Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2007-08-08 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda for August 8, 2007 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. RECEIVE AND FILE: "How Should California Grow," "Designing Sustainable Buildings," "Green Cohousing," "Oregon Green," "Leed Versus Green Globes," and "Green Firsts." 2. Minor Plan Review 07-20 22 Cottonwood Lane Applicant/Owner: Dean Scheele / Seal Beach Affordable Housing Corp. Request To replace an existing single-story mobile home within the Seal Beach Trailer Park with a new two-story manufactured home. The proposed structure will be 1 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of August 8, 2007 less than 25 feet high and will provide a total of approximately 1,163 sq. ft. of living space. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-46. 3. Minor Plan Review 07-21 1445 Catalina Avenue Applicant/Owner: Eric Brendel Request: To install a new pool and spa with a waterslide, two rock waterfalls, and a gas fire pit with a seat wall. The waterfall measures approximately 4 ft. high; the waterslide is approximately 6 ft. high; and the gas fire pit and seat wall are approximately 18 inches high. All structures are proposed to be located within the rear and side yard setback areas. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-47. VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS 4. Discussion Re: Scheduling Saturday Study Session - Zoning Code Revisions VII. PUBLIC HEARING 5. Height Variation 07-5 1309 Seal Way Applicant/Owner: Tim Francis / Steve & Tina Lis Request: To construct a non-habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25-foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct an approximate 5-ft. by 5-ft. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by approximately 5 ft. 5 in.; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-34. 2 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of August 8, 2007 6. Height Variation 07-6 409 Ocean Avenue Applicant/Owner: Felipe Velarde / Efren Del Rio Request: To construct a non-habitable Covered Roof Access Structures (CRAS) in excess of the 25-foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 9-ft. 10-in. by 3-ft. 10-in. staircase enclosure to exceed the maximum 7-foot height limit by 1 ft. 6 in. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-42. VIII. STUDY SESSION 7. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning Chapter 2.05 Residential Districts IX. STAFF CONCERNS X. COMMISSION CONCERNS XI. ADJOURNMENT To August 22,2007, at 7:30 P.M. 3 Aug 22 Sep 05 Sep 19 Oct 03 Oct 17 Nov 07 Nov 21 Dec 05 Dec 19 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission . Agenda of August 8, 2007 2007 Aaenda Forecast Minor Plan Review 07-15 - 1101 Catalina Avenue Minor Plan Review 07-22 - 460 Electric Avenue Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning Chapter 2.05 Residential Districts 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 August 8, 2007 Vice-Chairperson Roberts called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 8, 2007. 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, DeLay, and Massa-Lavitt. Also Present: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney Absent: Chairperson Deaton Mr. Whittenberg reported that he had received a message from Chairperson Deaton indicating that she would not be in attendance at tonight's meeting. He requested a motion to excuse her absence. MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to excuse Chairperson Deaton from the Planning Commission meeting of August 8,2007. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Roberts, Bello, DeLay, and Massa-Lavitt None Deaton AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Bello; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Roberts, Bello, DeLay, and Massa-Lavitt None Deaton 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. 1 of 15 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 August 8, 2007 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Vice-Chairperson Roberts opened oral communications. Tom Blackman, Beryl Cove Way, spoke in favor of limiting structures to two stories, both in Old Town and on The Hill, citing the importance of preserving air circulation, sunlight, and privacy. He encouraged the Planning Commission (PC) to carefully consider limiting three-story construction within Seal Beach, as "we are zoning for the future." There being no one else wishing to speak, Vice-Chairperson Roberts closed oral communications. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. RECEIVE AND FILE: "How Should California Grow," "Designing Sustainable Buildings," "Green Cohousing," "Oregon Green," "Leed Versus Green Globes," and "Green Firsts." 2. Minor Plan Review 07-20 22 Cottonwood Lane Applicant/Owner: Dean Scheele / Seal Beach Affordable Housing Corp. Request: To replace an existing single-story mobile home within the Seal Beach Trailer Park with a new two-story manufactured home. The proposed structure will be less than 25 feet high and will provide a total of approximately 1,163 sq. ft. of living space. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-46. 3. Minor Plan Review 07-21 1445 Catalina Avenue Applicant/Owner: Eric Brendel Req uest: To install a new pool and spa with a waterslide, two rock waterfalls, and a gas fire pit with a seat wall. The waterfall measures approximately 4 ft. high; the waterslide is approximately 6 ft. high; and the gas fire pit and seat wall are approximately 18 inches high. All structures are proposed to be located within the rear and side yard setback areas. 2 of 15 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 August 8, 2007 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-47. MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Roberts, Bello, DeLay, and Massa-Lavitt None Deaton Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution Nos. 07-46 and 07-47 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 4. Discussion Re: Scheduling Saturday Study Session - Zoning Code Revisions Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg noted that this item was held over from the last meeting with the hope that Chairperson Deaton would be in attendance tonight. He requested direction from the Planning Commission (PC). Commissioner Massa-Lavitt recommended waiting until Chairperson Deaton could be present. She cautioned that she would be out of town during most of the month of September and would not be available for a Saturday meeting. Commissioner Bello noted that the PC had discussed that due to summer schedules, etc., a Saturday meeting should be scheduled in September. She stated that she believes it is important as the Wednesday evening Study Sessions are beginning at a late hour, preventing the attendance of many community members. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the PC had also discussed having a meeting on an alternate Wednesday to focus on Study Session issues only. He noted that this would also make it easier to televise the meeting. Vice-Chairperson Roberts stated that he believes the process is moving slower than anticipated, but he would prefer to defer this discussion until Chairperson Deaton is able to participate. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this discussion would be held over until the PC meeting of August, 22, 2007. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt noted that the month of August does have a 5th Wednesday, and it might be a good day to consider for a meeting. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that unless a decision is made tonight to hold a meeting on August 29th. there would not be ample time to provide public notice in the Sun Newspaper. MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Bello to continue the discussion on this item to the Planning Commission meeting of August 22,2007. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 3 of 15 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 August 8, 2007 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Roberts, Bello, DeLay, and Massa-Lavitt None Deaton PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Height Variation 07-5 1309 Seal Way Applicant/Owner: Tim Francis / Steve & Tina Lis Request: To construct a non-habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25-foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct an approximate 5-ft. by 5-ft. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by approximately 5 ft. 5 in.; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-34. Staff Report Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and clarified that the actual exterior dimensions are 5 ft. 6 in. by 5 ft. 6 in., as originally described in the public hearing notice. He explained that at the June 20, 2007, public hearing the applicant had proposed constructing a 9-ft. 6-in. by 3-ft. 11-in. Covered Roof Access Structure (CRAS) to exceed the height limit by approximately 4 ft. 8 in. The Planning Commission (PC) had then continued the public hearing to allow the applicant to work with Staff to develop alternate designs for the roof structures on the proposed new residence. These revisions are reflected in the plans presented tonight. He indicated that the applicant has eliminated .the CRAS and proposes to construct an elevator enclosure that has a smaller overall footprint, but is slightly higher, exceeding the height limit by approximately 5 ft. 5 in. and will be located approximately 36 ft. 6. in. from the front of the structure and approximately 5 ft. 6 in. from the east side of the property. He continued by stating that although the City does not have a limitation on the height of fireplace chimney structures, the chimneys have been redesigned to reduce some of their height and mass. Staff recommends approval of Height Variation (HV) 07-5, subject to conditions. He ended by noting that Staff has received 2 phone calls, 1 FAX transmission, 2 letters, 2 e-mails, and a petition signed by 29 neighbors in the immediate vicinity, all in opposition in response to the original public hearing notice; and since the meeting of June 20, 2007, Staff has received an additional 5 letters and another petition signed by 39 residents all in opposition to this project. He noted that some of the signatures on the petition are for residents who had previously submitted letters in opposition or had signed the original petition. 4 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 8, 2007 1 Commissioner Questions 2 3 None. 4 5 Public HearinQ 6 7 Vice-Chairperson Roberts opened the public hearing. 8 9 Steve Lis provided a brief PowerPoint presentation comparing the old plans with the 10 revised plans, and he explained the design revisions made. He noted that both his 11 elderly parents and in-laws would be able to use the elevator to the roof deck when they 12 visit, and he and his wife would also be able to use it as they age. 13 14 Robert Beck, 1310% Ocean Avenue, spoke in opposition stating that with the design 15 revisions, the view corridor from his home would be impacted even more with this new 16 structure. He recommended denial of HV 07-5. 17 18 Steve and Bernadette Meltzer stated that mitigation of view obstruction does not go far 19 enough in the redesigned structure. He spoke in opposition to HV 07 -5 and 20 recommended denial. 21 22 Joanne Bettenhausen stated that she had met with the applicant's architect and 23 discussed her concerns over privacy to which he appeared to be very receptive; 24 however, this architect is no longer involved, and she believes the project design has 25 gone from bad to worse, as the elevator enclosure is larger than the previously 26 proposed CRAS and is not aesthetically pleasing. She noted that the applicant 27 provided no information to his surrounding neighbors on the proposed revisions. She 28 implored the PC to deny HV 07-5. 29 30 Jack Bettenhausen spoke in opposition of HV 07-5 citing issues of mass, ocean view, 31 and privacy. He reviewed the number of features proposed for the roof deck and noted 32 that there is no wind break for the deck. He indicated that residents of Old Town do not 33 want to see more CRAS in their neighborhood and encouraged the PC to vote to deny. 34 35 Theo Albers, 1307 Seal Way, stated that the revised plans for the exterior of the 36 building look "cleaner," but he has concerns with the chimney that appears to be 2 feet 37 wider than previously proposed and it will block the view from his living room window 38 and his balcony. He proposed that the plans be further revised. He read excerpts from 39 the PC Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007, and stated that he believes there is enough 40 opposition to this project and the PC should pay attention to this. 41 42 Eldon Alexander stated that for properties along Ocean Avenue there is a 2.5 - 3-foot 43 rise in the grade level as opposed to the ocean front properties along Seal Way; 44 therefore he believes there would be no major view impact from the elevator enclosure 45 for the homes on Ocean. He also noted with regard to the roof deck, the Lis's are 46 simply proposing what other people already have. 5 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 8, 2007 1 Warren Morton stated that there is no reason to have the elevator enclosure as the roof 2 deck as designed would interfere with the privacy of neighboring homes. 3 4 Margo , spoke about restoring a sense of community and building more 5 environmentally friendly structures. She encouraged the PC to carefully consider its 6 decision on this proposal. 7 8 Pam Paulsen stated that she formerly lived at 1311 Seal Way and had spent many 9 hours sitting outside in the Bettenhausen's garden and enjoying the ocean view. She 10 expressed her admiration for the neighbors here tonight and their efforts to come to a 11 compromise. 12 13 Steve Lis provided photographs to the Commissioners of the homes with existing CRAS 14 and of 3-story multi-unit structures along Seal Way noting that many of the CRAS are 15 larger than what he is proposing. He stated that he is only asking for what has been 16 previously granted to several homeowners and he has attempted to have the design 17 conform to City standards. 18 19 There being no one else wishing to speak, Vice-Chairperson Roberts closed the public 20 hearing. 21 22 Mr. Abbe noted for the record that during his rebuttal the applicant provided several 23 photographs to the Commission as well as a copy of the petition. He indicated that the 24 photographs contain more information on what already appears in the Staff Report, but 25 this would not be considered new evidence as these same photos were presented at 26 the previous public hearing. If the applicant had introduced new evidence, the public 27 hearing would have to be re-opened. 