Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2007-10-10 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda for October 10, 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. VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS VII. PUBLIC HEARING VIII. STUDY SESSION 1. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning Chapter 2.05 Residential Districts IX. STAFF CONCERNS City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of October 10, 2007 X. COMMISSION CONCERNS XI. ADJOURNMENT To adjourned meeting of October 17, 2007, at 7:30 P.M. 2 Oct 17 Nov 07 Nov 21 Dec 05 Dec 19 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission . Agenda of October 10, 2007 2007 AQenda Forecast Conditional Use Permit 07-13 - 3001 Old Ranch Pkwy (Kobe Steak House) Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Zoning Code Conditional Use Permit 07-14 - 1695 Adolfo Lopez Drive 3 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 Adjourned Meeting of October 10, 2007 Chairperson Deaton called the adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 10, 2007. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1 ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Deaton, Commissioners Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts. Also Present: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney Steve Flower, Assistant City Attorney Absent: None AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Deaton, Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt and Roberts None None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Deaton opened oral communications. There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed oral communications. 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. 1 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2007 1 CONSENT CALENDAR 2 3 No Items. 4 5 6 SCHEDULED MATTERS 7 8 None. 9 10 PUBLIC HEARINGS 11 12 No Items. 13 14 STUDY SESSION 15 16 1. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning Chapter 2.05 17 Residential Districts 18 19 Mr. Whittenberg provided a brief overview of previous study session discussions on 20 Residential District standards and noted that copies of all relevant Staff Reports have 21 been made available for the public tonight. He emphasized that at this meeting the 22 Planning Commission (PC) and Staff wish to receive public comments in order to 23 generate the final draft of the Zoning Code (ZC) revisions for presentation to the PC at a 24 final study session in January 2008, prior to beginning the public hearings in February 25 or March 2008. He then indicated that at the study session of July 18, 2007, concerns 26 had been raised regarding the number and complexity of new regulations. He 27 explained that Staff had provided a copy of the Preliminary Draft to two architects who 28 work on projects in Seal Beach on a regular basis, and they have provided helpful 29 comments on the technical aspects of these standards, and Staff has attempted to 30 eliminate the provisions that the architects said made no sense. He noted that Staff has 31 added a number of new regulations to address areas of concern that were voiced by the 32 public to City Council (CC), the PC, and to Staff. 33 34 He then referred to Page 4 of the Staff Report (Slaff Report is on file for inspection in the 35 Planning Department.) and explained that the areas of single-unit residential (College 36 Park East, College Park West, The Hill) would be under the new proposed RLD-9 37 District. He indicated that the proposed new standards appear in gray on the extreme 38 left of the page with the yellow highlighted areas showing the conformity to these 39 standards for the five homes listed. He noted that the pale blue highlighted areas would 40 not apply to this type of development, and the white areas reflect noncompliance. He 41 then referred to Page 5, which summarizes the areas of non-compliance for these 42 homes and noted that these are primarily design issues that can easily be resolved 43 during the design phase. He then reviewed the table on Page 6 for the RHD-20 District 44 for the Old Town area, again indicating that most of the noncompliance items could be 45 dealt with during the design phase and Staff is suggesting that the side step back for 2nd 46 and 3rd stories be eliminated and that only an indentation along one side be required. 2 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2007 1 He added that it has been 33 years since the City Zoning Code (ZC) was 2 comprehensively revised and Staff must now "play catch up" with what are becoming 3 normal features in zoning codes today. He stated that he believes the proposed 4 standards allow people to design a home, but will require that some thought be put into 5 this process. 6 7 Public Comment 8 9 Mike Bubbe stated that although the proposals are complex, he believes this will create 10 less mass in the buildings constructed. He indicated that the majority of people in Old 11 Town do not want 3-story homes, but want smaller structures and the proposed 12 standards will help accomplish this. 13 14 Eldon Alexander stated that he finds the proposed standards to be complex, and said it 15 would be no problem to apply to new construction or a rebuild, but an addition or 16 remodel to a nonconforming structure would require discretionary review under the 17 Variance (VAR) or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. He also disagreed with 18 Staff's comment that the City needs to "catch up" with other zoning standards, as he 19 has researched what other cities are doing with their zoning codes and found that they 20 are using fewer tools. He recommended keeping the standards simple from the point of 21 view of the homeowner in working with the architects. Commissioner Roberts referred 22 to Page 6 of the Staff Report as asked which standards Mr. Alexander felt to be most 23 burdensome. Mr. Alexander stated that he does not agree with the use of Floor Area 24 Ratios (FAR), but the daylight plane could help reduce mass, but stepbacks only 25 become a duplication of this. He said that in reality you only need setbacks and daylight 26 planes without step backs. Commissioner Roberts asked if Mr. Alexander would be 27 comfortable with using only these two standards. Mr. Alexander said this was correct. 