Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2 - VAR 11-3 (B-61 Surfside Ave)November 2, 2011 STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Chairwoman and Planning Commission From: Department of Development Services Subject VARIANCE 11 -3 B -61 Surfside Avenue GENERAL DESCRIPTION Applicant: WILLIAM BRUTON Owner: WILLIAM BRUTON Location: B -61 SURFSIDE AVENUE Classification of RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (RLD -9 - SURFSIDE) Property: Request: FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN APPROXIMATELY 1,270 SQUARE FOOT, TWO -STORY DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (RLD -9 - SURFSIDE) ZONE. THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY NON - CONFORMING DUE TO THE LACK OF A REQUIRED TWO -CAR GARAGE. THE APPLICANT WISHES TO CONSTRUCT A TWO -CAR GARAGE, LAUNDRY ROOM, AND RUMPUS ROOM THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND EXCEEDS THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BY APPROXIMATELY 10' -6 ". Environmental Review: PURSUANT To ARTICLE 19, §15301(E)(1), OF CEQA GUIDELINES, THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA. Code Sections: 11.2.05.015A; 11.4.05.100D; 11.5.20 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH Recommendation: DENY VARIANCE 11 -3. DENIAL SHOULD BE THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 11 -28. Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 11 -3 8 -61 Surfside Avenue November 2, 2011 FACTS ❑ On September 28, 2011, William Bruton ( "the applicant ") submitted an application for Variance 11 -3 to the Department of Development Services. ❑ The applicant is requesting a Variance to allow an approximately 1,270 square foot, two -story detached accessory structure at the rear of the property within the Residential Low Density (RLD -9 — Surfside) zone. The proposed accessory structure does not comply with rear yard setback requirements and exceeds the allowable height limit for accessory structures by approximately 10' -6 ". ❑ The subject property is approximately 2,351 sq. ft. in area and is located at B -61 Surfside Avenue within the Surfside Colony. ❑ The subject property has approximately 25.0 feet of frontage on Surfside Avenue, is approximately 29.20 feet wide at the rear, and has an average depth of approximately 86.6 feet. ❑ The property is presently developed with a single - family dwelling towards the front of the lot and a small storage shed towards the rear of the lot. ❑ The Surfside Colony Architectural Review Committee has reviewed and approved the plans for the proposed project ❑ The surrounding land use and zoning are as follows: NORTH: Single family residences (RLD -9 - Surfside) zone. SOUTH: Single family residences (RLD -9 - Surfside) zone. EAST: Single family residences (RLD -9 - Surfside) zone. WEST: Single family residences (RLD -9 - Surfside) zone. in the Residential Low Density in the Residential Low Density in the Residential Low Density in the Residential Low Density ❑ As of October 26, 2011, Staff has received no correspondence, in response to the hearing notices that were mailed out and published for Variance 11 -3. E Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 11 -3 8 -61 Surfside Avenue November 2, 2011 DISCUSSION The subject property, Orange County Assessor's parcel number 178 - 481 -01, is located within the Residential Low Density (RLD -9 - Surfside) zone at B -61 Surfside Avenue. The property currently contains a two -story, single family dwelling and a small storage shed at the rear of the lot. The lot is approximately 2,351 square feet in area. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing storage shed and is requesting approval to replace the storage shed with a two story accessory structure that will include an approximately 380 square foot, two -car garage, an approximately 150 square foot laundry room, and an approximately 740 square foot 'rumpus room' on the second floor, which also includes an approximately 160 square foot storage attic above. 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, non - conformities are generally allowed to remain, provided the non - conformities 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 non - conforming 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 existing non - conformity is that the property does not have an enclosed two -car garage. The proposal to construct an accessory structure that includes a two -car garage would essentially eliminate the garage non- conformity, but the structure, as proposed, would not comply with current rear yard setback requirements, as a minimum 3' -0" rear yard setback is required but only a 2' -6' setback is proposed. Additionally, the maximum height for accessory structures is 15'- 0" and the proposed structure is approximately 25' -6' in height. Per the California Residential Code, a habitable room must have a minimum ceiling height of 7' -0" from the finished floor. The 'rumpus room' as proposed has a 7' -0" ceiling height, so it would technically just meet the minimum requirement for a habitable room, but the overall structure, as proposed, would substantially exceed the maximum height for a detached accessory structure. Section 11.2.05.015 of the Zoning Code also prohibits exterior stairways from the ground level and /or the first floor to the second floor or above when such stairways are not specifically required by the California Residential Code. Staff believes that the proposal to have an exterior stair accessing the second floor, in this instance, could potentially facilitate the future conversion of the rumpus room to a sleeping room or a bachelor unit, which would not be allowable within the RLD -9 zone. Staff has allowed 3 Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 11 -3 8 -61 Surfside Avenue November 2, 2011 similar type structures in the past within the RLD -9 and RHD -20 zones, but has always stipulated that access to any second story room be obtained through the main residential structure either through an open walkway or enclosed hallway that bridges the main structure with the accessory structure, and not through an exterior stairway. 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 mostly rectangular, is of a size and layout not unlike other properties within this area of the Surfside Colony, and there are no physical limitations or constraints on the lot that would preclude conformance with setbacks and height limitations. Staff therefore recommends denial of the subject Variance request. Required Findings to be made to approve a Variance: Section 11.5.20.020.B of the Municipal Code states that a Variance shall only be granted if the Planning Commission finds, based upon evidence presented at the hearing: The Variance conforms in all significant respects with the General Plan and with any ordinances adopted by the City Council; 2. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning district classification; 3. The Variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone district in which such property is situated; and 4. Authorization of the Variance substantially meets the intent and purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located and will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, after considering all relevant testimony, written or oral, presented during the public hearing, deny proposed Variance 11 -3 to allow an approximately 1,270 square foot, two -story detached accessory structure that exceeds the allowable height limit by approximately 10' -6 ", within the Residential Low Density (RLD -9) zone at B -61 Surfside Avenue. 