HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 - Variance 11-1 - 602 Central AveMay 4, 2011
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Chairwoman and Planning Commission
From: Department of Development Services
Subject VARIANCE 11 -1
602 Central Avenue
1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Applicant:
Owners:
Location:
Classification of
Property:
Request:
Environmental Review:
Code Sections:
Recommendation:
ALAN AND LORRAINE CHAVEZ
ALAN AND LORRAINE CHAVEZ
602 CENTRAL AVENUE
RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RHD -20)
To ALLOW AN APPROXIMATE 1,555- SQUARE -FOOT ADDITION TO
ONE NONCONFORMING UNIT AND AN APPROXIMATE 864 -
SQUARE -FOOT ADDITION TO A SECOND NONCONFORMING UNIT
WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RHD -20) ZONE. THE
PROPERTY IS NONCONFORMING DUE TO SUBSTANDARD REAR
YARD, SIDE YARD, AND FRONT YARD SETBACKS. THE
APPLICANT WISHES TO MAINTAIN THE NONCONFORMING
SETBACKS AND PROVIDE TANDEM GARAGE PARKING FOR ONE.
THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA
REVIEW.
11.2.05; 11.4.40; 11.5.20 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF
SEAL BEACH
DENY VARIANCE 11 -1. DENIAL SHOULD BE THROUGH THE
ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 11 -7.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 11 -1
602 Central Avenue
May 4, 2011
FACTS
❑ On March 29, 2011, Alan and Lorraine Chavez (the "applicants ") submitted an
application for Variance 11 -1 to the Department of Development Services.
❑ The applicants are seeking to add approximately 1,555 square feet to one
nonconforming unit and approximately 864 square feet to a second nonconforming
unit within the Residential High Density (RHD -20) zone. The property is
nonconforming due to substandard rear yard, side yard, and front yard setbacks.
The applicant wishes to maintain the nonconforming setbacks and provide tandem
garage parking for one of the units.
❑ The subject property contains approximately 5,875 sq. ft. and is located at 602
Central Avenue, in the neighborhood generally known as "Old Town ".
❑ The subject property has approximately 50.0 feet of frontage on 6th Street, 117.5
feet of frontage on Central Avenue, and is rectangular in shape.
❑ The property is presently developed with two single - family, detached dwellings, each
with single -car garages that front 6th Street and the rear alley, respectively.
❑ The existing front yard setback is approximately 5' -2" (a 6' -0" minimum; 12' -0"
average is required); the existing interior side yard setback is approximately 3' -0" (a
minimum 5' -0" interior side yard is required for a 50' wide lot); and the existing rear
yard setback is approximately 6' -9" (a minimum 9' -0" setback is required for
properties abutting a 15' -0" wide rear alley).
❑ 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.
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.
❑ As of April 25, 2011, Staff has received one letter in opposition, in response to the
hearing notices that were mailed out and published for the proposed project VAR
11 -1.
2
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 11 -1
602 Central Avenue
May 4, 2011
DISCUSSION
rau.� : anvir _,r.��ww�rar.�r.nm„n...m.±�n
The subject property, Orange County Assessor's parcel number 199 - 032 -01, is located
within the Residential High Density (RHD) zone. The property currently contains two
legal, nonconforming, single family dwellings that are approximately 1,255 square -feet
in area (main dwelling) and 735 square -feet in area (2nd dwelling), respectively. The lot
is a corner lot and approximately 5,875 square feet in area.
The applicant is requesting approval for a remodel and addition of approximately 1,555
square feet of livable area to the main dwelling, with approximately 185 square -feet
added to the garage of the same dwelling, and approximately 864 square -feet to the 2nd
dwelling, with approximately 166 square -feet added to the garage of the same dwelling.
Variances are granted in unique situations where a particular property can not conform
to the code due to unique physical characteristics of the property, unique development
upon the property, or in a situation where the strict application of the zoning code would
deprive a property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone.
