 square foot basement to encroach within the required side setback; and WHEREAS, on August 31, 2016 it was determined that the proposed project qualifies as a Class 3 and Class 5 Exemption, as minor alterations to land use limitations and minor construction to an existing structure, from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15303 and 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on September 13, 2016 a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on said applications, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 2 SECTION 1. The factual data submitted by the Community Development Division in the staff report dated September 13, 2016 are true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds, based upon the entire record: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same zone or vicinity. FACT: The subject lot is surrounded by single-family homes that have exposed basements on the rear side of the structures. Therefore, the site has an extraordinary circumstance that is not typical in other residential tract developments. While the lot is not an irregularly shaped lot, there is limited developable area on the lot because of the swimming pool and a 12-inch grade difference between the detached garage and the main house. Therefore, trying to add an addition on the rear side of the house can present a challenge and the proposed location of the basement expansion is the most logical choice without having to change the aesthetic aspects of the house. Alternatively, the owner could add a second floor addition above the main house, but it could change the overall aesthetic appearance of the house and it may not be compatible with the other homes in the neighborhood. 2. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity in which the property is located. FACT: The proposed expansion will not be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The addition would not adversely intensify the use of the structure. The new basement area will be 3 exposed above grade since it is an extension to the rear of the house. Therefore, there are no concerns with grading, excavation, shoring and other impacts it may have upon the neighboring properties which was the concern related to the new setback requirement. No portion of the new basement area will encroach further into the required side yard setback than the main house. 3. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by other property in the same zone and vicinity. FACT: The site currently has an existing basement that encroaches into the required side yard setback. If the variance is not granted, the owner would be deprived a privilege that other owners have in that other adjacent property owners have exposed basements that encroach into the required side yard setback which is how tract was developed. Furthermore, when the owner filed the application in April of this year, the new regulation was not in effect. Therefore, approval of the request would not constitute a special privilege. 4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. FACT: The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan. The residence will remain consistent with the General Plan designation of Single-Family Residential at 0-4 dwelling units per acre and the lot will only have one main dwelling unit. 5. That this Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Sections 15301 and 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines. 4 SECTION 3. For the foregoing reasons the Planning Commission determines that the Project is Categorically Exempt per Sections 15301 and 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines, and approves Zone Variance Application No. ZV 16-01 and Single-Family Architectural Design Review No. SFADR 16-24, subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto. SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this _____ day of _____________, 2016. Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: ______________________ Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________ Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 5 RESOLUTION NO. 1971 Conditions of Approval 1. The applicant/property owner shall comply with all City requirements regarding building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, public right-of-way improvements, parking, water supply and water facilities, sewer facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) measures to the satisfaction of the Building Official, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services Director and Development Services Director. Compliance with these requirements is to be determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check review and approval by the foregoing City officials and employees. 2. The applicant/property owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 3. Approval of ZV 16-01 and SFADR 16-24 shall not take effect unless on or before 30 calendar days after the Planning Commission adoption of the Resolution, the applicant and property owner have executed and filed with the Community Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval.