HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC AG PKT 2014-07-16 #4 �;F SEAC'b,�y,a PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM NUMBER
STAFF REPORT 4
qC/FORN�P:
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Director of Community Development
MEETING DATE: July 16, 2014
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING
REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(CUP 14-4) TO PERMIT A STRUCTURAL
ALTERATION TO A LEGAL
NONCONFORMING PROPERTY AND
APPROVE AN ALTERNATIVE PARKING
CONFIGURATION.
LOCATION: 114 A SURFSIDE AVENUE
APPLICANT: CPR LANDHOLDINGS, INC.
RECOMMENDATION: After conducting the Public Hearing, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission
adopt Resolution No. 14-5, to DENY Conditional
Use Permit 14-4.
Conditional Use Permit 14-4
114 A Surfside Avenue
July 16, 2014
Page 2 of 6
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RESIDENTIAL
ZONE: RLD-9 (RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY— 9)
SITE DESCRIPTION:
Assessor's Parcel Number: 178-462-06
Lot Area: 1,300 square feet (.029 acres)
Building Floor Area: 2,426 square feet
Surrounding Properties: North: Residential
South:Beach
East: Residential
West: Residential
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and State Guidelines for the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Department
has determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental
review per Section 15303(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
LEGAL NOTIFICATION:
The legal notice of this hearing was published in the Seal Beach Sun Newspaper on
July 3, 2014 and mailed to property owners and occupants within a 500' radius of the
subject property on July 3, 2013, with affidavits of publishing and mailing on file.
VICINITY MAP: AERIAL MAP
C i t of Seal Beach
;r
r
Y� yr `` xin
'/— ~
Conditional Use Permit 14-4
114 A Surfside Avenue
July 16, 2014
Page 3 of 6
BACKGROUND:
The subject property has been the subject of ongoing code enforcement efforts since May
2011, when a Seal each Building Official noticed the existence of an elevator while
inspecting unrelated improvements to the fagade of the residence. Although building
permits had been approved for the fagade work, none had ever been approved for the
elevator.
Single-unit dwellings with five or fewer bedrooms are required to have two off-street
parking spaces. The residence on the subject property has four bedrooms, thereby
requiring two off-street parking spaces. Each off-street parking space is required to have
certain minimum dimensions. The minimum basic dimensions of a standard-size parking
stall are 9 feet by 18 feet. Two off-street parking spaces, therefore, would be required to
maintain minimum dimensions of 18 feet by 18 feet.
In this case, the property owners constructed the elevator within the footprint of one of the
two required parking spaces, thereby reducing the required parking dimensions below the
minimum specifications outlined in the Municipal Code.
The property owners had constructed the elevator in the garage area without first obtaining
required permits and inspections. Had the property owners consulted the City prior to
building the elevator, City staff would have likely said the elevator would have to be located
in a different place or the parking rearranged to accommodate the elevator. They did not,
however, and the result is violations of two separate sections of the Municipal Code —
Section 11.4.20, pertaining to off-street parking requirements, and Section 9.60.020,
pertaining to building permit requirements.
The City first issued a Correction Notice to the property for garage alterations, including the
construction of an elevator, on May 10, 2011. When staff learned that one of the residents
was disabled and required an elevator to access the upper floors of the residence, the
property owners were invited to apply for a Reasonable Accommodation for a reduction in
the City's off-street parking requirement. Under Chapter 11.5.30 of the Municipal Code,
the City may approve Reasonable Accommodations in the form of modifications to the
City's zoning requirements when necessary to allow a disabled person an equal
opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The property owners subsequently applied for a
Reasonable Accommodation,
On December 7, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the
application for a Reasonable Accommodation. A copy of the minutes of that meeting is
attached to this report. The property owners were represented at the meeting by their
attorney, Mark Tundis, and the project designer, Yolanda McCausland. During the
meeting, the question arose whether the property owners would be able or willing to move
the elevator to another location. Ms. McCausland indicated that the property owners would
be willing to remove a bathroom on the ground floor to install tandem parking spaces,
which would allow for the elevator to remain in place. She requested a continuance to
further explore the matter. The Planning Commission granted her request for a
continuance.