28 Commissioner Roberts asked if this was Mr. Alexander's personal opinion, or was it the 29 opinion of Save Our Seal Beach. Mr. Alexander stated that he always comes here 30 under his own name, but he has an obligation to report everything to Save Our Seal 31 Beach. 32 33 Mr. Morton stated that he goes along with what Staff has presented, but noted that 34 using a 1.20 FAR would be more practical than 1.40. Chairperson Deaton asked that 35 Mr. Morton present this information during the discussion on FARs. 36 37 Commissioner Comments 38 39 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that she believes all of the proposed standards are 40 legitimate in terms of wanting to get really good architecture on the street for all to 41 enjoy. She said the issue of stepbacks adds to the articulation of the building and she 42 does not think that the standards are too complex. 43 44 Commissioner Bello agreed that the standards are not too complex and that there are 45 advantages to the complexity. 3 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2007 1 Commissioner Roberts stated the standards are borderline complex, and he disagreed 2 with Mr. Alexander on the use of stepbacks, as they help to prevent the canyon effect 3 along the side of a building, as opposed to daylight planes which is a projection type 4 issue. He said that he feels the PC must have a very firm footing in terms of what it 5 wishes to do with this task. 6 7 Commissioner DeLay asked Mr. Alexander if he had any suggestions for a better way to 8 approach daylight planes. Mr. Alexander stated that once the ZC is set up there will be 9 the capability to make changes, but he is not prepared to offer an alternative. He 10 confirmed that he favors using the daylight plan to create architectural diversity, as 11 opposed to using stepbacks. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the provisions actually 12 suggest that a certain percentage of a wall be stepped back, so a portion of it can still 13 be straight. Commissioner DeLay asked Mr. Alexander if he were approaching this 14 from the angle of the architect. Mr. Alexander said he did not have a response. 15 16 Commissioner DeLay stated that he believes the PC should proceed with the proposed 17 standards. 18 19 Chairperson Deaton agreed with Commissioner Delay that the way the PC is going is 20 excellent, and the PC can take a look back in January 2008, as Commissioner Roberts 21 has suggested, to evaluate whether the work completed is overly complex. 22 23 Floor Area Ration (FAR) 24 Page 8 25 26 Mr. Whittenberg reviewed the definition for FAR noting that it was created after careful 27 review of 24 zoning ordinances from other cities within California that utilize FARS to 28 regulate residential development, and Staff feels that the FAR provides a very clear way 29 to determine the overall square footage that can be constructed on a lot. He noted that 30 although you can use daylight plane, setbacks, etc., to control mass, these do nothing 31 to set a limit on the square footage of a habitable area. He explained that FARs are 32 calculated by taking the lot size measurement and determining the percentage of the lot 33 to be covered, then the lot size is multiplied by the percentage and this gives you the 34 total number of square feet of habitable space. Mr. Whittenberg then reviewed 35 inclusions and exclusions for floor area calculations and explained that attic space must 36 measure more that 7 ft. high in order to be considered habitable space. Commissioner 37 Roberts asked if Part VI; Terms and Definitions contains a definition of "enclosed." Mr. 38 Whittenberg stated that he would verify this. He then continued by stating that in 39 completing the initial draft document on FARs a descending percentage of FAR as the 40 lots got larger was noted, so Staff is recommending that for lots 6,000 sq. ft. or greater, 41 the FAR remain constant to allow homes on these lots to generally be in conformance 42 with regard to mass and bulk standards. The Director of Development Services then 43 noted that the analysis of the FAR for 30 recent residential development projects 44 reflects that only 1 home in the RL-9 and 4 in the RHD-20 district were constructed with 45 square footage greater than the proposed FAR. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if a 46 "maid area" would not be counted if it cannot be seen from the street, could there be a 4 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2007 1 window at the back of this area. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff proposes that the roof 2 of this room could be no higher than 2 feet above grade level. Chairperson Deaton 3 confirmed that basements with a room height of 7 feet or more would also be included 4 in the FAR. Mr. Whittenberg stated that staff is recommending revisions to this. 5 6 The Director of Development Services continued by stating that most homes recently 7 constructed in the RLD-9 District are on the average built at 70 percent of the proposed 8 FAR standard, and in the RHD-20 the average is 87 percent of the proposed FAR. He 9 said that what most people are building could be accommodated under the proposed 10 FAR standards, and noted that the FARs on Page 21 pertain to 2-story homes. He then 11 reviewed the proposed revisions beginning on Page 23 as follows: 12 13 D Exclusion of basement areas if totally below natural grade of the lot. 14 D Revision to "base" and "maximum FAR" for lots larger than 6,000 sq. ft. (see table on 15 Page 25) 16 D Revision to FAR increase for lots able to have a 3rd floor living area - RHD-20 17 District (see table on Page 27). 