Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2006-11-08 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda for November 8,2006 7:30 p.m. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. AGENDA APPROVAL By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to: (a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda; (b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda; and/or (c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or public to request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, provided that the Planning Commission may undertake no action or discussion unless otherwise authorized by law. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission, staff, or the public requests a specific item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of Adjourned Meeting of October 18, 2006 - Ethics Training on Fair Process Laws. 2. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2006. 3. Minor Plan Review 06-12 936 Blue Heron Applicant/Owner: Sung Kim/ Sang B. & Hyun Chu Kang City of Seal Beach Planning Commission . Agenda of November 8, 2006 Request: To construct a 36-inch high waterfall and Koi pond within the 5-foot side and 15-foot rear yard setback. The waterfall structure will be set back approximately 12 inches from the side and rear property lines. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 06-48. VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS None. VII. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Height Variation 06-5 1508 E. Ocean Avenue Applicant/Owner: Tim Rietkerk & Jessica Haugh Request: To construct a non-habitable Covered Roof Access Structure (CRAS) in excess of the 25-foot height limit. Specifically the proposed structure would exceed the height limit by approximately 3 feet, 6 inches. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 06-49. 5. Variance 06-4 1311 Seal Way Applicant/Owner: Jack Bettenhausen Request: To permit a wood fence ranging from 7 feet 3 inches to 8 feet 3 inches in height within an interior side yard. The request also includes approval of an 11-foot tall wind screen within the side yard setback. The fence heights are proposed in lieu of the maximum allowable fence height of 6 feet, as required in the Seal Beach ZoninQ Code for fencing within an interior side yard. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 06-50. 2 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission . Agenda of November 8, 2006 6. Variance 06-5 326 E. 16th Street Applicant/Owner: Daniel Hill / Thomas & Sandra Schloessmann Request: To permit 1. A second floor addition along an existing nonconforming setback of 3 feet in lieu of the minimum setback requirement of 3 feet 9 inches. 2. To permit the existing garage to remain along a nonconforming setback of zero feet along the easterly property line, in lieu of the minimum setback requirement of 3 feet 9 inches. 3. To permit the existing garage to remain with a nonconforming rear setback of 5 feet in lieu of the minimum setback requirement of 12 feet (to meet the required 24-foot turning radius). 4. To permit the garage to remain with a nonconforming interior depth dimension of approximately 17 feet in lieu of the minimum required interior depth of 20 feet. Recommendation: Pleasure of the Planning Commission. VIII. STAFF CONCERNS IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS X. ADJOURNMENT TO SCHEDULED MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 2006 3 Nov 22 Dec 06 Dec 20 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission . Agenda of November 8, 2006 2006 Aaenda Forecast MEETING CANCELED. Conditional Use Permit 06-6 Conditional Use Permit 06-7 Conditional Use Permit 06-8 Site Plan Review 06-1 MEETING TO BE CANCELED. - Finbar's Italian Kitchen - Ruby's on the Pier - Plastic Industries, 1709 Apollo Dr. - Plastic Industries, 1709 Apollo Dr. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of November 8, 2006 Vice-Chairperson Roberts called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 8, 2006. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1 ROLL CALL Present: Vice-Chairperson Roberts, Commissioners Bello, Ladner, and O'Malley. Also Present: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Paul DaVeiga, Senior Planner Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney Absent: Chairperson Deaton Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Chairperson Deaton had previously reported that she would be absent from tonight's meeting and requested that her absence be excused. MOTION by O'Malley; SECOND by Ladner to excuse Chairperson Deaton from the Planning Commission meeting of November 8, 2006. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AGENDA APPROVAL 4-0-1 Roberts, Bello, Ladner, and O'Malley None Deaton MOTION by Bello; SECOND by O'Malley to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Roberts, Bello, Ladner, and O'Malley None Deaton 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. 1 of 18 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2006 1 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 2 3 Vice-Chairperson Roberts opened oral communications. 4 5 Mike Buhbe thanked the Planning Commission (PC) and Staff for the work done on 6 Ordinance 1553 limiting structures in Old Town to a height of 25 feet. He noted that this 7 new ordinance will allow for more access to air and sunlight for homes in Old Town and 8 stated that long-term property owners will have a lot of appreciation on their properties 9 that they can tap into should they wish to submit plans for a three story home prior to 10 the May 2007 deadline. He indicated that it is critical to note that the development trend 11 now has been to combine two 25-foot lots to make one large lot upon which a large, 12 three-story home can be constructed. 