HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2012-12-10 #L X04 5EA( eti.
F .
�U-1 4rZ
AGENDA STAFF REPORT s
f
DATE: December 10, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THRU: Jill R. Ingram, City Manager
FROM: Jim Basham, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL
OF VARIANCE 11-2, TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION
OF A 75'-0" WIDE LOT LOCATED AT 400 OCEAN
AVENUE TO CREATE A 42'-6" WIDE CORNER LOT
AND A 32'-6" WIDE INTERIOR LOT
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Conduct a public hearing regarding the applicant's appeal of the Planning
Commission's denial of Variance 11-2, and after consideration of all evidence
and testimony presented, direct staff to prepare a resolution upholding the
Commission's decision to deny Variance 11-2.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS:
The appellant is the owner of an existing 75-0" wide lot at 400 Ocean Avenue
(the "subject property") located in the Residential Low Density 9 ("RLD-9") zone
in Old Town. He has requested permission to subdivide the subject property to
create two new parcels: a 42'-6" wide corner lot and a 32'-6" wide interior lot.
Because neither lot would meet the City's current minimum lot width standards in
the RLD-9 zone, the appellant applied to obtain a variance from the City's
minimum lot width standards. The subject property is 75' x 196' and comprises
14,700 square feet in area. The property is presently developed with a two-level,
four-bedroom, single family dwelling.
Planning Commission Action:
After conducting a public hearing, the Commission denied Variance 11-2. At the
hearing, three persons spoke in opposition of the Variance and one person
spoke in favor.
Pursuant to Section 11.5.20.020.13 of the Municipal Code, the Planning
Commission found, based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, that:
Agenda Item L
1. Variance 11-2 does not conform to the General Plan or any ordinances
adopted by the City Council, specifically, the Zoning Code, as the
proposed subdivision would result in the creation of two substandard lots.
The proposed lots are considered substandard because they would not
meet the City's current minimum lot width standards;
2. 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 properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning
district classification, as all of the properties within the Gold Coast area
are rectangular in shape and there are no other constraints upon the
subject lot that would preclude its redevelopment in compliance with RLD-
9 zoning development standards;
3. 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 the existing
property at 400 Ocean Avenue is suitable for redevelopment and no other
properties within the Gold Coast area Would be allowed a similar request
for subdivision; and
4. Authorization of the Variance would not substantially meet the intent and
purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located, as
development standards within the RLD-9 zone were established to
facilitate uniform development patterns, adequate building setbacks, and
place controls on residential density within the zone.
Please refer to Attachment "B" to review Planning Commission Resolution No.
11-27 for the findings and determination of the Planning Commission. Please
refer to Attachment "C" to review the Planning Commission Minutes of December
7, 2011 and to Attachment "D" to review the Planning Commission Staff Report
of December 7, 2011.
Appeal:
On December 14, 2011, the City Clerk received an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision from the appellant. (Please refer to Attachment "A.")
Section 1.20,005.D of the Municipal Code requires that the appeal must indicate
in what way the appellant contends the decision was incorrect or must provide
extenuating circumstances that the appellant contends would justify reversal or
modification of the Planning Commission's decision. The appellant's request for
appeal states that the following would justify reversal or modification of the
Planning Commission's decision:
o Existence of unique, nonconforming lot configurations within the Gold
Coast neighborhood
Page 2
• Proposed lot subdivision would create lots similar to those which already
exist
• There would be no grant of special privilege since the new lots would
approximate the size and dimensions of other existing lots
• The City has historically allowed reversions to original subdivision lines
within the Old Town area
• The development of two smaller lots would create more open space and
view corridors than development on one large lot
The property owner has submitted a statement and several exhibits in support of
his appeal. Please refer to Attachments "E" and "F."
Necessary findings:
Pursuant to Section 11.5.20.020 B of the City's Zoning Code, A variance shall
only be granted if the Council finds, based upon evidence presented by the
Applicant at the hearing:
1. The variance conforms in all significant respects to 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 ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other
property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification;
3. The variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone 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.
As noted above the Planning Commission was unable to make any of these
findings. For instance, the Commission found that (a) no special circumstances,
such as atypical size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, exists which
would (b) deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in
the vicinity and under identical zoning district classification. The Commission
found that all of the properties within the Gold Coast area are rectangular in
shape and there are no other constraints upon the subject lot that would preclude
its use in compliance with RLD-9 zoning development standards. The
Commission also found that the approval of the variance would constitute a grant
of special privileges.
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
If the Council upholds the Commission's decision denying Variance 11-2, the
decision would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15270, because CEQA does
not apply to project that a public agency rejects or disapproves.
If the Council grants the appeal and approves Variance 11-2, the project would
be exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3)
because it can be seen with certainty that the addition of one more single family
residence in an already developed residential neighborhood would not result in
any significant environmental impacts.
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Pursuant to the City's municipal code and applicable state law, the City may
uphold, overturn or modify the Commission's decision. If the Council overturns
the decision, it may impose reasonable conditions upon the variance designed to
ensure that the proposal conforms in all significant respects to the Seal Beach
General Plan and to all other applicable plans and policies adopted by the City
Council and to mitigate any potential impacts.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION:
After conducting the public hearing and considering all evidence and testimony
presented, direct staff to prepare a resolution upholding the Commission's
,-4-cision to deny Variance 11-2.
1 17
S U1113MITTED BY: TED A D APPROVED:
m Basham, JILW. Ingram, City N4anjger
irector of Community Development
Prepared by: Jerome Olivera, AICP - Senior Planner, Community Development
Attachments:
A. Appeal of Harold B. Rothman received December 14, 2011
B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 11-27
C. Planning Commission Minutes of December 7, 2011
D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 7, 2011
E. Correspondence received subsequent to the Appeal Application
F Letter and exhibits submitted by Property Owner
G. Exhibit showing subject property and other nearby properties
Page 4
Attachment A
Appeal of Harold B. Rothman Received
December 14, 2011
RECEIVED
MCI*�'i'A 2011
CITY CLERK
CITY OF SEAL BEACH CITY OF SEAL BE
APPEAL APPLICATION TO CITY COUNCIL
For Office Use Only
Planning Commission Date: A7 I/ Planning Commis,5ion Resolution No.:-AL�-17
I / '
Planning Commission Action: Approval—Denial Other--
Date Appeal Filed: )02 ZyL11 _Fee Paid:�7�5 city Council Date:
Notice Date: City Council Action: Resolution No.:
I Property Address: 400 Ocean Ave.
