Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4 - VAR 12-2 (226 4th Street) June 20, 2012 STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Chairwoman and Planning Commission From: Community Development Department Subject VARIANCE 12-2 226 4th Street GENERAL DESCRIPTION Applicant: BRENT SEARS -ARCHITECT Owners: BOB AND CATHY WEST Location: 226 4TH STREET Classification of RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY(RHD-20) Property: Request: To ALLOW AN EXISTING 7'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK AND A SECOND DWELLING UNIT TO REMAIN, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 180 SQUARE-FEET TO AN EXISTING, NONCONFORMING MULTI-UNIT PROPERTY (9'-0" IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THIS PROPERTY; ONE UNIT IS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ALLOWED). Environmental Review: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW. Code Sections: 11.2.05; 11.4.40; 11.5.20 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH Recommendation: DENY VARIANCE 12-2. DENIAL SHOULD BE THROUGH THE ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 12-8. Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 12-2 226 4th Street June 20, 2012 FACTS ❑ On May 7, 2012, Brent Sears (the "applicant") submitted an application for Variance 12-2 to the Community Development Department. ❑ The applicant is seeking to add approximately 180 square feet to an existing, nonconforming multi-unit property within the Residential High Density (RHD-20) zone. The property is nonconforming due to it being over-density (two dwelling units on a lot where only one unit would be conforming under today's zoning code) and a substandard rear yard setback (existing 7'-0" setback, where a 9'-0" setback would be required under today's zoning code). The applicant wishes to maintain both the nonconforming setback and second dwelling unit as part of the proposed addition. ❑ The subject property contains approximately 3,525 sq. ft. and is located at 226 4th Street, in the neighborhood generally known as "Old Town". ❑ The subject property has approximately 30.0 feet of frontage on 4th Street, is approximately 117.5 feet in depth, and is rectangular in shape. ❑ The property is presently developed with an approximately 1,972 square-foot, two- story residence towards the front of the lot and a detached garage of approximately 648 square-feet, with an approximately 564 square-foot dwelling unit above the garage, towards the rear of the property. ❑ 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 June 13, 2012, Staff has received no correspondence in response to the hearing notices that were mailed out and published for Variance 12-2. 2 Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 12-2 226 4"' Street June 20, 2012 DISCUSSION The subject property, Orange County Assessor's parcel number 199-022-04, is located within the Residential High Density (RHD-20) zone. The property currently contains two dwelling units that are approximately 1,972 square-feet in area (main dwelling) and 564 square-feet in area (2nd dwelling), respectively. The lot is an interior lot and approximately 3,525 square feet in area. The property is nonconforming due to an inadequate rear yard setback (7'-0" existing where 9'-0" is required) and the fact that the lot is over-density (2 units on a lot where only 1 would be allowed under today's code). The applicant is requesting a variance for an approximately 180 square-foot ground floor addition to the main dwelling, for the purpose of enlarging the living room at the rear of the main dwelling. The proposed project also consists of eliminating the rear deck at the second floor of the main dwelling and constructing a roof in this area for the proposed ground floor addition. Prior to the adoption of the Title 11 Zoning Code in January 2011, nonconforming residential properties were prohibited from adding any enclosed square footage and a 'minor plan review' was required for the addition of features such as unenclosed porches, balconies, roof decks, etc. As staff saw the need for some degree of flexibility for property owners who wished to make modest upgrades to their nonconforming properties, a code provision was added to Title 11 that allows property owners of single- family dwellings to potentially make these upgrades through the conditional use permit process. Multi-unit residential properties, however, are still prohibited from expansion or alteration unless such expansion or alteration makes the structure or property conforming. Variances are granted in unique situations where a particular property cannot conform to the Zoning Code due to unique physical characteristics of the property, unique constraints upon the property, or 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 single-unit, nonconforming residential property, the property owner may apply for a conditional use permit, provided applicable minimum yard dimensions are maintained. In the case of a multi-unit residential property, the property is generally required to be brought into conformance with the current development standards of the zone in which it is located. 3 Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 12-2 226 4th Street June 20, 2012 With regard to the subject property, the lot configuration is a true rectangle, as are virtually all of the lots within this area of Old Town. There are no original building permits on file for the rear dwelling unit and garage, but City records do show that this appears to be a legal dwelling unit. Based on the structure's layout and construction, staff estimates that this rear garage and dwelling unit is at least 50-60 years old. There are original permits on file for the main dwelling that show the front house was constructed new in 2005. 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 consistent 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, setbacks, etc. will be brought up to current building and zoning code standards as redevelopment of properties occurs. To bring the subject property into conformance, the property owner would be required to eliminate the second dwelling unit and increase the rear yard setback by at least two feet. 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 and density issues 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 nonconformities into conformance, even though it may not be financially expedient to do so. Staff believes that there are presently no physical 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: Section 11.5.20.020B of the Municipal Code states that a variance shall only be granted if the Planning Commission finds, based upon evidence presented at the hearing: 1. 