HomeMy WebLinkAbout2. PLN-19-00134 - 12213 Gneiss Ave.BACKGROUND
The subject site is a 5,003 square foot standard shaped rectangular lot, with measurements of
98.52 feet deep and 50.79 feet wide, located on the west side of Gneiss Avenue, between
Alameda Street and Orange Street. The same lot dimensions exist for all properties within this
housing tract. The standard lot requirement for the zone is a minimum size of 5,000 square feet,
with a minimum lot width of 50 feet. The property is zoned R-1 5,000 (Single Family Residential)
and has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Density Residential.
The property is currently developed with a 1,498 square foot single-family residence. The
residence was built in 1956, and later expanded in 1962. The expansion was for a rear addition
of 198 square feet with a 9 foot 1 inch rear setback to the southern portion of the rear elevation.
The property was later developed with an unpermitted addition of 113 square feet towards the
middle of the rear of the rear elevation. The applicant is now seeking to legalize the addition, but
the structure does not meet current setback requirements. The unpermitted area consists of a
rear bedroom with a 10 foot rear yard setback. The unpermitted addition was built sometime in
2019 prior to the month of April.
Front view of subject property from Gneiss Avenue
On April 30, 2019 the property was issued a stop work notice do to the unpermitted addition and
other interior work. On August 26, 2019, the applicant submitted the request for a Variance. The
application was issued one incomplete letter, and after receiving all necessary documents the
application was deemed complete on November 18, 2019. On January 2, 2020, the notice of the
pending public hearing was published in the Downey Patriot and mailed to all property owners
within 500 feet of the subject site.
PC Agenda Page 2
DISCUSSION
The applicant is seeking a Variance from DMC Section 9312.08 (a) to reduce the rear yard
setback to 10 feet rather than the required 20 feet required for an R-1 zoned property.
As previously stated, a Variance is “a permit which grants a property owner relief from
development standards contained in this article when strict compliance with this article would
result in undue hardship on the owner due to special circumstances or conditions applicable to a
property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings.” In order to approve a
Variance request, the Planning Commission must make the following findings in a positive
manner:
1)That exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to
the land, structure, or building involved and which are not generally applicable to other
lands, structures, or buildings in the same vicinity and zone.
2)That the literal interpretation of the provisions of this article would deprive the applicant
of rights under the terms of this article commonly enjoyed by other properties in the
same vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
3)The exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances do not result from the
actions of the applicant.
4)That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands, structures, or building in the same
vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
5)That the granting of such variance will be in harmony and not adversely affect the
General Plan of the City.
6)That the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance and the
variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land,
building, or structure.
As part of the review for this request, staff reviewed the application submittal and conducted an
assessment of the subject property and surrounding area to determine if a special circumstance
exists. The subject property holds standard lot dimensions for the corresponding R-1 zoning
district. Below are the required development standards, as well as the characteristics of the
subject property:
Development Standard Required Provided Note
Lot area 5,000 s.f. 5,003.8 s.f. Conforming
Lot width 50’ 50.8’ Conforming
Lot depth Conform to adjacent Legal nonconforming
(126.6’) 98.5’
Floor area ratio 0.60 0.299 Conforming
Setbacks
Front
Rear
North side
South side
20’
20’
5’
5’
20’
9’ 1”
3’
5’
Conforming
Legal nonconforming
Legal nonconforming
Conforming
Minimum dwelling size 1,300 s.f.
(3 bdrm)
1,498 s.f. Conforming
Enclosed parking spaces 2 2 Conforming
Enclosed parking dimension
(width x depth)
20’ x 20’ 20’ x 20’ Conforming
PC Agenda Page 3
The DMC sets a prevailing lot depth as the minimum lot depth required. As seen in the parcel
map located on page 5, there are some outlier properties that have 200 foot lot depths which
increased the lot depth reflected in the table to 126.6 feet. However, most parcels in the vicinity
have an average lot depth of 98.5 feet which is the same as the subject site.