4 Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 11 -3 8 -61 Surfside Avenue November Z 2011 Staff's recommendation is based upon the following: o Proposed Variance 11 -3 does not conform with the General Plan or with any ordinances adopted by the City Council, specifically, the Zoning Code, as it would exceed the maximum height limit established by the Zoning Code for detached accessory structures; o There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, where the strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning district classification, as nearly all of the properties within this area of the Surfside Colony share similar lot sizes and dimensions as the subject property; o The approval of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone district in which the subject property is situated as none of those properties would be allowed to construct a detached accessory structure that approximates the proposed structure; and o Authorization of the Variance would not substantially meet the intent and purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located, as the standards for detached accessory structures were established to preclude accessory structures from serving the same or similar functions as primary structures. -• livera, n' r Planner Attachments: (2) Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution No. 11 -28 - A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the- City of Seal Beach, denying Variance No. 11 -3, to allow an approximately 1,270 square foot, two -story detached accessory structure that exceeds the height limit for accessory structures by approximately 10' -6" at B -61 Surfside Avenue, Seal Beach Attachment 2: Plans 5 Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 11 -3 B -61 Surfside Avenue November 2, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 11 -28 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, DENYING VARIANCE 11 -3, TO ALLOW AN APPROXIMATELY 1,270 SQUARE FOOT, TWO - STORY DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR ACCESSSORY STRUCTURES BY APPROXIMATELY 10' -6" AND ENCROACHES INTO THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK AREA BY APPROXIMATELY 6" AT B -61 SURFSIDE AVENUE, SEAL BEACH [.1 Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 11 -3 8 -61 Surfside Avenue November 2, 2011 RESOLUTION NUMBER 11 -28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING VARIANCE 11 -3 TO ALLOW AN APPROXIMATELY 1,270 SQUARE FOOT, TWO -STORY DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES BY APPROXIMATELY 10' -6" AND ENCROACHES INTO THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK AREA BY APPROXIMATELY 6 ", AT B -61 SURFSIDE AVENUE, SEALBEACH THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1 . On September 28, 2011, William Bruton ( "the applicant ") submitted an application to the City of Seal Beach Department of Development Services for Variance 11 -3. Section 2 . The requested variance is to allow an approximately 1,270 square foot, two -story detached accessory structure that exceeds the allowable height limit by approximately 10' -6 ", and encroaches into the required rear yard setback by approximately 6 ". Section 3 . Pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15270 and §21087 of the California Public Resources Code, CEQA does not apply where a lead agency denies a project application. Because the City is denying the application for Variance 11 -3, no environmental review is required. Section 4 . A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 2, 2011, to consider the application for Variance 11 -3. At the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission received and considered all evidence presented, both written and oral, regarding the subject application. the following: Section 5 . The record of the hearing of November 2, 2011, indicates F Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 11 -3 B -61 Surfside Avenue November 2, 2011 a. On September 28, 2011, William Bruton submitted an application to the City of Seal Beach Department of Development Services for Variance 11 -3. b. The requested variance is to allow an approximately 1,270 square foot, two -story detached accessory structure that exceeds the allowable height limit for accessory structures by approximately 10' -6 ". C. The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH: Single family residences in the Residential Low Density (RLD -9 - Surfside) zone. SOUTH: Single family residences in the Residential Low Density (RLD -9 - Surfside) zone. EAST: Single family residences in the Residential Low Density (RLD -9 - Surfside) zone. WEST: Single family residences in the Residential Low Density (RLD -9 - Surfside) zone. d. The subject property is approximately 2,351 square feet in size and is located at B -61 Surfside Avenue. e. The subject property has approximately 25.0 feet of frontage on Surfside Avenue, is approximately 29.20 feet wide at the rear, and has an average depth of approximately 86.6 feet. f. The property is presently developed with a single family dwelling towards the front of the lot and a small storage shed towards the rear of the lot. g. It would be possible for the applicant to construct an accessory structure in the same location that serves the same purpose as the one proposed, without the attic storage area, which conforms to all applicable height and setback requirements. Section 6 . Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in §5 of this resolution and pursuant to §11.2.05.015.A; §11.4.05.100.D; and §11.5.20 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: a. Proposed Variance 11 -3 does not conform with the General Plan or with any ordinances adopted by the City Council, specifically, the Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 11 -3 8 -61 Surfside Avenue November Z 2011 Zoning Code, as it would exceed the maximum height limit and does not conform to rear yard setback requirements established by the Zoning Code for detached accessory structures; b. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, where the strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning district classification, as nearly all of the properties within this area of the Surfside Colony share similar lot sizes and dimensions as the subject property; C. The approval of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privileges, inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone district in which the subject property is situated, as none of those properties would be allowed to construct a detached accessory structure that approximates the proposed structure; and d. Authorization of the Variance would not substantially meet the intent and purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located, as the standards for detached accessory structures were established to preclude accessory structures from serving the same or similar functions as primary structures. Section 7 . Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies Variance 11 -3. 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 ABSTAIN: Commissioners Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 11 -3 8 -61 Surfside Avenue November 2, 2011 Sandra Massa -Lavitt Chairperson, Planning Commission Mark Persico, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission 10 Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 11 -3 8 -61 Surfside Avenue November 2, 2011 ATTACHMENT 2 PROJECT PLANS 11