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 privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning district classification; 4 Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 12-2 226 4th Street June 20, 2012 3. The variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone district 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 the Planning Commission, after considering all relevant testimony, written or oral, presented during the public hearing, deny proposed Variance 12-2 to add approximately 180 square feet to the main dwelling unit of a property containing two dwelling units and a nonconforming rear setback at 226 4th Street. Staffs recommendation is based upon the following: • Variance 12-2 conforms in all significant respects with the City's General Plan, but does not conform to the City's Zoning Code, as the Zoning Code does not allow the expansion or modification of multi-unit residential structures. • There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property where the strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning district classification. • 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 all identical or similarly developed properties within the RHD-20 zone would be subject to the same Zoning Code limitations as the subject property. • Authorization of the variance would not substantially meet the intent and purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located, as the RHD-20 zone does not permit multiple residential units on a lot size such as that of the subject property, nor does it allow a substandard rear yard setback such as the one currently existing on the subject property. Accordingly, authorization of the variance could potentially be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 5 Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 12-2 226 4`h Street June 20, 2012 'Ye o liverar, AICP nior Planner Attachments:(2) Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution No. 12-8 - A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach, denying Variance No. 12-2, to allow an existing 7'-0" rear yard setback and a second dwelling unit to remain, in conjunction with a proposed ground floor addition of approximately 180 square feet to an existing, nonconforming multi-unit property (9'-0" is the minimum required rear yard setback; one dwelling unit is the maximum allowed) at 226 4th Street, Seal Beach Attachment 2: Project Plans 6 Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 12-2 226 4th Street June 20, 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 12-8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, DENYING VARIANCE 12-2, TO ALLOW AN EXISTING 7'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK AND A SECOND DWELLING UNIT TO REMAIN, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 180 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING, NONCONFORMING MULTI-UNIT PROPERTY (9'- 0" IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR SETBACK; ONE UNIT IS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ALLOWED) AT 226 4TH STREET, SEAL BEACH 7 Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 12-2 226 4th Street June 20, 2012 RESOLUTION NUMBER 12-8 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING VARIANCE 12-2 TO ALLOW AN EXISTING 7'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK AND A SECOND DWELLING UNIT TO REMAIN TO REMAIN, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 180 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING, NONCONFORMING MULTI-UNIT PROPERTY (9'-0" IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK; ONE UNIT IS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ALLOWED) AT 226 4TH STREET, SEAL BEACH THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. On May 7, 2012, Brent Sears (the "applicant") submitted an application to the City of Seal Beach Department of Development Services for Variance 12-2. Section 2. The requested variance would permit the addition approximately 180 square feet to the primary dwelling unit on the property, while maintaining the existing, nonconforming rear yard setback and a second dwelling unit in the rear of the property, above the garage. 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 12-2 to add approximately 180 square feet to the main dwelling unit on the property, while maintaining the existing, nonconforming rear yard setback and second dwelling unit above the garage, is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15301 (Existing Facilities), because the proposal involves a negligible expansion of an existing use; and 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. 8 Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 12-2 226 4`h Street June 20, 2012 Section 4. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 20, 2012, to consider the application for Variance 12-2. At the 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 June 20, 2012, indicates the following: a. On May 7, 2012, Brent Sears submitted an application to the City of Seal Beach Community Development Department for Variance 12-2. b. The requested variance would allow the addition of approximately 180 square feet to the primary dwelling unit on the property, while maintaining the existing, nonconforming rear yard setback and a second dwelling unit in the rear of the property, above the garage. 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 3,525 square feet in area and is located in the neighborhood generally known as "Old Town". e. The subject property has approximately 30.0 feet of frontage on 4th Street, is approximately 117.5 in depth, and is rectangular in shape. f. The property is presently developed with an approximately 1,972 square foot, two-story residence towards the front of the lot and a detached garage of approximately 648 square feet, with an approximately 564 square foot dwelling unit above the garage, towards the rear of the of the property. g. It would be entirely possible for the applicant to bring the existing nonconformities into conformance. Staff believes that there are no physical or developmental limitations or constraints on the subject 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 9 Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 12-2 226 4th Street June 20, 2012 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: a. Variance 12-2 conforms in all significant respects with the City's General Plan, but does not conform to the City's Zoning Code, as the Zoning Code does not allow the expansion or modification of multi-unit residential structures. b. There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property where the strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning district classification. c. 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 all identical or similarly developed properties within the RHD-20 zone would be subject to the same Zoning Code limitations as the subject property. 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 RHD-20 zone does not permit multiple residential units on a lot size such as that of the subject property, nor does it allow a substandard rear yard setback such as the one currently existing on the subject property. Accordingly, authorization of the variance could potentially be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies Variance 12-2. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners 10 Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 12-2 226 4th Street June 20, 2012 Sandra Massa-Lavitt Chairperson, Planning Commission Greg Hastings Interim Secretary, Planning Commission 11 Planning Commission Staff Report Variance 12-2 226 4th Street June 20, 2012 ATTACHMENT 2 PROJECT PLANS 12