2. Applicant's Name: Harold B. Rothman
Address: 311 Ocean Ave., Unit A, Seal Beach, CA 90740
Work Phone: 562 344-1044 _Mobile: (562 221-4837
Home Phone: FAX: ( 562 ) 493-5754
3. Property Owners Name:-Harold B. Rothman
Address: 311 Ocean Ave. Unit A, Seal Beach, CA 90740
Home Phone: ( 562) 221-4837
4, The undersigned hereby appeals the following described action of the Seal Beach
Planning Commission concerning Public Heating No. 12-7-11 Variance 11-2
Attach a statement that ex lains in detail why the decision of the Planning
Commission is being appealed, the specific conditions of approval being appealed,
and include your statements indicating where the Planning Commission may be in
error.
(Signature of Applicant) na tpd wrier
1-larold B. Rothman Harold B. Rothnian
(Print Name) (Print Name)
12-12-11 12-12-11
(Date) (Date)
HAROLD B. ROTHMAN
400 Ocean Avenue
Seal Beach,CA 90740
December 14,20111
City of Seal Beach City Council
211 8,h Street
Seal Beach,CA 90740
Re: 400 Ocean Avenue Seal Beach
,CA 90740
Planning Commission No: 7065.002
Dear Seal Beach City Council: -
On Wednesday, December 7,2011, the Seal Beach Planning Commission ruled in a very
close 3 to 2 decision to deny a variance to allow the subdivision of 400 Ocean Avenue from an
existing 75'-0"wide parcel within the RLD-9 Zone into a 42'-6"wide comer lot and a 32'-6"wide
interior lot. The requested subdivision conforms to the original underlying lot subdivision
dimensions, and lines,which the city has historically allowed within the Old Town area.
According to Seal Beach Zoning Title 11,Part 2,the minimum size lot for the RLD-9 Zone
is 5,000 square feet(dimensions of 50 feet by 100 feet)for interior lots, and 5,500 square feet
(dimensions of 55 feet by 100 feet)for comer lots. In reality, almost none of the lots in the RLD
Zone actually meet the width specification called for. The currently existing lots fronting Ocean
Avenue, in the RLD Zone, are comprised of the following dimensions:
BLK. B
Tract I (194.97-foot deep x 34-foot wide)
Tract 2 (194.97-foot deep x 34 wide)
Tract 3 (194.97-foot deep x 34 wide)
Tract 4 (194.97-foot deep x 33.91 wide)
Tract 5 (194.97-foot deep x 57.86 wide)
Tract 6(194.97-foot deep x 30 wide)
Tract 7(194.97-foot deep x 43.94 wide)
BLK. 02
Tract 1 (195.97-foot deep x 40.06 wide)
Tract 2 (196-foot deep x 32.53 wide)
Tract 3 (196-foot deep x 35.03 wide)
Tract 4(196-foot deep x 47.03 wide)
Tract 5 (196-foot deep x 83.32 wide)
Tract 6(196-foot deep x 49.97 wide)
BLK. 03
400 Ocean Ave.
December 14,2011
Page 2 of 4
Tract 1 (196-foot deep x 40 wide)
Tract 2 (196-foot deep x 30 wide)
Tract 3 (196-foot deep x 30 wide)
Tract 4(196-foot deep x 30 wide)
Tract 5 (196-foot deep x 50 wide)
Tract 6(196-foot deep x 35 wide)
Tract 7(196-foot deep x 30 wide)
Tract 8 (196-foot deep x 40 wide)
BLK. 04
Tract 1 (196-foot deep x 75 wi&,)
Tract 2(196-foot deep x 60 wide)
Tract 3 (196-foot deep x 40 wide)
Tract 4(196-foot deep x 35 wide)
Tract 5 (196-foot deep x 32.5 wide)
Tract 6 (196-foot deep x 42.5 wide)
BLK. 05
Tract 1 (196-foot deep x 42.5 wide)
Tract 2(196-foot deep x 32.5 wide)
Tract 3 (196-foot deep x 32.5 wide)
Tract 4(196-foot deep x 30 wide)
Tract 5 (196-foot deep x 40 wide)
Tract 6(196-foot deep x 33 wide)
Tract 7(196-foot deep x 30 wide)
Tract 8 (196-foot deep x 44.5 wide)
BLK. 06
Tract 1 (196-foot deep x 35 wide)
Tract 2(196-foot deep x 30 wide)
Tract 3 (196-foot deep x 30 wide)
Tract 4(196-foot deep x 35 wide)
Tract 5 (196-foot deep x 40 wide)
Tract 6 (196-foot deep x 35 wide)
Tract 7 (196-foot deep x 30 wide)
Tract 8 (196-foot deep x 50 wide)
BLK. 07
Tract 1 (196-foot deep x 37.5 wide)
Tract 2 (196-foot deep x 35 wide)
Tract 3 (196-foot deep x 75 wide)
Tract 4 CITY PARK NOT RESIDENTIAL (196-foot deep x 77.5 wide)
Tract 5 (196-foot deep x 60 wide)
Of the 46 parcels fronting Ocean Avenue, 81%are less than 50-feet wide, and 33%are 33-
feet or less in width. In fact,only 7 parcels are 50 feet or wider. Of those parcels that are 50 feet
or wider, only three could be divided to their original lot lines. These three remaining properties
400 Ocean Ave.
December 14, 2011
Page 3 of 4
are 400 Ocean,240 Ocean(which is owned by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange), and 706 Ocean
(adjacent to the park).