13 14 Stan Anderson thanked the City of Seal Beach for their participation in presenting the 15 Annual Holiday Parade, and he announced that this year the parade will take place on 16 Friday, December 1, 2006, beginning at 7:00 p.m. He also thanked the Seal Beach 17 Chamber & Business Association, the Seal Beach Lions Club, and the Main Street 18 merchants for the parade. He then stated that although he and many residents of 19 Ocean Avenue and Old Town are happy to see the improvements to Ocean Avenue, 20 they do have concerns about the 44 "bulb-outs" being constructed along this street. He 21 commented that a resident had blown out a tire on one of these bulb-outs when making 22 a right turn onto Ocean Avenue. He said he would like to know who made the decision 23 to approve these bulb-outs, and noted that citizens should be involved in approving 24 these types of projects. Mr. Whittenberg stated that public works improvements on 25 public streets are not reviewed by the PC, but are approved by City Council (CC), which 26 has responsibility for the City roadway systems and park facilities, and the PC has 27 responsibilities for what happens on private property. He indicated that Mr. Anderson's 28 concerns will be forwarded to the CC. 29 30 Joyce Parque spoke about the "rush to judgment" by the PC in making the decision to 31 approve the ban on 3-story structures. She said the PC had violated the 10-day public 32 notice requirement. She said that she lives around two 3-story apartment buildings and 33 has never had any problem with access to air or sunlight. She noted that at a previous 34 meeting, Chairperson Deaton had stated that she had received a letter from Chuck 35 Feenstra stating his opposition to three story structures, but Ms. Parque has not been 36 able to acquire a copy of this letter, and it should be made available to the public. 37 38 Mr. Whittenberg interjected that he had spoken to Ms. Parque last week and he does 39 remember Chairperson Deaton having the letter in her hand, but Staff does not have it 40 in their files. He said his assumption is that she inadvertently took it home, but she is 41 out of town and is not available. He indicated that when she returns Staff will request 42 that she bring the letter in to be made available for public review. 43 44 Mary Lewis said that she has submitted a letter and 1,555 pages of documents, which 45 included 1,531 referendum petitions against Ordinance 1553, as well as 24 new voter 46 registration forms. She said that the current estimate is for close to 3,600 petition 2 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2006 signatures of registered Seal Beach voters opposed to Ordinance 1553. She stated that this is a town for families and the proponents of Save Our Seal Beach will fight to keep it that way. There being no one else wishing to speak, Vice-Chairperson Roberts closed oral communications. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of Adjourned Meeting of October 18, 2006 - Ethics Training on Fair Process Laws. 2. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2006. 3. Minor Plan Review 06-12 936 Blue Heron Applicant/Owner: Sung Kim/ Sang B. & Hyun Chu Kang Request: To construct a 36-inch high waterfall and Koi pond within the 5-foot side and 15-foot rear yard setback. The waterfall structure will be set back approximately 12 inches from the side and rear property lines. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 06-48. MOTION by O'Malley; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Roberts, Bello, Ladner, and O'Malley None Deaton Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 06-48 begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. SCHEDULED MATTERS None. 3 of 18 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2006 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2 3 4. Height Variation 06-5 4 1508 E. Ocean Avenue 5 6 Applicant/Owner: Tim Rietkerk & Jessica Haugh 7 8 Request: To construct a non-habitable Covered Roof Access Structure 9 (CRAS) in excess of the 25-foot height limit. Specifically the 10 proposed structure would exceed the height limit by 11 approximately 3 feet, 6 inches. 12 13 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 14 06-49. 15 16 Vice-Chairperson Roberts asked if notices had been posted and/or advertised and 17 mailed as required by law, and has Staff received any communications either for or 18 against the matter? Mr. Whittenberg stated that notice was published in the newspaper 19 and mailed by law and Staff received communications from Joseph Gallo, Michael & 20 Patricia Wagner, and Terry & Sandra McCarthy, speaking in opposition to this request. 21 22 Staff Report 23 24 Mr. DaVeiga delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 25 Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and 26 noted that the ZoninQ Code (ZC) does permit non-habitable structures to exceed the 27 height limit by a maximum of 7 feet. He indicated that the Covered Roof Access 28 Structure (CRAS) measures approximately 31 sq. ft., and the ZC allows a maximum 29 square footage of 38 sq. ft. He said that the CRAS would be stuccoed with a sloped 30 roof to match the proposed home and Staff is recommending approval based upon its 31 compliance with the ZC and based upon the limited size of the structure, which will not 32 obstruct any views from adjacent or surrounding properties. 33 34 Commissioner Questions 35 36 None. 37 38 39 Public Hearing 40 41 Vice-Chairperson Roberts opened the public hearing. 42 43 Craig Gibson asked if the applicant were seeking a Variance. Mr. Whittenberg 44 explained that this is not a Variance and City Code does have a provision for a Height 45 Variation (HV) for Covered Roof Access Structures (CRAS) and for certain types of 46 architectural features to exceed the height limit by a specified maximum subject to 4 of 18 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2006 1 approval by the Planning Commission (PC) by a minor plan review. Mr. Gibson asked 2 what the frontage of the property is. Mr. DaVeiga responded that the property frontage 3 measures 25 feet in width. Mr. Gibson stated that if the PC approves this HV they 4 would not be very consistent, as this is a 25-foot lot. 5 6 Terry and Sandra McCarthy, 1516 Ocean Avenue, stated that there are ways to get 7 around a HV. He said that their home was constructed within the 25-foot height limit 8 and they have a roof access that is not covered, and a recent development at 1602 9 Ocean Avenue has done the same. Mr. McCarthy asked that the applicant look at other 10 options for constructing the roof access, as even though it is covered, it does create a 11 projection into the view of surrounding homes. Mrs. McCarthy added that she does not 12 understand why a CRAS is needed when the residents would be outside anyway when 13 on the roof deck. 14 15 Tim Rietkerk stated that the CRAS would only exceed the height limit by a little over 3 16 feet, and goes with the flow of the house and would not block ocean views. He feels 17 that this structure would increase property values in this area, considering that there are 18 many rental properties there. 19 20 There being no one else wishing to speak, Vice-Chairperson Roberts closed the public 21 hearing. 