Conditional Use Permit 14-4
114 A Surfside Avenue
July 16, 2014
Page 4 of 6
On March 2, 2012, after the City had not received any requests to construct tandem
parking spaces on the subject property, staff sent the property owners a letter regarding
the Code violations pertaining to the lack of proper garage accommodation for the required
off-street parking. On March 15, 2012, the City received a letter in response from Mr.
Tundis, the property owner's attorney, which stated that the owners were"unaware of any
violations which exist on their property at the current time. Both in terms of the alleged
required off-street parking and any current lack of proper garage accommodation."
Over the course of the next year, the City attempted, to no avail, to gain the property
owner's voluntary compliance. At one point, a member of the owner's family told a City
Code Enforcement Officer that the owners would not take any action to bring the subject
property into compliance with the Municipal Code and that any future correspondence from
the City should be forwarded to Mr. Tundis.
On November 7, 2013, the City Attorney's office sent a letter to Mr. Tundis advising him
and the property owners of the Code violations and formally requesting permission to
inspect the property to take precise measurements of the required parking spaces and
inspect the elevator. The property owners refused to grant their consent.
The City was therefore compelled to apply to the court for an inspection warrant to enter
and inspect the subject property. The court granted the inspection warrant, and it was
executed by City Enforcement and Building Department staff, accompanied by the Seal
Beach Police Department, on December 16, 2013. During the inspection, City staff took
and observed measurements of the garage area and took photographs. The area of the
garage space was found to be approximately 22 feet, 4 inches by 13 feet, 2 inches.
Because the off-street parking available in the garage area was less than the minimum
required by the Code, and the elevator was constructed without a permit, the City issued
administrative citations to the property owners of $100 each for each violation. The
corrective action required was to obtain a demolition permit to remove the unpermitted
elevator and restore the garage dimensions to compliance no later than January 2, 2014.
The property owners appealed the administrative citations and the appeal was heard by
the City's Hearing Officer. The property owners were present at the hearing and
represented by Mr. Tundis. On February 22, 2014, the Hearing Officer issued a written
decision upholding the citation issued by the City for both violations of the Municipal Code.
A copy of the Hearing Officer's decision is attached.
On March 18, 2014, the City Attorney's office sent a letter to the property owners and Mr.
Tundis explaining the actions must be taken to avoid further citations. The property owners
were given until May 16, 2014 to either obtain permits to remove the unpermitted elevator
or apply for a permit to allow tandem parking on the subject property.
ANALYSIS:
The property owners submitted the pending application for an alternative parking
arrangement. The proposal would require removal of an existing shower in the ground
floor bathroom, but provide two parking spaces that meet the City's minimum dimensions,
Conditional Use Permit 14-4
114 A Surfside Avenue
July 16, 2014
Page 5 of 6
while allowing the elevator to remain in place. To do this, the two parking spaces would be
vertically and horizontally offset from the one other, with only the first space having direct
access to the driveway. The second space would be located to the rear and behind the
elevator. As a result, access to the second parking space would require not only removing
the car from the first parking space, but also angling a vehicle within a tight space to avoid
hitting the elevator. In staff's opinion, this arrangement makes it less likely that residents
now or in the future will consistently use the second parking space for parking vehicles.
The proposed alteration in this case requires a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") because
the property is non-conforming as to its front yard setback. Structures in the A-Row of the
Surfside Colony area are required to maintain a four-foot setback from the front property
line. The existing single family residence does not provide the required setback so the
property is considered to be nonconforming. Alterations to nonconforming structures that
are nonconforming due to height or setbacks require approval of a CUP.
In order to approve a CUP, the Planning Commission must make certain findings with
regard to the project. For reasons stated below and in the proposed resolution of denial,
staff does not believe that required findings can be made in this case.