In reality, Seal Beach Zoning Title 11, Part 2, is simply not applied to the vast majority of
the homes on the Gold Coast of Seal Beach. In fact, on June 20, 2007,the City approved a motion
for a lot line adjustment of 450 Ocean Avenue, which was comprised of a 14,700 square foot lot,
and is now comprised of a 8,330 square foot(42.5-foot wide by 196-foot deep)comer lot and a
6,370 square foot(32.5-foot wide by 196-foot deep) interior lot. The basis for the approval for the
lot line adjustment of 450 Ocean Avenue was that the city has historically allowed line adjustments
within the Old Town area that conform to the original underlying lot subdivision dimensions. And
that when buildings on properties that have had units constructed across the original subdivision
lines are demolished, the City has historically allowed the property to revert to the underlying
parcels as created on the original tract maps.
450 Ocean is an exact mirror image parcel to 400 Ocean. At the time,the city correctly
decided that allowing a lot adjustment for 450 Ocean, would make the property uniform to the
neighborhood, consistent with the general plan, and conforming to the Gold Coast. The Planning
Commission gave no reason why the same was not true today for 400 Ocean. In fact,the only
basis for why the 3 individuals on the Planning Commission, which denied the application,voted
no was because Seal Beach Zoning Title 11, Part 2, requires a 50'-0"minimum width for
properties on the Gold Coast, regardless of the fact that only 7 of the 46 parcels on the Gold Coast
meet this measurement.
During the Planning Commission meeting,the Planning Commission was informed that
there would no negative fiscal impact on the city of Seal Beach which would be created as a result
of the requested parcel division. The tax consequence of such a division would actually be
beneficial to the city. No other residents or property owners would be negatively affected by the
parcel division either.
With the inclusion of public discussion, the Planning Commission had the opportunity to
consider that in the event the City of Seal Beach fails to allow the requested variance, a
disproportionately sized lot would remain in existence, only two other parcels fronting Ocean
Avenue,in the RLD Zone,contain parcels of this size (essentially all three are double parcels). In
order to make use of 400 Ocean, should it remain as one parcel, a house as large as 14,000 square
feet would likely be erected. Such a building would certainly change the character of the
neighborhood. A 14,000 square foot oversized home, on the Gold Coast,would be completely out
of scale to the surrounding homes,inconsistent with the general plan,non-conforming to Old
Town,detrimental to the property values of the surrounding community, and extremely offensive
to the neighbors.
Despite the discussion above, 3 members of the Planning Commission incorrectly decided
to vote no to the requested parcel division. These 3 members did so,despite the fact that such a
division would have reverted two uniform lots to their original lot lines. The resulting lots would
have been consistent with the general plan, and conforming to the Gold Coast. These two resulting
400 Ocean Ave.
December 14,201.1
Page 4 of 4
lots would have created additional benefit to the neighborhood,by allowing for greater open air
views, and additional open space.
As I have discussed above,400 Ocean is a unique property. Only 2 other properties on the
Gold Coast could be divided to their original lot lines in the manner requested here. As a result
this is a special circumstance that will not be asked for by any other property owner on the Gold
Coast.
I am also not requesting any special privilege. In fact, almost all other home owners on the
Gold Coast have received significant value by being able to deviate from the code, as the vast
majority of parcels, as already described,do not meet the 50 foot minimum width requirement.
As City Council is aware,many beach cities including Seat Beach have addressed concerns
with Mansionization. The erection of a 14,000 square foot home would certainly change the
character of the neighborhood, and renew those concerns. These same concerns have been raised
repeatedly in the past by the residents of Seal Beach,and clearly the public has made its position
very clear.
In an effort to balance the interest of the surrounding community,and to preserve the
integrity of mapped streets in the Gold Coast area, City Council should reverse the decision of the
3 members of the planning commission that voted to deny the parcel division.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
Very truly yours,
Harold D.Rothman
Attachment B
Planning commission
(resolution No. 11 -27
RESOLUTION NUMBER 11-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING
VARIANCE 11-2, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF AN
EXISTING 75-0" WIDE LOT INTO A 42'-6" CORNER
LOT AND A 32'-6" WIDE INTERIOR LOT AT 400
OCEAN AVENUE, SEAL BEACH
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE:
Section 1. On September 21, 2011, Harold B. Rothman ("the
applicant") submitted an application to the City of Seal Beach Department of
Development Services for Variance 11-2.
Section 2. The requested variance is for the subdivision of an existing
75-0" wide lot into a 42'-6" wide corner lot and a 32'-6" wide interior lot.
Section 3. Pursuant to Article 18, §15270 of CEQA Guidelines, staff
has determined as follows: Variance 11-2 for the subdivision of a 75'-0" wide lot into a
42'-6" wide corner lot and a 32'-6" wide interior lot, is statutorily exempt exempt from
review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, because projects which are
disapproved are not subject to CEQA review.
Section 4. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on December 7, 2011, to consider the application for Variance 11-2. 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 December 7, 2011, indicates
the following:
a. On September 21, 2011, Harold B. Rothman
submitted an application to the City of Seal Beach Department of Development Services
for Variance 11-2.
b. The requested variance is for the subdivision of a 75'-
0" wide lot into two smaller lots measuring 42'-6" wide (corner lot) and 32'-6" wide
(interior lot).
C. The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows:
NORTH: Single and Multi-family residences in the
Residential High Density (RHD-) zone.
SOUTH: Public beach; Pacific Ocean.
EAST: Single family residences in the Residential Low
Density (RLD-9) zone.
WEST: Single family residences in the Residential Low
Density (RLD-9) zone.
d. The subject property is approximately 14,700 square
feet in area and is located at 400 Ocean Avenue.
e. The subject property has approximately 75.0 feet of
frontage on Ocean Avenue and has a depth of approximately 196.0 feet.
f. The property is presently developed with a single
family dwelling.
g. There are no physical constraints upon the existing lot
that would preclude redevelopment of the lot in a manner consistent with the
development of surrounding lots or that would justify the granting of a Variance.
