Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2008-04-14#AA AGENDA STAFF REPORT . DATE: April 14, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: David Carmany, City Manager FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 11 : ZONING SUMMARY OF REQUEST: After conducting the Public Hearing and receiving the Staff Report and public comments, consider the revised Zoning Code (Title 11) recommended by the Planning Commission and any revisions suggested by the councilmembers. Close the public hearing or continue the public hearing to April 21. . If the Council closes the public hearing: o Introduce Ordinance Number 1569, An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Amending the Seal Beach Municipal Code by Deleting Chapter 28, Zoning, in its Entirety and Adopting a New Title 11, Zoning (Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the draft Ordinance) as revised by the Council. BACKGROUND: This public hearing is to receive public testimony regarding the consideration of the adoption of a new Zoning Code. Please review the previously distributed copy of "Seal Beach Municipal Code Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning, March 2008' and the proposed revisions. The Planning Commission has recommended its adoption. The" Final Draft Title 11: Zoning' is noted as Attachment 2 of the Staff report, but is not attached due to the length of the document. Copies are available at each library in the City, at City Hall, and the document is posted on the City's Web Page for viewing and downloads at: ''http://pubrec.ci.seal-beach.ca.us/weblink7/City- wide Agendas - Drafts - Notices/Final Draft and Notices - Title 11 - Zoning Code". OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED TITLE 11. ZONING: . The Proposed Title 11: "Zoning" is a complete revision of the City's Zoning Code and is intended to reflect the most appropriate and best available development regulations and standards regarding future development within the City. Such a Agenda Item --B..fl..-.- Z:\04-14-08 Council Meeting - Agendaltems\DS - Staff Report - Ord #1569 - Title 1 1 (attachments Included).doc\LW\04- 03-08 Public Hearing fe: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, City Council 51aff Report April 14, 2008 . comprehensive revision effort has not been undertaken within the community since 1974. As such, there are significant changes from both procedural and development regulation standards incorporated into the proposed Zoning Code that do not currently exist in the present Zoning Code. The Planning Commission has recommended that the Council adopt a Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. The Commission recommends no amendments to the basic lot size, density and building intensity, setback, lot coverage, height, parking, and sign regulations of the current zoning Code. Likewise, the Commission recommends no changes to allowable and discretionary land uses within the City, other than minor uses such as newsstands and kiosks. The Commission recommends new design provisions, such as floor area ratio, building envelope, and other design and aesthetic features. In addition, the Commission recommends an "Administrative Use Permif process which delegates approval authority to the Director of Development Services for several types of discretionary land use decisions. The Planning Commission is currently the decision-making body for such decisions. Please refer to Attachment 6, the Planning Commission Staff Report of March 19, 2008, to review Attachment 3 which provides an "Overview Summary: Major . Provisions of Proposed Title 11, Zoning." PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS: The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on March 19 and 26, 2008, and at the conclusion of the public hearings recommended adoption of the new Title 11, Zoning, with revisions. Please refer to Attachment 3 to review the adopted Planning Commission Resolution 08-13, which includes all of the Commission recommended revisions, and to Attachments 4 and 5 to review the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of those meetings. The Planning Commission Staff Reports of those meetings are provided as Attachments 6 and 7. The March 26, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report includes a review of all comments received, either oral or written, at the March 19 meeting, and Staff responses. Several of the Planning Commission recommended revisions in Resolution 08-13 are a result of those public comments. STUDY SESSIONS REGARDING TITLE 11. ZONING: This public hearing is the culmination of a 14 month process by the City to complete a comprehensive revision and update to the Zoning Code of the City. During that period of time the City has conducted a total of 16 Study Sessions, as indicated below: . os - Staff Report - Ord #1589 - Title 11 (attachments Includ'!') Public Hearing re: Final Draft- Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, . City Council 51aff Report Apri/14, 2008 0 February 21, 2007; Joint CC and PC 0 August 8, 2007; Planning Commission 0 February 26, 2007; Joint PC and CC 0 September 19, 2007; Planning Commission 0 March 7, 2007; Joint PC and CC 0 October 3, 2007; Planning Commission 0 May 9, 2007; Planning Commission 0 October 10, 2007; Planning Commission 0 May 23, 2007; Planning Commission 0 November 7, 2007; Planning Commission 0 June 6, 2007; Planning Commission 0 December 5, 2007; Planning Commission 0 June 20, 2007; Planning Commission 0 February 6, 2008; Planning Commission, and 0 July 18, 2097; PI~nning Commission 0 March 5, 2008; Planning Commission Please refer to Attachment 6, the Planning Commission Staff Report of March 19, . 2008, to review Attachment 4 which provides an "OveNiew Summary - Study Sessions." Copies of the Minutes of these "Study Sessions" are provided as Attachments 7 through 20 to the March 19 Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 6 of this Staff Report) for the infonmation of the City Council. Staff Reports or Presentation materials were prepared for the following meetings, but are not provided due to the length of the documents. These documents are available at the Office of the City Clerk and the Department of Development Services for review by interested persons: . o February 21, 2007; Joint CC and PC Presentation o February 26, 2007; Joint PC and CC Presentation o March 7, 2007; Joint PC and CC Presentation o May 9, 2007; Planning Commission Staff Report o May 23, 2007; Planning Commission Staff Report o June 6, 2007; Planning CC Staff Report.04-14-08 o July 18, 2007; Planning Commission Staff Report and Presentation o September 19, 2007; Planning Commission Staff Report o October 10, 2007; Planning Commission Presentation o January 23, 2008; Planning Commission Staff Report, and o March 5, 2008; Planning Commission Staff Report and Presentation. 3 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: ZonIng Seal Beach Municipal Code, City Council Staff Report April 14, 2008 e Commission Presentation OVERVIEW OF REMAINING MAJOR ISSUE OF CONCERN CONSIDERED DURING THE STUDY SESSIONS AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS: During the Study Sessions and the Planning Commission Public Hearings the following issue appears to Staff to be the remaining major issue of concem to certain members of the public and seemed to generate the most comments and discussion. Planning Tools to Regulate Mass, Bulk and Monotony of Residential Development Including Third Story Development: As staff prepared the "Preliminary Draff' and now the "Final Draff' of Title 11, Zoning Code, several residential development standards became matters of primary focus'; The Commission and staff have attempted to develop appropriaie residential development standards to respond to concerns expressed about the size, mass and bulk of residential developments, but to still allow a property owner and building designer a great deal of flexibility in designing either a new home or a major addition to an existing home. The goal is to meet the reasonable needs of the residents of the new or expanded living unit while ensuring that such development does not adversely impact adjacent residents and the overall appearance of the community. The appropriate level of govemmental regulation into the sensitive area of regulating the size, mass, bulk, and design of residences has generated the most discussion. . Please refer to Attachment 6, the March 19 Planning Commission Staff Report, pages 4 through 12, to review the discussion regarding this issue. Additional discussiol1 is provided in Attachment 7, the March 26 Planning Commission Staff Report, on pages 16 through 25 and Attachments 4 through 7. After considering no change in the maximum height of residences, a two-story maximum height standard, and a number of variations within that range, the Commission recommends the utilization of "Floor Area Ratio" and building envelope standards. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Reauest for Economic Impact Analysis: The Planning Commission received a request to conduct an "economic impact analysis' of the proposed Zoning Code. While recognizing that such an analysis may not be pertinent to decisions regarding appropriate development standards, the Commission directed Staff to prepare a response. Please refer to Attachment 7 of this Staff Report, pages 16 through 25, and Attachments 5 through 7 of the . CC Staff Report.04-14-08 4 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - T1fJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, City Council 51aff Report April 14, 2008 March 26 Planning Commission Staff Report, to review the Staff response and additional information on this issue. As indicated in the March 26 Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 7), staff believes that any analysis of economic impacts in this instance would be extremely speculative for two reasons, among others. First, several assumptions would have to be made (e.g., the number of new and substantially remodeled homes, the size of those homes, the eventual selling price of those homes, which factors, including location, size, views, neighboring homes, proximity to the beach, proximity to schools, proximity to stores, architectural and design amenities, have increased or decreased the selling price). Second, many residents have testified that homes adjacent to three-story houses will decrease in value; it would be likewise speculative to quantify potential adverse economic impacts on properties in proximity to lots where homes might be built to maximum allowable size, and whether the owners of such lots will seek an adjustment in real property taxes. RECOMMENDATION: After conducting the Public Hearing' and receiving the Staff Report and public comments, consider the revised Zoning Code (Title 11) recommended by the Planning Commission and any revisions suggested by the councilmembers. Close the public hearing or continue the public hearing to April 21. If the Council closes the public hearing: o Introduce Ordinance Number 1569, An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Amending the Seal Beach Municipal Code by Deleting Chapter 28, Zoning, in its Entirety and Adopting a New Title 11, Zoning (Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the draft Ordinance) as revised by the Council. SUBMITTED BY: NOTED AND APPROVED: ,- /C!..~ ~ '-.-7' () David Carmany, City Manager 'L e Whittenberg Director of Development Servo s Attachments: (7) Attachment 1 : Ordinance Number 1569, An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach Amending the Seal Beach Municipal Code by Deleting Chapter 28, Zoning, in its Entirety and Adopting a New Title 11, Zoning cc Staff Report.04- 14-08 5 Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: Attachment 7: CC Staff Report04-14-Q8 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - TJtle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, City Council Staff Report April 14, 2008 . Final Draft Zoning Code, March 2008 - Note: Previously provided and not included due to length. Additional 'copies will be available at the public hearing Copies are also available at each library in the city, at City Hall, and is posted on the City's web page for viewing and download at: http://pubrec.cLseal- beach.ca.us/weblink7/City-wide Agendas - Drafts - NoticeslFinal Draft and Notices - Title 11 - Zoning Code Resolution Number 08-13, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Amending the Seal Beach Municipal Code by Deleting Chapter 28, Zoning, in its Entirety and Adopting a New Title 11, Zoning, adopted March 26, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes, March 19, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes, March 26, 2008 . Planning Commission Staff Report, March 19, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report, March 26, 2008 . 6 . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code. City Council Staff Report April 14, 2008 ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NUMBER 1569, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING CHAPTER 28, ZONING, IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 11, ZONING . . CC Steff Report.04-14-08 7 . Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, City Council 51aff Report April 14, 2008 ORDINANCE NUMBER 1569 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING CHAPTER 28, ZONING, IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 11, ZONING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby deletes Chapter 28, Zoning,. in its entirety and' adopts a new Title 11,' Zoning, to read as shown in Attachment A, with the following revisions: . A. Revise Title 11 by adding the Title designator "11" in front of all Chapter, Section, Table, and Figure Numbers. To illustrate this revision, the following examples have been provided: o Chapter 11.1.05:Title, Components and Purposes; o 911.1.05.005: Zoning Code Adoption; o Section 11.1.05.005: Zoning Code Adoption; o Table 11.1.05.025: Zoning Districts; and o Figure 11.1.15.020.A: Shortest Distance. B. Revise Section 1.15.020.C: Measurements Involving a Structure, to read: . "C. Measurements Involving a Structure. Measurements involving a structure are made to the closest wall of the structure. Eaves and cornices are not included in the measurement Chimneys, saves, 8srRi8s8, and bay windows up to 12 feet in length are not included in the measurement. Other features, such as covered porches and entrances, are included in the measurement. Structures or portions of structures that are entirely underground are not included in measuring required distances. See Figure 1.15.020.C.1: Measurements Involving A Structure, and Figure 1.15.020.C.2: Architectural Projections into Setbacks." CC Stall Report.04-14-08 8 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, City Council Staff Report April 14, 2008 . C. Revise Table 2.05.015: Development Standards for Residential Districts, page 10 of Part II: Base District Regulations, to read: 60/50 60/50 60/50 60/50 60/50 60/50 (Y) 4i 25 15 15 (BB) 15 15 (Z)(BB) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (AA) . (88) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (88) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (88) Yes Yes (CC)' D. Revise Section 2.05.015X: Limitations on Parking and Garage Frontage, sub-Section 3: Additional Setback for Garage Facing Street to read: 3. Additional Setbllek Offset for Garage Facing Street. If a garage is located on the front half of a lot and faces the street, the garage walls and doors must be set seek offset at least 5 feet from the face of the main residence. See Figure 2.05.015.X.3: Additional !isIBse.'r Offset for Garage Facing Street. . E. Revise Figure 2.05.015.x.3: Additional Setback for Garage Facing Street to read: CC Staff Raport.04-14-08 9 . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Trtle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, City Council Staff Report April 14, 2008 "Figure 2.05.015'x'3: Additional astBee./f Offset for Garage Facing Streer F. Revise Section 2.05.015.Z: Minimum Site Area Devoted to Landscaping to read. OZ. Minimum Site Area Devoted to Landscaping. In all residential districts except the RLD-9 District and the RHD-20 District no less than 15 percent of any site shall be devoted to landscaping. With the exception of areas for entry and exit, all required front and street side setbacks shall be landscaped and such areas shall be credited to the required landscaping. A minimum of 25 percent of any lot in the RLD-9 District shall be devoted to landscaping. Also refer to Section 2.05.015.BB: Open Space Reauirements for applicable open space reauirements in the RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts." G. Revise Section 2.05.015.EE: Roof Decks to read: . "EE. Roof Decks. Roof Decks are allowed in the residential districts pursuant to Table 2.05.015: Development Standards for Residential Districts. In addition, ail required roof deck railings in accordance with the provisions of the Califomia Building Code shall not exceed the main building envelope and height limit provisions of Table 2.05.015.J: Determination of Daylight Planes - RLD-9, RMD-18, and RHD-20 Districts, and Section 2.05.015.K: Building Height- RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts. The provisions of Section 2.05.015.J.4: Exceptions to Main Building Envelope, are not applicable to roof decks. In the RHD-20 District roof decks are not allowed above a height of 21.5 feet for lots with widths eaual to or areater than m€lrs tA8R 37.5 feet." H. Revise Section 4.20.020: Shared Parking, sub-Section A.1: Permit Requirement, to read: . "1. Permit Requirement. .^,R ASFI'liRistr-ativs A Conditional Use Permit may be approved for shared parking facilities serving more than 1 use on a site or serving more than 1 property. The use permit may allow for a reduction of the total number of spaces required by this Chapter if the following findings are made, in addition to the required findings pursuant to Chapter 5.20: Development Permits, Section 5.20.020: Required Findings:" I. Revise Section 6.05.010: Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases: "Bedroom" to read: CC Staff Report04-14-08 10 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, City Council Staff Report April 14, 2008 . ""Bedroom": any room located within a dweiling unit that is used primarily for sleeping purposes by its residents and that contains at least 70 square feet of floor area and contains a closet. Rooms designated as a "den," "library," "study," "loft" or other extra room that satisfies this definition and is not a kitchen, living room, or bath will be considered a bedroom," SECTION 2. The City Clerk is directed to incorporate the above revisions, Items "A" through "I" into Title 11. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or any part hereof. The City Council of the City of Seal Beach hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses' or phrases be declared invalid. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of ,2008. . Mayor CITY OF SEAL BEACH ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF SEAL BEACH } } SS } . I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance is an original copy of Ordinance Number 1569 on CC Staff Report.04-14-08 11 . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, City Council Staff Report April 14, 2008 file in the office of the City Clerk, introduced at a meeting held on the 14th day of April, 2008, and passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting held on the day of , 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers and do hereby further certify that Ordinance Number 1567 has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836. City Clerk . . CC Staff Report 04-14-08 12 . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, City Council 51aff Report April 14, 2008 Attachment A Title 11, Zoning . . CC Staff Report.04-14-08 13 . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, City Council Staff Report April 14, 2008 ATTACHMENT 2 FINAL DRAFT ZONING CODE, MARCH 2008 NOTE: PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED AND NOT INCLUDED DUE TO LENGTH. ADDITIONAL COPIES WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING . COPIES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE AT EACH LIBRARY IN THE CITY, AT CITY HALL, AND IS POSTED ON THE CITY'S WEB PAGE FOR VIEWING AND DOWNLOAD AT: HTTP://PUBREC.CI.SEAL-BEACH.CA.USIWEBLlNK7/CITY- WIDE AGENDAS - DRAFTS - NOTICES/FINAL DRAFT AND NOTICES - TITLE 11 - ZONING CODE . CC Staff Report. 04- 1 4-08 14 . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, City Council Staff Report April 14, 2008 A 11 ACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NUMBER 08-13, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING CHAPTER 28, ZONING, IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 11, ZONING, ADOPTED MARCH 26, 2008 . . CC Staff Report.04-14-{)8 15 . RESOLUTION NUMBER 08-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING CHAPTER 28, ZONING, IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 11, ZONING THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. The City Council and/or the Planning Commission held a total of sixteen Study Sessions regarding 'a new Title 11: Zoning of the Seal Beach Municipal Code between February 21,2007 and March 5,2008. . Section 2. At the conclusion of the March 5, 2008 Study Session the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare the proposed "Final Draft Title 11: Zoning of the Seal Beach Municipal Code" for public hearings. Section 3. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. ~ 15305, staff has prepared Initial Study/Negative Declaration 08-1 evaluating the environmental impacts of the proposed "Final Draft Title 11: Zoning of the Seal Beach Municipal Code". Initial Study/Negative Declaration 08-1 is currently undergoing the required public comment period, and all comments received will be considered and evaluated by the City Council during future public hearings on the proposed "Final Draft Title 11: Zoning of the Seal Beach Municipal Code." Section 4. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 19, 2008 and continued to March 26, 2008 to consider the proposed "Final Draft Title 11: Zoning ofthe Seal Beach Municipal Code". Section 5. At said publiC hearings there was oral and written testimony and evidence received by the Pianning Commission. . Section 6. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in Section 1 through Section 5 of this resolution and pursuant to ~9 28-2600 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: IISBNASIUsersILWhlttenberglMy DocumentslZonlng Code RevlslonslSeal Beach Flevlslons\F1nal Draft Zonln9 CodelPC Resolution 011-1 3.Flnal Oraft Hie 11.Zonlng.docILIM03-26-08 Planning Commission Resolution 08-13 re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, March 26, 2008 A. The Proposed Title 11: "Zoning" is a complete revision of the City's Zoning Code and is intended to reflect the most appropriate and best available development regulations and standards to meet the desires of the community regarding future development within the City. Such a comprehensive revision effort has not been undertaken within the community since 1974. As such, there are significant changes from both procedural and development regulation standards incorporated into the proposed Zoning Code that do not currently exist in the present Zoning Code. . B. The proposed project consists of the adoption of a Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. The proposed Title 11, Zoning, does not propose any amendments to the basic lot size, density and building intensity, setback, lot coverage, height, parking, and sign regulations of the current zoning Code. Likewise, there are no changes to allowable and discretionary land uses within the City, other than minor uses such a news stands and kiosks. New provisions related to a number of design related issues are proposed, such as floor area ratio, building envelope, and other design and aesthetic matters of concern. to the City. C. In addition an "Administrative Use Pennif approval process is proposed which would allow the Director of Development Services to review . and approve several types of discretionary land use approvals that are currently reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. D. Said proposed Title 11: Zoning does not include any provisions that are inconsistent with the adopted General Plan of the City. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends adoption of Title 11: Zoning to the City Council as set forth in "Seal Beach Municipal Code: Final Draft Title 11: Zoning", dated March 2008 and on file in the Office of the City Clerk, with the following recommended revisions: A. Revise Title 11 by adding the Title designator "11" in front of all Chapter, Section, Table, and Figure Numbers. This is based on a concern that the current Chapter, Section, Table, and Figure Numbers could be confused by someone not overly familiar with the Code as being a Chapter, Section, Table, or Figure Number that would be found in Titles 1-6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. The revised Chapter, Section, Table, and Figure numbers would be as indicated in the below samples: o Chapter 11.1.05:Title, Components and Purposes; o ~ 11.1.05.005: Zoning Code Adoption; . o Section 11.1.05.005: Zoning Code Adoption; pc Resolution 08-13.Final Draft Title 11.Zonlng 2 . Planning Commission Resolution 08-13 re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, March 26, 2008 o o Table 11.1.05.025: Zoning Districts; and Figure 11.1.15.020.A: Shortest Distance. B. Revise Section 1.15.020.C: Measurements Involving a Structure, to read: "C. Measurements Involving a Structure. Measurements involving a structure are made to the closest wall of the structure. Eaves and cornices are not included in the measurement Chimneys, S8\'S8, 8srRiss8, and bay windows up to 12 feet in length are not included in the measurement. Other features, such as covered porches and entrances, are included in the measurement. Structures or portions of structures that are entirely underground are not included in measuring required distances. See Figure 1.15.020.C.1: Measurements Involving A Structure, and Figure 1.15.020.C.2: Architectural Projections into Setbacks." C. Revise Table 2.05.015: Development Standards for Residential Districts," page 1 0 of Part II: Base District Regulations, to read: . Intentionally Left Blank . Revision to Table 2.05.015 appears on next page . . PC Resolution 08-13.Flnal Draft Trtle 11.Zonlng 3 Planning Commission Resolution 08-13 re: Final Draft - TrtJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, March 26, 2008 . 60/50 60/50 60/50 60/50 60/50 60/50 (Y) 4i 25 15 15 (88) 15 15 (Z)(88) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (AA) . (BB) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (BB) Minimum Private Open Space per unit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (BB) (sq. ft.) Pedestrian Walkways Yes Yes (CC)" Intentionally Left Blank Resolution Continues On Next Page . PC Rasolution 08-13.Final Draft TItle 11Zoning 4 . Planning Commission Resolution 08-13 re: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, March 26, 2008 D. Revise Section 2.05.015.X: Limitations on Parking and Garage Frontage, sub-Section 3: Additional Setbeck for Garage Facing Street to read: 3. Additional SliItba&k Offset for Garage Facing Street If a garage is located on the front half of a lot and faces the street, the garage walls and doors must be sst 138slt offset at least 5 feet from the face of the main residence. See Figure 2.05.015.X.3: Additional ~8Ul8@!r Offset for Garage Facing Street. E. Revise Figure 2.05.015.x.3: Additional Setback for Garage Facing Street to read: "Figure 2.05.015.x.3: Additional ~8t1iJ8g!r Offset for Garage Facing Streef F. Revise Section 2.05.015.Z: Minimum Site Area Devoted to Landscaping to read. . "Z. Minimum Site Area Devoted to Landscaping. In all residential districts except the RLD-9 District and the RHD-20 District no less than 15 percent of any site. shall be devoted to landscaping. With the exception of areas for entry and exit, all required front and street side setbacks shall be landscaped and such areas shall be credited to the required landscaping. A minimum of 25 percent of any lot in the RLD-9 District shall be devoted to landscaping. Also refer to Section 2.05.015.88: Open Space Reauirements for applicable open space reauirements in the RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts. n G. Revise Section 2.05.015.EE: Roof Decks to read: . "EE. Roof Decks. Roof Decks are allowed in the residential districts pursuant to Table 2.05.015: Development Standards for Residential Districts. In addition, all required roof deck railings in accordance with the provisions of the California Building Code shail not exceed the main building envelope and height limit provisions of Table 2.05.015.J: Determination of Daylight Planes - RLD-9, RMD-18, and RHD-20 Districts, and Section 2.05.015.K: Building Height - RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts. The provisions of Section 2.05.015.J.4: Exceptions to Main Building Envelope, are not applicable to roof decks. In the RHD-20 District roof decks are not allowed above a height of 21.5 feet for lots FRef'8 ~ 37.5 feet wide or wider." f>C Resolution 08-13.Flnal Draft TItle 11 .Zonlng 5 Planning Commission Resolution 08-13 re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, March 26, 2008 . H. Revise Section 4.20.020: Shared Parking, sub-Section A.1: Permit Requirement, to read: "1. Permit Requirement. P.A ABR'liFlistFStiv8 A Conditional Use Permit may be approved for shared parking facilities serving more than 1 use on a site or serving more than 1 property. The use permit may allow for a reduction of the total number of spaces required by this Chapter if the following findings are made, in addition to the required findings pursuant to Chapter 5.20: Development Permits, Section 5.20.020: Required Findings:" I. Revise Section 6.05.010: Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases: "Bedroom" to read: ""Bedroom": any room located within a dwelling unit that is used primarily for sleeping purposes by its residents and that contains at least 70 square feet of floor area and contains a closet. Rooms designated as a "den," "library," "study," "loft" or other extra room that satisfies this definition and is not a kitchen, living room, or bath will be considered a bedroom." Section 8. The Planning Commission also requests that the City . Council consider conducting an "economic impact analysis' of the proposed Title 11 to determine if there would be any clearly identifiable and substantially adverse fiscal impacts to the community as a direct result of the adoption of Title 11: Zoning, as recommended. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 26th day of March, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bello, Deaton, DeLay, and Massa-Lav!tt NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners Roberts ABSTAIN: Commissioners . PC Resolution 08-13.F1nal Draft TItle 11 Zoning 6 . . . Planning Commission Resolution 08-13 re: Final Draft - TrtJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, March 26, 2008 0././ O"I~ 17A7//J~ Ellery Deato Chairperson of the Planning Commission r e Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Com PC Resolution 08-13.Flnal Draft Trtle 11 Zonln9 7 . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code. City Council Staff Report April 14, 2008 ATTACHMENT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCH 19, 2008 . . CC Staff Report.04-14-08 16 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 - 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 e5 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2008 MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Bello to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Deaton, Bello, Delay, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts None None Mr. Flower advised that the adoption of Resolution Nos. 08-7 and 08-8 begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow moming. SCHEDULED MATTERS None. ( PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Final Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11: Zoning Citywide ApplicanUOwner: Request: City of Seal Beach To conduct Public Hearing by receiving Staff Report, public comments, and Commission discussion; consider the "Final Draft Title 11: Zoning" and public comments; and provide comments regarding Negative Declaration 08-1. Close or continue the public hearing. If the Commission determines to close the public hearing, take the following actions: o Provide any comments regarding Initial Study/Negative Declaration 08-1, and o Adopt Resolution Number 08-13, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Amending the Seal Beach Municipal Code by Deleting Chapter 28, Zoning, in its Entirety and Adopting a New Title 11, Zoning. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 08-13. 3 of 13 1( 2 : ; 3 \ 4 ' I 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 \ ) ! , , \ 1. \ i i ! J ! I ! ; 2. city of Sea/ Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2008 Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background infonmation on this item and noted that this is the initial public hearing for the Final Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11: Zoning. He explained that the Planning Commission (PC) serves as a recommending body to the City Council, which is the final decision-making body for approval and adoption of the revised Zoning Code (ZC). He stated that once public hearings before the PC are concluded and a resolution is adopted with any amendments to the final draft document, the ZC packet will be forwarded to CC for public hearing and eventual adoption. He noted that tonight members of the public may also comment on the Initial Study/ Negative Declaration (IS/ND) prepared for this project, and the Environmental Quality Control Board (EQCB) is also to review the IS/ND at the scheduled meeting of Wednesday, March 26, 2008, at 6:30 p.m., and the public may also provide comments at that meeting. He stated that the IS/ND evaluates the adoption of the ZC, as proposed, and indicates that there are no adverse environmental impacts from the adoption of the ZC. The Director of Development Services then explained that once the PC closes the public hearings, a draft resolution prepared by Staff for adoption by the PC will be forwarded to CC with any recommendation for amendments or revisions. He noted that Staff has already included one revision based on comments from Robert Goldberg regarding the language in one particular section. He noted that Staff has provided the following memoranda regarding: Memo 1 - Public Comment Received - Pubic Hearing Title 11, Zoning a. E-mail from Rickie Layman expressing her opposition to 3-story structures b. E-mail with attached letter from Robert Goldberg suggesting amendment to the proposed ZC that would make shared parking programs subject to the Conditional Use Permit review process, and technical corrections on cross references in the ZC. c. E-mail with attached letter from Seth Eaker, with the Seal Beach Chamber & Business Association, indicating their support of the proposed language regarding non-amplified music at commercial locations. Memo 2 - Proposed Numbering - Title 11: Zoning a. Proposed renumbering of the ZC as recommended Attorney, and Staff. by the City Clerk, City 3. Memo 3 - Provision of Draft Minutes of March 5, 2008. (Memoranda are onfilefor inspection in the Planning Department.) , I , I \ Mr. Whittenberg then provided a brief history of the ZC study sessions, noting that the \ PC has been in the process of review for approximately 13 months, with study sessions \. commencing in February 2007 and consisting of 3 joint sessions with the PC and CC in February and early March. The PC subsequently continued with an additional 10 study 4 of 13 . . . - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 - 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 Meeting Minutes of March 19. 2008 /-- -.~ / ( \ sessions to discuss various aspects of the new ZC. He noted that the Staff Report contains the minute excerpts for all of the above-noted study sessions for reference purposes, and Staff has also compiled two notebooks with copies of all Staff Reports presented throughout this process. (Notebooks are on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) Mr. Whittenberg then reiterated that this is a complete revision to the existing ZC and Staff believes that the proposed revision reflects the most appropriate and best available development regulation standards to meet the desires of the community as expressed to Staff, the PC, and CC, over an approximate 2-year time period. He noted that the last revision of the City ZC was in 1974, at which time the entire ZC was 97 pages long, but due to the changing environment in the world and the evolving issues that cities must deal with and address, the proposed revised ZC is approximately 600 pages long,. He explained that because this is a comprehensive revision, tonight's presentation will highlight those areas where significant change both procedurally and for the development regulations has been incorporated into the new ZC. (Copy of Presentation is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) . He explained that the new ZC does not propose amendments to the basic lot size, density, building intensity, I setbacks, lot coverage, height limits, parking, or sign regulations of the existing ZC. He \ stated that what has been added are design regulations, particularly in the residential i and commercial zoning districts, and complete revisions to the procedural sections, with \ the major change is the creation of the Administrative Use Permit (AUP) process, which replaces the current Minor Plan Review and Height Variation procedures. He expiained that the AUP would be a Staff review function, with Staff decisions subject to appeal to the PC. He noted that the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process has been retained and a number of nonexistent discretionary reviews have been placed under the CUP category. The Director of Development Services continued by noting that the major new provisions relate to design issues such as Floor Area Ratio, building envelope, and other accessory design issues regarding residential and commercial uses. He indicated that Attachment 3 of the Staff Report provides a section-by-section overview of the major provisions of the entire ZC, and in some cases, subsection by subsection. He added that Attachment 4 is a summary overview of what was presented at the study sessions, including public comments and PC and CC comments and/or direction. He noted that this summary was prepared to facilitate reviewing this information without having to go through the minute excerpts. Mr. Whittenberg then explained that in going through this process, Staff has attempted to identify the major issues that remain concems to the public, like creating the means for limiting mass, bulk, and monotony of residential development, while allowing property owners to retain reasonable use of their property in a manner that would not adversely affect neighboring property. He then commented on the question of "How far can the City go into these types of regulations?" and noted that in preparing the Preliminary Draft Zoning Code, Staff reviewed zoning ordinances from approximately 40 California coastal cities that are dealing with some of the same issues related to the effects' of teardowns of older homes to rebuild very large new homes in the midst of existing neighborhoods. He explained that in reviewing these codes Staff provided a 5 of 13 City of Saal Baach Planning Commission Meeting MInutes of March 19, 2008 ( 1 number of studies and ideas to the PC for consideration on ways to deal with bulk and . 2 mass, as follows: 3 o Setbacks o Lot Coverage o Floor Area Ratio FAR o Building Volume Ratio o Landscape Volume Ratio 4 5 He noted that currently the City only uses lot setbacks and building coverage, which 6 allows for construction within a defined area on a lot, not to exceed the height limit. He 7 explained that FARs provide an additional layer of regulation along with the existing 8 standards, and these combined standards will define the "maximum building envelope" 9 where the maximum habitable area of a residence can be built. He then listed other 10 design elements presented to the PC, most of which are incorporated into the proposed 11 ZC, as follows: 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 0 Roof Orientation 0 Windows 0 Roof Styles 0 Entry Detail / 0 Building Orientation 0 Materials 0 Trim Detailing 0 Garage Doors 0 Porches He then referred to Attachment 1 of the May 23, 2007 Staff Report, which provides excerpts from an American Planning Association (APA) 2004 document entitled "Too Big, Boring, or Ugly: Planning and Design Tools to Combat Monotony, the Too Big House, and Teardowns.>> He noted that Staff used some ideas and references from this article to look at what other cities are doing to deal with these issues. He stated that another APA 2005 article entitled "Mansionization and Its Discontents, D discussed additional efforts by cities in dealing with teardowns and rebuilding of large homes, and several ideas from both of these documents were incorporated into the proposed ZC. He then said that in the opinion of Staff, based upon the comments received by the PC and CC throughout the last two years, current standards are not sufficient to address the concems of the community. Mr. Whittenberg said Staff recommends that the FAR be incorporated into the ZC and although there are other building envelope standards and setbacks for 2nd and 3nd floors to deal with mass and bulk, Staff continues to believe that the FAR is a good tool to clearly indicate how large a home can be constructed on a lot. The Director of Development Services then briefly reviewed the May 23, 2007, Staff Report that presents further discussion on the proposed use of FARs. He indicated that at that time Staff had evaluated 15 developments in Old Town and 15 on The Hill area and found that there was 1 in the RLD-9 and 4 in the RHD-20 District that exceeded the proposed FARs, and noted that in the RHD-20 District those properties that exceeded the FAR were primarily the result of large third stories. He explained that converting the current lot coverage and height standards to an FAR would generally allow between a 0.82 and 0.855 FAR, and the new proposed standard ranges from 0.70 up to a maximum 0.85. He noted that generally most people have not built to the \ maximum lot coverage allowed. He then reviewed the "Overview of Average Residence \.." Size vs. Allowable Residence Size, n as shown on Pages 21-23 for 2-story and 3-story . I I I I i I . 6 of 13 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 - 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 - City of Seal BeBch Plenning Commission MBeting Minutes of Merch 19, 2008 homes within the RHD-9 and RHD-20 Districts, noting that in the RHD-20 District current lot coverage allows for a FAR range between 1.37 and 1.43, increasing based upon lot width up to an FAR of 2.09 to a maximum of 2.11 for 3-story homes. He stated that the new standards propose an FAR range of 0.80 to 1.00 for a 2-story home, with an additional .10 to 0.15 for the third floor. He said that currently the average size of a home in the RLD-9 District is 2,900 sq. ft., with a current allowable size of up to 4,400 sq. ft. and indicated that the proposed FARs generally reflect what is currently being built, with the new ZC providing additional provisions to deal with side yard neighborhood compatibility. The Director of Development Services then continued by reviewing Proposed FAR Provisions for 'Third Floor Living Areas Based on Planning Commission Direction on May 23 and October 10, 2007, and February 6 and March 5,2008," as shown on Pages 24-34, followed by a review of "Proposed FAR Design Incentives and FAR Deductions - Third Story," on Pages 35-42. Mr. Whittenberg then briefly discussed the issue of "Utilization of Floor Area Ratio Results in a Taking of Property'," as presented on Pages 43-44, which states that "under well-established law, a government regulation will not constitute a 'taking' where the action advances legitimate state interests and does not completely deprive the property owner of all economically viable use of the land: He explained that property owners are still able to construct homes on their lots, although it would not be as large as those being constructed under the current ZC. He also referred to Attachment 5 in the Staff Report, which identifies at least 31 California cities and 1 county that utilize FARs in their zoning codes. A brief review of "Utilization of Main Building Envelope/Daylight Plane Standards," on Pages 45-55 then followed. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the purpose behind daylight planes is to reduce the mass of rooflines adjacent to side property lines. He noted the exceptions for Gable Roof Elements, Multiple Donmers, Single Dormer, Shed/Flat Roof Elements, and Combination of Gable Roof and Dormers. Mr. Whittenberg then continued with the section on "Complexity of Overlapping Regulations," on Pages 56-62 and stated that perhaps some of the proposed regulations should be reduced, and noted that at the last study session the PC eliminated a ratio of living space on 1st floor to 2nd floor for lots in Old Town, but retained this ratio for properties in College Park East (CPE), College Park West (CPW), and on The Hill. He reiterated that Staff believes that what is proposed fits together in a comprehensible manner, addresses the major issues expressed by the community, and protect substantial rights of residents to design a home that reflects their individual preferences, while minimizing the impacts to neighbors. He then referred to Pages 63- 71displaying tables comparing actual or proposed construction plans of 5 identified projects each within the RLD-9 and the RHD-20 district that generally conform to the proposed Chapter 2.05 ZC standards as discussed. He reminded the PC of its detenmination to eliminate the provisions for Covered Roof Access Structures (CRAS) and replace this with the new standards for elevator shaft structures. 7 of 13 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 2 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 City of Seal Beech Planning Commission MeeUng Minutes of March 19, 2008 Mr. Whittenberg completed his presentation by reviewing Pages 72-80, which present overviews of the proposed standards for the following: . o Garage Parking Standards for Single-Unit Residences o Non-Residential Paris of "Final Draft Zoning Code" o Institution of "Administrative Use Permit" Process o Negative Declaration 08-1 He then opened for questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Questions Chairperson Deaton referred to the e-mail message from Robert Goldberg, and requested discussion on his suggestion to take shared parking plans out of the Administrative Review Permit (AUP) Process and make them subject to a Conditional Use Penmit (CUP). She stated that because of the recent application for a Variance for the Regency Center for a shared parking plan, she believes this would be a good idea. Commissioner Roberts stated that he would support this. Chairperson Deaton requested a motion. MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to make Shared Parking Plans subject to approval through the Conditional Use Penmit process. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: . 5-0 Deaton, Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts None None Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would be included in the resolution for recommendation of approval of the revised Zoning Code (ZC). Commissioner Roberts stated that he agrees with the requirement for a 5-foot garage setback, but he questioned whether the term should be "offset" rather than "setback," to allow for the ability to have the garage in front of or behind the main structure of the house. Chairperson Deaton stated that she believes this involves the PC with a lot of design work, and the PC has attempted to leave this up to the architects. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt said "setback" and "offset" essentially mean the same thing, but she can agree with Commissioner Roberts' intent. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the minimum setback from the front property line to the building would still be required, and this provision basically states that there must be an offset somewhere behind the front property line of at least 5 feet between the garage and house face, and it would be up to the homeowner to decide which. MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Bello to change the wording in Section 2.05.015X.3 to read "offset" instead of "setback." . 8 of 13 ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 -~ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 -~ City of Seal Baach Planning Commission Meating Minutes of March 19, 2008 MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Deaton, Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts None None Public Hearinq Chairperson Deaton opened the pubiic hearing, noting that it is to be continued until next Wednesday, March 26, 2008, at which time members of the public may make additional comments, should they so desire. Seth Eaker stated that the Seal Beach Chamber & Business Association (SBCBA) takes no position on the proposed Zoning Code (ZC) and supports the detenmination of the Planning Commission (PC). He stated that SBCBA wholly supports Staffs recommendations as stated in Section 4.05.010 on unamplified music and tableside entertainment. He then commended the PC detenmination to make shared parking plans subject to the Conditional Use Permit process. He thanked the PC and Staff for all of the hard work on the new ZC. Mike Bubbe thanked the PC and Staff for the work done on the proposed ZC, and he thanked the members of the public for their participation in the process. He stated that the proposed standard have allowed the community to come to a reasonable compromise. He asked to confinm that 3rd story roof decks would not be penmitted on lots 37.5 ft. wide or wider. Chairperson Deaton confinmed that this language has been changed. Carla Watson thanked the Commission for the hard work and attention to the ZC and for the preservation of "historical Old Town" and preventing excessive mansionization in all areas of town. She said most residents of Old Town believe that small is beautrrul, and she supports the proposed ZC, which is a good compromise for the community. She said she hopes the Seal Beach ZC will serve as an example to other beach cities. Dave Broomhead, 14th Street, concurred with Ms. Watson's comments, noting that if third stories are to be allowed, the proposed standards are a suitable compromise. Tom Blackman, Beryl Cove Way, stated that he lives on The Hill, which has a 2-story height limit, and he is very much in favor of zoning. He said that when he purchased his home on The Hill all of the homes were single story homes. Now he has a 2-story home on both sides of his, which has impacted his privacy and view. He commended the work done by Staff and the PC in creating the new ZC, and said he would still like to see the height of homes limited to 2-stories. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the current ZC and the proposed new ZC only allows third stories for single-family residences within Old Town on lots that are 37.5 ft. wide or wider. . Third stories are prohibited in all other areas of the City. 9 of 13 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 Seel Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2008 John DeWitt stated he supports a 25-ft. height limit for homes and believes that the new ZC provides a "meaningful compromise." He thanked the PC and Staff for the work done on this project. He indicated that the focus of this work has not been to restrict people from building what they would like, but on how large structures will impact immediate neighbors and the City of Seal Beach. Jim Wolfelt, 16th 'Street, expressed his dismay at having a 3-story home constructed next door to his home. He said he is "totally against 3-stories," and they should be prohibited. . Joyce Parque noted that there are many 3-story apartment buildings in Old Town. She stated that aside from limiting 3rd stories in Old Town, the new ZC will limit the size of 2nd story homes as well. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that at the last study session there was discussion on establishing a ratio for square footage for 1st and 2nd floors of homes within Old Town, but the PC instructed Staff to eliminate this provision, which has been done. She again noted that residents in Bridgeport are enclosing their balconies to create additional living space without the requirement to provide additional parking space, and that a microwave dish was installed near her home without the benefit of public notice or a permit. Scott Levitt asked if the PC has completed economic studies on the loss of property tax revenues that would occur if homes are smaller. He stated that limiting the size of homes may deter people from moving to Seal Beach to build a home, and with each square foot for a home sold in Seal Beach valued at approximately $500-600 per square foot, this creates a large impact on City revenues. He then referred to Section 1.15.020.6 showing the standards for chimneys, eaves, and cornices and questioned whether this only allows 12 linear feet of cornice on the sides. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this refers to allowable projections into a setback area. Mr. Levitt then observed that the standard requiring that all windows be recessed 2 inches or have trim around them would limit architectural creativity. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this would only apply to the street-facing elevation of the home. Mr. Levitt asked if the 15 percent requirement for landscaping would include the side yards and rear of the home. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would include the front and side yards. Mr. Levitt then noted that in the FAR Table Bonus, No. 14 states "total structural coverage"; however, this term is not found within the new ZC, and this is totally different than "lot coverage." He then confirmed that based upon FAR Table 19, every 2nd story in Old Town must be set back 10 feet from the first floor area. Chairperson Deaton instructed Mr. Levine to provide Staff with the remainder of his questions, and Staff would provide responses. . Eldon Alexander stated that he also wanted to see an economic analysis, and was told that this would be presented tonight. Commissioner Roberts stated that as he understands, the PC is not to deal with the economic analysis, but that City Council would do so. Mr. Whittenberg explained that Planning Commissions is not a legislative body and, historically, does not deal with an economic impact because it is looking at a land use compatibility issue and not an economic issue. He indicated that this is r served for the consideration of City Council, which is the legislative body. He then . 10 of 13 e1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 2 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ., City of Seal Beech Plennlng Commission Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2008 stated that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) does not consider the economic impacts of a project, although sometimes cities will request that a separate economic impact analysis be completed on a particular project. but zoning issues do not deal with economic impacts. Chairperson Deaton suggested that Mr. Alexander bring his concerns before City Council during the public hearings for the ZC. Mr. Alexander then referred to Page 6 of the Staff Report regarding FARs for the RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts and noted that with the proposed design regulations homes within the RLD-9 District would experience a 14.5% reduction in the amount of buildable space; in the RHD-20 District, there would be a 41.6% reduction for 2-story homes, and 56.9% for 3-story homes. He then addressed the requirements for garage spaces, and again noted that he does not believe there is a parking problem in Seal Beach, with the exception of properties located between Electric Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), and stated there have been no studies indicating that parking is a problem. He then suggested that the definition for a "bedroom" state, "Existence of a closet is the presumption of a bedroom use." Mr. Alexander then asked if the Negative Declaration (ND) for this project was prepared. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that it has been completed and copies are available to the public. Warren Morton stated that he believes the PC and Staff are on the right track and encouraged moving forward. Robert Goldberg thanked the PC and Staff for completion of this process and for the multiple opportunities to comment and for the attentiveness extended to his suggestions. He noted that this has been a long, but very interactive process. With regard to the comments on an economic analysis, he noted that in simply looking at a decrease in the maximum square footage allowed, obviously there will be potential costs. He stated that in reviewing the City Budget although there are some long-term problems, they must be addressed through the budgetary process. He said he would never advocate building Seal Beach out to the maximum in an attempt to bring more revenues to the City. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton continued the public hearing to the adjourned meeting of Wednesday, March 26, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. She noted that the emphasis at that meeting will be on commercial/industrial and the remainder of the ZC. Mr. Whittenberg stated that for those issues raised tonight for which Staff had no answer, they wiil prepare a memo responding to these issues for distribution at the meeting of March 26tf1. Chairperson Deaton thanked all those members of the public who have participated in this process. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Roberts stated that he would probably not be present at the meeting of March 26th and recommended that Resolution 08-13 include language stating that the public had repeatedly requested of the PC that an economic analysis be completed. With regard to the Ms. Parque's comments about a microwave dish being installed without notice near the vicinity of her home, Commissioner Roberts stated that he would 11 of 13 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 MeeUng Minutes of March 19, 2008 like a response to this. Mr. Whittenberg explained that under the provisions of federal law, certain size microwave dishes are automatically allowed. He noted that Chapter 4.70 of the new ZC deals specifically with wireless communications facilities and reflects current federal and state law regarding what cities can and cannot do to regulate these types of installations. Commissioner Roberts then stated that although there has been a lot of discussion about parking, he believes CPE has no major issues. He said that the new ZC makes a significant compromise with regard to accountable space being within the parking lot and requiring 3 parking spaces for a 5-bedroom house is not an unreasonable request. He agreed that a definition of a bedroom must be included in the ZC. Commissioner Roberts then referred to Section 4.05.050 Drive-ln/Drive- Through Facilities, and noted that he sees nothing in this section that addresses trash receptacles and enclosed dumpsters for food service locations. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff is meeting with the Orange County Health Care Agency and the Orange County Fire Authority to sort out conflicting issues between these agencies. He indicated that Staff would revisit this issue after the ZC is adopted. . Commissioner Bello thanked all of the members of the public who have participated in this process. She said she believes a good compromise has been accomplished and she feels good about this. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt also thanked the members of the community who have consistently attended the study sessions and provided input. She then thanked Staff, noting that they have done an excellent job of tracking and compiling all of this infonmation. . Commissioner DeLay commended Staff for the excellent work done on this project. Mr. Whittenberg requested a motion to approve the proposed universal numbering of Title 11: Zoning, as requested in the Staff Memorandum dated, March 19, 2008. He noted that this would be included in Resolution 08-13 to City Council. MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Roberts to approve the proposed Chapter and Section Number for Title 11: Zoning as presented by Staff. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Deaton, Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts None None Chairperson Deaton stated that she understands that there are people on both sides of the issues that are not happy, and she received only one e-mail this week speaking against third stories, but she has also heard from the other side requesting that nothing be taken away. She said the PC has done what it can, and thanked the Commissioners and Staff for their participation in this process. . 12 of 13 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~ 26 27 28 . City of Seal Beech Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 19. 2008 STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg reiterated that this public hearing will be continued to Wednesday, March 26, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. He noted that there would be no Staff presentation at that meeting, unless the PC has something it wishes Staff to present. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Roberts stated that since he will not be present at the next meeting, has wishes to state that he has no input for Initial Study/Negative Declaration 08-1 ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Deaton adjoumed the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secreta Planning Department APPROVAL The Commission on approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Wednesday, March 19, 2008. 130f13 . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, City Council Staff Report April 14, 2008 ATTACHMENT 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MARCH 26, 2008 . . CC Steff Report.04-14-o8 17 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 _4 CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Adjourned Meeting of March 26, 2008 Chairperson Deaton called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 26, 2008. 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, and Massa-Lavitt. Also Present: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director of Deveiopment Services Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner Steve Flower, Assistant City Attomey Absent: Commissioner Roberts Mr. Whittenberg requested a motion to excuse Commissioner Roberts absence from tonight's meeting. MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by DeLay to excuse Commissioner Roberts from the adjoumed Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 2008. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Deaton, Bello, DeLay, and Massa-Lavitt None Roberts AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Bello; SECOND by DeLay to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Deaton, Bello, DeLay, and Massa-Lavitt None Roberts 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. 1 of 5 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 March 26, 2008 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS . Chairperson Deaton opened oral communications. Joyce Parque requested a response to her comments regarding downzoning of 25-ft. wide lots in Old Town. She referred to Page 15, Lines 21-25 of the draft minutes for March 5, 2008, and confirmed that the maximum for ground floor living space would be 1,000 sq. ft. Chairperson Deaton confirmed with Staff that this ratio has been removed from the Zoning Code (ZC). Mr. Whittenberg stated that it was removed. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed oral communications. CONSENT CALENDAR None. SCHEDULED MATTERS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS . 1. Final Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11: Zoning Citywide (Continued from March 19, 2008) Applicant/Owner: City of Seal Beach To conduct Public Hearing by receiving Staff Report, public comments, and Commission discussion; consider the "Final Draft Title 11: Zoning" and public comments; and provide comments regarding Negative Declaration 08-1. Close or continue the public hearing. Request: If the Commission determines to close the public hearing, take the following actions: o Provide any comments regarding Initial Study/Negative Declaration 08-1, and o Adopt Resolution Number 08-13, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Amending the Seal Beach Municipal Code by Deleting Chapter 28, Zoning, in its Entirety and Adopting a New Title 11, Zoning. . 2 of 5 - 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 - 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 Meeting Minutas of March 26, 2008 ~ Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 08-13. Staff Reoort Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided brief comments on the previous public hearing of March 19th and noted that a Supplemental Staff Report was prepared and is available for the public tonight. He indicated that the Supplemental Staff Report summarizes discussion from that meeting and includes comments from the Commissioners with direction provided to Staff, a summary of public comments along with responses, and on Pages 5-16 begins a discussion of additional responses after review of public hearing discussion along with the written response to a communication from Scott Levitt. He noted that Staff has also added proposed revisions to Resolution 08-13 to City Council, which appears on Page 30-35. Chairperson Deaton asked if a copy of responses to his comments was forwarded to Mr. Levitt. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that this would be forwarded via e-mail to Mr. Levitt. He then referred to Page 31 and briefly reviewed the proposed additional changes to the ZC based upon public comments and direction from the PC direction. (Resolution 08-13 is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) With regard to how cornices wouid be measured Mr. Whittenberg noted that Item B on Page 32 revises the language so that eaves and cornices are classified under the same category and will not be used for measurement purposes for setbacks. Chairperson Deaton asked if these revisions would be in compiiance with Fire Code standards for narrow lots. Mr. Whittenberg stated that for years these features have been permitted to project 1-foot into the 3-foot side yard setback and are not an issue with Fire Code. Chairperson Deaton then asked if neighboring homes having these projections in exactly the same spot would be a problem. Mr. Whittenberg stated that with a fence between the two properties this would not be a problem. He then noted Item C on Pages 32-33, refiects the proposed changes to Table 2.05.015, Landscaping and Open Space, eliminating the requirement for a 15% landscaping for residential lots in the RHD-20 District and proposing a percentage for landscaping of front yards as presented in Section BB of the ZC. Mr. Whittenberg continued by reviewing the proposed changes as outlined in Items D. through I., and then stated that now would be the time for the PC and the public to add any other comments or complete discussion on the ZC. Commissioner Comments Chairperson Deaton noted that the community's participation has really been reflected as the ZC has been revised and refined. She thanked Staff for taking the time to listen . to the community and incorporate many of their recommendations for change. She also " noted that the ZC is "a living and fluid document" and the PC and Staff have done the ~est they can with it and will now pass it on to City Council for their review and adoption. 