The applicant’s request for a Variance included their assessment of the subject site and the
required Variance findings. A copy of their assessment and findings can be found as “Exhibit C”
of this report. The applicant has noted that properties within this neighborhood have structures
that encroach within the rear yard setback. However, staff’s assessment found that excessive
encroachments referenced by the applicant consist of garages and accessory structures. The
applicant’s request is to allow the main residence to encroach into the rear yard, not an
accessory structure, so accessory structures were not used as comparisons. When analyzing
the rear setback for the main dwelling, existing setbacks for other homes within the
neighborhood range from 15 feet to 32 feet. The average rear setback among all the homes in
the neighborhood is 22 feet. The rear setback characteristics for the neighborhood are as
illustrated in the parcel map figure provide on page 5.
A reduced setback of 10 feet to allow the expansion of the dwelling would be inconsistent with
other similar parcels within close proximity. The only home in the area with a rear setback of
less than 15 feet for the main dwelling is the subject property with a setback of 9 feet 1 inch on
the southern portion of the rear elevation. The proposed legalization of the unpermitted addition
will further exacerbate the existing nonconformity and privileges currently already afforded to the
property owner. This privilege is not afforded to other likewise standard shaped parcels within
the same zone or vicinity.
In regards to required findings No. 2, 4, and 6, consisting of rights enjoyed by others in the
same zone, special privileges, and development alternatives, there are additional options that
will allow the property owner to reach the desired expanded square footage. This includes one
story construction to the front of the home (potentially a maximum of 570 square feet) and/or
second story construction (potentially a maximum of 1,500 square feet). Both of these options
are allowed “by-right”, without the need for separate entitlement, through the building permit
process. Furthermore, these are alternative options available to the property owner that do not
require granting of a special privilege.
It is important to note that nearby neighborhoods to the South along Orizaba Avenue, Gneiss
Avenue, and Caladre Avenue typically have rear yard setback encroachments for the main
dwelling. The average setback for these neighborhoods is 14 feet. However, these properties
are also characterized by an average lot depth of 84.68 feet, and are considered substandard
lots. Provisions were incorporated into the Municipal Code to allow these types of substandard
lots to develop at a reduced rear yard setback because it was acknowledged that lots were
unique and would have difficulty achieving development standards. The subject site is deeper
than 84.68 feet. Therefore, it was not included because the subject site and similar adjacent lots
were expected to comply with development standards.
Staff believes the required findings cannot be made in a positive manner given that the scope of
work may be achieved alternatively elsewhere on the property, is inconsistent with the general
plan, and incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. As described in the analysis above,
there are no unique circumstances that prevent compliance with building standards or cause a
hardship. The request is to remedy a condition that was created by the applicant because the
site can achieve the desired improvements through alternative designs.
PC Agenda Page 4
Rear Setback Parcel Map
*Red outline indicates subject property.
*All measurements indicated within this figure represent rear setbacks.
PC Agenda Page 5
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
On September 19, 2019, the Development Review Committee (DRC) discussed and evaluated
the project as it pertains to Planning, Police, Fire, Public Works, and Building and Safety
matters. No department expressed concerns or opposition over the project, and issued standard
conditions. Recommended conditions of approval have been included in the attached
Resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the proposed use for compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). Upon completion of this review, staff determined that this request is categorically
exempt from CEQA, pursuant to Guideline Section No. 15301 (Class 1, Existing Facilities).
Categorical Exemptions are projects, which have been determined not to have a significant
effect on the environment and have been exempted from the requirements of CEQA.
FINDINGS
Pursuant with Section 9814.08 of the Municipal Code, before a Variance may be granted, the
Planning Commission shall make findings from the evidence, as submitted, that all six (6) of the
following conditions exist in reference to the property being considered. Based on the evidence
submitted in the application, the request cannot be supported with positive findings as described
below:
1. Exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the
land, structure, or building involved and which are not generally applicable to other
lands, structures, or buildings in the same vicinity and zone.