Section 6. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including
those stated in §5 of this resolution and pursuant to §10.05; §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 11-2 does not conform to the
General Plan or any ordinances adopted by the City Council, specifically, the Zoning
Code, as the proposed subdivision would result in the creation of two substandard lots.
The proposed lots would be considered substandard because they would not meet the
City's current minimum lot width standards;
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 all of the
properties within the Gold Coast area are rectangular in shape and there are no other
constraints upon the subject lot that would preclude its redevelopment in compliance
with RLD-9 zoning development standards;
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 the existing property at 400
Ocean Avenue is suitable for redevelopment and no other properties within the Gold
Coast area would be allowed a similar request for subdivision; 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
development standards within the RLD-9 zone were established to facilitate uniform
development patterns, adequate building setbacks, and place controls on residential
density within the zone.
Section 7. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby
denies Variance 11-2.
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
Sandra Massa-Lavitt
Chairperson, Planning Commission
X,,-.,M k 04rsico, AICP
Seo ,Illanning Commission
Attachment C
Planning commission Minutes of
December 7, 2012
Page 3 - Planning Commission 12/07/11
Cummin s moved,, second by Galbreath ue the Request for
' s moved,
Reasonable ACCOMM
i s
AYES: ummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Mass
Motion c rri
None motion carn
3. Variance 11-2 (400 Ocean Avenue)
Applicant/Owner: Harold B. Rothman
Request: For the subdivision of an existing 75'-0" wide lot within
the IRLD-9 zone into a 42'-6" wide corner lot and a
32'-6" wide interior lot. The minimum required lot
width within the RLD-9 zone is 50'-0".
Recommendation: Deny Variance 11-2
The Senior Planner presented the staff report with the recommendation to deny
the variance; noted that staff received additional comments from the public; and
indicated that the 50' lot width minimum has been in place since 1974.
Chair Massa-Lavitt opened the public hearing:
Harold Rothman, applicant/owner, reviewed the proposed variance and
presented 2 possible concepts — 1 for a single family home and I for 2 single
family homes.
Paul McMillan, real estate appraiser on behalf of the applicant, made comments
regarding the value of the home in this area.
Three speakers spoke of denying the variance: Jena Keller, Ocean Avenue;
Murry Westall, 4th Street; Susie Morgan, 16th Street; and I in favor of approval:
Joyce Kucera, Ocean Avenue. There being no additional speakers, Chair
Massa-Lavitt declared the public hearing closed.
Commission comments and inquires:
• Everson: received clarification regarding the number of lot sizes in the
gold coast—staff has not surveyed the lot sizes, need to go by the current
zoning code, and referred to memo attached in the staff report;
• Goldberg: there are only 3 lots with similar size, inquired about the lot that
was divided with conditions in 2007, granting the variance does not
appear to be a "granting of special privilege", and not agree that it disrupts
the uniform development pattern;
• Everson: gold coast zone is the area in Old Town that is different and
granting the variance would make it a high density zone, the lot under
Page 4— Planning Commission 12/07/11
consideration does not have a specific circumstance that would qualify it
for a variance, and the nature of Old Town will be affected by the variance;
Cummings: the pattern has been established to this unique lot, was
allowed for another lot down the block, and makes sense out of fairness to
allow variance;
Galbreath: should abide by the existing zoning development since 1974
being 50' minimum lot width and there is a problem with variances — the
law is the law and the regulation is the regulation;
Massa-Lavitt: sub-division was created in 1914 and times have changed,
a lot of changes have been made since -then, the other lots 75' will not be
able to be divided, should not grant a variance due to what has been done
in the past, and a mistake was made in 2007 in granting the sub-division
and does not mean this mistake should be continued;
Goldberg: alternative could change the code instead of granting a
variance but would be a lot of work for 3 lots; and
Massa-Lavitt: it would affect more than the 3 lots there are under-
developed lots along the gold coast that could be rebuilt and this would
create a special circumstance for those lots.
Cummings moved, second by Goldberg, to approve Variance 11-2.
AYES: Cummings, Goldberg
NOES: Everson, Galbreath, Massa-Lavitt Motion failed
Massa-Lavitt moved, second by Everson, to deny Variance 11-2.
AYES: Everson, Galbreath, Massa-Lavitt
NOES: Cummings, Goldberg Motion carried
The Assistant City Attorney stated the Planning Commission decision to deny
Variance 11-2 is a final decision of the Planning Commission there is a 10 day
appeal period to appeal this decision to the City Council — the appeal period will
begin tomorrow morning (12/08/11).
4. CCI%ditional Use Permit 11-12 (135 Main Street)
Applicant/ r: Angelo Marciuliano
Request: To ermit expansion of an existing
Delicat pecialty Grocery Store with a Type 41
ale Be Wine) ABC license into an adjacent
lease space, wi i the Main Street Specific Plan
(MSSP) zone,
R commendation: Approve Conditional Use Permi -12 with conditions
Attachment D
Planning Commission Staff Report
Dated December 7, 2011
December 7, 2011
STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Chairwoman and Planning Commission
From: Department of Development Services
Subject VARIANCE 11-2
400 Ocean Avenue
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Applicant: HAROLD B. ROTHMAN
Owner: HAROLD B. ROTHMAN
Location: 400 OCEAN AVENUE
Classification of RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY(RLD-9)
Property:
Request: FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING
75'-0" WIDE LOT WITHIN THE RLD-9 ZONE INTO A 42'-6" WIDE
CORNER LOT AND A 32'-6" WIDE INTERIOR LOT. THE MINIMUM
LOT WIDTH WITHIN THE RLD-9 ZONE IS 50'-0".
Environmental Review: PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 18, §15270, OF CEQA GUIDELINES,
THIS PROJECT IS STATUTORILY EXEMPT FROM CEQA.
Code Sections: 10.05; 11.2.05.015; 11.4.05.100.D OF THE SEAL BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE
Recommendation: DENY VARIANCE 11-2. DENIAL SHOULD BE THROUGH THE
ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 11-27.