A classic example would be a triangular piece of land that could not reasonably
conform to the required setbacks by virtue of its unique physical characteristics. Within
residential zones, nonconformities are generally allowed to remain, provided the
nonconformities are legal and there is no proposed expansion of habitable square
footage within the dwelling. Once an expansion of habitable square footage is
proposed within a nonconforming property, the property is generally required to be
brought into conformance with the current development standards of the zone.
With regard to the subject property, the lot configuration is a true rectangle, as are
virtually all of the Tots within this area of Old Town. There are original building permits
on file for the 2nd dwelling that date back to 1951. There are no original permits on file
for the main dwelling, but it appears to date to the 1930's, based on architectural style
and type of construction. Aerial photography from 1952 shows both houses existing.
The subject property is zoned as Residential High Density (RHD -20). The pertinent
development standards for RHD -20 zoned properties are listed within the following
table:
3
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 11 -1
602 Central Avenue
May 4, 2011
Staff believes that the requirement to bring nonconforming properties into conformance
whenever expansions are proposed helps to ensure that future development and
remodeling /renovation of properties will occur in a more uniform and logical
development pattern. The idea is that, over time, properties that are deficient with
regard to building code standards, life and safety issues, inadequate on -site parking,
etc. will be brought up to more modern code standards. The applicant is proposing to
bring the existing on -site parking, currently one single -car garage for each unit, into
conformance by providing a two -car garage for each unit, one of which would be in a
tandem configuration, but these enlarged garages would still have nonconforming front,
rear, and side yard setbacks under the proposed plan.
Staff does not believe that any unique condition exists, either with the property itself, or
with the existing development on the property, that necessitates a positive
recommendation for granting the Variance. The property is rectangular, is of a size and
layout not unlike other properties within Old Town, and while there are nonconforming
setbacks that exist with the current development on the property, Staff believes that,
based on the size and scope of the proposed addition, it would be entirely possible for
the applicant to bring these nonconforming setbacks into conformance, especially since
all of the existing nonconforming setbacks are within 2' -3" of the current standard and
there are no limitations or constraints on the lot that would preclude conformance.
Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the subject Variance request.
Required Findings to be made to approve a Variance:
4
RHD -20
Standards
Existing Dimensions
Conforming?
Rear Setback
(Alley)
9' -0"
6' -9"
No
Street Side Yard
Setback
7' -6"
7' -9"
Yes
(Central Ave.)
Front Yard
Setback
6' -0" Min.
5' -2"
No
(6t" Street)
12' -0" Avg.
Interior Side Yard
Setback
5' -0"
3' -0"
No
Staff believes that the requirement to bring nonconforming properties into conformance
whenever expansions are proposed helps to ensure that future development and
remodeling /renovation of properties will occur in a more uniform and logical
development pattern. The idea is that, over time, properties that are deficient with
regard to building code standards, life and safety issues, inadequate on -site parking,
etc. will be brought up to more modern code standards. The applicant is proposing to
bring the existing on -site parking, currently one single -car garage for each unit, into
conformance by providing a two -car garage for each unit, one of which would be in a
tandem configuration, but these enlarged garages would still have nonconforming front,
rear, and side yard setbacks under the proposed plan.
Staff does not believe that any unique condition exists, either with the property itself, or
with the existing development on the property, that necessitates a positive
recommendation for granting the Variance. The property is rectangular, is of a size and
layout not unlike other properties within Old Town, and while there are nonconforming
setbacks that exist with the current development on the property, Staff believes that,
based on the size and scope of the proposed addition, it would be entirely possible for
the applicant to bring these nonconforming setbacks into conformance, especially since
all of the existing nonconforming setbacks are within 2' -3" of the current standard and
there are no limitations or constraints on the lot that would preclude conformance.
Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the subject Variance request.
Required Findings to be made to approve a Variance:
4
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 11 -1
602 Central Avenue
May 4, 2011
Section 11.5.20.005C of the Municipal Code states that the Planning Commission may
issue Variances to adjust dimensional and performance standards, subject to the
following:
1. Any Variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure
that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the vicinity and zone district in which the property is situated; and
2. A Variance shall not be granted which authorizes a use or activity which is
not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone district regulations
governing the parcel of property.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after considering all relevant testimony,
written or oral, presented during the public hearing, deny proposed Variance 11 -1 to
add approximately 1,555 square feet to one nonconforming unit and approximately 864
square feet to a second nonconforming unit, while maintaining all currently
nonconforming setbacks, within the Residential High Density (RHD -20) zone at 602
Central Avenue.