There are no identifiable exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property
to distinguish it from other properties in the same vicinity or zone. The site is best described as
a regular shaped standard interior lot with the ability to meet all relevant development
standards. In terms of physical layout, the property has a standard lot depth of 98.5 feet. It also
has the minimum dimensions required for lot width, at 50.8’, and lot size, at 5,003.8 square
feet. The restrictions laid out within the municipal code have not prevented others from
developing and/or utilizing their property. Therefore, the conditions specific to the property do
not create a difficulty for the site to accommodate new construction.
2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this article would deprive the applicant
of rights under the terms of this article commonly enjoyed by other properties in the
same vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
The project consists of the legalization of a 113 square foot rear addition with a 10 foot rear
setback. The construction is not allowed because it does not conform to a 20 foot rear yard
setback set forth within the Downey Municipal Code. Thus, the applicant has submitted a
request for a Variance to reduce the rear setback. Alternatively, an equal scope of work and
desired square footage may be achieved elsewhere on the property. The construction can
take place to the front of the property where there currently exists a 48 foot front setback,
but only a 20 foot front setback is required. This area would allow the applicant to construct
up to 570 square feet and still comply with all provisions of this article. An additional option
is the construction of a second floor. Constructing a second floor would allow the applicant
the opportunity to construct up to 1,500 square feet and still comply with all of the provisions
PC Agenda Page 6
of this article. These same provisions are applied and enforced upon all other likewise
standard shaped parcels. Specifically, within the nearby vicinity the smallest setback found
for other likewise parcels is 15 feet. Ten foot setbacks are only found among neighboring
parcels with substandard lot dimensions unlike that of the subject property. Therefore, the
literal interpretation of this article does not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed
by other properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
3. The exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances do not result from the
actions of the applicant.
There are no identifiable exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this
property. It is best described as a standard shaped lot, and is able to meet all relevant
development standards.
However, the circumstances that prompted this application, an unpermitted structure with a
nonconforming rear setback, were caused by the actions of the applicant or a previous
owner. A code enforcement complaint and stop work notice, involving additional unpermitted
work, resulted in the applicant retroactively seeking permission to retain the nonconforming
work with a reduced setback. These circumstances and burdens currently present upon the
site would not have resulted if the city was contacted and permits were obtained prior to
commencing construction.
4. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this chapter to other lands, structures, or building in the same
vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
The granting of this Variance does allow the applicant a special privilege that is denied by
this chapter. The applicant’s request for a reduced rear yard setback of 10 feet is
uncommonly approved among likewise standard shaped single-family parcels within the
same zone. A reduced rear yard setback of 10 feet is not found on any property within the
neighborhood. Alternatively, the applicant holds the ability to construct elsewhere on the
property and both of the alternative locations comply with the municipal code and reach the
desired square footage. Approvals for these alternatives are regularly permitted on a “by-
right” basis for countless other developments within the city within the R-1 5,000 Single
Family zone.
5. The granting of such variance will be in harmony and not adversely affect the General
Plan of the City.
The project explicitly contradicts the goals and policies outlined in the City’s General Plan.
The proposed scope of work is out of harmony and adversely affects the following policies:
Policy 8.2.1. – Promote compliance with code regulations.
The subject property already holds multiple legal nonconformities, and one illegal
nonconformity which prompted the request for this application. Allowance of additional
construction at a reduced rear setback will further exacerbate non-compliance on the
property.
Goal 1.4. – Protect and enhance the residential neighborhoods.
Policy 1.4.2. – Promote residential construction that complements existing neighborhood.
PC Agenda Page 7
Program 1.4.2.1. – Discourage residential construction not in harmony with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Program 1.4.2.4. – Encourage developments to consider impacts to privacy, views, and
sunlight on adjacent properties.
These goals are most typically achieved by allowing new construction that is consistent,
compatible, and similar in character to standard shaped lots. Unfortunately, the proposed
development is requesting privileges not found within the neighborhood or standard shaped
lot in the same zone. The smallest rear setback of any other likewise main dwelling within
the neighborhood is 15 feet, opposed to the 10 feet requested by the applicant.