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 11-2
400 Ocean Avenue
December 7, 2011
FANS
❑ On September 21, 2011, Harold B. Rothman ("the applicant") submitted an
application for Variance 11-2 to the Department of Development Services.
❑ The applicant is requesting a Variance to allow a subdivision of an existing 75-0"
wide lot within the Residential Low Density (RLD-9) zone. The proposed resulting
lots would measure 42'-6" wide (corner lot) and 32'-6" wide (interior lot).
LJ The subject property is approximately 14,700 sq. ft. in area and is located at 400
Ocean Avenue, within the neighborhood more commonly known as the "Gold
Coast".
❑ The subject property has approximately 75.0 feet of frontage on Ocean Avenue, and
has a depth of approximately 196'-0".
❑ The property is presently developed with a single-family dwelling.
❑ The surrounding land use and zoning are as follows:
NORTH: Single and Multi-family residences in the Residential High
Density (RHD-20) zone.
SOUTH: Public beach; Pacific Ocean
EAST: Single family residences in the Residential Low Density
(RLD-9) zone.
WEST: Single family residences in the Residential Low Density
(RLD-9) zone.
❑ As of November 30, 2011, Staff has received one phone call, in response to the
hearing notices that were mailed out and published for Variance 11-2.
DISCUSSION
The subject property, Orange County Assessor's parcel number 199-114-01, is located
within the Residential Low Density (RLD-9) zone at 400 Ocean Avenue. The property
currently contains a single-story, single family dwelling. The lot is a corner lot of
approximately 14,700 square feet in area and has a street frontage of 76-0".
The applicant proposes to subdivide the existing lot into two smaller lots of
approximately 8,330 square feet (corner lot) and approximately 6,370 square feet
2
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 11-2
400 Ocean Avenue
December 7, 2011
(interior lot). The street frontage of the proposed two new lots would be 42'-6" and 32'-
6" respectively, neither of which would meet the City's current minimum lot width
standards for corner or interior lots within the RLD-9 zone.
The City has previously approved at least one parcel map along the Gold Coast. In
2007 the City approved Tentative Parcel Map 2007-145 for the division of the property
at 450 Ocean Avenue (previously known as Assessor Parcel Number 199-114-05).
Like the subject property, it was a 75-foot wide corner lot that was subdivided into a 42'-
6" corner lot and a 32'-6" interior lot. There was nothing in the City's then applicable
subdivision ordinance or Zoning Code, however, that would have permitted such a
division of land.
Neither the current Zoning Code nor the current subdivision ordinance permits the
creation of substandard lots. It would therefore violate the City's Municipal Code to
approve the proposed lot division because the resulting lots would not comply with the
City's current minimum lot width standards. Although the City may have approved a
parcel map under similar conditions previously this practice is contrary to the mandatory
requirements of the Municipal Code
The only means of approving the proposed lot division would be to grant a variance.
Variances are only granted in unique situations where a particular property cannot
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.
Section 11.5.20.020,13 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 to 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.
3
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 11-2
400 Ocean Avenue
December 7, 2011
With regard to the subject property, Staff does not believe that the property meets the
minimum criteria for a Variance because the requisite findings cannot be made. There
is nothing about size, shape, configuration, or other physical characteristics of the
subject property that deprives it of an opportunity to be used in the same manner as
similarly situated properties. Properties in the vicinity (i.e., along the "Gold Coast") are
used for single family residential purposes, as is the subject property.
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.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, after considering all relevant
testimony, written or oral, presented during the public hearing, deny proposed Variance
11-2 for the subdivision of an existing 75-0" wide lot within the RLD-9 zone into a 42'-6"
wide corner lot and a 32'-6" wide interior lot, within the Residential Low Density (RLD-9)
zone at 400 Ocean Avenue.
Staff's recommendation is based upon the following:
• Proposed Variance 11-2 does not conform to the General Plan or with any
ordinances adopted by the City Council, specifically, the Zoning Code, as the
proposed subdivision would result in the creation of two substandard lots. The
newly created lots would be considered substandard because they would not
meet the City's current minimum lot width standards.
• 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 all of
the properties within the Gold Coast area are rectangular in shape and there are
no other constraints upon the subject lot that would preclude its redevelopment
in compliance with RLD-9 zoning development standards;
• 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. The existing lot can be
developed with a single family dwelling and comply with all of the Zoning Code
requirements; and
4
Planning Commission Staff Report
Variance 11-2
400 Ocean Avenue
December 7, 2011
• Authorization of the Variance would not substantially meet the intent and
purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located, as development
standards within the RLD-9 zone were established to facilitate uniform
development patterns, adequate building setbacks, and place controls on
residential density within the zone.
For: December 7, 2011
r e i v e—r cai-, A I C P
S ior anner— Development Services
Attachments:(3)
Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution No. 11-27 - A Resolution of the
Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach, denying
Variance No. 11-2, for the subdivision of an existing 75-0"
wide lot into a 42'-6" wide corner lot and a 32'-6" wide
interior lot within the RLD-9 zone at 400 Ocean Avenue,
Seal Beach
Attachment 2: Correspondence received from the Applicant's attorney
Attachment 3: Assessor's Parcel Map of the subject area
5
Attachment E
Correspondence Received Subsequent
to the Appeal Application
Bec ED
Mike Buhbe j AN
412 Central Way
Seal Beach,California 90740 CITY CLERK f4
r
AC
'j'Tj OV:SEAL B#
January 14,2012
Dear City Council Members,
I would like the following comment to be part of the record for the city council of Seal
Beach.
I support the division of the property located on the comer of Ocean and Fourth Street on
the southeast corner as requested by the applicant.
Please carefully consider the rules and laws to find that it is in the interests of both owner
and the city to grant the division of the property on Ocean and Fourth.
In order to maintain visual unity of Old Town I find it necessary to have smaller lots and
houses in keeping with the character and scale of the town. The currently existing large
lot on Ocean and Fourth could result in a single residence that would be too large in
context with other homes along the Gold Coast.
Allow the applicant to divide the property on Ocean and Fourth into the smaller lots as
the applicant has requested.