28 29 Commissioner Comments 30 31 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that Mr. Lis was to be commended for attempting to 32 modify the proposed structure and reduce any impacts; however, the findings that have 33 to be made for a CRAS are clear with regard to whether the structure would significantly 34 impair the view of any property within 300 feet. She noted that this structure would 35 impair the view from a couple of the homes, which are well within the 300-foot radius. 36 She indicated that there are hundreds of CRAS in Old Town, and many of these are on 37 Seal Way. She stated that because view preservation is something that the PC can 38 consider, she would be inclined to deny this request. With regard to the larger issue of 39 doghouses, that would be left to the Zoning Ordinance (ZO). 40 41 Commissioner Bello stated that although the applicant does have the right to roof 42 access, she believes that the proposed structure would significantly impair the view 43 from homes within 300 feet. She said that she had understood that the purpose of the 44 continuance was to create less of an impact on neighboring homes and she is not 45 certain that this has occurred. She indicated that the criteria for granting or denying a 6 of 15 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 August 8, 2007 HV were definitely based on concerns expressed by adjoining neighbors. She said she would vote for denial. Vice-Chairperson Roberts stated that although Chairperson Deaton is not present tonight, he feels absolutely confident that he should vote as she would, so he would vote to deny Height Variation 07-5. Mr. Whittenberg recommended that the motion should be to deny Height Variation 07-5, and instruct Staff to return with the formal Resolution No. 07-34 with the appropriate findings for formal adoption at the Planning Commission meeting of August 22,2007. MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to deny Height Variation 07-5 and instruct Staff to return with the formal Resolution 07-34 with the appropriate findings for formal adoption at the Planning Commission meeting of August 22,2007. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-1-1 Roberts, Bello, and Massa-Lavitt DeLay Deaton He advised that adoption of Resolution No. 07-34 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 noted that at the next meeting the issue would solely be whether Resolution 07-34 accurately represents what the PC did tonight. He indicated that there would be no further public testimony. 6. Height Variation 07-6 409 Ocean Avenue (Continued from July 18, 2007) Applicant/Owner: Felipe Velarde / Efren Del Rio Request: To construct a non-habitable Covered Roof Access Structures (CRAS) in excess of the 25-foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 9-ft. 10-in. by 3-ft. 10-in. staircase enclosure to exceed the maximum 7- foot height limit by 1 ft. 6 in. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-42. Staff Report Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information and noted that this item was 7 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 8, 2007 1 continued after a motion to approve ended in a tie vote and because of questions 2 regarding structural dimensions and the height of the GRAS. He noted that to address 3 these concerns, Staff has added an additional Condition of Approval specifying that the 4 interior ceiling height of the CRAS shall not exceed the minimum interior height allowed 5 by the Building Code (BC), and that the overall exterior height of the structure shall not 6 exceed 1 foot greater than the interior height. He stated that the applicant has provided 7 additional information that details the interior heights of the CRAS, which Staff has 8 provided to the Planning Commission (PC). He indicated that the applicant proposes to 9 construct an approximately 37-sq. ft. stairway enclosure to be located approximately 10 10-ft. 5-in. from the front of the structure and flush with the east wall of the building. Mr. 11 Olivera stated that Staff has received one letter in opposition and is recommending 12 approval of Height Variation 07-6, subject to conditions. 13 14 Commissioner Questions 15 16 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt questioned the 8-foot height of the CRAS cupola. Vice- 17 Chairperson Roberts suggested opening the public hearing to allow the applicant to 18 respond. 19 20 Public Hearinq 21 22 Vice-Chairperson Roberts opened the public hearing. 