Most fundamentally, the proposed alternative parking arrangement does not comply with
applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The Code generally requires each parking
space to have unobstructed access from a street or from an aisle or drive connecting with a
street. There is an exception for tandem parking for a dwelling, but the proposed
alternative parking arrangement does not meet the definition of "tandem." The Merriam
Webster Dictionary defines tandem as a group of two or more arranged one behind the
other or used or acting in conjunction. To illustrate, the following diagrams show a
traditional two-car garage and a typical tandem parking garage where one vehicle is
arranged behind the other.
Two Car Garage Tandem Parking Garage
Tandem Garage
Double Garage
i
Conditional Use Permit 14-4
114 A Surfside Avenue
July 16, 2014
Page 6 of 6
In this case, the parking spaces would not be arranged one behind the other, but rather
offset from one another, with the second space located behind an elevator and therefore
accessible only at an angle. This does not meet the definition of tandem parking.
More broadly, the proposed alternative parking arrangement is simply incompatible with the
characteristic and existing development in Surfside Colony. Surfside Colony is a gated
community served by private narrow streets that range from 20 feet to 25 feet wide. In
contrast, typical streets in other residential neighborhoods in the City are 36 feet to 40 feet
wide. Typical residential streets are capable of accommodating street parking, but street
parking in Surfside Colony would impede emergency vehicles from accessing dwelling
units or prevent residents from safely maneuvering their own vehicles. Additionally,
garages in Surfside Colony immediately abut the street without any room to further
accommodate on-site parking. It is therefore vital that residents be able to park their
vehicles in their garages in a safe and accommodating manner.
The proposed alternative parking arrangement would require maneuvering a second
vehicle around the non-permitted elevator. This makes it less likely that the second
parking space will be used for vehicle parking, and because there is no room to park a
second vehicle on the driveway of the subject property, the parking arrangement would
make it more likely that vehicles would be parked in the narrow streets of Surfside Colony.
The resulting impediment would inconvenience residents and impede the access of
emergency vehicles.
For these reasons, the proposed alternative parking arrangement is inconsistent with the
General Plan, physically inappropriate for the location, incompatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, and potentially detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of persons
residing or working in the vicinity.
CONCLUSION:
After conducting the public hearing and receiving public testimony, staff recommends that
the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 14-5 denying CUP 14-4 to
permit a structural alteration to a nonconforming structure and approve an alternative
parking configuration.
Prepared by:
stal L ndav Jim B sham
Assistant Planner—Community Development Direcfbr of Co munity Development
Attachments 4:
1. Resolution No. 14-4—A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach
Denying Conditional Use Permit 14-4 for structural alterations to a nonconforming building
and an alternative parking configuration at 114 A Surfside Avenue.
2. Site Plan and Floor Plan
3. Planning Commission Minutes of December 7, 2011
4. Hearing Officer's Decision regarding Citation No. 1100
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION 0. 14-5
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 14-4 FOR STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS TO A
NONCONFORMING BUILDING AND AN ALTERNATIVE
PARKING CONFIGURATION AT 114 A SURFSIDE AVENUE.
RESOLUTION NO. 14-5
A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING
COMMISSION DENYING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 14-4 FOR A STRUCTURAL ALTERATION
AND ALTERNATIVE PARKING CONFIGURATION
FORA NONCONFORMING BUILDING AT 114 A
SURFSIDE AVENUE
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES
HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. On May 16, 2014, CPR Landholdings submitted an application to
the City of Seal Beach Department of Community Development for Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) 14-4 for a structural alteration to a nonconforming building and alternative
parking configuration at 114 A Surfside Avenue (the "subject property"), which is located
in the RLD-9 (Residential Low Density — 9) Zone.