Sincerely,
Mike Buhbe
RECEIVED
January 14, 2012, JAN-0 2012
CITY CLERK
City Council CITY OF SEAL BEACH
City Hall
211 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Council Members:
Regarding the lot at 400 Ocean Avenue, I wish to speak in favor of the applicant's being
permitted to subdivide the 75'-0" wide lot into two lots as proposed by the applicant.
The owner at the east (or south) end of the block was quite recently permitted to do so.
It would balance out that block of Ocean Avenue and be more in keeping with the other
80% of the lot sizes on Ocean Avenue which are all less than your new minimum of
50'-0". What was the motivation for such a ruling and who were those decision
makers?
What will happen when these majority 30'-0" and 35'-0" wide lots are sold and their new
owners wish to build? Will they be told, "No, sorry. Only 50'-0" lots or larger qualify for
construction"?
Have any of the council members taken a recent drive or walk along Ocean Avenue to
take note of the aesthetic value of smaller lot sizes?
As for the argument against curb cuts and reduction of on street parking, the corner lot
would have access from the alley, so there would be only one curb cut on Ocean.
Furthermore, there are two parking lots for beach-goers, one of which appears to be
being expanded.
Allegedly this is called "Mayberry by the Sea" not "Beverly Hills by the Sea". I hope you
will decide in favor of the applicant's request.
R7UI ly,
u
Joyce oyce Kucera
336 Ocean Avenue
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Fiona& Scott Keller
350 Ocean Ave
Seal Beach CA 90740
February 28,2012
Mr. Michael Levitt
Mayor
City of Seal Beach
121 8" Street
Seal Beach CA 90740
Strong objection to the subdivision of 400 Ocean Ave
Dear Mr. Levitt
We are writing to express our strong objections against the appeal being presented to the
City Council on March 12,2012. The purpose of the appeal is to overturn the decision of
the Planning Commission on December 7,2011,where the application by Harold
Rothman to subdivide the land at 400 Ocean Ave, Seal Beach was denied.
We begin by refuting the 3 main arguments Mr. Rothman put forward to the Planning
Commission in the last session:
Argument#1: 'This is about getting rid of the 'white elephant' in Seal Beach'.
Mr. Rothman argued that the block of land in question is a 'white elephant' in the
context of Seal Beach— something different that there aren't a lot of. Because of
this, he argues,he should be allowed to subdivide the land so as to create two
new lot sizes that he would see arc more in keeping with the broader Seal Beach
community. Our response is that Seal Beach is about diversity, not uniformity.
By way of analogy, Mr. Rothman's argument leads us to a forest with no tall
trees or an ocean with no big fish. The fact of the matter is that large lots of this
nature were once much more plentiful in Seal Beach, but now they are the
equivalent of an 'endangered species' as there are only three left on the Gold
Coast side of Ocean. As with nature, 'knocking down a tree/killing one of the
big fish' when they are plentiful creates little difference,but when there are only
three the loss of one makes proportionately larger impact.
Beyond the scarcity factor, the whole notion that these lots are somehow
unattractive/undesirable for the community is suspect. Mr. Rothman also showed
an artist's rendering of what a huge mansion would look like placed on the land
versus two tastefully done homes—arguing it's better for the community
aesthetically to have the two. Aside from being a blatant attempt to 'lead the
witness', this logic isn't even sound. Given the size of the land, we argue that
Mr. Levitt
February 29, 2012
Page 2
it's actually less probable an 'ugly mansion' will be put on the land versus a
tasteful single family home. Our logic is grounded in fact—look at the three large
lots currently on Ocean: two have single story homes on them and one uses the
land to have a large side garden. We also argue that if the lot is split into two the
probability is extremely high that all buildable area will be used in a multi-story
structure—thereby ensuring a more crowded look and feel for the street and the
community. The pictures below are worth 1000 words:
Which aesthetic Is better for immediate neighbors and the overall Seat Beach community?
706 Ocean(uses land for side yard) 204 Ocean{uses land for ore story house)
rn
410&408 Ocean 344&340 Ocean
-0:
0
0
Argument#2: 'There is precedent'.
We see this is not about precedent, it is about the law—and even if it wasn't,
the only recent precedent is admitted to be a mistake by the Planning
Commission chairwoman(she indicated this publically when the case was heard
on December 7, 2011). We believe the law was made for a reason—to preserve
the unique character of Seal Beach. If the Seal Beach community doesn't want
the law to be abided by, the conversation should be about changing the law,not
about making exceptions to the law(and we've no reason to believe the
community wants the law changed).
If the law stands, and exceptions continue to be made,where will it end?What if
someone influential on a 60' lot wants to make it into two 30' lots(for which
there are precedents on Ocean Ave)? What if someone influential living on a
comer lot wants to push hard to split their lot horizontally so it looks like the
,precedent' on the other side of the pier? Where does this all end? While every
Mr. Levitt
February 29, 2012
Page 3
incremental 'exception' feels small, over time we risk being the proverbial frog
in the boiling water,not realizing it's slowly coming to a boil resulting in a very
bad outcome given each change in temperature is experienced as a small
`exception' to the previous. Seal Beach is a wonderful place, but are we not
already almost 'boiling' when it comes to parking,population density,
diminishing the character in the neighborhood, etc.?
Argument#3: 'We are doing this for the good of the community'.
We feel insulted by this argument, and suspect many in the community would
agree with us. How can someone who doesn't even reside in Seal Beach
anymore—who has significant amounts to gain personally by this happening—be
opining on what is best for the community (our research indicates Mr. Rothman
now resides in Hermosa Beach)? Had this property sold early on to a buyer
wanting to put a single family home on the property, would this proposal even be
in consideration? The facts are that the property has been on the market for
almost a year and hasn't sold at it's almost$8 million price. It doesn't take a real
estate agent to know that in the current market it'd be a lot easier to move two
lower priced properties than one high priced one. And if the primary motivation
to split the property isn't this (and is instead about what is best for the
community), then why in the listing/sales literature for the property is the
headline included: 'Owner is currently negotiating with the city to divide the
lot'? The only logical reason the owner is pushing for this is to sell the land
sooner than otherwise and at a higher profit. Those in the community most
directly affected by this are not in favor of it. We,the neighbors directly to the
west of 400 Ocean don't want this—it's not in our best interest or do we see that
it is in the community's best interest. We've spoken with the neighbors directly
to the east of the property,the Hayley family,and they are resolute they don't
want this either. The neighbors across the street,the Bartons,also don't want
this.