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l MOTION CARRIED: 21 AYES: 22 NOES: 23 ABSENT: 24 25 STAFF CONCERNS 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 MeeUng Minutes of March 26. 200B She reiterated that if something is not working, it can be brought back before the PC for review. . Public Hearinq Chairperson Deaton re-opened the public hearing. Mike Bubbe reiterated that he believes the ZC represents a "good compromise" for all concerned. He stated that although the ZC has helped to reduce the size of third stories, he would still prefer to see no third stories at all. He said everyone has done a good job. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public hearing. MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to adopt as presented Resolution 08-13 recommending to the City Council amending the Seal Beach Municipal Code by deleting Chapter 28, Zoning, in its entirety and adopting a new Title 11, Zoning. 4-0-1 Deaton, Bello, DeLay, and Massa-Lavitt None Roberts . Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting would be held on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, and noted that there are several public hearing items on that agenda. He then thanked the PC and the public for their participation in the revision of the ZC. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner DeLay thanked the public for their input during this process. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Deaton adjourned the meeting at 7:53 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~^'~/ Carmen Alvarez, Executive SecrEhary Planning Department . 4 of 5 - 3 4 . . APPROVAL Cffy of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutas of March 26. 2008 The Commission on approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Wednesday, March 26, 2008. 5 of 5 . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, City Council Staff Report April 14, 2008 ATTACHMENT 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, MARCH 19, 2008 . . CC Staff Report.04-14-08 18 . March 19,2008 STAFF REPORT .' " To: Chainman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - FINAL DRAFT - MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 11: ZONING SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Conduct Public Hearing by receiving Staff Report, public comments and Commission discussion; consider the "Final Draft Title 11: Zoning" and public comments; and provide comments regarding Negative Declaration 08-1. Close or continue the public hearing." . If the Commission detenmines to close the public hearing, take the follOWing actions: o Provide any comments regarding Initial StudylNegative Declaration 08-1, and o Adopt Resolution Number 08-13, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Amending the Seal Beach Municipal Code by Deleting Chapter 28, Zoning, in its Entirety and Adopting a New Title 11, Zoning. (Please' refer to Attachment 1 to review the Resolution) ,. BACKGROUND: This public hearing is to receive public testimony regarding the consideration of the adoption of a new Zoning Code for the City of Seal Beach. Please refer to your previously distributed copy of "Seal Beach Municipal Code Final Draft- Title 11: Zoning, March 2008" to review the document under consideration for review and adoption. The "Final Draft Title 11: Zoning" is noted as Attachment 2 of the Staff report, but not provided due to the length of the document. Copies were made available at each library in the City, at City Hall, and posted on the City's Web Page for viewing and download at: ''http://pubrec.ci.seal-beach.ca.uslweblink7/City-wide Agendas - Drafts - Notices/Final Draft and Notices - Title 11 - Zoning Code", on March 11.2008. . This pubic hearing is the culmination of a 13 month process by the City to complete a comprehensive revision and update to the Zoning Code of the City. During that period of time the City has conducted a total of 16 Study Sessions, as indicated below: \\SBNAS\Users\LWh1llenberglMy DocumentslZonlng Coda Revlslons\Saa1 Beach RevlslonalFinal Draft Zoning Cocla\PC Stall ReportO~11-o8.doc\LW\O~1 Hl8 D February 21, 2007; Joint CC and PC o February 26, 2007; Joint PC and CC o March 7, 2007; Joint PC and CC o May 9, 2007; Planning Commission D May 23, 2007; Planning Commission o June 6, 2007; Planning Commission o June 20, 2007; Planning Commission o July 18,2007; Planning Commission Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlfle 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 o August 8, 2007; Planning Commission o September 19, 2007; Planning Commission o October 3, 2007; Planning Commission o October 10, 2007; Planning Commission o November 7, 2007; Planning Commission o December 5, 2007; Planning Commission o February 6, 2008; Planning Commission, and o March 5, 2008; Planning Commission Copies oUhe Minutes...of these "Study -Sessions" are provided as Attachments 7 through.. 20 for the infonmaliOn of the Planning Commission. . Staff Reports or Presentation materials were prepared for the following meetings, but are . not provided due to the length of the documents. These documents are available at the Office of the City Clerk and the Department of Development Services for review by interested persons: 0 February 21, 2007; Joint CC and PC D July 18, 2007; Planning Commission Presentation Staff Report and Presentation 0 February 26, 2007; Joint PC and CC 0 September 19, 2007; Planning Presentation Commission Staff Report 0 March 7, 2007; Joint PC and CC 0 October 10, 2007; Planning Presentation Commission Presentation 0 May 9, 2007; Planning Commission 0 January 23, 2008; Planning Staff Report Commission Staff Report, and 0 May 23, 2007; Planning Commission 0 March 5, 2008; Planning Commission Staff Report Staff Report and Presentation. 0 June 6, 2007; Planning Commission Presentation pc Staff Raporl 03-11-08 . 2 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - TItle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED TITLE 11: ZONING The Proposed TItle 11: "Zoning" is a complete revision of the City's Zoning Code and is intended to reflect the most appropriate and best available development regulations and standards to meet the desires of the community regarding future development within the City. Such a comprehensive revision effort has not been undertaken within the community since 1974. As such, there are significant changes from both procedural and development regulation standards incorporated into the proposed Zoning Code that do not currently exist in the present Zoning Code. The proposed project consists of the adoption of a Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. The proposed Title 11, Zoning, does not propose any amendments to the basic lot size, density and building intensity, setback, lot coverage, height, parking, and sign regulations of the current zoning Code. likeWise, there are no changes to allowable arid discretionary land uses within the City, other than minor uses such a news stands and kiosks. New provisions related to a number of design related issues are proposed, such as floor area ratio, building envelope, and other design and aesthetic matters of concern to the City. In addition an 'Administrative Use Permif' approval process is proposed which would allow the Director of Development Services to review and approve several types of discretionary land use approvals that are currently reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Attachment 3 of this Staff Report is an "Overview Summary: Major Provisions of Proposed Title 11, Zoning." Attachment 4 of this Staff Report is an "Overview Summary - Study Sessions." OVERVIEW OF REMAINING MAJOR ISSUES OF CONCERN CONSIDERED DURING THE STUDY SESSIONS: During the Study Sessions the following issues appear to Staff to be the remaining major issues of concem to certain members of the public and seemed to generate the most comments and discussion between interested members of the public and the Planning Commission. pc Stall' Report03-11-<J8 3 Public Hearing re: Final Draft- Tttle 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Planning Tools to Regulate Mass, BuJk and Monotony of Residential Development: As staff prepared the "Preliminary Draff' and now the "Final Draff' of Tille 11, Zoning Code there was several issues that became matters of primary focus in relation to standards for residential development in the City. A primary goal of the new Zoning Code is to develop appropriate regulations for Seal Beach to be able to respond to concerns expressed about the size, mass and bulk of recent residential developments, but to still allow a property owner and their building designer a great deal of flexibility in designing either a new home or a major addition to an existing home in such a manner as to meet the needs of the residents of the new or expanded living unit while ensuring that such development does not adversely impact adjacent residents and the overall appearance of the community. The focus of public comments regarding the "Preliminary Draff' . <residential development standards has been regarding what interested persons feel is the appropriate level of governmental regulation into the sensitive area of regulating the size, mass, bulk, and design of residences. City Staff reviewed approximately 40 zoning codes, focusing primarily on codes for local communities located along a coastal environment and being subject to similar development pressures regarding teardowns and the building of larger homes. In reviewing those zoning codes and other related reports and studies a number of provisions regarding the following areas of concern were reviewed and considered by Staff: . Bulk Regulation Standards o Lot Setbacks o Building Coverage o Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Design Elements to Prevent Monotony o Building Volume Ratio (BVR) o Landscape Volume Ratio (LVR) 0 Roof Orientation 0 Windows 0 Roof Styles 0 Entry Details 0 Building Orientation 0 Materials 0 Trim Detailing 0 Garage Doors 0 Porches Provided as Attachment 1 to the May 23, 2007 Planning Commission Staff report were excerpts from a report titled "Too Big, Boring, or Ugly: Planning and Design Tools to . PC Staff Report03-11-08 4 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - TlfJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 Combat Monotony, the Too-big House, and Teardowns', December 2004, prepared by the American Planning Association (APA) that provided general discussion regarding the usefulness of the above-mentioned design tools for the infonmation of the Planning Commission and interested parties during the Study Sessions. Provided as Attachment 2 to the May 23, 2007 Planning Commission Staff report was an article titled "Mansionization and Its Discontents", published in the Joumal of the American Planning Association, Spring 2005, that provided additional discussion and presentation of efforts of other communities (Winnetka, Illinois; Sunnyvale, Califomia; and Menlo Park, Califomia) to deal with concerns related to the issues discussed above for the infonmation of the Planning Commission and interested parties during the Study Sessions. Based on the staff review process, the proposed regulations incorporate many ideas from the referenced APA documents, other reports, and city zoning codes that address these areas of concem. The City currently utilizes setback, lot coverage and height restrictions to limit the size of a structure on residentially zoned lots. Those design regulations are not sufficient, in the opinion of staff, to deal with the articulated concems of the community, Planning Commission, and City Council regarding the types of current residential development that are occurring within the community. o Utilization of Floor Area Ratio as a Planning Tool to Regulate Mass and Bulk of Residential Development: As a resuit of the above stated concerns, and based on Planning Commission direction at the conclusion of the Study Sessions, the "Final Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning" has been prepared to propose regulations to address these concerns within the context of development in Seal Beach. The first area of proposed regulations that is a continuing issue of discussion is the proposal to include a "Floor Area Ratio' ("FAR") standard to further address the issues discussed above. It should be noted that other proposed regulations also address the mass and bulk of structures and that the use of FAR Is not required to be included. However, FAR does provide a clear limitation as to the size of the habitable living area that can be developed on a particular building site as a percentage of the total building site area. It is a matter of discretion and policy detenmination by the Planning Commission, and ultimately the City Council, if FAR is detenmined to be appropriate for inclusion pc Staff Report03-11-OO 5 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Trtfe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 in the new Zoning Code provisions. The proposed FAR standards have generated the most pubic discussion and comments during the study session process. Staff is of the opinion that such regulations would be beneficial to the community. Provided as Attachment 4 to the May 23 Planning Commission Staff Report is a table titled "Preliminary Draft Zoning Code - Comparison of Existing Lot Coverage and Proposed FAR Standards re: Allowable Building Area" for infonmation of the Planning Commission and interested public. This table provides an analysis of 30 recent residential development projects either constructed or approved for construction in the City. Provided as Attachment 5 to that same Staff Report is a copy of the presentation staff gave at the March 7, 2007 Joint Study Session regarding "Residential Development Comparison - Current Developments & Proposed Standards" for the infonmation of the reviewing public and Planning Commission. Of the 30 developments evaluated and presented in Attachments 4 and 5 of the May 23, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report, only 1 in the RLD-9 District and . 4 in the RHD-20 District were approved/constructed with a square footage greater than the proposed FAR. o The current Zoning Code lot coverage provisions generally would allow for a FAR of between 0.82 and 0.855 in the RLD-9 District; while the proposed FAR standards would allow a FAR between 0.70 to 0.85, depending on the lot size and the use of the "Additional Design Feature FAR Bonuses" and "Design Feature FAR Deductions" allowed pursuant to proposed Section 2.05.015.D.1, and Tables 2.05.015.0.1 and 2.05.015.0.2, respectively, as indicated on pages 14-21 of Chapter 2.05. o The current Zoning Code lot coverage provisions generally would allow for a FAR of between 1.37 and 1.43 for 2-story homes and an FAR between 2.09 and 2.11 for 3-story homes in the RHD-20 District; while the proposed FAR standards would allow a FAR between 0.80 to 1.10 for properties limited to 2 stories and an additional 0.10 to 0.15 FAR for properties penmitted to have a third floor living area, depending on the lot size and the use of the "Additional Design Incentive FAR Bonuses" and "Design Feature FAR Deductions" established pursuant to Section 2.05.015.D and Section 2.05.015.E, and Tables 2.05.015.D.1, 2.05.015.D.2, 2.05.015.E.1 and 2.05.015.E.2, respectively, as indicated on pages 14-23 of Chapter 2.05. . pc Staff Raport.03-11~8 6 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 o Overview of Average Residence Size vs. Allowable Residence Size: o In the RLD-9 District the average size of the home to be constructed was 2,967.75 square feet, with the smallest being 1,866 square feet (621 Island View, a single story home) and the largest being 5,914 square feet (1701 Crestview). The average size that would be allowed by the proposed FAR is between 4,183 and 4,820 square feet, utilizing the Base FAR and the maximum bonus FAR proposed. Homes being constructed currently in the RLD-9 District are on the average being built at approximately 70% of the proposed FAR standard. The average lot size of the properties analyzed in the RLD-9 District was 6,371 square feet, with a range between 5,000 and 10,092 square feet. o In the RHD-20 District the average size of the home to be constructed was 2,644.88 square feet, with the smallest being 1,373 square feet (121 Eleventh Street, a single story home) and the largest being 4,054 square feet (243 Fifteenth Street, a 3-story home). The average size that would be allowed by the proposed FAR is between 3,042 and 3,364 square feet, utilizing the Base FAR and the maximum bonus FAR proposed. Homes being constructed currently in the RHD-20 District are on the average being built at approximately 87% of the proposed FAR standard. The average lot size of the properties analyzed in the RHD-20 District was 3,218.8 square feet, with a range between 2,469 and 4,406 square feet. o Proposed FAR Provisions for Third Floor Living Areas Based on Planning Commission Direction on May 23 and October 10,2007, and February 6 and March 5, 2008: In the opinion of Staff the major issue that is still subject to diverse opinions within the community is the determination of an appropriate FAR for lots in the RHD-20 District that qualify to have a third story living area - lots 37.5 feet wide or greater. On February 6, 2008 (please refer to Attachment 19 to review the Minute excerpt) the Commission re-visited this issue and after receiving additional public comments and discussion among the Commission, provided direction to Staff to develop a separate standard for "Base" and "Maximum" Floor Area Ratio's for third-story living areas in the Old Town area and to develop proposed "Additional Design Incentive FAR Bonuses" and "Design Feature FAR Deductions" for this PC Staff ReporlO3-1 1-ll8 7 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 type of development. The Commission indicated that the standards for the "Base" and "Maximum" Floor Area Ratio's for third-story living areas in the Old Town area should be 0.10 and 0.15, respectively. The Commission requested Staff to develop proposed "Additional Design Incentive FAR Bonuses" and "Design Feature FAR Deductions" for Commission review. This approach is similar in concept to the FAR 'Additional Design Incentive FAR Bonuses" and 'Design Feature FAR Deductions" proposed to be utilized for residential development within the City that is limited to 2-story construction. The provisions related to 2-story residential development are set forth in Part II: Base District Regulations; Chapter 2.05: Residential Districts, on pages 14-21, as follows: o Section 2.05.015.C: Floor Area Ratio - Base and Maximum; o Section 2.05.015.C.1: RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts - Areas Excluded from Floor Area Ratio Calculation; o Section 2.05.015.D: Floor Area Ratio Design Incentives and Deductions; including: o Table 2.050.015.D.1: Additional Design Incentive FAR Bonuses; and o Table 2.05.015.0.2: Design Feature FAR Deductions. . Staff prepared the requested provisions for review and consideration of the Commission at their March 5, 2008 Study Session (A Minute Excerpt will be provided to the Commission and public at the march 19 Public Hearing). During the Study Session there were public comments indicating support for the recommended FAR range of "Base" and "Maximum" of 0.10 to 0.15 and a request to consider amending the suggested FAR "Base" and 'Maximum" range to 0.15 and 0.20, respectively. Provided below is a table that indicates the allowable habitable building area for those ranges of "Base" and "Maximum" FAR, and the current Zoning Code allowable habitable building area and derived FAR ratios. Please note that the calculations for the "Current Allowable Area and FAR" assume all lots are served by a 15-foot wide alley, and that the third floor area encompasses full utilization of the rear 1/2 of the lot area allowed by current provisions of the Zoning Code including the minimum side and rear yard setbacks. e pc Staff Roporl.03-11-o8 8 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Third Story Maximum Allowable Habitable Areas: Various FAR Alternatives and Current Zoning Code Provisions 3,750 375 562 750 1,365 (0.36) 4,406.25 440 661 880 1,627 (0.37) 4,000 400 600 800 1,456 (0.36) 4,700 470 705 940 1,752 (0.37) . 5,000 500 750 1,000 1,820 (0.36) 5,875 587 881 1,174 2,170 (0.36) The Commission determined to retain the FAR range of "Base" and "Maximum" to 0.10 to 0.15, respectively. The "Final Dratr document reflects that Commission direction of March 5, 2008. The language regarding the third floor FAR standards and the Design Incentives and Deductions are located in Part II: Base District Regulations; Chapter 2.05: Residential Districts, on pages 15 and 21-23: o Section 2.05.015.C.2: RHD-20 District - Additional Floor Area Ratio; o Section 2.05.015.C.3: RHD-20 District - Area Excluded from Floor Area Ratio; o Section 2.05.015.E: Floor Area Ratio Design Incentives and Deductions: Third Floor, including: o Table 2.050.015.E.1: Additional Design Incentive FAR Bonuses - Third Floor, and o Table 2.05.015.E.2: Design Feature FAR Deductions - Third Floor. The above discussed provisions relative to third floor developments are provided below for ease of review by the Planning Commission and interested persons: "2. RHD-20 District - Additional Floor Area Ratio. Lots in the RHD-20 District that qualify to have a third story living area are allowed an additional 0.10 FAR to determine the allowable third PC staff Report.03-11-D8 9 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 story ""Base" living area and an additional 0.15 FAR to detenmine the allowable third story "Maximum" living area, in addition to the standards set forth in Table 2.05.015.C: Allowable Base and Maximum Floor Area Ratio by Lot Area for non-third story FAR area. See also Table 2.05.015.E.1: Additional Design Incentive FAR Bonuses - Third Floor and Table 2.05.015.E.2: Design Feature FAR Deductions - Third Floor. 