Staffs recommendation is based upon the following:
A Variance 11 -1 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 and multiple - family residential
uses and additions to same. 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.
® The building and property at 602 Central Avenue are adequate in size, shape,
topography and location to meet the needs of the proposed use of the property.
O The existing property and structures are not unique in that they have a lot area,
lot configuration, and limitations placed upon the property that are similar in
nature to several other properties within the Old Town area, and it is entirely
possible to bring the existing nonconformities into conformance as part of the
proposed redevelopment of the property.
o The granting of this variance would constitute a special privilege given to one
property that would not be afforded to another property by virtue of the fact that
5
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 11 -1
602 Central Avenue
May 4, 2011
there are several other properties in the vicinity that enjoy a similar layout and
configuration.
Jerome Olivera, AICP
Senior Planner
Attachments: (4)
Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution No. 11 -7 - A Resolution of the
Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach, denying
Variance No. 11 -1, to allow an approximately 1,555 square
foot addition to one nonconforming unit and an
approximately 864 square foot addition to a second
nonconforming unit, while maintaining existing
nonconforming setbacks at 602 Central Avenue, Seal Beach
Attachment 2: Application - Variance 11 -1
Attachment 3: Letter received in opposition to VAR 11 -1
Attachment 4: Plans
6
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 11 -1
602 Central Avenue
May 4, 2011
ATTACHMENT 1
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 11 -7
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH,
DENYING VARIANCE 11 -1, TO ALLOW AN
APPROXIMATE 1,555- SQUARE -FOOT ADDITION
TO ONE NONCONFORMING UNIT AND AN
APPROXIMATE 864 - SQUARE -FOOT ADDITION
TO A SECOND NONCONFORMING UNIT, WHILE
MAINTAINING EXISTING NONCONFORMING
SETBACKS AT 602 CENTRAL AVENUE, SEAL
BEACH
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 11 -1
602 Central Avenue
May 4, 2011
RESOLUTION NUMBER 11 -7
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING
VARIANCE 11 -1 TO ALLOW AN APPROXIMATE
1,555- SQUARE -FOOT ADDITION TO ONE
NONCONFORMING UNIT AND AN APPROXIMATE
864- SQUARE -FOOT ADDITION TO A SECOND
NONCONFORMING UNIT, WHILE MAINTAINING
EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS AT 602
CENTRAL AVENUE, SEAL BEACH
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On March 29, 2011, Alan and Lorraine Chavez (the
"applicants ") submitted an application to the City of Seal Beach Department of
Development Services for Variance 11 -1.
Section 2. The requested variance is to add approximately 1,555
square feet to one nonconforming unit and approximately 864 square feet to a second
nonconforming unit, while maintaining the existing, nonconforming front, rear, and
interior side yard setbacks.
Section 3. Pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15305 and
§II(B) of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: the
application for Variance 11 -1 to add approximately 1,555 square feet to one
nonconforming unit and approximately 864 square feet to a second nonconforming unit,
while maintaining the existing, nonconforming front, rear, and interior side yard
setbacks, is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15301 (Minor Alterations in
Land Use Limitations), because the proposal involves a negligible expansion of an
existing use; pursuant to §15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because
the proposal involves a minor alteration in land use limitation and does not involve
either a property in excess of 20% slope or a change in land use or density.
Section 4. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on May 4, 2011, to consider the application for Variance 11 -1. At the
8
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 11 -1
602 Central Avenue
May 4, 2011
Public Hearing, the Planning Commission received and considered all evidence
presented, both written and oral, regarding the subject application.