18 19 Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Staff recommends a 3rd story FAR of 0.15 - 0.20, but the 20 PC must provide direction to Staff regarding the preferred size for 3rd stories. He then 21 noted that the PC could consider eliminating 3rd stories on lots wider than 40 feet, or 22 require CUP approval for 3rd stories on these lots subject to an FAR limit for the size of 23 this area. He reviewed the current standards for the size of 3rd stories as shown in the 24 table on Page 29, noting that most of the 100-foot deep lots are located between 4th 25 Street and 1st Street in Old Town, and most of the 117-foot deep lots are located 26 between 5th Street to Seal Beach Boulevard (SBB). Chairperson Deaton asked about 27 doing away with the FAR for 3rd floors and just setting a maximum for square footage 28 permitted. Mr. Whittenberg stated that one of Staff's recommendations is that if the PC 29 wishes to continue to allow 3rd floors on the wider lots, they be limited to the FAR 30 allowed for the 1 st and 2nd floor. He then proceeded to review the proposed revisions to 31 FARs for the RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts, as presented on Pages 30-33, and the 32 changes to Table 2.05.015.0.1: Additional Design Feature FAR Bonuses on Page 35- 33 47, noting that most of these changes are a result of comments received from the 34 architects, the PC, and the public. Chairperson Deaton asked for further explanation on 35 keeping the 3rd floor FAR the same as the 1st and 2nd floor. Mr. Whittenberg referred to 36 Page 30 and explained that for a lot measuring between 4,000 - 4,999 sq. ft. the Base 37 FAR would be 0.80, and staff is recommending adding 0.15 - 0.20 for the Maximum 38 FAR for a 3rd floor area, which would be approximately 4,000 sq. ft. of living space. 39 Chairperson Deaton clarified that this proposes that for an 8,000 sq. ft. 3-story home on 40 a 50-ft. wide lot, the allowed 8,000 sq. ft. would be for the 1st and 2nd story and any 41 square footage for the 3rd story must be taken from the 1 st and 2nd story. Mr. 42 Whittenberg stated that this is one recommendation; with the others being to eliminate 43 3rd stories altogether, to allow 3rd floors with an additional FAR of 0.15 or 0.20, or to 44 establish a fixed square footage for all 3rd stories. He noted that in setting a fixed 45 square footage, the PC must set a number for lots 40 feet or narrower, and another for 46 lots 40 feet or wider. Chairperson Deaton asked why Staff decided against 5 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2007 1 recommending an additional 0.10 for 3rd stories. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the 2 architects had noted that for some lots this would be as small as 375 sq. ft. and most 3rd 3 floors are used for a master bedroom suite, which usually requires 400-450 square feet 4 for this type of design. 5 6 Public Comment 7 8 Maria Bubbe stated that she is in favor of 2-story homes, and would like to see smaller 9 square footage proposed for 3rd stories, as it is too dense in Old Town and these large 10 homes are not compatible with the neighborhood. 11 12 Mike Bubbe stated that excluding basement for FARs is a good idea, and he would like 13 to see no 3rd stories on lots 30-ft. or wider, as this may lead to more combining of lots in 14 order to construct larger 3-story homes. He stated that 3rd stories should be limited to 15 300 sq. ft. and commented that master bedrooms don't have to be on the 3rd story, as 16 even 300 sq. ft. can be an invasion of privacy for adjoining neighbors and can impede 17 sunlight and air. He recommended a FAR ratio of 0.06 - 0.08 for 3rd stories on lots 37.5 18 ft. wide or less. Mr. Bubbe then indicated that he has requested elimination of 3rd story 19 roof decks, and also a limitation on 3rd story balconies to a minimum size of 50 sq. ft. 20 21 Barbara Barton requested a prohibition of 3-story homes in Old Town. 22 23 Warren Morton agreed with Ms. Barton, and stated that he believes that the FAR, 24 including the garage area, should be 1.20 instead of 1.40 to help decrease the size of 25 1st and 2nd floors. He also noted that the 3rd floor FAR should be 0.10 or 0.12 to limit the 26 range to 300-400 sq. ft. of living area, as well as incorporating proper daylight planes. 27 He also recommended allowing 3rd stories only if the design would be compatible with 28 surrounding properties and not obscure light or air. 29 30 Victor Grgas said that smaller is better, and the FAR for 3rd stories should be on the 31 lower end, rather than higher. He said he likes the concept of FARs, as this allows for 32 architectural diversity and the concept is really not that complex. 33 34 Joyce Parque spoke against taking away property rights and stated that people should 35 be able to do what they intended when purchasing the property. She stated that the 36 argument for a "fluid zoning ordinance" would interfere with this, and said that 3-story 37 homes do not bother her. With regard to FARs, she stated that simplicity is better, and 38 people are building smaller homes, and 3rd stories should be at least 750 sq. ft. 39 40 Ricki Layman stated that after attending the study sessions and listening to the input 41 she recommends placing this issue on the ballot so that the community can vote for 42 what they want for their city. 43 44 Mitzi Morton said she thought the objective was to get away from mansionization, yet 45 people will still have the ability to construct a 9,000 sq. ft. home. She stated that with 46 global warming and the cost of utilities people should begin downsizing. She noted that 6 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2007 1 she does not understand why garages are not inCluded in the FAR, since they are part 2 of the building and take away open space. She stated that she opposes 3rd stories, but 3 if they are to be allowed, the size should be limited, and this would also help address 4 the need for elevators in homes. 