22 23 Commissioner Comments 24 25 Commissioner O'Malley asked the applicant if he had looked at alternative designs for 26 accessing the roof deck. The Director of Development Services noted that in order for 27 the applicant to respond Vice-Chairperson Roberts would have to re-open the public 28 hearing. 29 30 Public Hearinq Re-Opened 31 32 Vice-Chairperson Roberts re-opened the public hearing. 33 34 Mr. Rietkerk stated that he has not looked at alternate designs. Commissioner O'Malley 35 asked if Mr. Rietkerk was aware that there are other methods for accessing a roof deck. 36 Mr. Rietkerk stated that he was not aware of this, but he assumed that because City 37 Code does allow a CRAS he would be able to gain approval of the proposed structure. 38 39 There being no other questions, Vice-Chairperson Roberts closed the public hearing. 40 41 Commissioner Comments 42 43 Addressing the comments on whether the PC would be consistent were it to approve 44 HV 06-5, Vice-Chairperson Roberts stated that as long as a CRAS is allowed by the ZC, 45 there is no abuse of the allowed height (3 ft. 6 inches against an allowable 7 -foot 46 maximum), the square footage is less than the 38 sq. ft. allowed, and because 5 of 1 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2006 precedence has been established throughout the City over time, he would be in favor of approval of HV 06-5. MOTION by Ladner; SECOND by Bello to approve Height Variation 06-5, subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution 06-49 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-1-1 Roberts, Bello, and Ladner O'Malley Deaton Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 06-49 begins a 1 O-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 5. Variance 06-4 1311 Seal Way Applicant/Owner: Jack Bettenhausen Request: To permit a wood fence ranging from 7 feet 3 inches to 8 feet 3 inches in height within an interior side yard. The request also includes approval of an 11-foot tall wind screen within the side yard setback. The fence heights are proposed in lieu of the maximum allowable fence height of 6 feet, as required in the Seal Beach Zoninq Code for fencing within an interior side yard. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 06-50. Vice-Chairperson Roberts asked if notices had been posted and/or advertised and mailed as required by law, and has Staff received any communications either for or against the matter? Mr. Whittenberg stated that notice was published in the newspaper and mailed by law and Attachment 5 and 6 in the Staff Report reflect communications received both in favor and in opposition to this request. Letters in support were also received from Teo & Greta Albers, 1307 Seal Way; and from Jerry Erickson and Jeanette Wurth. Staff Report Mr. DaVeiga delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and noted that the applicant has indicated that because of the location of the site and the lack of a wind barrier, the courtyard is susceptible to winds that impact the trees and sensitive plants located in his courtyard garden. The applicant feels that the higher 6 of 18 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2006 1 fence would also result in a more private setting, since the courtyard faces an open area 2 on the property to the west of 1311 Seal Way. Mr. OaVeiga then provided a brief 3 PowerPoint presentation with slides of the subject property and the courtyard area. 4 (Presentation is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He said that Staff 5 recommends approval of the fence with a height of 7 feet to allow for consistent height 6 along the entire length of the fence along the side property line. He also noted that Staff 7 is concerned that the height of the fence would result in a 10-foot high fence along 8 certain portions adjacent to the courtyard on the neighbor's side to the west. 9 10 Commissioner Questions 11 12 Commissioner Ladner stated that he is aware that the maximum height for fences in 13 Seal Beach is 6 feet, and he asked why Staff was recommending 7 feet. Mr. OaVeiga 14 noted that in the past variances have been approved for a fence height of 7 feet, but 15 generally this has been in situations where both property owners are in agreement to 16 raise the height of the fence. 17 18 Commissioner O'Malley asked if there were any consideration for properties that are on 19 a slope, such as is the case with 1311 Seal Way. Mr. OaVeiga clarified that there is a 20 2-foot differential in the grade in the rear yard, so the slope would not be that drastic 21 from the alley to the front of the property. He noted that if the property had a 2-foot high 22 retaining wall, a 6-foot fence could be constructed upon this wall. He added that in this 23 case, the courtyard was created on a higher grade and is not at the natural grade level. 24 25 Vice-Chairperson stated that he had visited 1311 Seal Way and Mr. Bettenhausen had 26 shown him the property. 27 28 Commissioner Bello stated that she had also visited the property. 29 30 Commissioner O'Malley stated that he had spoken to Mr. Bettenhausen by telephone 31 and informed him that he could express no opinion regarding the approval or denial of 32 this Variance. He said he did visit the property, but did not contact Mr. Bettenhausen 33 while there. 34 35 Commissioner Ladner stated that he had received a call from Mr. Bettenhausen and he 36 had told both Mr. & Mrs. Bettenhausen that he could not comment on Variance 06-5. 37 38 Public HearinQ 39 40 Vice-Chairperson Roberts opened the public hearing. 41 42 Jack Bettenhausen stated that he has lived peacefully at 1311 Seal Way for 43 approximately 32 years. He indicated that through the years he has observed and 44 experienced a lot while living in this home, and until now he has never had any reason 45 to complain. He said he is now retired and spends most of his time tending his garden 46 and writing, but he finds it necessary to now protect himself and his wife from what he 7 of 18 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2006 1 perceives as a vicious attack on behalf of his neighbors. He then described the history 2 of his property and the characteristics that make it unique. He noted that his bedroom 3 faces the neighbor's area of highest utilization, which is an outdoor patio, and planting 4 two small trees in his rear yard has helped to screen this area and the windbreak helps 5 the protect the trees in his garden and allows for their growth. Mr. Bettenhausen then 6 described the 6-foot 1-inch windbreak structure, which is an antique Tunisian window 7 that has been painted to look like an antique and is structurally sound and securely 8 bolted down. He said the windbreak has been in place for 7 years with no problems or 9 signs of detaching. 