3. RHD-20 District - Area Excluded from Floor Area Ratio. Lots in the RHD-20 District - Old Town 37.5 feet wide or greater may include an elevator to provide access to a third floor living area and a second floor roof deck area, not to exceed 40 square feet, so long as the elevator shaft is incorporated into the design of the third floor living area and such area shall not be counted as part of the additional floor area ratio set forth in Section 2.05.015.C.2: RHD-20 District - Additional Floor Area,' above. Such elevator shaft areas shall not exceed the height limit set forth in Section 2.05.015.K.2: RHD-20 District - Old Town. See also Section 2.05.015.FF: Elevator Shaft Structures." . o Proposed FAR Design Incentives and FAR Deductions - Third Story: The proposed "Floor Area Ratio Design Incentives and Deductions: Third Floot' are set forth within Section 2.05.015.E: Floor Area Ratio Design Incentives and Deductions: Third Floor, and Table 2.05.015.E.1, and Table 2.05.015.E.2, on pages 21 to 23 of Part II: Base District Regulations; Chapter 2.05: Residential Districts, and are provided below for ease of review and comment purposes. "E. Floor Area Ratio Design Incentives and Deductions: Third Floor. The Base FAR may be increased up to the Maximum FAR as set forth in Section 2.05.015.C: FloorArea Ratio - Base and Maximum, sub-section C: RHD-20 District - Additional Floor Area Ratio, if the development is designed with a sufficient number of the following design incentives to achieve the Maximum FAR. See also Part VI: Terms and Definitions, for the definition of "Floor Area Ratio" and Part I, Section 1.15.050: Determining Floor Area Ratio, for additional infonmation on calculating Floor Area Ratio. . pc Staff Report03-11-08 10 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 1. Additional Design Incentive FAR Bonuses and Design Feature FAR Deductions - Third Floor. The development is constructed with 1 or more of the following additional design incentives incorporated into the project, as set forth in Table 2.05.015.E.1: Additional Design Incentive FAR Bonuses - Third Floor. Each additional design incentive has a corresponding FAR bonus which is cumulatively added to the Base FAR up to the Maximum FAR penmitted in Section 2.05.015.C: Floor Area Ratio - Base and Maximum, sub-section C: RHD-20 District - Additional Floor Area Ratio. In addition, a list of FAR deductions is set forth in Table 2.05.015.E.2: Design Feature FAR Deductions - Third Floor, which will cumulatively reduce the allowable Maximum FAR penmitted in Section 2.05.015.C: Floor Area Ratio - Base and Maximum, sub-section C: RHD-20 District - Additional Floor Area Ratio. A third story with 1 interior side yard set back a minimum of 15 percent of the required side yard setback for a minimum of 70 percent of the length of the third story side yard wall. 2. A second increased third floor interior side yard setback in accordance with Design Incentive 1 on the opposite interior side yard set back a minimum of 15 percent of the required side yard setback for a minimum of 70 percent of the length of the side yard of the third story. 3. A third story with 1 interior side yard set back a minimum of 15 percent of the required side yard setback for 100 percent of the length of the third story side yard wall. 4. A second increased third floor interior side yard setback in accordance with Design Incentive 3 on the opposite interior side yard set back a minimum of 15 percent of the required side yard setback for 100 percent of the length of the third story side yard wall. EIG. €I 5. All windows facing an interior side yard located a minimum of 5 feet above the third floor finished floor level. 6. All windows facing an interior side yard utilize obscure glass. .02 .03 .03 .04 .02 .02 pc Stsff Report.03-11-08 11 Public Hearing fa: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission 51aff Report March 19, 2008 A third story with 1 interior side yard set back at the minimum required side yard setback for more than 40 percent of the third story side yard wall. 2. A second interior side yard setback in accordance with Design Feature 1 on the opposite interior side yard set back at the minimum required side yard setback for more than 40 percent of the third story side yard wall. 3. More than 20 linear feet of third floor wall length at .the minimum required side yard setback. IG BO 00 l BlIr 4. Windows facing an interior side yard located less than 5 feet above the third floor finished floor level. 5. All windows facing an interior side yard utilize not utilizing obscure glass. - .02 - .03 - .03 - .02 . -.02 o Utilization of Floor Area Ratio Results in a "Taking" of Property: There have been public comments alleging that the proposed utilization of FAR would constitute a "taking" of property without compensation in violation of the U.S. or Califomia Constitutions. However, under well-established law, a govemment regulation will not constitute a "taking" where the action advances legitimate state interests and does not completely deprive a property owner of all economically viable use of the land. Staff and the City Attomey are not aware of any legal judgment by Califomia or Federal Courts finding that the utilization of FAR results in a compensable "taking" under the provisions of the U.S. or Califomia Constitutions. In addition, Staff has identified at least 31 cities and 1 county that utilize a "Floor Area Ratio" standard in its zoning code. A listing of those identified cities is provided as Attachment 5. This listing is not all-inclusive, as Staff has not . 'reviewed every zoning code for every city in Califomia. pc Staff Raport.03-1 1-08 12 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Raport March 19, 2008 o Utilization of Main Building Envelope/Daylight Plane Standards: The standards regarding the building envelope/daylight plane regulations are the other major new development standards proposed to further address the concems regarding the mass and bulk of residential developments within the City, as discussed above under the "FA~ discussion. Overview of DavliQht Plane ConceDt: o The "Final Draft Zoning. Code" includes "Main Building Envelope/Dayfight Plane" regulations to address expressed concems regarding the mass and bulk of homes being constructed within the City. The "Daylight Plane" regulations can result in the reduction of the height of structural walls adjacent to side and rear yards, resulting in the use of roof styles that will result in a lessening of the wall height adjacent to the side or rear yard, such as hip, gable and gambrel roofs. A flat roof would be allowed subject to the plane of the flat roof not encroaching into the "Daylight Plane". If an individual wished to utilize flat roofs, that would still be penmitted as long as the roof and supporting walls did not encroach into the approved "Daylight Plane." The "Final Draft Zoning Code" includes additional exceptions for gable roof; donmers, and shedlflat roof elements that could extend beyond the proposed "Daylight Planes." o Provided below are some general examples of graphic representations of "Daylight Plane" provisions and the proposed exceptions for infonmation of the Planning Commission and public. Please keep in mind that these graphics are provided for illustration purposes and that the annotations to the graphics may not be consistent with the "Final Draft Zoning Code" provisions. PC Staff Raport.03-11-08 13 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - TJt/e 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 . General Concept of "Daylight Planes' . General Concept of Side and Rear Daylight Planes on Level Ground . PC Staff Report.0:;'11-oa 14 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tltia 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 "- "'.,. "- "- .'-.,. ......~, General Concept of Daylight Plane Exception for Gable Roof Elements General Concept of Daylight Plane Exception for Multiple Donmers PC Staff Report03-1 1~ 15 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 . General Concept of Daylight Plane Exception for Single Donmer . !{;, . "::(. .~,\. ~~~., ";". fl' >..J<.'';;'-!1::~~IErJ''''''''. "'-i~"<-.' '. 1'''-'''~~'-'';l~~U~-~d~' .:..r.... '.... ~ ,.... Jl!llli1,~.~e~r~lI'-- ,~ . .01;>- ~"" (~ ,; I:::J-~~~' -.' t~'< ~'J t", ,I ,-"""...' 'l.t~~l': - "~u,,,.f ' ..,..if --- .. . .,' <~~~/'<:..4' :;----'" ~ ~2tp: .: '----,~/~:,....; ..~.~~:!i . . General Concept of Daylight Plane Exemption for ShedlFlat Roof Elements . pc Stafl Report03-11-Q8 16 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 General Concept of Daylight Plane Exemption for Combinations of Gable Roof and Donmers o The proposed "Determination of Daylight Planes - RL0-9, RM0-18, and RHO- 20 Districts", as set forth in Table 2.05.015.1, page 29 of Part II: Base District Regulations; Chapter 2.05: Residential Districts, would impose additional limitations of new structures when located along the minimum side and rear yard setbacks that would be in addition to the current building height and setback standards. COMPLEXITY OF OVERLAPPING REGULATIONS: During the previous study sessions comments were received regarding the complexity of the proposed regulations and that perhaps the extent of the proposed regulations should be reduced. That is an option the Planning Commission and City Council may consider. . Staff continues to believe that the proposed regulations, although requiring additional forethought by an architect or homeowner as to how to best design their project, reflects the community concerns in a manner that is protective of the different neighborhood environments throughout the community while retaining the substantial and important rights of a homeowner to design a home, or addition to a home, that meets their particular desires for living space and architectural style. pc Staff Repart03-11-08 17 Public Hearing re: Final Draft- Trtfe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 In addition to the design standards discussed above regarding "FAR" and "Building Envelope/Daylight Plane" regulations, new standards are proposed for the following general areas of concem: o Section 2.05.015.P: Facade Articulation - Lots Greater than 25 in Width - establishes new standards for "fayade articulation" as a development regulation. o Section 2.05.015.R: Porches - establishes new standards for "porches" as a development option. o Section 2.05.015.5: Additional Front Setback Above 14 Feet - establishes new standards for two-story design elements adjacent to a front setback area as a development regulation. o Section 2.05.015.T: Additional Side Setback or Stepback Above 14 Feet - establishes new standards for two-story design elements adjacent to a side setback area as a development regulation. Establishes separate standards for lots less than 37.5 feet wide and for lots 37.5 feet wide or wider. . o Section 2.05.015.U: Design of Building Additions - establishes new standards for building addition design elements as a development regulation. o Section 2.05.015.X: Limitation on Parking and Garage Frontage establishes new standards for garage design elements as a development regulation. o Section 2.05.015.X.5: Required Garage Exception - RLD-9 District - establishes new standards for number of required garage spaces in RLD-9 District if the driveway has a clear area with minimum dimension of 18 feet by 18 feet and the garage has a roll-up garage door- allows reduction of 1 space in required garage parking for single-unit dwellings with 5 bedrooms or more. o Section 2.05.015.BB: Open Space Requirements - establishes new standards for required private open space for single-unit residences as a development regulation. o Section 2.05.015.00: Development Standards for 2-Story Cabanas/Manufactured Homes - maintains current development standards for 2-story cabanas and clarifies that those standards also apply to 2-story manufactured homes. Restates provisions of Califomia Administrative Code regarding size limitations imposed by State of Califomia regarding the maximum . pc Staff Raport03-11-o8 18 . . . Public Hearing r9: Final Draft - TItle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 size of a cabana (these regulations only apply within the Seal Beach Trailer Park). o Section 2.05.015.EE: Roof Decks - establishes new standards for roof decks as a development regulation. Requires conformance with the "daylight plane" provisions discussed above. Refer to Section 2.05.015.J discussion above. o Section 2.05.015.FF: Elevator Shaft Structures - establishes new standards for elevator shaft structures as a development regulation. The Commission determined to eliminate the current Zoning Code provisions regarding .Covered Roof Access Structures." CONFORMITY WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PROJECTS IN PROPOSED RLD-9 AND RHD-20 DISTRICTS: Provided below are tables comparing the actual construction or proposed construction plans of 5 identified projects in the RLD-9 and 5 identified projects in the RHD-20 districts, respectively, to the proposed Chapter 2.05 Zoning Code standards discussed above. In the RLD-9 District examples the areas of non-compliance with the proposed regulations are in the areas of: o Daylight planes - (2 of 5 non-compliant); o Ratio 2nd floor to 1st floor (75%) - (3 of 5 non-compliant); o Porch - (3 of 5 non-compliant - this is an optional standard, not a required standard); o Additional side step back + 14' - (1 of 5 non-compliant); o Compatible addition - (1 of 5 non-compliant); and o Garage limitations - (4 of 5 non-compliant). In the RHD-20 district examples the areas of non-compliance with the proposed regulations are in the areas of: o Floor area ratio - (1 of 5 non-compliant); o Daylight planes - (4 of 5 non-compliant); and o Additional side setback or stepback + 14' - (4 of 5 partially non-compliant). pc Stefl Report.03-11-o8 19 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19. 2008 CONFORMITY WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS- PROJECTS IN PROPOSED RLD-9 DISTRICT PC Staff Report03-11-OB No Complies ComfJlIes Complies No Complies No (104%) No (92%) Complies No (103%) (38%) (67%) NA NA NA NA NA Complies Complies ComfJlies Complies ComfJlies . Complies ComDlies ComDlIes ComDlIes ComDlIes ComDlies Complies ComfJlies ComDlies Complies ComDlIes Complies ComfJlies No ComDliesJNo No ComDlIes No No ComDlies ComDlies ComD/fes ComDlIes ComDlies ComDlies ComDlies No ComfJ/fes ComDlies Comp/fes No ComDlies ComDlIes NA NA No No No No ComDlIes (side entrv) . 20 . Public Hearing re: FInal Draft - Ttffe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 CONFORMITY WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS- PROJECTS IN PROPOSED RHD-20 DISTRICT Compffes Compffes Compffes Compffes No No No Complies No No NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA . Compffes Complies Complies Compffes Complies Compiles Complies Compffes Compffes Complies Complies Compffes N/A Complies Compffes Compffes Complies Complies Complies Complies Compffes Complies Compffes Compffes Complies Compffes Complies Complies Compffes Complies No No (Partial) No (Partial) No (Partial) No (Partial) Compffes N/A N/A NA NA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A . PC Staff Report03-11-<lB 21 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission 51aff Report March 19, 2008 GARAGE PARKING STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENCES: Table 4.20.015.A 1: Required Parking proposes a change in the required parking standard for "single-unit dwellings." The proposed change for "single-unit dwellings' is from a 2-space requirement regardless of the number of bedrooms to a sliding scale based on the number of bedrooms. Single family homes up to 4 bedrooms would need to provide 2 spaces, homes with 5 bedrooms would be required 3 spaces, homes with 6 bedrooms would be required 4 spaces, etc. NON-RESIDENTIAL PARTS OF "FINAL DRAFT ZONING CODE": The remaining portions of the Zoning Code set forth the development standards for commercial, light manufacturing, and other land use zoning designations within the community in Chapters 2.10 to Chapter 2.25. Part III of the Zoning Code establishes standards for "Overlay Zones' that are the same as current City Standards. Part IV establishes standards for uses of property that can occur in several different zones of the City. Part V sets forth the various administrative and procedural processes for implementation of the provisions of the Zoning Code. Part VI establishes new . definitions for the Zoning Code. All of these parts of the Zoning Code were subject to Planning Commission Study Sessions and the Commission provided specific directions to Staff for modifications based on the input of those Study Sessions; particularly in Parts IV and V. The level of public comment on these portions of the Zoning Code was minimal compared to the input regarding the proposed residential standards. INSTITUTION OF "ADMINISTRA T1VE USE PERMIT" PROCESS: The proposed TItle 11 eliminates the current discretionary land use approvals by the Planning Commission regarding "Minor Plan Reviews" and "Height Variauons." Those types of land use approvals are proposed to be incorporated into an "Administrative Use Pennir process that would be the responsibility of the Director of Development Services to review and approve. Appeals of the Director's decisions would be considered by the Planning Commission. The intent of the Administrative Use Penmit process is to allow staff to consider requests for specified uses of property that are generally non- controversial but still require special consideration to ensure that they can be designed, located, and operated in a manner that will be compatible with surrounding uses and not interfere with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Section 5.20.010: Review Authority, references the tables in Part II that set forth the use types that are permitted by right, penmitted by right with specified limitations, or require Administrative or Conditional Use Penmit approvals. In addition, Table . PC Staff Report 03-11-08 22 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, PlannIng Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 5.20.010: Review Authority lists the additional types of land use entitlements that require either an Administrative Use Permit or a Conditional Use Permit. This Table can be found in Part V: Land Use and Zoning Decisions; Chapter 5.20: Development Permits, on pages 30-41. This table lists 56 types of requests that would be considered by the Director of Development Services pursuant to the "Administrative Use Permif process and 67 types of requests that would be considered by the Planning Commission pursuant to the 'Conditional Use Permif process. NEGA T1VE. DECLARA r/OH 08-1: The subject Negative Declaration has been prepared by City Staff and is in the required public review and comment period of March 10 to April 11, 2008. The Environmental Quality Control Board will be reviewing Negative Declaration 08-1 on March 26 at their 6:30 PM meeting and providing any comments for future consideration by the City Council. The Planning Commission and interested citizens may also provide comments on Negative Declaration 08-1 this evening that will also be forwarded to the City Council for consideration during their public hearings on this matter. The Negative Declaration was provided to the City Council on March 10 and to the Environmental Quality Control Board and Planning Commission on March 11. A copy of the "Notice of Intent to Adopt/Notice of Availability" as published in the local newspaper is provided as Attachment 6 for the information of the Planning Commission. Copies of the Negative Declaration will be available at the Planning Commission Public Hearing for interested persons to review. Copies are also available at each library in the city, at City Hall, and is posted on the City's web page for viewing and download at: http://pubrec.ci.seal- beach.ca.uslweblink7/City-wide Agendas - Drafts - Notices/Final Draft and Notices - Title 11 - Zoning Code. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct Public Hearing by receiving Staff Report, public comments and Commission discussion; consider the" Final Draft TJt/e 11: Zoning" and public comments; and provide comments regarding Negative Declaration 08-1. Close or continue the public hearing. If the Commission determines to close the public hearing, take the following actions: o Provide any comments regarding Initial StudylNegative Declaration 08-1, and o Adopt Resolution Number 08-13, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Amending the Seal Beach PC Staff Report.03-1 1~ 23 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning CommIssion Staff Report March 19, 2008 Municipal Code by Deleting Chapter 28, Zoning, in its Entirety and Adopting a New Title 11, Zoning. (Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the Resolution) e Whittenberg, Director Development Services Departme Attachments: (20) Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Attachment 5: Attachment 6: Attachment 7: PC Staff Repart03-1 1-08 Resolution Number 08-13, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Amending the Seal Beach Municipal Code by Deleting Chapter 28, Zoning, in its Entirety and Adopting a New Title 11, Zoning Final Draft Zoning Code, March 2008 - Note: Previously provided and not included due to length. Additional copies will be available at the public hearing . Copies are also available at each library in the city, at City Hall, and is posted on the City's web page for viewing and download at: htlp:llpubrec.cLseal-beach.ca.uslweblink7/City- wide Agendas - Drafts - NoticeslFinal Draft and Notices - Title 11 - Zoning Code Overview Summary: Major Provisions of Proposed Title 11: Zoning Overview Summary: Study Sessions Cities Utilizing FAR Provisions Notice of Intent to Adopt/Notice of Availability - Initial StudylNegative Declaration 08-1 Joint City CounciVPlanning Commission Minutes - February 21, February 26, and March 7, 2007 . 24 . Attachment 8: Attachment 9: Attachment 10: Attachment 11: Attachment 12: Attachment 13: Attachment 14: Attachment 15: Attachment 16: . Attachment 17: Attachment 18: Attachment 19: Attachment 20: . PC Staff Report.03-11-08 Public Hearing 1'9: FInal Draft - T1fJa 11: Zoning Saai Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission 51aff Report March 19, 2008 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - May 9, 2007 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - May 23, 2007 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - June 6, 2007 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - June 20, 2007 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt-July 18, 2007 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - August 8, 2007 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - September 19, 2007 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - October 3 2007 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - October 10, 2007 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - November 7, 2007 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - December 5, 2007 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - February 6, 2008 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - March 5, 2008 (To be provided at Commission Meeting) 25 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission 51aff Report MalT:h 19, 2008 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NUMBER 08-13, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING CHAPTER 28, ZONING, IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 11, ZONING PC Staff Report. 