The Planning Commission on July 6 approved a variance (exception) to the rear yard setback area.
The vote was 4 to 0. District Five Commissioner/Planning Chair Margot Wheeler was absent.
The applicant wanted to replace an empty building that isn’t a home with a two-story one-family home with a garage and deck, according to the staff report by Associate Planner Patricia Garcia.
Planners also approved a minor use permit for the attached garage.
The issue for the variance wasn’t the number of stories. The issue is the back yard setback.
District Four Commissioner Patty Campbell said it was a very oddly-shaped parcel.
According to Community Development Director Shaun Temple, the property doesn’t have access to the alley. A letter to the city from Erin Murphy argued that the parcel had alley access from 14th Street.
Applicant Ryan Oldham said the property was “economically undevelopable” without the variance.
Neighbor Alan Alexander raised concerns that the proposal would impact their quality of life.
“I think the whole purpose of having these setbacks is so that people don’t feel like they’re living in a dungeon, which is pretty much what would end up happening to a couple of my neighbors,” he said.
District Two Commissioner Karen Nolta asked if the applicant looked at making the garage smaller.
“If you go back about 30% into the garage, the width of the garage itself for most of the purpose is 20 ft. So what they’re counting as the garage is the garage bay which includes five feet that is under the stairwell,” Oldham said. He described the site as “funky”.
Background
“The variance request would allow the reduction of the required rear yard setback. The minor use permit request would permit an attached garage within the 30 feet of the street facing side lot line to exceed 20 feet in width and to exceed 50% of the width of the residential façade. With the exception of the above-mentioned requests, the scope of work complies with the residential development standards set forth in Seal Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) Table 11.2.005.015 (Development Standards for Residential Districts),” Garcia wrote.
The sight is in the RHD 20 zone, which doesn’t allow commercial uses, according to her report.
“The properties facing Ocean Avenue from 14th Street to Dolphin Avenue have a Commercial-General General plan use designation and are surrounded with Residential High Density land use designated properties. These properties have historically been mixed-use properties, with residential components. The Land Use Element also notes the residential mixed use in commercial land use designated areas within Old Town such those along Seal Beach Boulevard south of the Pacific Coast Highway, and several properties within this 1400 block of Ocean Avenue have already been built with residential uses. The subject site has not operated as a commercial site since 2015, based on city business license records,” Garcia wrote.
“The demolition of the existing commercial structure and its replacement with a residential structure, allows the property use to be in compliance with its zoning designation,” Garcia wrote.
The property is in Old Town.
“Old Town lots are predominantly rectangular-shaped lots with rear alley access. This development pattern is reflected in the Zoning Code’s rear yard setback requirement, which is 24 feet minus the width of the alley. The Code explicitly incorporates the alley width into the rear setback requirement and allows the reduction of the required setback by the alley width, which is typically 15-feet wide throughout Old Town. The proposed project lot does not have alley access due to its configuration. The rear lot line abuts the interior lot line of the adjacent lot. The applicant is proposing a 9-foot rear yard setback, which would be a 15-foot reduction from the required 24-foot setback. The requested reduction would be applicable for other lots in the vicinity with rear alley access,” Garcia wrote.
According to the report, the Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to grant a variance as long as allowing a variance doesn’t create a special privilege inconsistent with the limits on other nearby properties.
“The lot configuration creates a special site-specific circumstance that would not allow for strict application of the rear setback requirement in a way that does not also deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning district classification. Thus, staff believes this request is warranted and that the required findings to grant the variance may be made,” Garcia wrote.
Then there was the minor use permit to get an exception for the rules for the attached garage.
“The applicant is proposing a 25-foot 3 ½ inch wide attached two-car garage. The residential façade facing the street-side lot line has a linear length of 47 feet and 3 inches. The linear length of the attached garage is 25 feet 3 ½ inches, which is approximately 54% of the dwelling’s façade,” Garcia wrote.
However, the Municipal Code, according to Garcia, says if a garage is 30 feet from the street lot-line, the garage is limited to being 20 feet wide.
“The purpose of this code section is to ensure that the street-facing appearance of the residential structure is not dominated by a flat garage door surface. The house has been purposely designed to avoid this appearance,” Garcia wrote.