10 11 Joanne Bettenhausen said that she has lived in Seal Beach for approximately 14 years. 12 She noted that there was no word of code violations by the Bettenhausens until after a 13 neighbor complained to animal control regarding the Lis's dogs barking and "lunging" at 14 people walking along the boardwalk, and annoying everyone with prolonged periods of 15 loud barking. She commented that if the Lises were so concerned about the safety of 16 their children, they would have addressed the issue of a 1 0-11-foot tall unstable satellite 17 dish located in the front yard for the last two years, and Mr. Lis had jack hammered the 18 only cement walk from the his residence to the beach leaving large, jagged chunks of 19 cement to step over. Ms. Bettenhausen emphasized that the wall that would divide her 20 property from the neighbor's patio is the most critical issue to ensure protection and 21 privacy for her and Mr. Bettenhausen. She reiterated their request for a Variance 22 should be granted based upon the unique circumstances related to their property. 23 24 Greta and Teo Albers, stated that their primary residence is in Chino, but they also live 25 at 1307 Seal Way. Mr. Albers stated that they live near the Bettenhausens, who are 26 good people whose home is well maintained. He spoke in support of Variance 06-4 and 27 commented that the property at 1309 Seal Way is poorly maintained and makes him 28 feel like he lives in a bad neighborhood. 29 30 Margene Walz, 1401 Seal Way, spoke in favor of Variance 06-4. She said she has 31 known the Bettenhausens for many years and they have always been quiet neighbors. 32 She noted that every since the Lises moved into the neighborhood there has been 33 much dissention and their dogs and kids are very loud. 34 35 Christian Bettenhausen, the applicant's son, stated that he is an attorney who deals with 36 land use cases and the Staff Report clearly states the unusual circumstances related to 37 this request. He noted that the way the 1309 property is setback creates a unique 38 situation, and does create a lot of wind. He stated that the trees and the wall are 39 important in helping maintain some distance between the Bettenhausen's back yard and 40 the neighbor's yard. He said that if the wind screen or the grade level is reduced the 41 trees will die, and if the fence is reduced, this will just make a problematic situation 42 worse. He indicated that ZoninQ Code (lC) Section 28-2316(c)(6) states that the height 43 of the property line should be measured from the owner's side of the fence, which in this 44 case would make the grade 2 feet higher than the neighbor's. He added that the grade 45 has been 2 feet higher for over 30 years, and the City was aware of this when the house 46 was moved forward. Vice-Chairperson Roberts asked if Mr. Bettenhausen knew 8 of 18 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2006 1 whether the City has any record of this increase in the grade. Mr. Bettenhausen stated 2 that he does not, but he was present and saw City Staff on site when the house was 3 moved forward. Commissioner O'Malley asked if the fence was constructed at the time 4 the house was moved forward. Mr. Bettenhausen stated that the lower level portion of 5 the fence has been there for as long as he can recall, and the lattice was added at a 6 later point, with an additional two feet added approximately 2 years ago. 7 8 Mr. Whittenberg noted that in the Commissioner packets one of the plan submittals 9 shows the area in question as approved by the City in 1970 with a grade differential and 10 an existing wall to enclose it. He said the 6-foot height limit is measured from the 11 general average height and grade level of the lot, and not when you do an interim fill 12 area in between. 13 14 Steve Phillips said he grew up in Seal Beach and is a window washer in the City. He 15 said most people in Seal Beach are great to deal with, but there is a great deal of 16 animosity between the residents of 1309 and 1311 Seal Way. Vice-Chairperson 17 Roberts interrupted to state that he did not wish to get into any discussion of 18 personalities, but would prefer that factual commentary as it relates to the applicant's 19 request be given. Mr. Phillips stated that for the past six years he has provided his 20 services in washing a window on the Bettenhausen home that faces 1309 Seal Way, . 21 and he usually has placed his ladder on Mr. Lis's property in order to access this 22 window. He said that recently Mr. Lis very aggressively told him that he could no longer 23 do this. He spoke in support of Variance 06-5. 24 25 Margo Alsbrook, 1301 Seal Way, said that the Bettenhausens are very kind people and 26 she spoke in support of Variance 06-5. She asked those in the audience in support of 27 this request to raise their hands and indicated that these are the people that represent 28 Seal Beach. 29 30 Shawnee Debeld, 1307 Seal Way, said that she has lived here for 4 years and has 31 done everything to live amicably with her neighbors. She commented on some of the 32 problems with the neighbors at 1309 Seal Way and recommended approval of Variance 33 06-5 to allow Mr. Bettenhausen to preserve his garden. 34 35 Jack Alsbrook, 1301 Seal Way, stated that he has known the Bettenhausens for many 36 years, and he was told that Mr. Bettenhausen was responsible for creating the gardens 37 at the Seal Beach Inn & Gardens. He spoke in favor of approval of Variance 06-5. 38 39 Pam Paulson, 1212 Ocean Avenue, spoke in support of Variance 06-5. 40 41 Susan Davenport, 1401 Seal Way, spoke in support of Variance 06-5. 42 43 Allen Burns, attorney with Harper & Burns in the City of Orange, spoke for his client, 44 Steve Lis. He thanked Staff for writing the Staff Report with the focus on land use. He 45 said that in order to be entitled to a Variance the facts must support the findings of 46 special circumstances that deny a property owner advantages enjoyed by others, and 9 of 18 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2006 1 he noted that these factors are not present. He indicated that as stated in his letter to 2 the City of Seal Beach, a self-induced hardship does not create the need for a variance, 3 and he cannot see how a problem with wind could be reason enough to grant a 4 variance. He again thanked Staff for their recommendation to lower the height of the 5 fence and for the requirement that a structural engineer evaluate this matter. 