03-11-08 26 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - TlUe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 RESOLUTION NUMBER 08-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING CHAPTER 28, ZONING, IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 11, ZONING . -"_.. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. The City Council and/or the Planning Commission held a total of sixteen Study Sessions regarding a new Title 11: Zoning of the Seal Beach Municipal Code between February 21, 2007 and March 5, 2008. Section 2. At the conclusion of the March 5, 2008 Study Session the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare the proposed "Final Draft Title 11: Zoning of the Seal Beach Municipal Code" for public hearings. Section 3. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. 915305, staff has prepared Initial StudylNegative Declaration 08-1 evaluating the environmental impacts of the proposed "Final Draft Title 11: Zoning of the Seal Beach Municipal Code". Initial StudylNegative Declaration 08-1 is currently undergoing the required public comment period, and all comments received will be considered and evaluated by the City Council during future public hearings on the proposed "Final Draft Title 11: Zoning of the Seal Beach Municipal Code." Section 4. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 19, 2008 to consider the proposed "Final Draft Title 11: Zoning of the Seal Beach Municipal Code". Section 5. At said public hearing there was oral and written testimony and evidence received by the Planning Commission. PC Staff Report03-11~B 27 Public Hearing re: FInal Draft - Title 11: Zoning a Seal Beach Municipal Code, . Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Section 6. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in 95 of this resolution and pursuant to 99 28-2600 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The Proposed Title 11: "Zoning" is a complete revision of the City's Zoning Code and is intended to reflect the most appropriate and best available development regulations and standards to meet the desires of the community regarding future development within the City. Such a comprehensive revision effort has not been undertaken within the community since 1974. As such, there are significant changes from both procedural and development regulation standards incorporated into the proposed Zoning Code that do not currently exist in the present Zoning Code. B. The proposed project consists of the adoption of a Comprehensive Zoning Code-llpdate. The proposed Title 11, Zoning, does not propose- any amendments to the basic lot size, density and building intensity, setback, lot coverage, height, parking, and sign regulations of the current zoning Code. Likewise, there are no changes to allowable and discretionary land uses within the City, other than minor uses such a news stands and kiosks. New provisions related to a number of design related issues are proposed, such as floor area ratio, building envelope, and other design and aesthetic matters of concem to the City. . C. In addition an "Administrative Use Parmi(' approval process is proposed which would allow the Director of Development Services to review and approve several types of discretionary land use approvals that are currently reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. D. Said proposed Title 11: Zoning does not include any provisions that are inconsistent with the adopted General Plan of the City. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends adoption of Title 11: Zoning to the City Council as set forth in "Seal Beach Municipal Code: Final Draft Title 11: Zoning", dated March 2008 and on file in the Office of the City Clerk, with the following requested revisions: Staff) : A. Revise Section 2.05.015.EE: Roof Decks to read (Requested by "EE. Roof Decks. Roof Decks are allowed in the residential districts pursuant to Table 2.05.015: Development Standards for Residential Districts. In addition, all required roof deck railings in . pc Staff ReportO~11-o8 28 . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 accordance with the provisions of the California Building Code shall not exceed the main building envelope and height limit provisions of Table 2.05.015.J: Determination of Daylight Planes - RLD-9, RMD-1B, and RHD-20 Districts, and Section 2.05.015.K: Building Height - RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts. The provisions of Section 2.05.015.J.4: Exceptions to Main Building Envelope, are not applicable to roof decks. In the RHD-20 District roof decks are not allowed above a height of 21.5 feet for lots R'lere tRSFI 37.5 feet wide or wider." (INSERT ADDITIONAL REVISIONS AS DETERMINED BY COMMISSION UPON CONCLUSION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS) PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2008, by the following vote: . AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners Ellery Deaton Chairperson of the Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Commission . PC Staff Report03-1 1-08 29 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - TTlle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 ATTACHMENT 2 FINAL DRAFT ZONING CODE, MARCH 2008 - NOTE: PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED AND NOT INCLUDED DUE TO LENGTH. ADDITIONAL COPIES WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING COPIES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE AT EACH LIBRARY IN THE CITY, AT CITY HALL, AND IS POSTED ON THE CITY'S WEB PAGE FOR VIEWING AND DOWNLOAD AT: HTTP://PUBREC.CI.SEAL-BEACH.CA.USfWEBLlNK7/CITY- WIDE AGENDAS - DRAFTS - NOTICES/FINAL DRAFT AND NOTICES - TITLE 11 - ZONING CODE PC Staff Report.0~11.08 30 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 ATTACHMENT 3 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: MAJOR PROVISIONS OF PROPOSED TITLE 11: ZONING PC staff R.port.03-11~8 31 . . . PC Stsfl Report. 03- 1 1-08 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tttle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission 51aff Report March 19,2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY MAJOR PROVISIONS OF PROPOSED TITLE 11, ZONING -- 32 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - TFtfa 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission 51aff Report March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY MAJOR PROVISIONS OF PROPOSED TITLE 11: ZONING CODE The Proposed Title 11: "Zoning Code" is a complete revision of the CITy's Zoning Code and is intended to reflect the most appropriate and best available development regulations and standards to meet the desires of the community regarding future development within the City. Such a comprehensive revision effort has not been undertaken within the community since 1974. As such, there are significant changes from both procedural and development regulation standards incorporated into the proposed Zoning Code that do not currently exist in the present Zoning Code. The proposed project consists of the adoption of a Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. The proposed Title 11, Zoning, does not propose any amendments to the basic lot size, density and building intensity, setback, lot coverage, height, parking, and sign regulations of the current zoning Code. Likewise, there are no changes to . allowable and discretionary land uses within the City, other than minor uses such a news stands and kiosks. New provisions related to a number of design related issues are proposed, such as floor area ratio, building envelope, and other design and aesthetic matters of concem to the City. In addition an "Administrative Use Permit" approval process is proposed which would allow the Director of Development Services to review and approve several types of discretionary land use approvals that are currently reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The major provisions of the "Zoning Code" are summarized below: PART I: GENERAL PROVISIONS: o Section 1.05.020.G: Application During Local Emergency - includes new language that authorizes the City Council to authorize deviations by resolution during declared local emergencies. o Table 1.05.025: Zoning Districts - renames all current zoning district names to better correlate with the "General Plan" land use designations. For residential districts the new district designations indicate the number of residential units allowed per net acre of land, not per square feet, as does the current Zoning Code. o Chapter 1.15: Rules of Measurement - provides clear direction as to how . measurements referenced in the Zoning Code are to be calculated. pc Staff Report03-11-08 33 . . . Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 o Section 1.15.030.B: Measuring Lot Depth - establishes new methodology for irregular shaped lots. o Section 1.15.050: Detennining Floor Area Ratio - sets forth new standards for "Floor Area Ratio", a design tool not currently utilized in the Zoning Code, and how to conduct the calculation to detenmine the floor area ratio. PART 1/: BASE DISTRICT REGULA TlONS: o Chapter 2.05: Residential Districts - combines all residential development standards into one Chapter of the Zoning Code. o Table 2.05.010: Use Regulations - Residential Districts - provides summary of major land uses allowed in each zoning district, whether by right, Administrative Use Penmit, or Conditional Use Penmit, and provides cross references to other Zoning Code provisions regarding those uses. Maintains current lot size, density, setbacks, height, and lot coverage standards. o Table 2.05.015: Development Standards for Residential Districts - provides summary of major development standards for each zoning district, and provides cross references to other Zoning Code provisions regarding those development standards. o Ratio of 2nd Story Building Area to 1st Story Building Area - standards are only proposed for the RLD-9 and RMD-18 districts. o Section 2.05.015.A: Standards for Surfside - no changes of current provisions except minor change regarding stairways on Surfs ide leased land along the "A" row of beachfront homes (Section 2.05.015.A.6.d.i). o Section 2.05.015.C: Floor Area Ratio - Base and Maximum - establishes new standards for use of 'Floor Area Ratio" as a development regulation to address mass and bulk of development concems being expressed within the community. See Table 2.05.015.C: Allowable Base and Maximum Floor Area Ratio by Lot Area. o Section 2.05.015.C.2: RHD-20 District - Additional Floor Area Ratio - proposes additional Floor Area Ratio standards for lots in Old Town that can have a third-story living area on the rear half of a lot that is 37.5 feet wide or wider. PC Stafl Report03-11-08 34 Public Hearing re: Final Draft- Title 11: Zoning . Seal Beech Municipal Code. Planning Commission 51aff Report March 19, 2008 o Section 2.05.015.0: Floor Area Ratio Design Incentives and Deductions - establishes new standards for use of "Floor Area Ratio" design incentives and deductions as an optional development regulation to address mass and bulk of development concerns being expressed within the community. See Table 2.05.015.D.1: Additional Design Incentives FAR Bonuses and Table 2.05.015.D.2: Design Feature FAR Deductions. o Section 2.05.015.E: Floor Area Ratio Design Incentives and Deductions: Third Floor - establishes new standards for use of "Floor Area Ratio" design incentives and deductions as an optional development regulation to address mass and bulk of development concems being expressed within the community regarding third story developments in the Oid Town area of the City. See Table 2.05.015.E.1: Additional Design Incentives FAR Bonuses - Third Floor and Table 2.05.015.E.2: Design Feature FAR Deductions - Third Floor. o Table 2.05.015.H.1 through Table 2.05.015.H.3 - sets forth current . development standards for the "RLD-15 District" (Bridgeport/Suburbia Tracts 6345, 6346, and 9814). No changes of current standards are proposed. o Section 2.05.015.J: Main Building Envelope and Table 2.05.015.J: Determination of Daylight Planes - RLD-9, RMD-18, and RHD-20 Districts - establishes new standards for use of "Daylight Planes" as a development regulation to address mass and bulk of development concems being expressed within the community. o Eliminates "Covered Roof Access Structures" from allowable projections. o Establishes new standards for "Elevator Enclosures." See Section 2.05.015.J.3.e: Elevator Enclosures. o Establishes several allowable "exceptions" to the "daylight plane" provisions. See Section 2.05.015.J.4: Exceptions to Main Building Envelope. The proposed exceptions will allow for certain projections to allow for some architectural design freedom and diversity in new residential developments. o Allows the Planning Commission to consider Conditional Use Permit applications for specified additional exceptions, subject to specified limitations, to Section 2.05.015.J.4: Exceptions to Main Bullding Envelope. See Section 2.05.015.J.5.a: Additional Exceptions to . Main Building Envelope: Conditional Use Pennit pc Steff Report03-11-Q8 35 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Trtle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 o Establishes new rear yard setback standard of 15 feet (10 feet is now allowed) in the RLD-9 District - the Hill, College Park East and West) and allows for a 10-foot rear yard when such a design will reduce or avoid the need for an upper-story living area. See Section 2.05.015.J.5.b: Administrative Use Permit for Reduced Rear Yard - RLD-9 District. o Section 2.05.015.K: Building Height - RLD.9 and RHD-20 Districts - maintains current height limitations, including for lots 37.5 feet wide or wider in the Old Town area. o Section 2.05.015.P: Facade Articulation - Lots Greater than 25 in Width - establishes new standards for "fa9<lde articulation" as a development regulation to address mass and bulk of development concerns being expressed within the community. o Section 2.05.015.R: Porches - establishes new standards for .porches" as a development option to address mass, bulk, and street appearance concerns being expressed within the community. o Section 2.05.015.S: Additional Front Setback Above 14 Feet - establishes new standards for two-story design elements adjacent to a front setback area as a development regulation to address mass and bulk of development concems being expressed within the community. o Section 2.05.015.T: Additional Side Setback or Step back Above 14 Feet - estabiishes new standards for two-story design elements adjacent to a side setback area as a development regulation to address mass and bulk of development concerns being expressed within the community. Establishes separate standards for lots less than 37.5 feet wide and for lots 37.5 feet wide or wider. o Section 2.05.015.U: Design of Building Additions - establishes new standards for building addition design elements as a development regulation to address mass, bulk, and neighborhood compatibility of development concems being expressed within the community. o Section 2.05.015.X: Limitation on Parking and Garage Frontage - establishes new standards for garage design elements as a development regulation to address mass, bulk, and neighborhood compatibility of development concems being expressed within the community. PC Staff Report.03-11-Q8 36 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - TItle 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission 51aff Report March 19, 2008 o Section 2.05.015.X.5: Required Garage Exception - RLD-9 District - establishes new standards for number of required garage spaces in RLD-9 District if the driveway has a clear area with minimum dimension of 18 feet by 18 feet and the garage has a roll-up garage door- allows reduction of 1 space in required garage parking for single-unit dwellings with 5 bedrooms or more. o Section 2.05.015.BB: Open Space Requirements - establishes new standards for required private open space as a development regulation to address lack of private open space for residential developments being expressed within the community. o Section 2.05.015.00: Development Standards for 2-Story CabanasfManufactured Homes - maintains current development standards for 2-story cabanas and clarifies that standards also apply to 2- story manufactured homes. Restates provisions of Califomia Administrative Code regarding size limitations imposed by State of California regarding the maximum size of a cabana (these regulations . only apply within the Seal Beach Trailer Park). o Section 2.05.015.EE: Roof Decks - establishes new standards for roof decks as a development regulation to address neighborhood privacy/compatibility issues regarding residential developments being expressed within the community. Requires conformance with the "daylight plane" provisions discussed above. Refer to Section 2.05.015.J discussion above. o Section 2.05.015.FF: Elevator Shaft Structures - establishes new standards for elevator shaft structures as a development regulation to address access to roof decks and neighborhood privacy/compatibility concems for residential developments being expressed within the community. o Chapter 2.10: Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts - combines all commercial and mixed-use development standards into one Chapter of the Zoning Code. o Table 2.10.010: Use Regulations - Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts - provides summary of major land uses allowed in each zoning district, whether by right, Administrative Use Permit, or Conditional Use Permit, and . pc SlaIf Report.03-11-oe 37 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 provides cross references to other Zoning Code provisions regarding those uses. o Table 2.10.015: Development Standards - Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts - provides summary of major development standards for each zoning district, and provides cross references to other Zoning Code provisions regarding those development standards. o Proposes to establish "floor area ratio" standards for all commercial and mixed-use districts. Standards currently exist for only mixed-use districts. o No changes proposed to current building height and setback standards. Refer to Tables 2.10.015.B and 2.1 0.015.C.1 through 2.05.015.C.3. o Section 2.10.015.0: Minimum Yard Requirements: Building Transition Zone Adjacent to Residential Districts - establishes new standards for building transition areas for mixed-use commercial and residential uses to address privacy/neighborhood compatibility issues for residential developments being expressed within the community. o Section 2.10.015.E: Public Open Space - establishes new standards for the provision of outdoor open space for commercial buildings over 25,000 square feet in area. Requires open space to be provided at a ratio of 25 square feet per 1,000 square feet of building area, with minimum dimensions of 15 feet, and within 40 feet of and visible from a street- facing property line. o Proposes Administrative Use Permit approval for commercial buildings that are not within 40 feet of and visible from a street-facing property line. o Section 2.10.015.F: Limitations on Location of Parking - establishes new standards for par1<ing area locations to appearance/neighborhood compatibility issues developments being expressed within the community. address street for commercial o Section 2.10.015.H: Limitations on LocatIon of Truck Docks, Loading, and Service Areas - establishes new standards for locations of these types of commercial activities to address street appearance/neighborhood compatibility issues for commercial developments being expressed within the community. o Sect/on 2.15.015.1: Building Design Features - standards for "Building Design Features to PC SlaffReport03-11-OB 38 establishes new address street Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 appearance/neighborhood compatibility issues for commercial developments being expressed within the community. o See Sections 2.10.015.1.1: Variety in Wall Plane; 2.10.015.1.2: Variety in Roof Forms; 2.10.015.1.3: Variety of Height for Different Massing Elements; 2.10.015.1.4: Modules Articulated by Change in Plane, Color, or Materials; 2.10.015.1.5: Fayade Design Incorporates Architectural Detail; and 2.10.015.1.6: Use of Balconies, Bay Windows, and other such Projections or Recesses;. The proposed provisions encourage use of the described design features to allow for some' architectural design freedom and diversity in new commercial developments. o Section 2.10.015.K: Building Orientation - establishes new standards for commercial building orientation to address street appearance and neighborhood compatibility issues for commercial developments being expressed within the community. o Proposes Administrative Use Penmit approval for commercial buildings that are not oriented towards a public street. . o Section 2.10.015.L: Ground Floor Requirements - establishes new standards for ground floor building materials to address street appearance/neighborhood compatibility issues for commercial developments being expressed within the community. o Section 2.10.015.M: Building Transparency - establishes new standards for commercial building fayade transparency to address street appearance/neighborhood compatibility issues for commercial developments being expressed within the community. o Section 2.10.015.0: Required Side and Rear Yards for Residential Uses - establishes new standards for residential development as part of a mixed-use project to address neighborhood compatibility issues for mixed- use developments being expressed within the community. o Chapter 2.15: Light Manufacturing and Oil Extraction Districts. o Table 2.15.010: Use Regulations - Light Manufacturing and Oil Extraction Districts - provides summary of major land uses allowed in each zoning district, whether by right, Administrative Use Penmit, or Conditional . pc Stoff Report.03-11-08 39 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Use Permit, and provides cross references to other Zoning Code provisions regarding