Furthermore, single family neighborhoods are characterized by ample buffers, or setbacks
and open space, in between properties. Allowing for a reduced setback not typical for single
family homes potentially impacts privacy and separation typically enjoyed within this zone.
The rear property line of the subject property serves as the side property line of the rear
abutting property. The separation of these properties must be a minimum of 25 feet as set
forth in the Municipal Code. Approval of a reduced setback would only allow for a building
separation of 14 feet between these properties. This type of building separations is more
typical in commercial and industrial zones.
6. The reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance and the
variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the
land, building, or structure.
The reasons specified in the application do not justify the granting of a variance. The main
reason for the request is the result of unpermitted construction. With appropriate initial
review from the Community Development Department, the applicant would have been
notified of a variety of legal alternatives in which the desired scope of work is still possible.
Furthermore, the restrictions set forth within the Municipal Code have not restricted other
likewise properties from reasonably using their land and developing upon those lands.
Additionally, the applicant argues that other properties within the vicinity hold the same
privileges requested via this application. Through staff analysis, it was found that no other
likewise parcel within the same vicinity holds setbacks equal to that of the request. Rather,
the average rear setback among the neighborhood is 22 feet. The smallest setback for a
main dwelling among the other properties is 15 feet, and the subject property already holds
the privilege of the smallest rear yard setback among the neighboring properties at 9 feet 1
inch.
CORRESPONDENCE
As of the date that this report was printed, staff has not received any correspondence regarding
this application.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis contained within this report, it is concluded that the proposed addition will
confer a special privilege to the applicant not allowed to others within the same zone. Therefore,
all findings required for approval cannot be made in a positive manner. As such, it is
recommended that the Planning Commission deny the Variance (PLN-19-00134).
PC Agenda Page 8
EXHIBITS
A. Maps
B. Draft Resolution
C. Applicant’s Supplemental Submittal (Findings and Correspondence)
D. Project Plans
PC Agenda Page 9
EXHIBIT ‘A’
Vicinity Map
PC Agenda Page 10
Zoning Map
Subject Property
Subject Site
PC Agenda Page 11
(
E
)
2
-
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
E
N
T
R
Y
(
E
)
H
O
U
S
E
L
E
G
A
L
I
Z
E
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
1
1
2
.
8
S
F
.
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
N
O
O
K
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
1
8
S
F
.
S
H
E
E
T
I
N
D
E
X
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
T
E
A
M
:
S
C
O
P
E
O
F
W
O
R
K
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
L
E
G
A
L
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
GENERAL NOTES:
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
S
T
.
1
-PERT DESIGNS
RSITE PLAN/COVER
S
O
U
T
H
L
A
N
D
F
I
N
A
N
C
I
A
L
1
2
2
1
3
G
N
E
I
S
S
A
V
E
.
D
O
W
N
E
Y
,
C
A
.
9
0
2
4
2
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
N
E
W
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
S
,
B
A
T
H
R
O
O
M
,
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
,
&
K
I
T
N
O
O
K
C
O
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
12213 GNEISS AVE.
DOWNEY, CA. 90242
PHONE: 818-822-7608
S
I
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
D
W
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
E
M
O
D
E
L
&
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
P
C
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
g
e
1
2
(
E
)
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
1
(
E
)
B
A
T
H
(
E
)
B
A
T
H
(
E
)
L
I
V
I
N
G
R
O
O
M
(
E
)
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
2
(
E
)
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
3
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
(
N
)
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
4
(
E
)
K
I
T
.
(
N
)
K
I
T
C
H
E
N
N
O
O
K
(
N
)
B
A
T
H
R
O
O
M
(
E
)
D
I
N
I
N
G
R
O
O
M
(
E
)
2
-
C
A
R
G
A
R
A
G
E
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
N
O
T
E
S
:
D
O
O
R
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
L
E
G
E
N
D
L
E
G
E
N
D
NOTES:
E
N
T
R
Y
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
(
N
)
B
E
D
R
O
O
M
5
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
A
.