5 6 Eldon Alexander stated that he agreed that basements and subterranean garages 7 should not be included in the FAR. He recommended that a maximum FAR be 8 established with no additional FAR for the 3rd floor. Chairperson Deaton confirmed that 9 Mr. Alexander was proposing that by having one FAR the property owner could decide 10 the square footage for each floor. Mr. Alexander confirmed that this was correct. He 11 reiterated that he does not want to eliminate 3rd stories. He recommended looking at 12 the perspective that the property and home is the purview of that homeowner and 13 government cannot do anything to change this without the permission of the property 14 owner. 15 16 Mark spoke in support of limiting the height for homes to 2 stories. He stated 17 that the people through their ele-cted officials make the laws and codes for buildings. 18 19 Commissioner Comments 20 21 Commissioner DeLay stated that he would await further input. 22 23 Commissioner Roberts made the following comments: 24 25 1. Table on Page 29 is "way out of balance." 26 2. Opposes 3rd stories. 27 3. Disagrees with having a single FAR for entire structure. 28 4. Having a separate FAR for 3rd stories maintains the scale based on lot size and 29 accompanying building that would fit to that lot size. 30 5. Supports a 0.15 FAR for 3rd stories. 31 6. Disagrees with Staff recommendation to limit 3rd stories to 40-ft. lots. Believes 3rd 32 stories should be allowed by right on lots 37.5 ft. or wider. 33 7. Agrees with Table 2.05.015.C on Page 30. 34 8. Would like to look at Item 10 on Page 40 regarding Lot Coverage and attempt to 35 provide some benefit to lots less than 3,000 sq. ft. 36 37 He then commented that, hypothetically, when the new Zoning Code (ZC) is adopted, 38 all properties would then become legal nonconforming, and should someone wish to 39 construct a 3rd story, would he or she then have to build their home in conformance with 40 the new code. Mr. Whittenberg stated Staff is considering suggesting that everything 41 that exists as of the effective date of adoption of the new ZC be considered legal 42 nonconforming; therefore, all new structures would have to meet the new standards, but 43 only additions to existing structures would have to conform to the new codes. Mr. 44 Roberts stated that he would endorse this recommendation. 45 7 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 October 10, 2007 Commissioner Bello stated she supports the use of FARs as a good tool that sets clear limitations on what can be constructed on a lot. She said she also likes bonuses for design features, which will provide architectural diversity. In terms of 3rd stories, she would like to see a limit to 2 stories, but she feels that compromise is necessary. She indicated she favors 0.10 - 0.15 for 3rd stories and for lots 40 feet or wider a maximum FAR should be imposed. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt said she likes the use of FARs as they are easy to understand and provides a fixed number for building space. She said she does not o~ect to 3rd stories, but is undecided about a separate FAR or fixed square footage for 3r floors. She further noted that she likes the use of bonus incentives for architectural embellishments and feels that the proposed standards are on the right track. Chairperson Deaton stated that approximately one year ago, based upon public testimony, the PC had recommended to City Council (CC) that 3rd stories be eliminated. She said the PC has been entrusted by the public for its job and must reflect what the public desires in its community, and when designing codes, there should be self- determination and things should not be imposed on the community from the outside, but the community should make its own decisions. She continued by saying CC had passed the ordinance prohibiting 3rd stories and due to pressure from the public, had subsequently revoked this ordinance and returned it to the PC with direction to attempt to unite the City and bring Old Town together. She thanked the community for its participation, noting that some good work has been done. Chairperson Deaton then commented that the final, approved ZC could also go to a referendum, but the PC is working hard in creating a real compromise between the differing factions. She stated that Mr. Whittenberg has done an excellent job of presenting the various standards and tools proposed to help huge homes from infringing on the small homes originally placed in Seal Beach. She indicated that the PC must look at the character of the town and ways to preserve it. She then stated that she favors the use of FARs, with a lower FAR imposed for 3rd stories, and although 0.15 is not a bad ratio, the suggestion of 0.12 is better. Chairperson Deaton ended by saying that the PC must provide direction to Staff so that a final draft document can be created. She polled the Commission to ask which ratio they favored, with the following results. Massa-Lavitt - Bello Roberts DeLay 0.15 0.10 - 0.15 0.15 0.120rO.13 Chairperson Deaton requested a straw vote of those in favor of a fixed FAR for 3rd stories: FAR Ration of 0.10 - 3 opposed 2 in favor Bello, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts Deaton and DeLay FAR Ration of 0.12 - 2 opposed Massa-Lavitt and Roberts 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 October 10, 2007 3 in favor Bello, Deaton, and DeLay FAR Ration of 0.15 - o opposed 5 in favor Deaton, Bello, Massa-Lavitt, Roberts, and DeLay Chairperson Deaton asked if the final draft could indicate a range of 0.12 to 0.15. Mr. Abbe advised that it could be presented with a base FAR of 0.12 and a maximum FAR of 0.15. Commissioner Roberts asked if the Staff Report could reflect that this was a close vote. Mr. Abbe stated that what is presented to CC must not be significantly different that what was adopted by the PC. Commissioner Roberts then asked for a vote on the recommended FARs for 1st and 2nd stories as they appear in Table 2.05.015.C on Page 30. Chairperson Deaton noted that a base and maximum FAR are presented in this table, and asked what the difference would be in showing a base and maximum for 3rd stories. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Table 2.05.015.C reflects the base and maximum for 1- and 2-story homes, with the base reflecting the maximum living space allowed without using the proposed design features, and the maximum reflects what you can have over and above the base, if using the design features, and if wishing to build a 3rd story, you would have an additional 0.12 - 0.15 for the 3rd floor .only. Commissioner Roberts expressed his concern with what the FAR would be for the lots Staff had mentioned that are cul-de-sac properties measuring 11,000-12,000 sq. ft. He confirmed that based on Table 2.05.015.C, the FAR would be 0.70 to 0.80. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this is what is proposed. Chairperson Deaton noted that one of the issues in all of this would be what would the size of the house be in comparison to the lot. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt interjected that the houses that are next to it would not be as big, and what would result is a massive house at the end of a cui-de sac. Commissioner Roberts stated that a set back is a set back, no matter how large the lot. Mr. Whittenberg corrected by stating that the minimum side yard setback for lots of 5,000 sq. ft. is generally 10 percent of the lot width up to a maximum of 10 feet, and in addition the daylight planes would also impact the size of a home. Commissioner Roberts asked if a mean average of the lot width is used to determine setbacks for these trapezoidal lots. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this is how these setbacks are determined. He indicated that Staff believes that a maximum size for homes is not needed, because the setback and lot coverage requirements will create these limits, but noted that Staff could provide photos of an a home on an 8,400 sq. ft. lot to give the PC an idea of what this would look like. Commissioner Roberts reiterated his concerns over the potential size of homes on one these lots, and Commissioner Massa-Lavitt agreed. Commissioner Roberts again requested a straw vote on the recommended FARs in Table 2.05.015.C. Chairperson Deaton requested that columns be added to the table reflecting the square footage for each base and maximum FAR. Mr. Whittenberg stated that adding those columns would not reflect that in reality the square footage on each lot will differ slightly. He recommended adding these table columns in the Staff Report, but not in the ordinance. He explained that he had spoken several times with planning staff in the City of Coronado, who incorporated FARs in their ordinance many years ago, and they indicated that since then no one has ever reached the maximum floor area allowed. 9 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2007 1 Mr. Abbe requested direction on what the FAR would be for lots greater than 40 feet. 2 He confirmed that third floors should be allowed by right on lots measuring 37.5 - 40 ft. 3 wide, using the same FAR standard. Chairperson Deaton stated that she believes the 4 homes that need 3rd stories more are the ones on 25-ft. wide lots, because they have 5 less square footage to work with, and she has a problem with the whole concept of 6 allowing 3rd stories for lots 37.5 - 40 ft. wide, but not allowing them on homes on 25- or 7 50-ft. wide lots. She said that this would be overly contrived and she feels it should 8 either be yes you can or, no, you cannot have a 3rd story. Mr. Abbe confirmed that 9 37.5-ft. would remain as the minimum. 10 11 Mr. Whittenberg suggested taking a short recess before going on to daylight planes. 12 13 The meeting reconvened with the discussion of daylight planes. 14 15 Chairperson Deaton stated that this might be the most difficult concept to grasp. Mr. 16 Whittenberg stated that he believes Staff has provided some fairly representative 17 graphic samples that should make comprehension easier. He explained that currently 18 the Zoning Code (ZC) has basic height and setback standards, and as long as a 19 structure remains within these setbacks, it can go to the maximum height for the entire 20 size of the building. He said that the daylight plane essentially creates a "pup tent" 21 around the lot that states that at the edges close to adjoining properties the building can 22 only go to a specific height, with the maximum height allowed as you move toward the 23 interior of the lot. This concept attempts to move the main bulk of buildings away from 24 adjoining property lines. He noted that Staff is also recommending that there be a 25 daylight plane off of the alley to lesson the bulk of 2nd and 3rd stories along the alley 26 ways. He then reviewed the graphic examples of daylight planes and discussed the use 27 of gable roofs, single and multiple dormers, shed/flat roofs, and gable roof/dormer 28 combinations. Chairperson Deaton commented that this provides for architectural 29 distinction. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt referred to Page 55 and asked about the gable 30 roof projecting outside the daylight plane. Mr. Whittenberg stated that these types of 31 exceptions would automatically be allowed. Chairperson Deaton asked if there were 32 any disincentives. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the disincentives would require 33 reductions in the FAR once the length of the structure exceeds the exceptions. 