Seal Beach Planners this week approved two minor use permits to allow a porch to exceed 50% of the width of front façade for each of two proposed single-family homes in Old Town. Because the matter related to two proposed houses, the Planning Commission had to approve a separate resolution for each property.
The planners did so with a single vote.
The vote was unanimous for both porches.
Staff recommended the commission approve both resolutions.
Discussion
District Five Commissioner Margo Wheeler asked what the setbacks would be for the porches.
Planning Manager Shaun Temple said in Old Town the calculation of a front setback was a little strange because it was an area calculation.
He said the code starts at 12 feet, but then makes adjustments based on the front façade and whether certain areas are pulled in or pushed out.
He said the front setback could range from 6 to 12 feet, just depending on how the front façade is set up.
Temple said that the porch was allowed to extend 6 feet into the setback and the proposed porches would extend 4 feet into the setback.
District Four Commissioner Patty Campbell said the applicant wanted to add a porch but they wanted to demolish the house.
Temple explained that the current house covers what used to be two lots and the applicant proposed to replace it with two houses.
He said the property had reverted back to the original two lots.
“So now one property became two properties and they’re building a brand new house on each property and within with that they want to add the porch,” Temple said.
Campbell asked if they wanted to add a porch to one house or to each of them.
Temple said for each.
Campbell asked if this had gone to the Coastal Commission for approval. She knew of an instance when a property owner had a double-wide lot and they wanted to put up two houses.
“The Coastal Commission said no, because the city’s going to be underwater in 50 years,” Campbell said.
District Three Planning Commissioner/Chair Richard Coles said that was not Germain to this discussion.
Temple said it would need to go to the Coastal Commission.
Applicant Jeffrey Dahl told the commission that each of the two houses were submitted separately to the Coastal Commission. One house received approval in concept from the Coastal Commission. The second house, however, was picked up by the Coastal Commission and Dahl said that stopped everything.
He said he had to get Seal Beach Planning Commission approval. “Then we pick it back up and go back,” Dahl said.
“It defies reason, doesn’t it,” Campbell said.
“You have no idea,” Dahl said.
He said there was now a “no reduction of density law” that would not allow tearing down two homes and trying to build a single family home.
“Good luck,” Campbell said.
Background
“The project site is located in Old Town at 138 6th Street and was originally a 5,875 square foot property (50 foot wide by 117.5 foot deep), made up of two lots (lot 36 and 38), developed with a single-family residence constructed in 1948, according to the staff report prepared by Planning Manager Shaun Temple.
“The applicant is proposing the demolition of the single-family residence, and to revert the property back to its two original lots, each lot being a separate property at 25 feet wide by 117.5 foot deep, which is a standard residential property size within Old Town,” Temple wrote.
“A new single-family residence is proposed on each new property,” Temple wrote. “The reversion of the larger property back to its two original lots is an administrative action that is reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, and does not require approval by the Planning Commission,” Temple wrote.
“Similarly, the proposed single-family residences, one on each property, are reviewed and approved administratively by the Community Development Department, and do not require approval by the Planning Commission,” Temple wrote.
“However, the applicant is requesting approval for a porch to exceed 50 percent of the width of the front façade while extending into the front setback on each of the proposed single-family residences,” Temple wrote.
That, according to Temple’s report, requires Planning Commission approval.
The Municipal Code allows porches to extend up to 6 feet into the front setback under specific conditions, according to Temple’s report.
“1. The porch is open on 2 or more sides;
“2. The porch enclosure, including roof, parapets, and railings, does not exceed 14 feet in height;
“3. The porch does not exceed 50% of the front building width measured at the front façade. Greater width may be approved pursuant to a minor use permit; and
“4. Stairs leading up to a porch, which are less than 2 feet above grade, may project an additional 4 feet into the required front yard setback,” Temple wrote.
“Per standard 3 above, a minor use permit is required as the porch is proposed to exceed 50% of
the front building width, being the equivalent width (100%) of the front façade at 17’6,” Temple wrote.
“The remaining standards have been met – the porch is open on two sides (front and south); the porch enclosure (roof), at 13’3”, does not exceed 14 feet in height; and there are no stairs extending in front of the porch.
“The subject sites are surrounded by other residential uses. On this block of 6th Street, there is a wide variety of residential uses in terms of a mix of single-family and multi-family, architectural styles, and age of the structures. One of the older homes on this block has a porch of equal width to the front façade at 143 6th Street, while one block over on 5th Street, four houses have a front porches of equal width to the front façade that also extend into the front setback at 204, 206, 208, and 210 5th Street,” Temple wrote.
“Additionally, the width of the lots are the minimum width within lots in Old Town, at 25 feet, and the total size of the porch is limited to 17.5 feet,” Temple wrote.
“Considering the small width of the lots, the existence of other full-size porches in the neighborhood, and the mix of residential uses and architectural styles, it is not expected that the approval of a full-size porch extending into the front setback for these proposed houses would have a negative impact in the neighborhood,” Temple wrote.
“These two projects are being presented together due to their relation and similarity; however, each project needs to be approved through a separate resolution,” Temple wrote.