Section 2. Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and
State Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community
Development Department has determined that the proposed project is categorically
exempt from environmental review per Section 15303(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning
Commission on July 16, 2014 to consider the application for CUP 14-4. At the public
hearing, the Planning Commission received and considered all evidence presented,
both written and oral, regarding the subject application. The record of the public hearing
indicates the following:
A. The subject site consists of a 1,300 square-foot parcel with a three-
story, 2,426 square-foot residential building located on the south side, Row A, of
Surfside Avenue. The subject site is surrounded by residential uses to the north, east,
and west, while the beach is located to the south. The subject property is located in the
RLD-9 (Residential Low Density — 9) zone.
B. The existing residence is a nonconforming structure because it
does not maintain the required four-foot setback from the front property line. The
structure was originally built in 1968, but it does not conform to current zoning
regulations. The Zoning Code requires structures that are nonconforming due to height
or setbacks to obtain approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to completing any
structural alterations.
C. The proposed structural alterations include removal of a non-
permitted storage room and removal of an existing shower to accommodate an
alternative parking configuration where the two required parking spaces are offset from
one another horizontally and vertically, with only one spare having direct access to the
driveway. The purpose of this arrangement is to allow an existing unpermitted elevator
to remain in its present location rather than being removed or relocated.
1 of 5
Resolution No. 14-5
Conditional Use Permit 14-4
114 A Surlside Ave
Section 4. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those
stated in the preceding Section of this Resolution and pursuant to Chapter 11.5.20 of
the Code of the City of Seal Beach, the Planning Commission makes the following
findings-
A. The proposed alternative parking arrangement is inconsistent with
the General Plan. The General Plan specifies that redevelopment in the Surfside
Colony is to be compatible with the physical characteristics of its site, surrounding land
uses, and available infrastructure. Street parking in Surfside Colony would impede
emergency vehicles from accessing dwelling units or prevent residents from safely
maneuvering their own vehicles. The proposed alternative parking arrangement would
require maneuvering a second vehicle around the non-permitted elevator. This makes it
less likely that the second parking space will be used for vehicle parking-, and because
there is no room to park a second vehicle on the driveway of the subject property, the
parking arrangement would make it more likely that vehicles would be parked in the
narrow streets of Surfside Colony.
B. The proposed alternative parking arrangement does not comply
with applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The Code generally requires each
parking space to have unobstructed access from a street or from an aisle or drive
connecting with a street. There is an exception for tandem parking for a dwelling, but
the proposed alternative parking arrangement is not in tandem because the parking
spaces Would be offset horizontally and vertically from one another rather than arranged
one behind the other.
C. The subject site is not physically adequate for the proposed
alternative parking arrangement because the difficulty of accessing the second parking
space would make it less likely that the second parking space would be used for vehicle
parking. or could a second vehicle be parked on the driveway. This would make it
more likely that vehicles would be parked in the narrow streets of Surfside Colony. The
resulting impediment would inconvenience residents and impede the access of
emergency vehicles.
D. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the
proposed alternative parking arrangement would be incompatible with and will adversely
affect uses and properties in the surrounding neighborhood. Street parking in Surfside
Colony would impede emergency vehicles from accessing dwelling units or prevent
residents from safely maneuvering their own vehicles and is therefore not allowed. The
proposed alternative parking arrangement would require maneuvering a second vehicle
around the non-permitted elevator. This makes it less likely that the second parking
space will be used for vehicle parking; and because there is no room to park a second
vehicle on the driveway of the subject property, the parking arrangement would make it
more likely that vehicles would be parked in the narrow streets of Surfside Colony.
E. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed
alternative parking arrangement would be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of
persons residing or working in the vicinity. Street parking in Surfside Colony would
2 of 3
Resolution No. 14-5
Conditional Use Permit 14-4
114 A Surtside Ave
impede emergency vehicles from accessing dwelling units or prevent residents from
safely maneuvering their own vehicles and is therefore not allowed. The proposed
alternative parking arrangement would require maneuvering a second vehicle around
the non-permitted elevator. This makes it less likely that the second parking space will
be used for vehicle parking; and because there is no room to park a second vehicle on
the driveway of the subject property, the parking arrangement would make it more likely
that vehicles would be parked in the narrow streets of Surfside Colony.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies
CUP 14-4 for a structural alteration to a nonconforming structure and alternative parking
configuration. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that it would
have denied CUP 14-4 based on any one of the findings and conclusions stated in
Section 4 of this Resolution, each of which is considered by the Planning Commission
to be sufficient independent and alternative grounds for denial.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Seal Beach Planning
Commission at a meeting thereof held on July 16, 2014, by the following vote:
AYES- Commissioners
NOES: Commissioners
ABSENT: Commissioners
ABSTAIN: Commissioners
Sandra Massa-Lavift
ATTEST: Chairperson
Jim asham
Planning Commission Secretary
3 of 3
ATTACHMENT 2
Site Plan and Floor Plans
I
a OI g r ! l
ml a q E Q 3
v
j m I
i I
Lill
h {
{ �Y
.66'L 5 aull fl�Jado.+d
QWJ
,V l'AC
Ja 6 d1 4)
N V
�. m N r W
- r a
6
CID �.1 (a n
W
vo
Z y x a
m m „
f a v w
C 6 m y wr
�^ (D w -1
LL Cl)
JI c c
mu
a s v
v c 0 3 a
uj u1 m Y s 0 O V Jz
O v % a Um
Of p a J Q n U
E is d O
v L U s
d 0 W O d V) Q M W
r�J O
O(�
.
4W' Nt
Ids
�+ l F. '61-LLZ''s'N tl3d
9001Z'61-
ooaz a 3 a MAds as r
•Jt � i'�2�'� Ii o� 7� �1
'6l-LU's'N aid Tllgl�tl--- ` E
f 90oiz 3'0-N Av)tds'cu 3,09199.9f N
All r p
361030`E _53.41' �Y m
LL
OL
EE
'j III A�OldLC JN
WI 3.0' Gb9g
-----------
----
,A
61-LZZ 'S"d 23d In
U
M/>Ids,Gj
51-LZZ bld
'DIJ M/AdS
To
LU N 39' 10'30"F 53..,tt
ui
ui D
>
(A
N Ln In
L
V)
Ln cc
z cc
IST 0
N 3 10'30"E 5 0 0
Ln co <
C6
LU
LL
O <
cc 0
:n
ui (A
LL
LO
z
wo 'ji 0 f 00�
00 CC
O
— w w
uj Lp
> -Z
cit
CDC w
t; -0 '< 8
z o 00 o 17_
o::
0 z z
CL
F- z 0 z
, 0 M _j 0
cr S
w o z z F- 0
N w z
0 , - — = F- Ce Ln
LU a 0 F-
Lu uj
0 0 W
u 0 0
Lu
z
D 0
LLJ 0 0 u CL 0 8
2 u cl: 0
Ln 11)
�,D C)
Ili
C� C>
> > a ;
r
o o
o 0
0
0
0
0
w
06 �OOL
-.£C -. .C-,OL L�
EEEM
� I b
1
121naH�a7 @M tl
SSOINUPI(a) I i
1
� alp(�............ .......
6 �
09x.96 O@x-96 .�a s 00> LL 7
(I//R)U��,,,, j
f .W l N YI IUW E O
n�Ys i
W � r
l
.9-.b .0-,5 .L-. l ,OI ,OI-DL
-AS
,b-.- -L-.b
_ b
0
LIOD Q i i
O
W
'Q
I! Y I
O@x,LE
IW
im. El ( j�c
Y
J
t0
9
-.b .>:-. O 0 0
6 L 0 E m
W W 9 N r
m0 3 ma 3 Q J
,b-A
a�
5
36.
AI-. t .O-,@ .l l"6 .L xu tX ay. p c
Q ry O E @ T Y 3 0
U 3 m y m' O 9 M,
W z® w win N V wn
F o 0 0
o� Ilk
L
a
b-,
4-.