Section 5. The record of the hearing of May 4, 2011, indicates the
following:
a. On March 29, 2011, Alan and Lorraine Chavez
submitted an application to the City of Seal Beach Department of Development
Services for Variance 11 -1.
b. The requested variance is to add approximately 1,555
square feet to one nonconforming unit and approximately 864 square feet to a second
nonconforming unit, while maintaining the existing, nonconforming front, rear, and
interior side yard setbacks.
c. The surrounding land uses 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.
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 approximately 5,875 square
feet in size and is located in the neighborhood generally known as "Old Town ".
e. The subject property has approximately 50.0 feet of
frontage on 6th Street, 117.5 feet of frontage along Central Avenue, and is rectangular
in shape.
f. The property is presently developed with two single -
family, detached dwellings, each with single -car garages that front 6th Street and the
rear alley, respectively.
g. The existing front yard setback is approximately 5' -2"
(a 6' -0" minimum; 12' -0" average is required); the existing interior side yard setback is
approximately 3' -0" (a minimum 5' -0" interior side yard setback is required for a 50' wide
lot); and the existing rear yard setback is approximately 6' -9" (a minimum 9' -0" setback
is required for properties abutting a 15' -0" wide rear alley). The existing street side yard
setback is conforming at 7' -9" (7' -6" is the minimum required).
h. It would be entirely possible for the applicant to bring
these nonconforming setbacks into conformance as part of the redevelopment of the
9
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 11 -1
602 Central Avenue
May 4, 2011
property, especially since all of the existing nonconforming setbacks are within 2' -3" of
the current standard and there are no limitations or constraints on the lot that would
preclude conformance.
Section 6. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including
those stated in §5 of this resolution and pursuant to §11.2.05; §11.4.40; and §11.5.20
of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following
findings:
a. Variance 11 -1 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 and multiple -
family residential uses and additions to same. 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. The building and property at 602 Central Avenue are
not adequate in size, shape, topography and location to meet the needs of the
proposed use of the property, which is an expansion of a nonconforming structure
c. The existing property and structures are not unique in
that they have a lot area, lot configuration, and limitations placed upon the property that
are similar in nature to several other properties within the Old Town area, and it is
entirely possible to bring the existing nonconformities into conformance as part of the
proposed redevelopment of the property.
d. The granting of this variance would constitute a
special privilege given to one property that would not be afforded to another property by
virtue of the fact that there are several other properties in the vicinity that enjoy a similar
layout and configuration.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby
denies Variance 11 -1.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of
, 2011, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners
NOES: Commissioners
ABSENT: Commissioners
10
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 11 -1
602 Central Avenue
May 4, 2011
Mark Persico, AICP
Secretary, Planning Commission
11
Sandra Massa - Lavitt
Chairperson, Planning Commission
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 11 -1
602 Central Avenue
May 4, 2011
ATTACHMENT 2
APPLICATION - VARIANCE 11 -1
OFFICE USE ONLY
Application for: (Check one or more)
❑ Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
❑ Minor Use Permit (MUP)
p O Variance (VAR)
❑ Zone Text Amendment (ZTA)
❑ GPA/Zone Change
❑ Other
Hearing On
PC Mtg. Date: s/Q'l% \
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
f
City of Seal Beach
IAR 2 9 2011
Department of
Development Services
PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Application No.: ∎PA- (. ll~ \ Resolution No.: t
1. Property Address: (1202_ eE)VT2,1 L AV SC 4 L 8( l j
' " 2. County Assessor Parcel No: ! — 012— 0/
3. Applicant Name: A LA 1`i (/ Lofreiii, AJf C, 7 (ie- e
Address: &09. L7r'-E iq AI 1411, q 1 17~ a :�( -'/fit A'6iiCl7`
Phone: Work (6"bl) t 300 / 4' (4llobilge: (564 755 /.- 7
E -Mail Address: A 6./9 /'J ( 2 /41/ ve--e_ @k 61 C= , coil/1
4. Property Owner Name:
Address:
Phone: Work ( )
E -Mail Address:
egg
Mobile: ( )
--fc 5. General Plan and Zoning Designation: 20 41-65"/.16-1/7),41, aclo
6. Present Use of Property: kC-5,-/K6r47
7. Proposed Use of Property: 4
8. Request For: / L4 %1(,L itl.�t. Sia PiC /try (C S Vo•iu (212 CE
6) I ill )r tUe.. /RA
9. Proof of Ownership
Please attach a photocopy of a picture I.D. and a photocopy of the Grant Deed provided by
the applicant.