1
-PERT DESIGNS
RFLOOR PLAN12213 GNEISS AVE.
DOWNEY, CA. 90242
PHONE: 818-822-7608
P
C
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
g
e
1
3
EAST ELEVATION
A
.
2
-PERT DESIGNS
RELEVATIONS12213 GNEISS AVE.
DOWNEY, CA. 90242
PHONE: 818-822-7608
N
O
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
WEST ELEVATION
S
O
U
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
C
A
g
e
n
d
a
P
a
g
e
1
4
RESOLUTION NO. 20-_____
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY TO
DENY VARIANCE PLN-19-00134, A REQUEST FOR DEVIATION TO DOWNEY
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9312.08 (a) FOR A REDUCED REAR YARD SETBACK
OF 10 FEET, RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 20 FEET MINIMUM LOCATED AT
12213 GNEISS AVENUE, AND ZONED R-1 5,000 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Downey does hereby find,
determine and declare that:
A. An application was filed by Luis Rodriguez (hereinafter referred to as “the
Applicant”) on August 26, 2019, requesting approval of a Variance (PLN-19-
00134) from Downey Municipal Code Section 9312.08 (a) for property located at
12213 Gneiss Avenue, and zoned R-1 5,000 (Single Family Residential); and,
B. On September 25, 2019, the applicants were issued a letter deeming the
application incomplete.
C. On November 18, 2019, the application was deemed complete after all required
documents were submitted and reviewed.
D. On January 2, 2020, notice of the proposed project was mailed to all Downey
property owners within 500 feet of the subject site and the notice was published
in the Downey Patriot; and,
E. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 15,
2020 and after fully considering all oral and written testimony, facts, and opinions
offered at the aforesaid public hearing adopted this resolution.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that
pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
SECTION 3. Having considered all of the oral and written evidence presented to it at
said public hearings, the Planning Commission further finds, determines and declares that:
1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary conditions or circumstances that exist
which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not
generally applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same vicinity
and zone. There are no identifiable exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
applicable to this property to distinguish it from other properties in the same
vicinity or zone. The site is best described as a regular shaped standard interior
lot with the ability to meet all relevant development standards. In terms of physical
layout, the property has a standard lot depth of 98.5 feet. It also has the minimum
dimensions required for lot width, at 50.8’, and lot size, at 5,003.8 square feet.
The restrictions laid out within the municipal code have not prevented others from
developing and/or utilizing their property. Therefore, the conditions specific to the
property do not create a difficulty for the site to accommodate new construction.
PC Agenda Page 15
2. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this article would not deprive the
applicant of rights under the terms of this article commonly enjoyed by other
properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The
project consists of the legalization of a 113 square foot rear addition with a 10 foot
rear setback. The construction is not allowed because it does not conform to a 20
foot rear yard setback set forth within the Downey Municipal Code. Thus, the
applicant has submitted a request for a Variance to reduce the rear setback.
Alternatively, an equal scope of work and desired square footage may be
achieved elsewhere on the property. The construction can take place to the front
of the property where there currently exists a 48 foot front setback, but only a 20
foot front setback is required. This area would allow the applicant to construct up
to 570 square feet and still comply with all provisions of this article. An additional
option is the construction of a second floor. Constructing a second floor would
allow the applicant the opportunity to construct up to 1,500 square feet and still
comply with all of the provisions of this article. These same provisions are applied
and enforced upon all other likewise standard shaped parcels. Specifically, within
the nearby vicinity the smallest setback found for other likewise parcels is 15 feet.
Ten foot setbacks are only found among neighboring parcels with substandard lot
dimensions unlike that of the subject property. Therefore, the literal interpretation
of this article does not deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other
properties in the same vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
3. There are no identifiable exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to
this property that could have been a result from the actions of the applicant. There
are no identifiable exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to this
property. It is best described as a standard shaped lot, and is able to meet all
relevant development standards.