6 Commissioner O'Malley asked Mr. Burns how the fence and wind screen are affecting 7 his client. Mr. Burns said he believes his client would prefer not to have a "monolithic" 8 wall that would interfere with the view, light, and air, but he would let Mr. Lis further 9 respond to this. 10 11 Steve Lis, 1309 Seal Way, said he purchased this home approximately 9 years ago 12 when his children were ages 7, 5, and 3, and it was nice to have the large yard in front 13 for his children to play. He said that his family is only in Seal Beach from the end of 14 June to the end of August, and they are in the process of building a new home that will 15 extend to the front of the lot, and they will no longer have a front yard, so there should 16 no longer be complaints of his family making noise in the front yard. He noted that Mr. 17 Bettenhausen's garden is actually located in the atrium above the carport and is 18 completely surrounded by an 8-foot wall with a couple of open arches in it, and if wind is 19 such a problem, he might place plexiglass over the arches. He stated that the garden is 20 a small piece of dirt with the trees in it between the house and the carport, and the 21 atrium carport garden runs the length of the property. Commissioner O'Malley noted 22 that Mr. Lis had made no comments about the fence. He asked how this fence had 23 affected the Lis family. Mr. Lis stated that there is no rhyme or reason or engineering to 24 the existing fence, and because the fence is next to his walkway, he is concerned that 25 something might fall off the fence and hit his children. Commissioner O'Malley asked 26 how long the fence had been in place. Ms. Lis said he was not certain, but regardless 27 of how long it has existed, it is a danger and is against City Code. Commissioner 28 O'Malley asked why after living in this home for 9 years, Mr. Lis is just now complaining 29 about the fence. Mr. Lis stated that the Bettenhausens were notified of this back in July 30 or August 2006. Commissioner O'Malley asked if any part of the fence had recently 31 fallen off or whether the fence appears to be collapsing. Mr. Lis said that it is collapsing 32 and is not structurally sound. Commissioner O'Malley asked if the fence were not a 33 hazard, would it be a problem for Mr. Lis. Mr. Lis stated that he would not like to see a 34 10-foot fence on one side of his new home. Vice-Chairperson Roberts asked if Mr. Lis's 35 new home would be a 2-story home and where would the entryway be. Mr. Lis said it 36 would be 2-story and the entrance would be adjacent to the area where the 37 Bettenhausen windscreen is located. Vice-Chairperson Roberts asked if Mr. Lis could 38 see himself enjoying some type of screening along the property line near his front door. 39 Mr. Lis said there would be a 6-foot fence along the property line. Vice-Chairperson 40 Roberts asked whether Mr. Lis had met with the applicant in an attempt to come to a 41 compromise regarding this issue. Mr. Lis said he had not spoken with the applicant in a 42 while. 43 44 Speaking in rebuttal, Christian Bettenhausen stated that this is not about land use, but 45 is about retribution. He said that although there is not a circumstance related to size, 46 shape, or topography, there is the issue of location and surroundings, which create the 1 0 of 18 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2006 1 unique situation in this case. He noted that the adjacent property is on the beach and is 2 setback very far from the front property line, which is unique. With regard to Mr. Burns's 3 contention that the hardship was self-induced, Mr. Bettenhausen stated that he was 5 4 years old when his family moved into the home at 1311 Seal Way, and the existing 5 home at 1309 Seal Way was then located where it is now. He then noted that the berm 6 on the beach is not there year round exposing his father's property to strong winds 7 when the berm is taken down. He stated that the fence is securely constructed, but if 8 the City requires further modifications to make it more secure, the applicants will be 9 happy to comply. He commented that the issue is not whether Mr. Lis's children play in 10 their yard, but the problems relate more to the parents, the dogs, the loud yelling, etc., 11 as outlined in the documents presented to the City. 12 13 There being no one else wishing to speak Vice-Chairperson Roberts closed the public 14 hearing. 15 16 Mr. Whittenberg stated that in conferring with the City Attorney and reviewing the plans 17 from the 1970 construction, they noted that the area of concern, the atrium, clearly 18 shows the wall between the two properties was approved as a retaining wall. He 19 explained that the ZoninQ Code (ZC) under Section 28-2216(b )(4) states that a retaining 20 wall on the property line is permitted, and a fence on top of the retaining wall not to 21 exceed 6 feet in height, not to exceed a height of 8 feet as measured from grade level 22 on either side of the retaining wall. He stated that by right the applicant can construct 23 an 8-foot high retaining wall/fence combination as measured from the low side in this 24 particular area. He said that Staff is modifying its recommendation to indicate that in the 25 area where the permitted retaining wall is, a 6-foot high fence should be allowed, with 26 the remaining portion stepped down to 7 feet. 27 28 Mr. Abbe added that in order to grant a Variance you must make a finding that the 29 Variance would not adversely affect the General Plan, and if there are some special 30 circumstances applicable to the property that deprive the property owner from enjoying 31 the same benefits that other in the are receive, and granting the Variance would not 32 constitute a grant of special privileges. He noted that after listening to the statements of 33 both the attorneys, he is not concerned with a legal problem with the decision of the PC 34 to approve or deny. 35 36 Commissioner Comments 37 38 Commissioner O'Malley asked if constructing the 6-foot wall above the retaining wall 39 would necessitate demolishing the existing fence. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this 40 would be at the discretion of the PC. He said if the PC were to require that the fence in 41 the area of the retaining wall be lowered so that it is no more than 8 feet above the 42 neighbor's property grade on his side, this would comply with the zoning standards, as 43 long as it is lowered down to that height and is structurally sound in accordance with 44 building standards. He stated that on the other portion of the fence, if the PC grants the 45 Variance for a height of more than 6 feet, the PC could then impose design standards. 11 of 18 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Mmutes of November 8, 2006 1 Commissioner Roberts requested an interpretation of the retaining wall as it goes 2 across the 3-foot setback where the windscreen is. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the 3 windscreen would be measured as 8 feet from the low side of the opposite side of the 4 fence. 5 6 Commissioner O'Malley noted that with regard to the safety of the structure, one of the 7 conditions of approval states "Structural drawings of all existing and proposed fencing, 8 retaining walls, and the windscreen, shall be prepared and stamped by a licensed 9 Structural Engineer and shall be provided to the Department of Building and Safety prior 10 to issuance of a building permit." He said that he feels there would be no safety issue if 11 this Variance is granted. 12 13 Commissioner Bello stated that she had visited the property and in looking at 14 everything, she feels that there are some unique circumstances that have to do with the 15 location and the surroundings that must be taken into consideration. She said that this 16 does deserve a Variance. 17 18 Commissioner Roberts stated that he agrees that the retaining wall and the fence 19 above, not to exceed 8 feet from the lowest grade, mitigate a problem with the 16-foot 20 atrium area. He said he would have difficulty granting a Variance to include the height 21 of the windscreen, and the trouble with Variances is that they go with the property and 22 not the property owner. He said he would feel comfortable approving a 7 -foot or 8-foot 23 fence and a 5.5 foot height off the deck of the atrium. 24 25 Commissioner O'Malley stated that the PC needs to deal with this situation the way it is 26 now and not what it will be when Mr. Lis constructs his new home. He said that as he 27 understands, windscreens are temporary structures. Mr. Whittenberg noted that this 28 windscreen is installed as a permanent screen, and essentially serves the same 29 purpose as a fence. Commissioner O'Malley asked if a temporary, movable wind 30 screen could be installed. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would still be subject to the 31 same height limits. 32 33 Mr. Whittenberg stated that he understands everyone's concern, but the ZC is very 34 clear in stating that in side yard setbacks you are only allowed certain things, because 35 they are access routes for fire and emergency personnel. He said that in this case they 36 would not be accessing the property through that area, but if you have something that is 37 really high and someone is stuck in that area it would make it extremely difficult to get 38 out if there is something blocking the other exit path out of the property. 39 40 Commissioner Roberts stated that the white wood fence that goes from ground level to 41 the 6-foot level that he saw was bowed and structurally he would have some concerns. 42 Mr. Whittenberg noted that if the Variance for a 7-foot high fence is granted, this would 43 be covered by the condition as noted in the Staff Report. 44 45 MOTION by O'Malley; SECOND by Ladner to approve Variance 06-4, subject to 46 conditions, and adopt Resolution 06-50 as recommended by staff. 12 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2006 Mr. Abbe clarified that the motion is recommending that the applicant not go above what is allowed by the ZoninQ Code (ZC) from where the retaining wall exists, but for the other parts of the fence the applicant can build up to a height of 7 feet, as recommended by Staff. Commissioner O'Malley agreed that this would be the motion. Mr. Abbe added that essentially this would be a denial of the Variance for the retaining wall, but an approval for a 6-foot wall on top of the retaining wall, measured from the adjoining property. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that this would cover the retaining wall and what has been called the windscreen. Commissioner O'Malley withdrew his motion and requested further clarification of Staff's recommendation. MOTION by O'Malley; SECOND by Ladner to withdraw his motion. Motion dies. Mr. Whittenberg explained that Staff is recommending that no Variance be granted for the fence and windscreen that sit on top of the retaining wall, and the fence would be a maximum of 8 feet above ground level on either the neighbor's property or the applicant's property. He continued by stating that the recommendation for the remaining portions of the property line fence, is that this fence be no higher than 7 feet. MOTION by O'Malley; SECOND by Ladner to approve Variance 06-4, subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution 06-50 as requested by the applicant. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-1-1 Bello, Ladner, and O'Malley Roberts, Deaton Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Staff would return with the formal Resolution No. 06-50 with the final findings and conditions for formal adoption at the Planning Commission meeting of December 6, 2006. He advised that adoption of Resolution No. 06-50 would begin a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council and the Commissioner action would be final with the appeal period beginning the morning after adoption. Mr. Abbe added that the public hearing on this item has been concluded and no additional testimony will be taken at the meeting of December 6, 2006. At 9:35 p.m. Mr. Whittenberg requested a 5-minute recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m. 5. Variance 06-5 326 E. 16th Street Appl icant/Owner: Daniel Hill/Thomas & Sandra Schloessmann 13 of 18 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Mmutes of November 8, 2006 1 Request: To permit 2 1. A second floor addition along an existing nonconforming 3 setback of 3 feet in lieu of the minimum setback 4 requirement of 3 feet 9 inches. 5 2. To permit the existing garage to remain along a 6 nonconforming setback of zero feet along the easterly 7 property line, in lieu of the minimum setback requirement 8 of 3 feet 9 inches. 9 3. To permit the existing garage to remain with a 10 nonconforming rear setback of 5 feet in lieu of the 11 minimum setback requirement of 12 feet (to meet the 12 required 24-foot turning radius). 