34 Commissioner Roberts referred to the shed/flat roof and noted that if someone wished 35 to have this done the full length of the house, the reduction in the FAR might not be 36 incentive enough to prevent this. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he believes the reduction 37 was increased from 0.1 to 0.3 or 0.4. He noted that Staff intends these to be the only 38 exceptions into the daylight plane, and anything longer would be subject to approval of 39 a CUP, and this could only be increased by a specific percentage. He then indicated 40 that Staff will be reviewing a table of proposed daylight planes later in the discussion, 41 and noted that for walls less than a specific height there will be one set of 42 measurements, and as the wall height increases the numbers will change to reflect this 43 and attempt to bring the structure closer to the center of the lot. He emphasized that 44 there would still be a maximum height to the daylight plane envelope, with allowances 45 . made for the angle of a roof pitch, preventing the bulky boxed look to a house. 46 Commissioner Roberts asked if more than 45 degrees were the accepted angle. Mr. 10 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2007 1 Whittenberg stated he has only seen such standard for Oak Park, Illinois where there 2 are many English Tudor style homes, with a 6- or 8-12 pitch roof on them as opposed to 3 the 4-6 pitch roof. 4 5 Mr. Whittenberg then briefly reviewed General Development Information and discussion 6 on 5 properties in the RLD-9 Zone and 5 properties in the RHD-20 Zone, as shown on 7 Pages 59-61, followed by a brief overview of proposed third story daylight planes for 3 8 of the properties under discussion. He then reviewed Table 2.05.015.1 on Pages 65-66 9 showing side yard daylight planes and explained that originally for the RLD-9 Zone Staff 10 had proposed an initial height of 14-ft. at the interior side setback; however, the 11 architects said this was too restrictive to accommodate a standard 2-story home, and 12 suggested that this be changed to 16 feet at the lot line. Mr. Whittenberg continued by 13 stating that for the RHD-20 Zone Staff had proposed a height of 16 feet and is now 14 suggesting 19 feet at the lot line. He said that Staff believes that the FAR helps deal 15 with the issue of overly large homes, and mass and bulk will be decreased using the 16 daylight plane. He indicated that most of the concerns have been with 2-story homes 17 with flat roofs built up to the maximum, so Staff has designed these standard to 18 accommodate a 2-story home being built today in Old Town or on The Hill, with 19 standard interior ceiling heights, that will still meet the daylight plane standards. He 20 then explained that 3-story homes would require something different both from the sides 21 and the rear off of an alley. Chairperson Deaton asked how the higher ceilings would 22 affect daylight plane requirements. Mr. Whittenberg explained that 2-story homes would 23 require that the 2nd floor be setback in to stay outside of the daylight plane, or to allow a 24 certain portion to pop out based upon the exceptions. Chairperson Deaton asked if this 25 would be a "stepback." Mr. Whittenberg said that a stepback is something different, 26 which would be covered later. He then provided a brief review of Table 2.05.015.1 27 reflecting the proposed street side setbacks for corner lots, which are proposed to 28 require that a portion of the 3rd story be moved back from the 1st and 2nd floor, but 29 design features such as dormer windows would still be allowed. Chairperson Deaton 30 asked if this would keep shadows from being cast. Mr. Whittenberg stated that although 31 this would help, Staff does not have the capability to complete a shade and shadow 32 analysis, as shade and shadows will vary throughout the year. He emphasized that the 33 objective is to attempt to reduce the mass and bulk appearance of a 3rd story to 34 surrounding properties from the street, side, interior, and rear alley. He noted that Staff 35 is not concerned with visibility from the front of the lot, as 3rd stories are not allowed on 36 the front 50 percent of the lot. Mr. Whittenberg then continued with an overview of the 37 standards for the rear yard daylight plane and noted that the proposed standards are 38 easily attainable, as there is a 1 a-ft. minimum rear yard setback, and none of the 39 properties evaluated in the RLD-9 Zone came near to exceeding this. 40 41 Chairperson Deaton asked for discussion on Item 3.e. on Page 67 regarding Covered 42 Roof Access Structures (CRAS). Mr. Whittenberg requested direction from the PC 43 regarding CRAS, and emphasized that a CRAS is not necessary to get to a roof deck, 44 and currently there are many homes in town with roof decks that use an open stairway 45 for access. Chairperson Deaton stated that the PC needs to look at CRAS for roof 46 decks and at CRAS for elevators, as a CRAS is not necessary for stairs, but is 11 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2007 1 necessary for elevators. She commented that up until recently the PC had fairly clear 2 way of approving or denying a CRAS based upon the level of opposition, but recently 3 there has been more opposition to these structures. 4 5 Public Comments 6 7 With regard to daylight planes, Victor Grgas cautioned that the City not find itself forcing 8 an architectural style upon property owners and limit creativity. He said that his home 9 has an open exterior staircase to the roof deck and maintenance can be a pain, but he 10 believes that a CRAS is not needed for roof access. He recommended that if the PC 11 does decide to continue to approve these structures that they require that these 12 structures be set back to the middle or rear of the home where they would not be 13 intrusive. 