We also note that the potential new owners aren't even winners in this scenario.
They will have less freedom to design the home of their dreams and for the
owner on the 32' piece of land (which one of the plots is proposed to be), they'll
not be able to maximize the livability of their house as at that lot size one can't
design around a central hallway(by the time you leave space between houses,put
a 4' hallway in and make room for the walls you no longer have enough space for
standard size rooms).
Ultimately no one wins but Mr. Rothman if this goes through. We'd note that if
there was financial hardship involved we'd have sympathy for an honest
argument regarding the home—that it needs to be sold quickly and for the
highest price possible. As we wanted to be even-handed in this regard, we
investigated this question before writing this letter and found that Mr. Rothman
sold his bakery for$139.6 million in cash in 2007(according to the Ralcorp press
release on March 5, 2007) and therefore we don't see a case for financial
hardship coming into play here.
Mr. Levitt
February 29,2012
Page 4
To summarize,the arguments to subdivide 400 Ocean Avenue simply don't stand up.
Seal Beach is not about uniformity(which this is a move towards)—it is about the
diversity of which the few of these plots of land left represent. This shouldn't be about
precedent, it should be about the law made to keep Seal Beach special—and even it was
about precedent, the only recent 'precedent' is seen as a bad decision. Finally, this
isn't good for the community—it's only good for Mr. Rothman. All of those directly
affected agree on this and don't want it to happen.
Before we close,we also feel it important to note that we've been told by a number of
people not to fight this. Their logic is that Harold Rothman is far wealthier and more
influential than us in the community, and therefore people won't speak up against this
for fear of getting on his bad side. They also argue to us that our neighbors who are
friends with Mr. Rothman will feel torn in their allegiances,and ultimately won't voice
what they feel. Further, they have emphasized to us that the Council may fear a lawsuit
from Mi. Rothman if they don't make this exception, and that would be something they
won't be willing to go through on this issue.
We hope and we pray that decisions in Seal Beach aren't made this way. We ask that
this decision is looked at through the lens of what is the best answer for our community
—those of us who live here and send our kids to school here,not of fear of some sort of
retribution. Our family love Seal Beach, we are committed to Seal Beach with our 3
sons (Lachlan, 11; Jackson, 9 and Camden, 5—all of whom are proud students of
McGaugh Elementary), and we want to and plan to spend the rest of our lives here.
Finally, we close by acknowledging that some Council members may naturally think to
themselves, 'Is this really that big of a dealT Please know that for us and for all of the
direct neighbors affected—this is a big deal to us, and it's why we are asking you to
reject the request of Mr Rothman to allow him to subdivide 400 Ocean Ave.
Sincerely,
C�'
Fiona& Scott Keller
March 3, 2012
Mr. Levitt
Mayor of Seal Beach
121 8th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Mr. Levitt,
I am writing to you as a concerned and confused citizen of Seal Beach. I am confused as to what
is the job of the Planning Commission. Are they to enforce the zoning ordinances or are they to
use them merely as a reference?As I understand it, there is a process by which the City Council
develops the zoning ordinances based upon the input of the entire community. When these
ordinances are developed, the City Council does take into consideration the unique character of
the of neighborhood for example the Gold Coast vs. the Hill vs. College Park East. Once the
ordinances are developed, the Planning Commission is to adhere to them unless there are
"special circumstances". When "special circumstances"do exist, a variance may be granted by
the Planning Commission.
Over the years, the City Council has developed zoning ordinances which have made the "Gold
Coast" a unique area of Seal Beach. In order to enhance the uniqueness of this area, the
ordinances require a larger lot size than the rest of the Old Town properties. Such zoning has
provided our community with some beautiful large beachfront properties. 400 Ocean is one of
the last beautiful large lots on the Gold Coast. The owner, who is a long time resident and
developer in the Old Town area, purchased the property with full knowledge that under the
current zoning ordinances the property was unable to be subdivided into 2 legal lots. He
purchased it anyway and requested a variance to subdivide it. Using their guidelines, the
Planning Commission denied the variance, because they could not find where"special
circumstances" existed.
Now, he is appealing the decision to the City Council, but on what grounds?At the March 12th
meeting, I hope that the City Council will uphold the Planning Commissions decision and enforce
the current zoning guidelines. If the City Council feels that the property should be allowed to
subdivide, please employ the proper procedures and change the zoning ordinance but DO NOT
grant an UNSUBSTANTIATED variance. Please respect and honor the power that the citizens of
Seal Beach have placed in you by either upholding the law or changing it.
Sincerely,
&V�� M3 C4.�
Suzie Morgan
215 16th Street
Seal Beach, CA 90740
HE("EIVED
I March 2012 MAR 14 201?
Andrea and Arnold Fun City hlanag6'9 Office
116 3" Street
Seal Beach CA 90740
Seal Beach City Council
121 8th Street
Seal Beach CA 90740
Dear Seal Beach City Council members
We are writing to request that you reject the appeal being presented before the City
Council on March 12,2012 to allow the subdivision of 400 Ocean Ave.
We as residents of P street strongly oppose the proposed subdivision for the following
reasons
1) The proposed subdivision does not meet the RLD 9 zoning code. As the Planning
Commision chairwoman noted in her summary on December 7t'2011, in order to
meet the zoning codes Mr Rothman requires an additional 25 feet on his lot to
subdivide the land.
2) Parking is already a big issue for residents and visitors to the area. While it may
seem that allowing this subdivision may not increase parking issue dramatically
we would argue,why add to the current problem/situation?
3) The Gold Coast area is special. Why allow this subdivision which benefits only
the owner, Harold Rothman and does not provide benefit to the community?