13 4. To permit the garage to remain with a nonconforming 14 interior depth dimension of approximately 17 feet in lieu 15 of the minimum required interior depth of 20 feet. 16 17 Recommendation: Pleasure of the Planning Commission. 18 19 Vice-Chairperson Roberts asked if notices had been posted and/or advertised and 20 mailed as required by law, and has Staff received any communications either for or 21 against the matter? Mr. Whittenberg stated that notice was published in the newspaper 22 and mailed by law. He noted that a copy of a letter received from the applicant's 23 representative and the applicant suggesting a number of modifications to the plan 24 based upon Staff's recommendation has been provided to the Commission. He said 25 that the applicant has also provided a photo showing the separation distances between 26 their existing garage and the garage across the alley. Also provided is a copy of a letter 27 from the Atay Family at 328 16th Street in opposition to Variance 06-5. 28 29 Staff Report 30 31 Mr. DaVeiga delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 32 Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and 33 stated that the applicant proposes a 208 sq. ft. first story addition and a 314 sq. ft. 34 second story addition along nonconforming setbacks. He briefly reviewed the four 35 Variance requests and noted that Staff recommends approval of Variance request No. 36 1, which would allow the second story addition along the nonconforming setback so that 37 aesthetically there would not be a jog in the wall, and the addition would be 38 architecturally consistent with the existing home. He said that Staff does not support 39 the Variances request for the garage, and recommends that it be reconstructed in order 40 to meet the side and rear yard setback and interior garage depth requirements. He 41 explained that reconstructing the garage would mean that the majority of the first floor 42 addition would be nonexistent. He stated that the applicant has submitted a letter 43 identifying a compromise design solution, which would increase the interior garage 44 depth to 20 feet, would increase the width of the garage door to 18 feet; however, the 45 garage would maintain its current setbacks of zero on the side and 5 feet in the rear. 46 14 of 18 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2006 1 Commissioner Questions 2 3 None. 4 5 Public HearinQ 6 7 Vice-Chairperson Roberts opened the public hearing. 8 9 Daniel Hill, the architect for the project, stated that the applicant has some concerns 10 with the conditions of approval as recommended by Staff, in particular with demolishing 11 the existing garage. He stated that this garage was part of a 1,100 sq. ft. second story 12 addition constructed in 1982 that met building standards of that day and was issued 13 permits on a full set of working drawings. He indicated that the garage conforms to the 14 1982 setback requirements and at that time the second floor was attached to the 15 existing garage with an actual deck, which measures approximately 80 sq. ft. He said 16 that the applicant proposes to enclose the second story deck and create a master 17 bathroom and construct a family room on the first floor. He noted that the applicant 18 requests that the existing side and rear yard setbacks be allowed to remain because if 19 the garage is reconstructed to meet the 24-ft. turning radius on the alley, this would 20 eliminate the first floor family room. He said that the existing garage will accommodate 21 three cars. He stated that if the project does not proceed as proposed, the garage and 22 setbacks will remain nonconforming. He requested approval of Variance 06-5. At 23 Commissioner Roberts' request, Mr. Hill reviewed the proposed compromises as 24 follows: 25 26 1. Extend the garage 3 feet toward the existing dwelling to create the required interior 27 depth of 20 feet. 28 29 2. Create a 2-car garage from the 3-car garage by eliminating the existing door and 30 installing an 18-ft. garage door in the center of the garage or two 12-ft. garage 31 doors to create the 24-ft. required turning radius on the alley. If two 12-ft. garage 32 doors are installed, the applicant would request that the additional 3 feet for the 33 interior garage depth not be required. Keeping the garage where it is would also 34 leave 25 feet of parking space in front of the garage. 35 36 Thomas Schloessmann, owner of 326 E. 16th Street, reiterated that the garage was built 37 to the standards of 1982 and is aesthetically in very good condition, structurally sound, 38 and the will remain the same even if the project is not completed. He stated that he is 39 asking to adjoin his home to the garage via the existing gap between the dining room 40 and the garage. He noted that this gap is a nonfunctional area in which he would like to 41 create a dining room. He indicated that he has worked closely with Planning Staff in 42 creating the design for this project. He added that approval of Variance 06-5 would not 43 set a precedent, as there are many other older homes in his neighborhood that were 44 constructed under different building standards of the past and have the same or similar 45 setbacks. Mr. Schloessmann then noted that for the record he formerly owned the 46 home at 328 16th Street, directly next door, and moved to 326 16th Street for the specific 15 of 18 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2006 1 purpose of pursuing this project and having more livable space and more of a patio 2 area. The Atay Family purchased the home at 328 16th Street and the transaction did 3 not go smoothly and he would question the motives for the Atay's letter of opposition. 4 He stated that he has been in verbal contact with the Atays and they have not been 5 open to discussing the proposed project. He said that the project would not 6 compromise or create an aesthetic disadvantage for the Atays. 7 8 Craig Gibson, 305 1 ih Street, spoke in opposition to Variance 06-5. He said that the 9 City has codes and setbacks for a good reason and a 12-foot setback for a driveway is 10 totally justified. He stated that he knows the previous owners at 326 16th Street and 11 they rarely used their garage, but parked their cars outside where they blocked the alley 12 because there was only 5 feet on which to park. He said that even though Variances 13 have been granted to this property in the past, by today's standards they are totally 14 unacceptable and the new owners are aware of this, yet they wish to be granted 15 additional variances for this property. He said aesthetically this is not a pleasing project 16 and he opposes it in its original form or with the proposed compromises. 