14 15 Eldon Alexander stated that he is neither for nor against CRAS and believes that people 16 should be able to build what they wish, and he does favor elevators to roof decks as 17 many homes in Old Town have no yard area for children to play, nor are there many 18 parks. 19 20 Mike Bubbe said he agrees with the concept of daylight planes, and does not oppose 21 elevators to third floors, as long as the roof cover is located in the center or rear of the 22 structure so as to be as non-obtrusive as possible. He said he opposes any type of 23 CRAS on 2- or 3-story homes and would prefer to see exterior staircases. He noted that 24 despite the many roof decks in town, they are very rarely used. 25 26 Warren Morton agreed with prohibiting roof decks on 3rd floors with on outside 27 staircases used to access 2nd floor roof decks. 28 29 Joyce Parque questioned how this change could be enforced, as there are already 30 several homes in Old Town and on The Hill with elevators, and many CRAS throughout 31 the City. 32 33 Commissioner Comments 34 35 Chairperson Deaton stated that her home has a roof deck with outside stairway access. 36 She noted that there have been many leaks in the roof deck, but none over the 37 stairway. She said they do require a lot of maintenance and she regularly uses her roof 38 deck. She agreed with Mr. Alexander's comments that people do use roof decks, but 39 because of the height she would not be comfortable with children using this space. She 40 said she favors elevators, as they provide easy access to 2nd and 3rd stories for older 41 adults or for the disabled, and she would oppose allowing CRAS for stairways because 42 they are unsightly, and though new standards have decreased the size, they all require 43 a lot of maintenance. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if the current Code allows roof 44 decks on 3rd stories. Mr. Whittenberg stated that technically a CRAS on 3rd floors is not 45 disallowed, as long as the railing around the deck is at the 35-ft. height point, which 46 means the floor level must be at approximately 31.5 feet. He indicated that the majority 12 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2007 1 of comments reflect opposition to allowing roof decks on 3rd floors. He recommended 2 that if elevators are to be allowed, they should be limited to only a 2nd floor roof deck 3 and to the 3rd floor interior of a home. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that because 4 the 3rd floor opens onto the 2nd floor deck, the elevator shaft could be incorporated into 5 the 3rd floor building. She then stated that the multitude of CRAS structures in town is 6 presenting an aesthetics problem, but she would favor allowing elevators to the 2nd 7 floor. Chairperson Deaton countered that if a person cannot walk, they would not be 8 able to walk up the stairs for access to a 2nd floor roof deck. She also noted that 9 because space is at a premium in Old Town, not allowing people to have 3rd stories 10 would be penalizing them for owning 25-ft. lots, and they should be allowed to have 11 access to their roof deck. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt a~reed, but asked how this 12 would be done. Chairperson Deaton stated that perhaps 3r stories need to be allowed 13 on any size lot. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt questioned how you would make a CRAS 14 unobtrusive. Chairperson Deaton noted that as Mr. Grgas stated, a CRAS should be 15 located toward the center or rear of the structure. Mr. Whittenberg commented that one 16 benefit of an elevator is that because the housing is a straight up and down shaft this 17 makes for a much easier design to where it can be central to the sides and rear of the 18 home, as opposed to a stairway, which under the Building Code (BC) must be 19 continuous from the deck all the way down to the 1 st floor and this tends to create more 20 of a design challenge. He suggested adding standards that would require that the 21 CRAS not be located along the immediate side walls of homes, and that on the inside of 22 the home a closet area be created from the 1 st to 2nd floor that could be converted to an 23 elevator in the future. Chairperson Deaton asked about retrofitting. Mr. Whittenberg 24 stated that no matter what the situation, there will be difficulty with retrofitting. 25 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt added that the real issue becomes how to make a CRAS 26 aesthetic and keep it from interfering with the view from surrounding homes. 27 Chairperson Deaton noted that if you have an elevator you must also have a stairway 28 for fire safety, but you don't want to cover the stairway and the elevator, as this would 29 create a huge structure. She noted that people need to be aware that if they decide on 30 an elevator they will give up a lot of square footage when designing their home, as they 31 must have access to a stairway. She stated that if a CRAS is allowed on elevators and 32 not on stairways, the problem of CRAS will be cut down considerably. 33 34 Commissioner Bello st,ated that after listening to all of this, she feels there is a lot to be 35 said for having a 1-story home, but she is in favor of elevators for the elderly and 36 disabled. She then indicated that she favors eliminating CRAS. She asked if using the 37 daylight plane would limit architectural creativity. Mr. Whittenberg stated that in extreme 38 cases it would, such as with a home with a flat roof and high walls along the property 39 line, the daylight plane would require that a certain length of the wall would have to be 40 setback in approximately 2 feet. He noted that it would not change the style, but would 41 affect the arrangement on the 2nd floor. He indicated that Staff is attempting to address 42 the problem with flat roof homes being constructed up to the minimum setbacks and to 43 the maximum height. 