OR
3 of 9
Rev. 12/9/10
:iL :'•:� lG.: ;:: Its
`S net and no ':: rized Property Owner's Affidavit to be completed and attached to the
application.: _
•
City of Seal Beach
Public Hearing Application Form
10. Legal Description (or attach description from Title or Grant Deed):
By:
(Signature of Applicant)
4 1/1
int Name
/1
(Dat
42,64-7
(Signature of Property Owner)
3 /q /int Name)
(Date)
4 of 9 Rev. Jan. 2011
City of Seal Beach
Public Hearing Application Form
PROPERTY OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
CITY OF SEAL BEACH }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } /are?' (I) /(We) r (-14 Ai / / / jib, Z V (1
(Name)
swear that (I am) /(we are) the owner of the property at:
a
(St eet Address) 1 (City) (State) (ZIP)
and that (I am) /(we are) are familiar with the rules of the City of Seal Beach for preparing
and filing a Public Hearing Application. The information contained in the attached Public
Hearing Application is correct to the best of (my) /(our) knowledge and (I) /(we) approve of this
application to do the following work:
ALatA Chetvv /,?g //
(Print Name) (Signature) (Date)
00 C IG/ fikii Wyk r gt5V1, 76(6
(Address - Please Print) City, State & Zip) 7 (Telephone)
STATE OF CALIFORVI A�
(i
COUNTY OF
}
On , 200 before me, personally
appeared (insert name and title of officer)
, who proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his /her /their authorized
capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph
is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal
Signature
JnYE�'J I Ai v1N
a 4;41_
eal) ZT , g'M
7 of 9 Rev. Jan. 2011
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 11 -1
602 Central Avenue
May 4, 2011
ATTACHMENT 3
LETTER RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION TO
VARIANCE 11 -1
William & Gail Ayres
707 Ce,litral Avenue
Seal t each, CA 90740
Tel: 562 - 4932331
April 21, 2011
To: Jerome Olivera
Senior Planner
Department of Development Services
City of Seal Beach
211 8`h. Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Ref: Variance 11 -1
602 Central Avenue
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Per your "Notice of Public Hearing" to be held at 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday,
May 4, 2011; we will be out of the city and will not be able to attend.
Therefore we are providing you with this written correspondence in advance
of this hearing.
We request that this Variance 11 -1 be denied because it is not in accordance
with Ordinance No. 948 (information attached). It would grant a special
privilege to the applicants because they are requesting to add 1,555 square
feet to an existing nonconforming unit. This is essentially is like building a
new home and adding it to a nonconforming unit. Many residences in Old
Town do not even consist of 1,555 square feet. Additionally, over the years
owners of nonconforming units in Old Town have had to abide by the
existing restrictive building codes that do not allow such an addition when
requesting permission to add a room, porch or etc.. Additionally, we believe
the addition of 864 square feet to the second nonconforming unit would just
about double the size of the existing structure.
avw.-
William Ayres Gail Ayres
C.C. City Council Members: M. Levitt; E. Deaton; G. Miller; G. Shanks; D. Sloan
Planning Commission: S. Massa- Lavitt; D. Everson; E. Bello; J. Galbreath; E. Cummings.
Variances
Purpose of Variance.
The sole purpose of any variance shall be to prevent discrimination and no
variance shall be granted shared by other property in the same vicinity and zone;
provided that a variance may be granted permitting the temporary establishment
of uses necessary by reason of public emergencies or need.
Required Showings for Variances.
Before any variance be granted it shall be shown that:
1. Such variance shall not adversely affect the general plan;
2. Because the special circumstances applicable to the property (not the
structure), including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict
application of this chapter deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone;
3. The granting of such variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with other limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and
zone. (Ord. No. 948)