4) Finally,it is certain that if subdivided,two homes will be built to 'fill the space',
whereas if not subdivided there is a higher likelihood that the land is used
tastefully,not filling the entire field of view with a structure.
We respectfully ask that you reject this proposal, as it was denied by the Planning
Commision in December 2011.
Sincerely,
Andrea and Arnold Furr
Attachment F
Letter Submitted by Property Owner
�� ��
� ^� �����u�u� B. ROTz /MAN
szz Ocean Avenue
Seal Beach, CA*O7*o
November 29,2Ul2
8n: 400 Ocean Avenue Seal Beach, CA 90740
Dear Neighbor:
My name is Harold Rothman, and{have been a resident of Seal Beach since 1978. l am
the owner of40U Ocean Ave.,which im currently for sale. In the event that the property is sold ut
its current size of75 feet in width,the new potential owners will likely construct a home that will
be approximately 14`000 square feet in size. l truly believe that this would be a great detriment to
the Seal Beach community, and especially the beautiful Gold Coast.
{]u December |D, 2O|2, { will beutu City Council meeting to discuss 40O Ocean Ave.
being split from uu existing 75^-O"wide parcel into a42`-6" wide comer lot and o32`-6" wide
interior lot. This vnoo|d guarantee that the sale of the property would not result in the
uzuuuionizatioo of the Gold Coast, would guarantee o smaller footprint from any new construction,
and would guarantee ugre4Lcr amount ofopen space for public views. It would also guarantee that
the new homes were mlnoi|u, in size and stature toa1|the other homes oo the Gold Coast.
Of the 45 homes fronting Ocean Avenue, 36 are less than 50-feet wide, and only 3 homes
are 75 feet or larger. lhorn included:
l. A map and photos ofthe homes fronting Ocean Avo., along with their widths;
2. Two pie charts showing the widths ofthe homes fronting Ocean/\ve.;and
3. A list of the addresses and widths ofthe homes fronting Ocean Ave.
I would very much appreciate the opportunity to spealc with you about helping to prevent
the mansionization of the Gold Coast, and the upcoming City Council meeting. Mv cell phone
0000beria562-221-4837. Iaro happy toxpoakvvitb you by phone orio person,orto provide you
with any additional information.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration, and have a wonderful holiday
season.
Very truly yours,
Harold Rothman
�
E
y
0
1 O u O m a V !
3 0 3 0 o o j
E ots
J N J u�i CL Cl V Z
W
i
Z
y L Il
S {
.f
M
M
i
3
i
S i
i
I +
i
t�~
i
aAa
TAT
•i
i
i
si
R
11�•
N r-I
�o OD
o o-
O, M M 0 Ln
per.
29' 604 Ocean Ave 7i
30' 112 Ocean Ave
30' 304 Ocean Ave
30' 344 Ocean Ave
30' 516 Ocean Ave
30' 546 Ocean Ave
30' 618 Ocean Ave
31' 606 Ocean Ave
32'6" 506 Ocean Ave
32'6" 204 Ocean Ave
32'6" 430 Ocean Ave
32'6" j510 Ocean Ave
lot 2%vo.ld be the ame or larger than
33' 540 Ocean Ave all Properties above
33'6" 700 Ocean Ave
33'9" 106 Ocean Ave
34' 100 Ocean Ave
:34' 102 Ocean Ave
34' 104 Ocean Ave
35' 206 Ocean Ave
:351 340 Ocean Ave
410 Ocean Ave
35' 600 Ocean Ave
i351 612 Ocean Ave
35' j704 Ocean Ave
36' 608 Ocean Ave
::40' 202 Ocean Ave
:401 300 Ocean Ave
40' 350 Ocean Ave
::40' 408 Ocean Ave
:40' 520 Ocean Ave
::40' 610 Ocean Ave
142'6" 450 Ocean Ave
Lot1wouldbethesa eorlargerthan
42'6" 500 Ocean Ave all properties above
43'9" 114 Ocean Ave
44'6" 550 Ocean Ave
47' 208 Ocean Ave
50' 1336 Ocean Ave
501 250 Ocean Ave ON,Properties that conform to Code
50' 620 Ocean Ave
57'8" 110 Ocean Ave
60V 404 Ocean Ave
68' 308 Ocean Ave
751 400 Ocean Ave
75' 706 Ocean Ave
83'4" 240 Ocean,Ave
4
1► a 4
r
a
o
JII
`J U!' tV
Cy a co
ci 14
co A
U - - LO * 1
a N in
i4 M
rl
CC
Ao> u
C Q
qmj �
Q
M IJ"i
Q
L
R = h
a
} i M i ° t
uj I M1 .Wrs d
CL
LL. ? h
Now
LU
uj Vi
uj
ui
4IWr i ;ia i ` 3 4I
.,.
0 cl '
L& Gl
u1
,"7`'
Q t�
ujCMG
�• �AL
� Q
F W
r..r/
h a
•�"t�; ?.SS' '�., 'lam
Attachment G
Project Plans for 400 Ocean Avenue
rs
r -
.�
LO
LD
A.
CIO
in
t'S _'�•
[t t'
'05 .
r'
,j
i je -
t
f
o�/\ :lei.,.. ��, .`'','' _ •,t:' :�'u
\-1
_
��.j�;M7;�;,{�:i
:
yy,t
Co
CI
r '
• - Avg.
y:+•i'.
�^'�
.. . . 'tom-,.. ''i�;•;i: ,1;!.+r�'+" -;e..,,Y,'_'. _ � .. '
sww:'was rf
/�+� !�� :G fir r. ����� >!': •7.'
LO
ti l y(
.. �3 t• '• -
CN
r.
nriy�t_ -
' I
/.
i.
r._
r
r.'
nr
"f
-15
LO
PJ
c1r)
.7
C)
C%4
Cf)
...... .....
> ILO
cl�
cc
C.)
Lo
LO
CN
Lo
Cf)
C)
C)
A5,44 -
im
..........
YZ ,
ft
Ott;
k!