VP
,L4E5 aup fi-----
.1a76aH jalsM
6491-AUe1(9) M Z
- - g
(51-I' O
I � _
E pp
k J
g
LL
Ran
w
b�aH-69J-VM Ss-" W gYOL(3)
-.
----- -----_ ------------- - -__._.-.ESlS _ _ _ _ - - -- - _ _ - - _
Jf ai LL1 N
w v 10 N
o m ry r
m n L
Y Q �
r
O L •�
io t v v m s a
m
n z° Y o
Ln
.¢ v Q V a m � •m U Of
C
V
i n ff ~ X 0
D Q W J
cn
m s mW
W 4 q s U U m
0
O FI
to
m O ° z U v
v < L a °y
da
W
---
�3 11
LU
0 e L
_
II I 4
.I t
xo �;
^o �
— Eo
q a�
ai 3
W 3
1
1
1
r
E\l IU E W N
W 1 W
q a 5 O
3 (
ag +I
'I
1
1
E
0
J W
n�
i I I y ao
II 6 ^E
m _
Lm =
rs
I I • I � ii l i �' i
f —
41*
FINISHED HOISTWAT WIOTMa2
� e• res �t � _
°mrx auswi aoTa
it A �m �
PLAN , 9
v; Nxnew ucrnuai awT Psu a
a
DoODaAL`OCATTDN
g
T
ytr(pp(SS!i� � y i �� E g���j b• n-0-wnrN srA.ro..urc.�saro+n �r<•�.>aw vnN.un vuru'.rn s�,.oms
> >q >?R_yx 3 i! S 330 a .:z ------ -- ---------- ---_----------------- -------- °
?
a a���P�jX�gH � sd 1 ,•.��c:•+ .h. �
Ill #� }ll all }s 1H
v v �a roue rnen e'-.•new omuo umwom
�" 66 66 Sg (1'-C remN e.m Y-e'nrM usmT v¢)
>:
p NP w 3 n b b R� I Jon
1 1110 if 3 g8 � q
v M �P� � ga$i�C4Y n g
F
Y A.~
pij
- n 1 m o
'3n
t��� � �a n rraumnuTr+ow s•-s-°u Tw x•aw:
a �� �3�il P g�e��: �, ��$�5°g° .� ¢NI T•TUNN:.oaTCSr�eEl s��•,MOECw(NTXrun1 I•NOwNaITw.T
q# y �f r } fig $p33;; HQ N
§ 1 bl_"t :ggd. sP t g� tai
eK! Ett �g9B� ot�la s
g g 6
ATTACHMENT 3
Planning Commission Minutes of December 7. 2011
Page 2— Planning Commission 12107/11
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Request for Reasonable Accommodation 11-1 (A-114 Surfside Avenue)
Applicant/Owner: Yolanda McCausland
Request: For an after-the—fact permit for reasonable
accommodation to allow an elevator within an existing
single family dwelling. The elevator is located within
the required garage area, reducing the required two-
car garage area to a single-car garage.
Recommendation: Deny request for Reasonable Accommodation 11-1
The Senior Planner presented the staff report.
Chair Massa-Lavitt opened the public hearing.
Yolanda McCausland, applicant/project designer, spoke briefly regarding the
project and on the location of the elevator within the home.
Mark Tundus, attorney representing the homeowner (Cynthia Richardson),
presented background information regarding the project and stated that his client is
making this request as a disabled person.
The Senior Planner indicated there are other options for the applicant to consider.
Four speakers spoke in favor of denying - the request for reasonable
accommodation: John Chris, A-100, Sandy Redding, B-70; KC Coultrup, B-66,
representing the Board, agrees with staffs recommendation; Judy Wyles, B-68.
Commission comments and inquiries- received clarification regarding relocating
elevator — potential other locations within home and inquired about a building
permit for existing elevator. A recess was called at 8-28 p.m. and the meeting was
reconvened at 8:37 p.m. The Senior Planner stated that there is no permit on file
for the existing elevator. It was suggested the item be continued to consider other
options.