44 45 Commissioner Roberts stated that the exceptions to the daylight plane help address 46 concerns over limiting architectural diversity, as they are quite liberal in allowing 13 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2007 1 features to project through the daylight plane, and he feels comfortable with this. With 2 regard to CRAS he indicated that this is really not a problem in any other part of the city 3 except Old Town, and he will vote based upon Chairperson Deaton's recommendation 4 that CRAS not be allowed over staircases. With regard to elevators, he believes the city 5 does have to deal with this issue, but he would like the ordinance to include this within 6 the structure of the 3rd floor so that this would not require a separate enclosure for the 7 elevator shaft. He added that for elevators on 2-story homes, he would like to see 8 standards that require the CRAS to be located at the center or rear of the home. He 9 indicated that decisions on retrofitting should be subject to an AUP. 10 11 Commissioner DeLay asked if Mr. Whittenberg found this acceptable. Mr. Whittenberg 12 responded that he would proceed as directed by the PC and City Council. 13 Commissioner DeLay stated that building a CRAS is "asking for a lot of trouble." Mr. 14 Whittenberg explained that although the CC and the PC have made provisions to allow 15 CRAS, they really are not a necessary structure, but elevators are an issue that must be 16 dealt with to gain access to 2nd floors and roof decks. He noted that existing standards 17 have helped to address the size of CRAS, so some of these general concepts as well 18 as the recommendations for locating CRAS can be incorporated into the revised 19 ordinance, as well as the requirements for elevator shaft space to be incorporated into 20 the 3rd story living space. He confirmed that the direction of the PC is to jettison CRAS 21 and return with standards for elevators on 2nd floors and for incorporating elevator space 22 on the 3rd floor living area. Chairperson Deaton added that the PC also wishes to 23 prohibit 3rd story roof decks. The Commission was in agreement. 24 25 Eldon Alexander stated that he has no objection to the PC's direction to Staff and then 26 referred to Page 9 to the list of items to be included in or excluded from the FAR. He 27 noted that if elevators are to be included with 3rd floor living area, this should be 28 included under exclusions to the FAR. Commissioner Roberts stated that he could live 29 with this. Chairperson Deaton stated that if this is the case, then the PC should indicate 30 a maximum square footage for 3rd floors. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff could return 31 to the proposed sizes, noting that the elevator shafts would probably encompass 4-5 32 feet, or approximately 16-25 square feet. Commissioner Roberts requested that Staff 33 return with some definitive dimensions for elevators. 34 35 Mr. Whittenberg recommended ending tonight's study session and continuing the 36 discussion at the scheduled meeting of November 7, 2007. He noted that there would 37 be one public hearing item on that agenda for a request to have live entertainment at 38 Kobe Steak House. Chairperson Deaton stated that she did not want the public hearing 39 to go too late, as members of the public attending the meeting to take part in the study 40 -session might begin to leave before the discussion begins. Mr. Whittenberg 41 recommended having the remaining discussion on residential first, then the public 42 hearing, followed by discussion on nonresidential standards. He noted that discussion 43 must also be conducted on patio areas, private open space, and garages. 44 Commissioner Roberts asked about discussion on size limitations for 2nd floor roof 45 decks. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there have never been limitations set for the size of 46 roof decks, but noted that under the Building Code (BC) there are requirements for two 14 of 15 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 10, 2007 1 separate stairway exits for decks larger than 500 sq. ft. and for most homes this 2 becomes a limiting factor for deck size. 3 4 Mike Bubbe requested clarification on the PC's direction on whether to allow 3rd stories 5 by right on lots 37.5 - 40 feet or wider. The Commission confirmed that 3rd stories 6 would be allowed by right on lots 37.5 feet or wider. Mr. Whittenberg added that the 3rd 7 story for these lots would be limited to 0.10 and 0.15. 8 9 Mr. Abbe noted that since there is no study session scheduled for the October 17, 2007 10 meeting, he would not be attendance, and Assistant City Attorney Flower would serve 11 as counsel at that meeting. Mr. Abbe then indicated that he would be on vacation on 12 November 7,2007. He wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. 13 14 15 STAFF CONCERNS 16 17 The Director of Development Services thanked the Planning Commission (PC) and 18 members of the public for their participation in this process. He then stated that he 19 would be on vacation on October 17, 2007, so he would not be in attendance. 20 21 22 COMMISSION CONCERNS 23 24 Commissioner Bello thanked Mr. Whittenberg for all of the hard work he has done on 25 the new Zoning Code (ZC). Commissioner Roberts also thanked Mr. Whittenberg, 26 Chairperson Deaton also included her gratitude for the work done by Staff and stated 27 that she believes this will result in a meaningful compromise. 28 29 30 ADJOURNMENT 31 32 Chairperson Deaton continued the study session at 10:45 p.m. to the scheduled 33 meeting date of Wednesday, November 7,2007. 34 35 36 Respectfully Submitted, 37 ;~ ~-^" ~ 40 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary 41 Planning Department 42 43 APPROVAL 44 45 The Commission on November 7, 2007, approved the Minutes of the Planning 46 Commission Meeting of Wednesday, October 10, 2007. ~. 15 of 15