17 18 Mr. Hill stated that the proposed project will be aesthetically pleasing with a master 19 bathroom constructed in the existing second story deck area as the other side of the 20 deck is currently used for a storage area. He reiterated that the garage had been 21 approved and constructed under the 1982 building standards. With regard to the 22 comments in opposition to Variance 06-5, Mr. Hill noted that the existing home at 326 23 16th Street does not currently create a hardship for any of the neighboring homes, and 24 neither would the proposed project. 25 26 There being no one else wishing to speak Vice-Chairperson Roberts closed the public 27 hearing. 28 29 Commissioner Comments 30 31 Commissioner O'Malley asked what the status would be for a Variance granted on this 32 property in 1982. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff has not been able to locate the 33 granting of a Variance for this property. He explained that for a number of years in Old 34 Town, if you had a detached garage the City allowed that they be constructed on the 35 property line. He indicated that once a garage is attached, it must have the same 36 setback as the main residence. He stated that the patio cover attached to the garage 37 would not trigger this type of requirement because it is non-habitable living space. 38 Commissioner O'Malley noted that the proposal would entail constructing a separate 39 wall on the first floor, with the second floor attached to the garage. Mr. Whittenberg 40 confirmed that once the two structures are attached to the garage with habitable living 41 space on either the first or second floor, then by Code the garage must meet the same 42 setback as the house. He added that if a minimum 6-foot separation is maintained 43 between the garage structure and the home and all proposed additions to the house, 44 the garage would be permitted to remain where it is. Commissioner O'Malley asked if 45 Staff has had an opportunity to review the compromises. Mr. Whittenberg stated that 46 Staff has reviewed them and the real problem is that the garage has only a 5-foot rear 16 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2006 setback on a 12-foot wide alley. He said the City standard is that you have a 24-foot turning area from the opposite alley property line to the face of your garage, but in this case because it is only a 12-foot alley, it would require a 12-foot setback. Commissioner O'Malley confirmed that if the addition were done without attaching the garage to the house, the garage would be conforming. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the garage is nonconforming due to the rear setback, but it does conform on the side setback. Vice-Chairperson Roberts asked if the 1982 setback requirements had been confirmed. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the City's setback standards have not changed since the 1970s. Commissioner O'Malley asked if the garage was permitted. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that was. He reiterated that the issue now is that the addition would connect the garage and the house, and City Code would then require that all setback standards be met, unless a Variance is granted. He noted that because the rear setback is not adequate, Staff feels that it would not be practical to grant the Variance in this case. Commissioner Ladner asked if the City has an ordinance that states if you have a garage, your car must be parked inside the garage. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there is an ordinance that states you should park cars in garages, but there is nothing that states you cannot park you car on your driveway area. Vice-Chairperson Roberts proposed to the Commission that this item be tabled until Chairperson Deaton returns, as the proposed project is within District 1. Commissioner Ladner asked if there had ever been any similar proposals submitted. Mr. Whittenberg suggested that this item be continued to the December 6, 2006, meeting to allow Staff more time to research City records. He noted that it is highly unusual for a garage from that time period to have been constructed the way this one is, and Staff must attempt to ascertain how this construction was approved. Commissioner O'Malley added that this would allow the applicant to have more time to meet with Staff to review other alternatives. Mr. Whittenberg recommended re-opening the public hearing and continuing the hearing to the meeting of December 6. MOTION by O'Malley; SECOND by Ladner to re-open the public hearing for Variance 06-4. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Roberts, Bello, Ladner, and O'Malley None Deaton Public Hearinq Vice-Chairperson Roberts recognized Mr. Thomas Schloessmann. 17 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2006 Mr. Schloessmann referred to the comments on not parking cars in garages. He stated that across the alley are separate, individual garages and at least one of them is being used for storage, but he has never seen any cars parked in front of these garages. With regard to the 5-foot rear setback, he noted that the previous owners had a very long paint truck, as well as a very long "specialized" truck, which were both usually parked at the rear of the property, and jutted into the alley. He stated that both of his cars fit in the garage, and they do not plan on parking outside the garage with only a 5-foot setback. MOTION by O'Malley; SECOND by Ladner to continue the public hearing for Variance 06-4 to the Planning Commission meeting of December 6, 2006. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Roberts, Bello, Ladner, and O'Malley None Deaton STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg reminded the Commission that the Planning Commission meeting for November 22,2006, has been cancelled. He wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. COMMISSION CONCERNS None. ADJOURNMENT Vice-Chairperson Roberts adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. to the Planning Commission meeting of December 6, 2006. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary Planning Department APPROVAL The Commission on December 6, 2006, approved 1M Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Wednesday, November 8, 2006. ~. 18 of 18