those uses. o Table 2.15.015: Development Standards - Light Manufacturing and Oil Extraction Districts - provides summary of major development standards for each zoning district, and provides cross references to other Zoning Code provisions regarding those development standards. No changes proposed to current building height and setback standards. o Section 2.15.015.8: 8uilding Design Features - establishes new standards for 'Building Design Features to address street appearance/neighborhood compatibility issues for light manufacturing developments being expressed within the community. o See Sections 2.15.015.8.1: Variety In Wall Plane; 2.15.015.8.2: Variety of Height for Different Massing Elements; 2.15.015.8.3: Modules Articulated by Change in Plane, Color, or Materials. The proposed provisions encourage use of the described design features to allow for some architecturai design freedom and diversity in new light manufacturing and oil extraction developments. o Chapter 2.20: Public and Semi-Public Facilities Districts. o Table 2.20,010: Use Regulations - Public and Semi-Public Facilities Districts - provides summary of major land uses allowed in each zoning district, whether by right, Administrative Use Permit, or Conditional Use Permit, and provides cross references to other Zoning Code provisions regarding those uses. These uses relate to public agency non-park facilities and private golf courses. o Establishes new standards for residential uses in conjunction with a private golf course by requiring Conditional Use permit approval for such a proposed land use to address neighborhood compatibility issues being expressed within the community. o Chapter 2.25: Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Districts. o Table 2.25.015: Use Regulations - Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Districts - provides summary of major land uses allowed in each zoning district, whether by right, Administrative Use Permit, or Conditional Use Permit, and provides cross references to other Zoning Code provisions PC Staff Report03-11-o8 40 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Trtfe 11: Zoning A Seal Beach Municipal Code, .. Planning Commission 51aff Report March 19, 2008 regarding those uses. These uses relate to public agency sensitive land areas and park facilities. PART 11/: o VERLA Y DISTRICT REGULA nONS: o Chapter 3.05: Residential Conservation Overlay District - maintains current provisions of the Zoning Code currently in Sections 28-850 through 28-856. No changes to current provisions are proposed. o Chapter 3.10: Planned Development Overlay District (-PD) - maintains current provisions of the Zoning Code currently in Sections 28-1100 through 28-1106. No changes to current provisions are proposed. o Chapter 3.15: Commercial/Park Overlay District - maintains current provisions of the Zoning Code currently in Section 28-900. No changes to current provisions are proposed. o Chapter 3.20: Coastal Zone Overlay District - reserves a Chapter for . future adoption upon certification of a Local Coastal Plan and Implementing Actions Ordinance by the City Council and the Califomia Coastal Commission. PART IV: REGULA nONS APPL YlNG IN SOME OR ALL DISTRICTS: o Chapter 4.05: Standards for Specific Uses - Sets forth both permit approval requirements and development standards for many uses that can occur within different zoning districts of the community. o Section 4.05.010: Accessory Business Uses and Activities - sets forth minimum standards for development and operation of accessory manufacturing and retail sales and service uses. Includes provisions regarding exterior appearance, public access, floor area limitation, criteria for approval, allowable incidental business activities and prohibited uses, permit requirements, and development standards. o Sub-section D: Allowable Incidental Business Activities - includes revisions to language regarding live, unamplified tableside entertainers. o Section 4.05.015: Alcoholic Beverage Establishments - sets forth permit requirements and references deveiopment standards for any alcohol sales establishment in the City. Maintains current Conditional Use Permit approval process by Planning Commission. . pc Stsfl Report03-11-08 41 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlfle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 o Section 4.05.020: Animal Keeping - sets forth number and location standards for keeping of animals in non-commercial situations. o Section 4.05.025: Assisted Living Facilities - sets forth permit requirements and development standards for any such use in the City. Maintains current Conditional Use Permit approval process by Planning Commission. o Section 4.05.030: Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) - sets forth permit requirements and development standards for any such use in the City. Requires Administrative Use Permit approval process consideration by Director of Development Services. o Section 4.05.035: Automobile Service Station - sets forth permit requirements and development standards for any such use in the City. Updates current development standards and proposes new requirements for a "tow setviee" conducted at an automobile service station. Maintains current Conditional Use Permit approval process by Planning Commission. o Section 4.05.040: AutomobileNehicle Sales and Services - sets forth development standards for any such use in the City. Updates current development standards and proposes new requirements for a "tow setvice" conducted at an automobilelvehicle sales and service location. o Section 4.05.045: Child Day Care Facilities - sets forth permit requirements and development standards for any such use in the City. Updates current development standards and proposes new requirements. Includes provisions regarding neighborhood complaints regarding the conducting of such a use. Maintains current Conditional Use Permit approval process by Planning Commission. o Section 4.05.050: Drive-In and Drive-Through Facilities - sets forth permit requirements and development standards for any such use in the City. Updates current development standards and proposes new requirements. Maintains current Conditional Use Permit approval process by Planning Commission. o Section 4.05.055: Extended Hour Businesses - sets forth permit requirements and development standards for any such use in the City. Updates current development standards and proposes new requirements. pc SlaffReport03-11-o8 42 Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission 51aff Report March 19, 2008 Includes provisions regarding neighborhood complaints regarding the conducting of such a use. Maintains current Conditional Use Penmit approval process by Planning Commission. Note: the definition of such a use is proposed to be modified to now encompass business's operating between 11 PM and 6 AM. The current Zoning Code provisions apply to a business operating between 2 AM and 6 AM. o Section 4.05.060: Home Occupations - sets forth penmit requirements and development standards for any such use in the City. Updates current development standards and proposes new requirements. Allows such uses as a penmitted use or requires Administrative Use Penmit approval process consideration by the Director of Development Services. Specifies limitations on uses and intensity of use that can be permitted by right. o Sub-section 0: Home Occupations Requiring an Administrative Use Permit - includes revision to language regarding teaching of organized classes and music instruments. o Section 4.05.065: Kiosks - sets forth penmit requirements and establishes development standards for any such use in the City. Allows such uses subject to Administrative Use Penmit approval process consideration by the Director of Development Services. Specifies location, architectural design, and other standard conditions to conduct such a use. . o Section 4.05.070: Liquor Stores - sets forth permit requirements and references development standards for any liquor store sales establishment in the City. Maintains current Conditional Use Penmit approval process by Planning Commission. o Section 4.05.075: Manufactured Housing - sets forth penmit requirements and development standards for any such use in the City. Updates current development standards and proposes new requirements. Allows such uses as a permitted use in accordance with provisions of State law. o Section 4.05.080: Meeting Facilities, Private Schools, and Similar Institutional Uses - sets forth penmit requirements and development standards for any such use in the City. Updates current development standards and proposes new requirements. Includes provisions regarding neighborhood compatibility. Maintains current Conditional Use Permit approval process by Planning Commission. Provisions do not apply to public education facilities. . pc Staff Report.03-11-08 43 . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Trtfe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 o Section 4.05.085: News and Flower Stands - sets forth penmit requirements and establishes development standards for any such use in the City. Allows such uses subject to Administrative Use Permit approval process consideration by the Director of Development Services. Specifies location, architectural design, and other standard conditions to conduct such a use. . o Section 4.05.090: Outdoor Dining, Display, and Sales Standards - sets forth penmit requirements and establishes development standards for such uses in the City. Allows such uses subject to either Administrative Use Permit or Conditional Use Penmit approval process consideration by the Director of Development Services or Planning Commission, respectively. Specifies location, architectural design, and other standard conditions to conduct such uses. o Section 4.05.090.A: Temporary Outdoor Displays and Sales - requires Administrative Use Penmit approval process consideration by the Director of Development Services. Sets forth specific standards and operational requirements to be met. o Section 4.05.090.8: Accessory Outdoor Display requires Administrative Use Penmit approvai process consideration by the Director of Development Services. Sets forth specific standards and operational requirements to be met. o Section 4.05.090.C: Pennanent Outdoor Displays and Sales - requires Conditional Use Penmit approval process consideration by the Planning Commission. Sets forth specific standards and operational requirements to be met. o Section 4.05.090.D: Outdoor Dining and Seating Areas - Allows such uses subject to either Administrative Use Penmit or Conditional Use Penmit approval process consideration by the Director of Development Services or Planning Commission, respectively. Specifies location, architectural design, operations, and other standard conditions to conduct such uses. Sets forth specific site development standards and operational requirements to be met. o Outdoor Dining Areas not exceeding 12 seats - Administrative Use Penmit approval required. o Outdoor Dining Areas exceeding 12 seats - Conditional Use Permit approval required. o Alcoholic Beverage Sales - Conditional Use Penmit approval required. ' o Amplified Sound and Music - Conditional Use Penmit approval required. . PC Staff Raport03-1 1~8 44 Public Hearing re: Final Draft- rttJe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 o Outdoor Cooking - Conditional Use Penmit approval required. o Compliance with Standard Conditions for Alcohol Related Land Uses - City Council Policy 600-1. o Section 4.05.095: Recycling Facilities - sets forth specific standards and operational requirements to be met for the following facilities: o Reverse Vending Machines; o Recycling Collection Point; and o Recycling Processing Facility. o Section 4.05.100: Residential Accessory Uses, Structures, and Vehicle Parking - provides standards for residential accessory uses and structures allowed in the zoning district applicable to a parcel (see Table 2.05.015: Development Standards for Residential Districts). Accessory uses include . any use that is customarily related to a residence, including carports, garages, greenhouses, storage sheds, studios, above ground swimming pools/spas, and workshops. Requirements are proposed for: o Garage Sales - Section 4.05.100.B. . o Attached Accessory Structures - Section 4.05.100.C. o Detached Accessory Structures - Section 4.05.100.D. Includes limitation on total area of such structures. See Table 4.05.100.D.4: Maximum Lot Coverage - Detached Accessory Structures. o Driveways, Walkways, and Patios - Section 4.05.100.E. o Mechanical Equipment - Section 4.05.100.F. o Antennas - Section 4.05.100.G. o Garages - Section 4.05.100.H. o Guest Rooms and Pool Houses - Section 4.05.100.1. Limitations on number and height of such structures; otherwise a Conditional Use Penmit is required. o Swimming Pools/Spas/Hot Tubs - Section 4.05.100.J. o Minor Accessory Structures - Freestanding Barbecues/Fireplaces, Sculptures, and Fountains, etc. - Section 4.05.100.K. Establishes limitations on location and height of such structures; otherwise an Administrative Use Penmit is required. o Tennis and Other Recreational Courts - Section 4.05.100.L. Requires Administrative Use Penmit approval to establish such facilities. o Workshops or Studios - Section 4.05.1 OO.M. o Tents and Portable Shelter Structures - Section 4.05.100.N. o Restrictions on Residential Parking within Residential Districts - Section 4.05.100.0. Establishes limitations on the area of a lot that can . PC Stall Report.03-11-08 45 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft- Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Plenning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 be utilized for the storage and parking of recreational vehicles and boats; see Section 4.05.100.0.2: Recreational Vehicles and Boats. o Driveway Standards - Section 4.05.100.P. o Section 4.05.105: Residential Care Facilities - sets forth specific standards and operational requirements to be met for such uses. o Section 4.05.110: Residential Uses - Multi-Unit Project Standards - sets forth specific standards and operational requirements to be met for private and common open space areas, and other facilities such as laundry facilities, storage areas, and solid waste recycling facilities. See also Table 4.05.110.B.1: Multi-Unit Open Space Requirements. o Section 4.05.115: Residential Uses - Second Dwelling Units - maintains current standards that are in accordance with the requirements of State law. o Section 4.05.120: Restaurant - Alcohol Sales - sets forth permit requirements and references development standards for any alcohol sales establishment in the City. Maintains current Conditional Use Permit approval process by Planning Commission. o Section 4.05.125: Senior Citizen Apartments and Independent Living Facilities - sets forth specific standards and operational requirements to be met for Senior Citizen Apartments and Independent Living Facilities. Requires Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission to establish such a use. See also Table 4.05.125: Senior Citizen Residential Project Development Features. o Section 4.05.130: Temporary Structures, Trailers, and Modular Units - requires Administrative Use Permit approval by the Director of Development Services to establish such a use. o Section 4.05.135: Vacation Rentals - requires Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission to establish such a use and sets forth required development and operational standards. o Section 4.05.140: Warehouse Retail and Large-Scale Commercial Projects - proposes new standards for retail structures over 20,000 square feet in size. Standards are proposed regarding the following: o Design and Development Standards - Section 4.05.140.B. o Section 4.05.140.B.1.a: Exterior Wall Appearance and Details; PC Staff Report.03-11-08 46 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Trtle 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 o Section 4.05.140.8.1.b: Horizontal Wall Articulation; o Section 4.05.140.B.1.c: Vertical Wall Articulation; o Section 4.05.140.B.1.d: Roof Lines; o Section 4.05.140.8.1.e: Windows; o Section 4.05.140.8.1.1: Location of Secondary Uses; o Section 4.05.140.8.2: Landscaping; o Section 4.05.140.8.3: Outdoor Lighting; and o Section 4.05.140.B.4: Signs. o Chapter 4.10: General Site Standards - Sets forth standards for specific uses that are pemnitted or conditionally permitted in several or all districts, and specific site standards that apply to several or all districts. o Section 4.10.010: Development on Lots Divided by District 80undaries- sets forth. standards for detemnining applicable regulations when district boundaries are unclear. o Section 4.10.015: Mechanical Equipment Screening - requires . mechanical and electrical equipment and antennas to be screened or incorporated into the building design so as not to be visible from the view of a person standing on the property line on the far side of an adjacent public street. o Section 4.10.020: Performance Standards - sets forth perfomnance standards for. o Lighting - See Table 4.10.020.A: Outdoor Parking Area Illumination Levels by Use (Average Foot Candles), which proposes new illumination standards for parking lots throughout the City. This section also allows the Director to require photometric plans to ensure compliance with lighting standards. o Noise - See Table 4.10.020.8.2: Outdoor Noise Levels, and Table 4.10.020.8.3: Indoor Noise Levels which proposes noise level standards for both areas of concern that are consistent with the requirements of State law throughout the City. This section also allows the Director to require noise studies to ensure compliance with noise standards. o Fire and Explosion Hazards - existing City requirements. o Radioactivity or Electrical Disturbances - existing City requirements. o Vibration - existing City requirements. o Smoke, Particulate Matter, Odor and Other Air Contaminants - existing City requirements. . pc Staff Report.03-' 1-08 47 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tit/a 11: Zoning Seal Baach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19. 2008 o Humidity, Heat and Cold - existing City requirements. o Storm Drainage and Storm Water Runoff - ensures compliance with Federal and State law requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Discharges are required to comply with Chapter 9.20: Storm Water Management Program, Chapter 9.25: Fats, Oil and Grease Management and Discharge Control, Chapter 9.30: Sewerage, Chapter 9.35: Water, and Chapter 9.50: Grading of the Municipal Code. o Section 4.10.025: Recycling and Solid Waste Facilities - requires specified new development projects, new residential projects of 5 or more units, or new public facilities to include adequate, accessible and convenient areas for collecting, storing and loading recyclable materials, subject to specified requirements. See Table 4.10.025.C.1: Residential Development Storage Requirements, and Table 4.10.025.C.2: Non-Residential Development Storage Requirements for size requirements. Also includes standards for location, orientation, materials, design, and construction. o Section 4.10.030: Swimming Pools and Hot Tubs - maintains current development standards for residential districts. Requires Administrative Use permit approval by the Director for non-public pools in non-residential locations (swimming pool at a hotel, private country club, etc.) and Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission for a public swimming pool. o Section 4.10.035: Underground Utilities - requires compliance with the provisions of Title 9, Public Properly, Public Works and Building Regulations, Section 9.55: Underground Utilities and Title 10: Subdivisions, of the Municipal Code. o Section 4.10.040: Street and Highway Dedications and Improvements- requires road dedication and public road improvements to the standards set forth in Article 10: Subdivisions, and Chapter 9.55: Underground Utilities, of the Municipal Code and to the requirements of the City Engineer. Allows certain minor additions to structures without complying with the specified standards by Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission. o Section 4.10.045: Solar Energy Systems - sets forth installation standards for solar energy systems. PC Stall Raport03-11-lle 48 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Trt/e 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission 51aff Report March 19,2008 o Chapter 4.15: Fences, Hedges and Walls - Sets forth standards for fences, hedges and walls that apply to several or all districts. o Section 4.15.010: General Height Limitations - sets forth standards for allowable fence, hedge and wall heights throughout the City. With the exception of a proposed increase in the general height from 6-feet to 7-feet for side and rear property line walls and fences, maintains all current standards. See Table 4.15.010.A.1: Allowable Heights, and Table 4.15.010.A.2: Allowable Heights - Specific Locations. o Section 4.15.015: Height Limitations for Retaining Walls - sets forth standards for retaining walls within the City. Includes multiple retaining wall separation and landscapelirrigation standards. Includes the current standards for the "Gold Coast" and for homes that rear to "Gum Grove Park" . and the Hellman wetland areas adjacent to Avalon, Catalina, Crestview, and Surf Place. o Section 4.15.020: Measurement of Fence or Wall Height - sets forth . standards on how fence or wall height is determined. o Section 4.15.025: Special Wall and Fencing Requirements - sets forth standards for: o Swimming Pools, Spas, and Similar Features; o Walkway and Driveway Architectural Features - proposed new standards; o Outdoor Equipment, Storage and Work Areas; o Sport Facility and Golf Course Fencing; o Temporary Fencing; and o Fence and Wall Design o Section 4.15.030: Restrictions on Fence Materials - sets forth provisions for security and chain link fences.' o Section 4.15.035: Authority to Waive or Modify Requirements: Restrictions on Fence Materials - provides for Administrative Use Permit approval by the Director for requested modification to Section 4.15.030. o Chapter 4.20: Off-Street Parking and Loading - Sets forth parking standards that apply to several or all districts, depending on the applicable land . use. pc Staff Report.0S-11~8 49 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tdfe 11: Zoning Seal Basch MunIcipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 o Section 4.20.010: Review Procedure - requires parking plans and development to be approved by the Director. o Section 4.20.015: Required Off-Street Parking Spaces - sets forth required parking standards for identified land uses throughout the City. Other than a