However, the circumstances that prompted this application, an unpermitted
structure with a nonconforming rear setback, were caused by the actions of the
applicant or a previous owner. A code enforcement complaint and stop work
notice, involving additional unpermitted work, resulted in the applicant retroactively
seeking permission to retain the nonconforming work with a reduced setback.
These circumstances and burdens currently present upon the site would not have
resulted if the city was contacted and permits were obtained prior to commencing
construction.
4. Granting the variance requested will confer on the applicant a special privilege
that is denied by this chapter to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same
vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The granting of this Variance
does allow the applicant a special privilege that is denied by this chapter. The
applicant’s request for a reduced rear yard setback of 10 feet is uncommonly
approved among likewise standard shaped single-family parcels within the same
zone. A reduced rear yard setback of 10 feet is not found on any property within
the neighborhood. Alternatively, the applicant holds the ability to construct
elsewhere on the property and both of the alternative locations comply with the
municipal code and reach the desired square footage. Approvals for these
alternatives are regularly permitted on a “by-right” basis for countless other
developments within the city within the R-1 5,000 Single Family zone.
PC Agenda Page 16
5. The granting of such variance will not be in harmony and will adversely affect the
General Plan of the City. The project explicitly contradicts the goals and policies
outlined in the City’s General Plan. The proposed scope of work is out of harmony
and adversely affects the following policies:
Policy 8.2.1. – Promote compliance with code regulations.
The subject property already holds multiple legal nonconformities, and one illegal
nonconformity which prompted the request for this application. Allowance of
additional construction at a reduced rear setback will further exacerbate non-
compliance on the property.
Goal 1.4. – Protect and enhance the residential neighborhoods.
Policy 1.4.2. – Promote residential construction that complements existing
neighborhood.
Program 1.4.2.1. – Discourage residential construction not in harmony with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Program 1.4.2.4. – Encourage developments to consider impacts to privacy,
views, and sunlight on adjacent properties.
These goals are most typically achieved by allowing new construction that is
consistent, compatible, and similar in character to standard shaped lots.
Unfortunately, the proposed development is requesting privileges not found within
the neighborhood or standard shaped lot in the same zone. The smallest rear
setback of any other likewise main dwelling within the neighborhood is 15 feet,
opposed to the 10 feet requested by the applicant. Furthermore, single family
neighborhoods are characterized by ample buffers, or setbacks and open space,
in between properties. Allowing for a reduced setback not typical for single family
homes potentially impacts privacy and separation typically enjoyed within this
zone. The rear property line of the subject property serves as the side property
line of the rear abutting property. The separation of these properties must be a
minimum of 25 feet as set forth in the Municipal Code. Approval of a reduced
setback would only allow for a building separation of 14 feet between these
properties. This type of building separations is more typical in commercial and
industrial zones.
6. The reasons set forth in the application do not justify the granting of the variance
and the variance is not the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. The reasons specified in the
application do not justify the granting of a variance. The main reason for the
request is the result of unpermitted construction. With appropriate initial review
from the Community Development Department, the applicant would have been
notified of a variety of legal alternatives in which the desired scope of work is still
possible. Furthermore, the restrictions set forth within the Municipal Code have
not restricted other likewise properties from reasonably using their land and
developing upon those lands.
Additionally, the applicant argues that other properties within the vicinity hold the
same privileges requested via this application. Through staff analysis, it was found
PC Agenda Page 17
that no other likewise parcel within the same vicinity holds setbacks equal to that
of the request. Rather, the average rear setback among the neighborhood is 22
feet. The smallest setback for a main dwelling among the other properties is 15
feet, and the subject property already holds the privilege of the smallest rear yard
setback among the neighboring properties at 9 feet 1 inch.
SECTION 4. Based upon the findings set forth in Section 1 through 3 of this Resolution,
the Planning Commission of the City of Downey hereby denies this Conditional Use Permit
(PLN-19-00134).
SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of January, 2020.
Steven Dominguez, Chairman
City Planning Commission
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Downey at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of January,
2020 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Mary Cavanagh, Secretary
City Planning Commission
PC Agenda Page 18