HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 06-6950 - Deny Appeal and Deny ZV #6-100, 7537 Calmcrest Dr.RESOLUTION NO. 06-6950
A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DENYING THE
APPEAL AND DENYING ZONE VARIANCE NO. 06-100 TO SECTION 9150.08(d)(3)
AND 9110.12(c)(iii) OF THE DOWNEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO RETAIN AN
OVERSIZED DRIVEWAY, AND PERMIT EXCESSIVE PAVING IN THE FRONT YARD,
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7537 CALMCREST DRIVE. ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY
(R1 -5000).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Downey does hereby find, determine and
declare that:
A Zone Variance Application No. 06-100 was filed by Mr. David Hammond on July 5,
2006, and the application was a request seeking relief from Downey Municipal
Code Section No. 9150.08(d)(3) and 9110.12(c)(iii) to permit the development of an
oversized driveway for the single-family residence with a single-car garage at 7537
Calmcrest Drive, zoned Rl-5,000.
B.The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on September 20,
2006 and, after fully considering all oral and written testimony, facts and opinions
offered at the aforesaid public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 2463, denying Zone
Variance No. 06-100.
C. An appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission was filed by Tanya Siddens,
representative to the applicant, for the property at 7537 Calmcrest Drive, Downey
California on October 30, 2006.
D. The City Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on November 14, 2006 and,
after fully considering all oral and written testimony, facts and opinions offered at
the aforesaid public hearing, adopted Resolution No.06-6950, denying Zone
Variance No. 06-100.
SECTION 2. Having carefully and fully considered all oral and written testimony and all
facts and opinions offered at the aforesaid public hearing, the Planning Commission further
finds, determines and declares:
A.That special conditions and circumstances do not exist that are peculiar to the
project site which generally are not applicable to neighboring properties with the
same Rl-5,000 zoning in the vicinity of the project site. The affected property’s
shape, size and topography are nearly the same as the properties in the vicinity of
the project site. There is nothing unique or distinctive about the affected project
site that sets it apart from neighboring properties. It, like the neighboring
properties, supports a single-family residence and is part of a neighborhood that
was developed in 1953. The affected property, like most of the neighboring
properties, is rectangular in shape and has the same dimensions and same land
area as they do.
B. That the literal interpretation of the provisions of this chapter would not deprive the
applicant of rights under the terms of this chapter commonly enjoyed by other
properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the project site is iocated.
RESOLUTION NO. 06-6950
PAGE TWO
Granting the proposed variance would grant a special privilege to the applicant that
is not commonly enjoyed by neighboring properties. Various other residences on
the same block received violations for excessive paving, just as the applicant did.
These neighbors complied with the request given by Code Enforcement and have
removed the illegal paving in the front yard setback.
C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant. No special circumstances can be applied to the property in question.
Granting the request would confer a special privilege to the applicant.
D.That granting the variance requested will confer on the applicant a special privilege
that is denied by this chapter to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same
vicinity and zone in which the project site is located. Granting this variance would
confer a special privilege to the applicant because this same kind of variance has
not been granted to neighboring properties with the same Rl-5,000 zoning
classification .
E.That granting this variance will not be in harmony and will result in adversely
affecting the comprehensive General Plan. Approving the variance would result in
a wider driveway (i.e., an excessive amount of concrete in the front yard) than
Zoning Ordinance Section 9150.08(d)(3) permits. As a consequence, it would be
inconsistent with several General Plan provisions that were developed to enhance
the appearance of residential properties from the street by maximizing the amount
of landscaping in the front yard setback areas. General Plan programs that were
developed for this purpose include: Program 8.3.1.2. “Maximize the landscape
setback on street yard setbacks” and Program 8.3.1.3. “Minimize the amount of
pavement and other non-plant material along the street yard setbacks”.
F.That the environmental impact of the proposed project has been reviewed and has
been certified to be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines and this project is Categorically Exempt,
Section 15303, Class 3 Construction of Small Structures.
SECTION 3. Based upon the findings set forth in Sections 1 and 2 of this Resolution,
the City Council of the City of Downey denies the request regarding Zone Variance No. 06-100.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day November, 2006.
db&Y;,LN. '/gM/
MEREDITH H PERKINS Mayor
ATTEST:
Mm.%ddagh
KATHLEEN L. MiDS-FO:<KE, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 06-6950
PAGE THREE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of
the City of Downey at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of November, 2006, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
4 Council Members: Bayer, Cartozian, Gafin, Mayor Perkins
0 Council Member: None
1 Council Member: Trejo
0 Council Member: None
'Mz&Z%A6Zk)
KATHLEEN L. MIDSTOKKE, City Clerk