Ms. McCausland indicated that her client would be willing to remove the first floor
bathroom to install tandem parking —would like to make a request for continuance
of the item to explore other locations for the elevator and parking.
There being no additional speakers, Chair Massa-Lavift declared the public
hearing closed.
Page 3 - Planning Commission 12107111
Cummings moved, second by Galbreath, to continue the Request for
Reasonable Accommodation 11-1.
AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt
NOES: None Motion carried
Variance 11-2 (400 Ocean Avenue)
Applicant/Owner- Harold B. Rothman
Request: For the subdivision of an existing 75'-Os wide lot within
the RLD-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; not 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, applicantlowner, 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 estall, 4th Street; Susie Morgan, 16th Street; and 1 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-
a 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;
0 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
February22, 2014
Decision of Hearing Officer
An administrative hearing for the appeal of Citation No. 1100, dated December 20,
2014, for property located at A-114 Surfside ("A114)" in the City of Seal Beach, CA
("City"),was held at Seal Beach City Hall, 211 Eighth St, Seal Beach, CA 90740, on
February 13, 2014 from 10:00 a.m. -11:50 a.m.
Present were:
Aaron O'Dell Esq. and Code Enforcement Officer Will Chen for the City.
Mark Tundis, Esq , Appellant Phyllis Anderson, Robert Richardson and Cynthia
Richardson for Appellant.
Decision:
Based upon the documentary evidence presented at the hearing, the testimony of
Will Chen for the City and Phyllis Anderson, Cynthia Richardson and Robert
Richardson for Appellant, a preponderance of the evidence supports upholding
Citation 1100 as follows:
SBMC section 9.60.020 Building Permit Requirement, construction of an elevator
without a building permit and a fine of$100, are upheld.
SBMC section 11.4.20 Off Street Parking requirement, failure to maintain minimum
parking dimensions and a fine of$100, are upheld.
Findings of the Hearing Officer:
1. The house at A114 was first constructed in approximately 1968-1969. Anderson
and her husband purchased the house in late 1970's.
2. The parking requirements are not being applied retroactively. The Seal Beach
Municipal Code ("SBMC") established the two required on-site parking spaces with
minimum dimensions for parking stalls for single family homes as early as 1961.
3.The SBMC requires A114 to have two on site parking spaces with the minimum
dimension of 18 feet by 18 feet (18 foot by 9 foot per parking stall).
4. An elevator was constructed in Aug-Sept, 2005, in a location that intrudes into a
portion of the parking area in the garage. No permit for construction of the elevator
was discovered in City permit records after a search of those records. The SBMC
requires, and has required a permit for construction of structures such as the
elevator since 1961.
5.The A114 garage-parking area dimension is 22 feet 4 inches long by 13 feet 2
inches wide and does not meet the minimum width requirement of 18 feet. The
parking width is deficient by 4 feet 10 inches.
6. Appellant's supporting documentation and testimony of Anderson, Cynthia
Richardson and Robert Richardson does not establish that the City issued a permit
for the elevator.
7. Photographs submitted by Mark Tundis, as Appellant's Exhibits 6-26, purporting
to be photographs of other properties in The Surfside Colony neighborhood that
have deficient on-site parking are not the subject of Citation No. 1100, are not before
the hearing officer for determination, are not relevant evidence that disputes or
refutes the cited SBMC violations at A114 and do not establish unequal enforcement.
8. The testimony of Cynthia Richardson supporting medical necessity for the
elevator is not relevant evidence to dispute or refute whether the cited violations of
SBMC exist. The elevator's necessity as a reasonable accommodation is not before
the hearing officer for a determination. Appellant previously initiated a City process
before the Planning Commission for reasonable accommodation to reduce the
required parking to a single car garage and withdrew that application.
9. City provided Appellant reasonable notice of the violations and an opportunity to
correct the violations as provided by SBMC.
Robin Clauson Zur Schmiede
Hearing Officer
February 22, 2014