23 24 Efren Del Rio stated that the additional 1 ft. 6 in. above the 25-ft. maximum height limit 25 would accommodate the header beam that provides the structural safety to support the 26 doorway. He indicated that he is doing as much as possible to prevent impairing 27 anyone's view and noted that he has eliminated the chimney, but he does want to retain 28 the roof access structure. Vice-Chairperson Roberts clarified that the design for the 29 CRAS has not changed, and the applicant has provided this information to provide 30 additional detail. Mr. Olivera added that for non-habitable structures, the BC does 31 require a minimum interior height of 7 ft. and a minimum doorway of 6 ft. 8 in. 32 33 Mike Bubbe spoke in opposition to this application stating that there is no reason to 34 exceed the maximum height limit. He noted that the applicant can walk out his front 35 door to have an ocean view. 36 37 Eldon Alexander clarified that the structure would exceed the 25-ft. height limit by 1 ft. 6 38 in. Vice-Chairperson Roberts confirmed that this was correct. 39 40 Joyce Parque stated that the California Supreme Court has stated that no one can be 41 denied the right to build due to view preservation. She said that this is selective 42 enforcement and selective denial, noting that there are many other roof structures on 43 Ocean Avenue. She recommended approval. 44 45 Mr. Del Rio provided the Planning Commission with two letters in support of Height 46 Variation 07-6. 8 of 15 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 August 8, 2007 There being no one else wishing to speak, Vice-Chairperson Roberts closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Vice-Chairperson Roberts asked if the new condition, as written into Resolution 07-42, meets the minimum requirement for the interior and exterior heights for the CRAS. Mr. Olivera confirmed that it would. Vice-Chairperson Roberts noted that one of the differences between this application and Height Variation (HV) 07-5 is the degree of public discussion and opposition, which is not as great for this request. He said he would vote to approve. Commissioner Bello commended Mr. Del Rio for his willingness to compromise and said she would vote to approve. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that a 1-ft. 6-in. intrusion into the maximum height would really not be visible from surrounding properties, so she would also vote to approve. Commissioner DeLay stated the he appreciates Mr. Del Rio making adjustments with regard to the elimination of the chimneys. MOTION by Bello; SECOND by Roberts to approve the Height Variation 07-6, subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution 07-42 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Roberts, Bello, DeLay, and Massa-Lavitt None Deaton Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 07-42 begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. At 8:50 p.m. Mr. Whittenberg requested a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He explained that he would defer further discussion on FARs, daylight planes, and setbacks until the next meeting when Chairperson Deaton could be present. He then referred to Part II on Page 37 of the July 18, 2007, Staff Report where the discussion on Multi-Unit Open Space Requirements begins, and noted that Table 9 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 8, 2007 1 4.05.110.B1 reflects the proposed new standards for multi-unit residential development. 2 He indicated that currently the Zoning Code (ZC) has no provisions for common and 3 private open space requirements for multi-unit developments. Vice-Chairperson 4 Roberts asked if the open space requirement would include roof decks. Mr. 5 Whittenberg confirmed that it would and noted that the proposed square footage is 6 cumulative and does not have to be in one location. He clarified that in order to qualify 7 as private open space (POS), a balcony or roof deck must have a minimum dimension 8 of 5 feet. He noted that a minimum dimension for the common open space (COS) 9 requirement must also be decided upon. Vice-Chairperson Roberts indicated that a 10 COS area of 200 sq. ft. total for 3-4 units is approximately 66-50 sq. ft. per unit, which 11 he believes to be reasonable. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that if the space can 12 be cumulative, you could easily reach 225 sq. ft. of POS, particularly with a roof deck. 13 Mr. Whittenberg agreed then referred to the last bullet point on Page 37 which proposes 14 new open space requirements for RLD districts. He said that Staff is recommending a 15 minimum dimension of 8 feet for a ground floor private yard area on lots less than 37.5 16 feet wide, which can include the setback area. He indicated that many of the plans now 17 being submitted for new construction of homes include a ground floor patio area or 18 balconies off of second floor master bedrooms. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if 19 the front yard setback could be used for this open space requirement. Mr. Whittenberg 20 indicated that only side or rear setback areas could be included, and in Old Town the 21 homes rarely have rear yards. Mr. Whittenberg asked if the Vice-Chairperson would 22 prefer to take comments as each section is presented or wait until the end of the study 23 session. Vice-Chairperson Roberts stated that he would prefer to allow comments after 24 each section. 25 26 Eldon Alexander stated that making the POS requirements cumulative works well and 27 will lead to fewer problems with home design. Vice-Chairperson Roberts asked if 90 ft. 28 would be a good number for lots measuring less than 37.5-ft. Mr. Alexander asked if a 29 breezeway could be included in the POS. Mr. Whittenberg stated that one-third of this 30 area could be covered by a second floor breezeway. Mr. Alexander noted that more 31 families are moving into Old Town and would like the flexibility to include roof decks or 32 patios. Vice-Chairperson Roberts suggested that a bonus be granted for 25-ft. lots that 33 exceed the 90-ft. requirement. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that there is a provision in the 34 bonus section for this. 35 36 Robert Goldberg referred to Councilman Levitt's comment on Page 38 of the Staff 37 Report regarding ensuring that open space is "permanently maintained." He 38 questioned what benefit these provisions provide to the general welfare, as they appear 39 to add only to the enjoyment of the individual resident. He said it appears that many of 40 these regulations are beginning to overlap in addressing similar areas and this is 41 becoming "an incredibly complex set of rules." He stated that the City should be careful 42 in legislating home designs. He said that having open space requirements for multi- 43 family residences is good, but he is not in agreement with having minimum 44 requirements for single-family residences (SFR). 45 10 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 8, 2007 1 Maria Bubbe stated that she does not want a "box" next to her home, but would like to 2 see some open space. 3 4 Van Lawrence asked what the City was trying to achieve by enforcing open space. Mr. 5 Whittenberg stated that one of the things frequently heard in the past has been the 6 issue of homes that have solid, 25-ft. high walls along the entire length of the lot, and 7 many residents feel there should be a minimum yard area for a family's use. He noted 8 that the issue comes down to what the Planning Commission (PC) feels comfortable 9 recommending to City Council (CC). He added that there are a number of concerns 10 related to mansionization, neighborhood compatibility, privacy; blockage of sun, view, 11 and air, etc., and creating building offsets creates more privacy between units, while 12 open space areas break up the mass and bulk of buildings. Vice-Chairperson Roberts 13 inquired about water runoff and permeability issues. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the 14 California Coastal Commission (CCC) is now routinely recommending drainage systems 15 for new construction, which may require dry wells on the property. Mr. Lawrence stated 16 that the minimum requirements as described and combining small pieces to come up 17 with one big piece doesn't really seem like creating open space. Mr. Whittenberg 18 indicated that the narrow 25-ft. lots do present a challenge to providing open space 19 areas. 20 21 Vice-Chairperson Robert asked for a show of hands of those present who favored the 22 open space requirements as presented. The majority of the public raised their hands. 23 24 Mr. Whittenberg then proceeded to discuss the ratio of 2nd floor to 1 st floor building 25 areas, stating that the architects had noted that due to the garage on the 1 st floor the 2na 26 floor would always have more living space. Staff has revised the original ratios and the 27 new proposals appear on Pages 40-41 of the Staff Report. He emphasized that the 28 proposals are for 1 st and 2nd floors only; 3rd stories will be discussed elsewhere in the 29 proposed ordinance. Vice-Chairperson Roberts was in agreement that the 2nd floor 30 ratios should be larger. 31 32 Eldon Alexander stated that the 1st and 2nd floor ratios in combination with the FARs are 33 going to make this complicated. Vice-Chairperson Roberts noted that if the 1 st floor is 34 really opened up to open space, this provides the benefit to build a larger 2nd floor than 35 a FAR would. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the FAR proposes a maximum square 36 footage for habitable space on the property, and the architect can work with the FAR 37 and the ratios to determine how the space is to be divided between the 1 st and 2nd floor 38 to incorporate a minimum size of private open space. He noted that the proposals for 39 limiting the size of 2nd floors prevents the "maxing out" of 1 st floor living space, and 40 provides for larger setbacks and for more yard area. 41 42 Robert Goldberg reiterated that this is getting very complicated. He clarified that 43 garages and open space would not count toward the 1st floor square footage. Mr. 44 Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. Mr. Goldberg stated that if someone wants 45 open space on the 1st floor this would limit the square footage on the 2nd floor, and if the 46 open space is a 2nd floor balcony or a roof deck, this will impact sunlight and invade 11 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 8, 2007 1 privacy, and this may result in unintended consequences. He said that these 2 mechanisms are overlapping and one or the other must be elected to accomplish the 3 desired result. 4 5 Mr. Whittenberg then continued with a discussion on minimum width of driveways, 6 noting that for the Residential High Density Zone (RHD) the City's provision has been 7 that all driveways had to have a minimum width and that all access to garages has to be 8 off of an alley. He stated that there is really no minimum width required, so Staff is 9 proposing that this requirement be eliminated for the RHD Zone. 10 11 He continued by discussing how area is determined where the averaging provision is 12 utilized in the RHD -20 District for Minimum Permeable Surface/Maximum Paving in 13 Street Facing Yards, noting that City Code states that you must have a 12-foot setback, 14 but you can a 6-foot minimum as long as you maintain an average of 12 feet. He said 15 that this allows for building variation and referred to the sample calculation on Page 42 16 of the Staff Report for clarification. He indicated that this also deals with the issue of 17 storm water runoff. 18 19 The next item for discussion addressed patio requirements within the Bridgeport area, 20 and Staff has provided the text on Pages 43 and 44 that will be incorporated into the 21 final proposal to be presented to the PC. 22 23 The Director of Development Services then referred to comments on measuring the 24 Flood Zone height for homes required to raise the grade level to meet federal flood 25 insurance programs. He noted that the initial draft required that half of this distance 26 would not be counted toward the height limit; however, based upon comments from the 27 architects and a member of the public, Staff is requested that homeowners be given the 28 full credit for having to raise the height limit above the flood hazard zone. 29 30 Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would like to defer the discussion on Projections Beyond 31 Height Limits and Daylight Planes for the next presentation on daylight planes. Vice- 32 Chairperson Roberts asked if this discussion would include discussion on CRAS and 33 elevator enclosures. Mr. Whittenberg stated the question of whether the PC wants to 34 continue to allow the CRAS and elevator enclosures must be considered, noting that 35 there appears to be more resistance from property owners to continue to permit these. 36 37 Mr. Whittenberg then continued with a discussion on Projections, as listed on Page 49, 38 and noted that this would be related to architectural projections on multi-unit structures 39 as opposed to single-family residences (SFR). He referred to the list of proposed 40 allowable projections and noted that although there have been no new apartment 41 developments constructed within Seal Beach since 1989, when he became employed 42 with the City of Seal Beach, Staff feels it would be appropriate to establish the 43 standards for this type of development. Vice-Chairperson stated that he is concerned 44 with the statement that projections not exceed 10 percent of the roof area, which he 45 believes to be excessive. He said he would prefer seeing a percentage or square 46 footage "not to exceed" a specific number. 12 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 8, 2007 1 Vice-Chairperson Roberts stated that he believes public comments reflect the feeling 2 that the proposed Zoning Code (ZC) revisions are becoming very complex. He 3 explained that the PC will work to ensure that the proposed standards are not too 4 complicated. He asked the Commissioners if they wished to continue with the study 5 session. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt suggested that they continue until 10:00 p.m. and 6 at that point consider whether they wished to continue. Commissioner Bello agreed. 7 .8 Mr. Whittenberg directed the PC to the bottom of Page 49 and noted the City of Long 9 Beach Municipal Code definition of an architectural protrusion. He said that the ZC 10 already has some provisions for this in the sections on building articulation, but the PC 11 may wish to consider incorporating standards similar to those for the City of Long 12 Beach. 13 14 Eldon Alexander stated that these types of protrusions would be addressed in the 15 proposed provisions for building design. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt noted that in Old 16 Town side yard projections would be difficult with the 3-foot setbacks. Mr. Whittenberg 17 stated that in Old Town a 1-ft. projection into the side setback is allowed for fireplaces 18 and bay windows. He indicated that City Code does not allow a projection to go out as 19 far as the City of Long Beach does. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that for districts 20 with larger lots, this would not be a problem. Mr. Whittenberg stated that for Old Town 21 the provisions would be for projections into the front yard only. 22 23 Mr. Whittenberg then addressed Minimum Distance between Buildings and Minimum 24 Size Courts for multi-unit developments, which tie back to the provision for common 25 open space provisions. He stated unless major concerns are expressed, Staff will 26 continue with the standards as presented. 27 28 With regard to building entrances the provisions would apply for all SFR and multi-family 29 homes. He referred to the discussion on "Design Elements to Prevent Monotony," on 30 Page 2 of the Staff Report. 31 32 Regarding Fa9ade Articulation, Staff has presented these in response to the 33 Commission's desire to prevent the "cookie cutter" look to homes. He noted that this 34 would only apply to lots wider than 25 feet, and for the 25-foot lots in Old Town the 35 average setback ratio allows for 1st and 2nd floor articulation. Vice-Chairperson Roberts 36 asked what the proposed standards would be. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it was 2.5 37 feet for every 15-20 feet of the length of the building. Vice-Chairperson Roberts asked if 38 this might be "too busy." Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is one example, but this can 39 also be done from 1 st floor to 2nd floor and can be horizontal or vertical. 40 41 Eldon Alexander stated that he is not sure where this will apply, as most of the homes in 42 Seal Beach are already built, and people will be building upon what already exists. 43 Vice-Chairperson Roberts asked if this would apply to all construction or only new 44 construction. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would apply to any new additions to 45 existing conforming structures or to new construction, and he envisions that for 13 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 8, 2007 1 nonconforming structures the current structure could remain as is, but any new 2 additions would have to meet the new standards for fac;ade articulations. 3 4 At 10:00 p.m. Vice-Chairperson Roberts called for adjournment. Mr. Whittenberg 5 indicated that public notice for another study session on Wednesday, August 22nd has 6 been published to continue the discussion on residential standards. He noted that 7 hopefully Chairperson Deaton would be in attendance at that meeting. 8 9 Carla Watson stated that she believes the new ZC needs to be complicated, as she 10 believes that the existing ZC was not specific enough. She said there have been too 11 many loopholes and she does note believe "that it should be easy to build in Old Town." 12 She said that people moving to Seal Beach attempt to replicate what they have seen in 13 Newport Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, or other beach cities, but Seal 14 Beach is not Newport Beach. She said "we need to be very careful and guarded about 15 what we allow." She thanked the PC and Staff for the work done of the preliminary draft 16 ZC. 17 18 Mike Bubbe stated that although this is a complicated process, this ZC will be in place 19 for a long time. He said complexity is good, as the new ZC will cover most of the 20 potential issues that could come up in the future. Mr. Bubbe noted that with time and 21 patience everyone will have a better understanding of the standards and the frustration 22 level will also decrease. 23 24 Joyce Parque stated that there were more than two people who were concerned about 25 property rights, as demonstrated by the signatures on the referendum. 26 27 Vice-Chairperson Roberts requested a list for the PC and the public of all the criteria 28 that a resident would have to consider in designing a single-family residence to refer to 29 during future discussions on residential standards. Mr. Whittenberg noted that this 30 appears in the second table of the proposed Chapter 2.05 listing the development 31 standards. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would compile a list. 32 33 34 STAFF CONCERNS 35 36 None. 37 38 COMMISSION CONCERNS 39 40 None. 41 42 ADJOURNMENT 43 44 Vice-Chairperson Roberts adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m. to the next scheduled 45 meeting on August 22,2007. 46 14 of 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 8, 2007 Respectfully Submitted, ~~/ Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secre~ary Planning Department APPROVAL The Commission on September 5, 2007, approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Wednesday, August 8,2007. ~ - 15 of 15