proposed change for "single-unit dwelling" no changes to current requirements are proposed. See Table 4.20.015.A.1: Required Parking, and Table 4.20.015.A.2: Required Parking - Main Street Specific Plan Zone District. o The proposed change for "single-unit dwellings" is from a 2-space requirement regardless of the number of bedrooms to a sliding scale based on the number of bedrooms. Single family homes up to 4 bedrooms would need to provide 2 spaces, homes with 5 bedrooms would be required 3 spaces, homes with 6 bedrooms would be required 4 spaces, etc. See also proposed Section 2.05.015.W.4: Required Garage Exception - RLD-9 District. This section allows for the provision of 1 of the required parking spaces in the RLD-9 District (the Hill, College Park East and College Park West) to be provided on a driveway in front of a garage with a roll-up door if the driveway has a minimum areas of 18- feet wide and 18-feet in length. o Section 4.20.020: Parking Reductions - sets forth standards regarding the following allowable parking reduction programs: o Section 4.20.020.A: Shared Parking - allows "shared parking agreements' to be approved by Administrative Use Penmit by the Director. Requires additional findings and allows for the Director to require a "Parking Demand Study" to be prepared. o Section 4.20.020.8: Other Parking Reductions - allows "other parking reductions" to be approved by Conditional Use Penmit by the Planning Commission. Requires additional findings and allows for the Director to require a "Parking Demand Study" to be prepared. o Section 4.20.020.0: Main Street Specific Plan District In-Lieu Parking Program - maintains current provisions of this parking program. No revisions are proposed. o Section 4.20.025: General Parking Design Standards - sets forth design and layout standards for all parking areas and includes provisions regarding: CI Section 4.20.025.8: Property on Which Parking and Loading Must 8e Provided - requires parking to be located on the same lot as the use the parking serves and also maintains the current requirement that the PC Stafl ReporlO3-11-Q8 50 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Trtle 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission 51aff Report March 19, 2008 Planning Commission may consider a Conditional Use Penmit to provide parking on another lot within 300 feet of the use served. Requires additional findings to be made by the Planning Commission. o Section 4.20.025.C: Minimum Parking Space Dimensions; Standard _ codifies design standards for standard size parking spaces for different parking lot layouts. See also Table 4.20.025.C: Parking Area Space Dimensions for Automobiles - Standard Spaces, Figure 4.20.025.C.1: Parking Space Typical Layouts, and Figure 4.20.025.C.2: Standard Size Parking Space Dimensions. o Section 4.20.025.0: Minimum Parking Space Dimensions; Compact - codifies design standards for compact size parking spaces for different parking lot layouts. Maintains current provisions that allow up to 25% of required parking spaces to be compact sized spaces. See also Table 4.20.025.0: Parking Area Space Dimensions for Automobiles - Compact Spaces. o Section 4.20.025.E: Standards for Disabled Parking Spaces - references requirements of the Califomia Building Code (which specify the number and design standards for disabled parking spaces) and sets forth . requirements to upgrade marking of disabled spaces if required by amendments to the Califomia Building Code. o Sect/on 4.20.025.H: Direction of Vehicle Ingress/Egress - sets forth standards and imposes new design standards for commercial center parking lot entrances for lots with more than 200 parking spaces. See Figure 4.20.025.H: Main Entrance for Commercial Center Parking Lots having more than 200 Parking Spaces. o Sect/on 4.20.025.1: Pedestrian Walkways - sets forth design standards for pedestrian walkways within parking lot areas. o Sect/on 4.20.025.J: Surfacing - general provisions regarding paving and use of landscaping. o Section 4.20.025.K: Drainage - requires parking lot drainage to be contained within the parking lot area and in accordance with storm water quality standards. o Section 4.20.025.L: Landscaping - refers to the landscaping requirements set forth in Chapter 4.30: Landscaping and Buffer Yards. o Section 4.20.025.M: Screening - refers to the landscaping and screening requirements set forth in Chapter 4.30: Landscaping and Buffer Yards: Section 4.30.015.F: Landscaped Buffer for Open Parking Abutting Public Right-of-Way. o Section 4.20.025.N: Lighting - sets forth standards for lighting of parking lots and refers to Section 4.10.020.A: Lighting. . pc Staff Report. 03-11-08 51 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tttle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 o Section 4.20.025.0: Wheel Stops and Curbing - sets forth standards for use of wheel stops and curbing around landscaped areas. o Section 4.20.025.P: Markings - sets forth marking requirements for parking spaces striping, directional arrows, etc. [J Section 4.20.025.Q: Utilization of Required Parking Spaces - prohibits use of parking areas, driveways, and landscaped areas for the storage of material/merchandise. o Section 4.20.030: Driveways - sets forth standards for driveways, including visibility requirements at street intersections or right-of-way lines. See Figure 4.20.030.A: Parking Lot Design Standards and Figure 4.20.030.B: Driveway Visibility. o Section 4.20.035: Required Off-Street Loading - sets forth new standards for loading areas when required (buildings 10,000 square feet or larger). Establishes requirement for customer loading spaces for Building material and Home Improvement Sales and Service Stores over a specified size. Includes design and location standards, including screen walls and noise attenuation provisions. Requires Administrative Use Permit approval by the Director for exceptions to specified standards. o Section 4.20.040: Parking Structures - establishes new standards for design of parking structures within the City. Requires Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission for parking structures city-wide. [J Section 4.20.045: Required Bicycle Parking - establishes new standards for the provision of bicycle parking at non-residential and residential multi- family developments within the City. Sets forth design standards. o Chapter 4.25: Signs - Sets forth sign standards that apply to several or all districts, depending on the applicable land use and zoning district. o Section 4.25.010: Exempt Signs - specifies signs that are exempt from the provisions of the Chapter. o Section 4.25.015: Prohibited Signs - sets forth provisions regarding sign types that are prohibited in the City, including animated or moving signs, oft- premise signs, roof signs, and specified signs in the public right-of-way. See also Figure 4.25.015.F: Roof Signs. pc Staff Report.03-11-08 52 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - TitJa 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission 51aff Report March 19, 2008 o Section 4.25.020: Temporary Banners - maintains current City requirements regarding permit requirements for temporary banners. o Section 4.25.025: Signs - Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Other Non- Residential Districts - sets forth current sign standards for commercial, mixed-use and other non-residential districts, except as noted below: o Section 4.25.025.A: Allowable Signs Per Commercial Activity and Per Shopping Center Location - LC/RMD, PO, MSSP, SC, GC, LM and OE Districts - See also Table 4.25.025.A: Standards for Signs in Commercial, Mixed-Use, and Other Non-Residential Districts and as defined in Chapter 6.05: Terms and Definitions, under "Sign Types." The signs erected on a site may be any combination of permITted sign types, subject to the limitations for individual sign types listed in this Section and any other provisions of this Chapter. o Section 4.25.025.0.4: Marquee Signs - establishes new standards for this sign type and requires Administrative Use Permit approval by the Director for height and specified lighting exceptions. o Section 4.25.025.0.5: Portable A-Frame Signs - establishes ~ standards for this sign type and does not permit such signs on public property. o Section 4.25.025.0.9: Main Street Specific Plan District - Additional Requirements - maintains current sign standards and regulations. Requires Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission for multi-tenant structures and a "Planned Sign Program" for 4 or more separate tenant spaces. o Section 4.25.030: Signs - Residential Districts - maintains current regulations for signs in residential districts of the City. o SectIon 4.25.035: Temporary Signs - establishes requirements for temporary non-commercial and commercial signs citywide. Provisions comply with court decisions regarding freedom of expression and speech. o Section 4.25.040: General Provisions for All Sign Types - retains all current requirements regarding: o Calculation of Sign Area - set forth in Section 4.25.040A. o Materials - set forth in Section 4.25.040.B. o Illumination - set forth in Section 4.25.040.C. o Illumination, Main street Specific Plan District - set forth in Section 4.25.040.0. o Changeable Copy - set forth in Section 4.25.040.E. pc Staff Report.03.11-Q8 53 . . . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Ttffe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 Q Code Compliance - set forth in Section 4.25.040.F. o Section 4.25.045: Procedures for Sign Approval - retains all current requirements regarding procedures for sign approvals. Also includes new provisions regarding "Exceptions to Standards. (Section 4.25.045.F), and requires Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission for requested exceptions. o Section 4.25.050: Maintenance and Administrative Removal of Signs - maintains current standards and updates standards by referencing certain California construction codes. o Section 4.25.055: Legibility of Signs - maintains current provisions of Zoning Code. o Section 4.25.060: Materials - maintains current provisions of Zoning Code. o Section 4.25.065: Changeable Copy - maintains current provisions of Zoning Code. o Section 4.25.070: Historic Signs - maintains current provisions of Zoning Code. o Section 4.25.075: Illegal Signs - maintains current provisions of Zoning Code. o Chapter 4.30: Landscaping and Buffer Yards - Sets forth landscaping standards that apply to several or all districts, depending on the applicable land use and zoning district. o Section 4.30.010: Landscape and Irrigation Plans - specifies new provisions for preparation and submission of landscape and irrigation plans. o SectIon 4.30.015: Areas to be Landscaped - sets forth standards for areas on a lot to be landscaped. See Table 4.30.015.A: Amount of Landscaping Required. o Section 4.30.015.8: Street Side and Street Rear Property Line Walls- proposes new standards for landscaped pockets as part of new "Street Side and Street Rear Property Lin'e Walls." PC staff Report03-1 1-08 54 Public Hearing re: Final Draft- Title 11: Zoning . Ssal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 o Section 4.30.020: General Landscaping Standards - sets forth new landscaping standards regarding landscape design, plant material, and irrigation system requirements. o Section 4.30.025: Parking Lot Landscaping Standards - retains eXisting standards and proposes additional standards for parking lot landscaping in the following areas of concem: o Section 4.30.025.A: Landscape Area Required - requires a minimum of 15 percent of the parking lot area to be landscaped. o Section 4.30.025.B: Required Trees - requires minimum size of trees per number of parking spaces. o Section 4.30.025.C: Parking Lot Tree Shading - requires that within 15 years after establishment of a parking lot that at least 50 percent of the parking area will be shaded. o Section 4.30.025.0: Layout - sets .forth specific design standards for parking lot landscaped areas. See Figure 4.30.025.A: Minimum Dimensions of Required Parking Lot Landscaping. o Section 4.30.025.E: - Size of Tree Planting Spaces. . o Section 4.30.025.F: Landscaped Buffer for Open Parking Abutting Public RIght-of-Way - requires certain design standards regarding landscape width and/or screen walls where parking areas abut public roads. o Section 4.30.025.G: Landscaped Buffer for Open Parking Abutting Interior Lot Line - requires certain design standards regarding landscape width where parking areas abut an interior lot line. o Section 4.30.025.H: Protection of Vegetation - requires specified standards to protect landscape vegetation within parking lots. o Section 4.30.030: Required Street Trees - requires street trees to be planted at a ratio of at least 1 tree for each 25 feet of public street frontage. o Section 4.30.035: Landscape Installation and Maintenance - provides new standards for timing of installation of landscaping, maintenance, and enforcement. o Section 4.30.040: Buffer Yards - establishes new standards for provision of landscaped buffer yards between specified types of development. o Section 4.30.040.C: Required Buffer Yards - Minimum Dimensions and Standards - establishes new standards for size and design of required buffer yards. See Table 4.30.040.A: Required Buffer Yards . pc Staff Report.03-11-08 55 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft- Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 and Figure 4.30.040.C: Buffer Yards. Establishes additional standards for: o Location; o Landscaping; o Screening Walls; o Uses of Buffer Yards; o Buffer Yard Plan; and o Maintenance. o Section 4.30.045: Water Efficient Landscaping - establishes new standards in compliance with requirements of State law regarding water efficient landscaping. Provisions relate to: o Applicability; o Plant Selection, Water Features, and Use Limitation; o Soil Conditioning and Mulching; o Irrigation; o Documentation for Compliance; and o Alternative Provisions. o Section 4.30.050: Invasive Plant Species - prohibits plant species listed as problematic and/or invasive by the Califomia Native Plant Society, the California Exotic Pest Plant Council, or as may be identified from time to time by the State of California and plant species listed as a "noxious weed" by the State of Califomia or the U.S. Federal Government. o Chapter 4.35: Coastal Development Permit - this Chapter is reserved and will be prepared upon approval of the Local Coastal Plan and its Implementing Ordinances by the California Coastal Commission. o Chapter 4.40: Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots - this Chapter sets forth current regulations regarding nonconfonming uses, structures, and lots. New provisions are proposed to deal with certain non-confonmities as a result of the adoption of this Zoning Code. o Section 4.40.010: Maintenance and Repair of Nonconforming Structures - maintains current provisions of the Zoning Code regarding maintenance and repair activities. o Section 4.40.015: MInor Improvements to Nonconforming Residential . Structures - maintains current provisions of the Zoning Code. pc Staff Report.03-11-08 56 Public Hearing re: Final Draft- TrtJe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 o Section 4.40.020: Structural Alterations or Additions to Single Unit Residences Require a Conditional Use Pennit (All Residential Districts) o Section 4.40.020.A: Conditionally Permitted Alterations and Additions - maintains current provisions regarding structural alterations or additions to any single unit residence. A Conditional Use Permit would now be required, as the Minor Plan Review process has been eliminated in the new Zoning Code. Also includes new provisions regarding the following addiUonal design requirements that do not need to be met for the existing structure to allow the requested alteration or addition: o Fayade articulation, and o Additional front stepback above 14 feet. o Section 4.40.025: Valuation of Improvements - maintains current provisions of the Zoning Code. o Section 4.40.030: Nonconforming Multi-Unit Residential and Nonresidential Structures May Not Be Structurally Altered or Expanded; . and Exceptions - combines language from several different existing provisions into a single Section. No changes of current Zoning Code provisions are proposed. o Section 4.40.035: Changes, Substitutions or Expansions of Nonconfonning Uses - establishes new provisions, all of which require Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission, regarding the following types of non-conforming situations: o Section 4.40.035.A: Replacement with a More Conforming Use. o Section 4.40.035.B: Expansion Within a Confonning Structure. o Section 4.40.035.C: Expansion within a Nonconforming Structure. o Section 4.40.035.0: Expansion within a Structure That Does Not Confonn to the California Building Code. o Section 4.40.040: Conditional Use Permit to Change Nonconforming Status - sets forth new provisions to allow a Conditional Use Permit approval by the Planning Commission for a request to conform a use that became non-conforming upon the adoption of an ordinance that requires a use permit for the previously allowable use. Provides a 1-year time to submit the application. . 0 Section 4.40.045: Abandonment of Nonconforming Uses; Conditional . Use Pennit for Reestablishment of Abandoned Uses - sets forth new pc Staff Repart.03-11-<l8 57 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Trtle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 prOVISions to allow a Conditional Use Penmit approval by the Planning Commission for a request to reestablish an abandoned, non-confonming use, in a confonming structure. o Section 4.40.050: Restoration of Damaged Nonconforming Uses and Structures - generally maintains current provisions of the Zoning Code. Specific amendments are discussed and highlighted. o Section 4.40.050.A: Damage Equal to or Less than 50 Percent - retains current provisions of the Zoning Code. o Section 4.40.050.B: Residential Structure - Damage Greater than 50 Percent - retains current provisions of Zoning Code. o Section 4.40.050.C: Administrative Use Permit; Non-Residential Structure Damaged More then 50 Percent - retains current provisions of Zoning Code. o Section 4.40.050.0: Director and Building Official Review - Legality of Existing Improvements - retains current provisions of the Zoning Code. o Section 4.40.050.E: Alternate Procedures After a Natural Disaster - sets forth new provisions regarding the authority of the City Council to adopt altemative procedures for the approval of the reconstruction of nonconfonming structures damaged by a natural disaster. See also Part I: General Provisions; Section 1.05.020: Application During Local Emergency. o Section 4.40.050.F: Reassessment Procedure - retains current provisions of the Zoning Code. o Section 4.40.055: Nonconforming Historic Buildings - maintains current provisions of the Zoning Code. o Section 4.40.060: Nonconforming Use of Land Where No Structure Involved - maintains current provisions of the Zoning Code. o Section 4.40.065: Nonconforming Lots - maintains current provisions of the Zoning Code. See also Table 4.40.065: Minimum Legal Area and Dimensions of Lots of Record. o Chapter 4.45: Transportation Demand Management - this Chapter sets forth current regulations regarding Transportation Demand Management. .No changes to the current provisions of the Zoning Code are proposed. pc Staff Report 03-11-08 58 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 o Chapter 4.50: Adult Businesses - this Chapter sets forth regulations regarding adult businesses. Provisions that are proposed that are in full compliance with Federal court decisions regarding this land use. o Chapter 4.55: Affordable Housing Bonus - this Chapter sets forth current regulations regarding affordable housing bonus provisions in accordance with the provisions of State law. o Chapter 4.60: Hazardous Waste Facilities - this Chapter sets forth current regulations regarding hazardous waste facilities that are in compliance with a county-wide management program for such facilities. No changes to the current provisions of the Zoning Code are proposed. o Chapter 4.65: Tattoo Establishments - this Chapter sets forth current regulations regarding' tattoo establishments. No changes to the current provisions of the Zoning Code are proposed. o Chapter 4.70: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities - this . Chapter sets forth regulations regarding wireless telecommunications facilities that are in compliance with both Federal and State regulations regarding this land use. o Chapter 4.75: Common Interest Developments - this Chapter sets forth regulations regarding common interest developments. No changes to the current provisions of the Zoning Code are proposed. o Chapter 4.80: Condominium Conversions - this Chapter sets forth current regulations regarding condominium conversions. Minor changes to the current provisions of the Zoning Code are proposed to conform to State law requirements. o Chapter 4.85: Use Classifications - this Chapter sets forth new provisions that generally describe types of land uses for the following use classifications that are referred to throughout the proposed Zoning Code: D Section 4.85.015: Residential Use Classifications. o Section 4.85.020: Public, Semipublic and Service Use Classifications. D Section 4.85.025: Commercial Use Classifications. D Section 4.85.030: Industrial Use Classifications. . PC Staff Report.03-11-0B 59 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlfie 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 D Section 4.85.035: Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Use Classifications. D Section 4.85.040: Agriculture Use Classifications. PART V: LAND USE AND ZONING DECISIONS: D Chapter 5.05: Review Authority - Sets forth both permit approval requirements and responsibilities for the City Council, Planning Commission, Director of Development Services, and City Building Official. D Section 5.05.005: City Council - sets forth responsibilities of the City Council regarding zoning and land use development approvals. D Section 5.05.010: Planning Commission - sets forth responsibilities of the Planning Commission regarding zoning and land use development approvals. D Section 5.05.015: Director of Development Services - sets forth responsibilities of the Director of Development Services regarding zoning and land use development approvals. D Section 5.05.020: City Building Official - sets forth responsibilities of the City Building Official regarding zoning and land use development approvals. D Section 5.05.025: Review Authority - sets forth the review authority regarding zoning and land use development approvals. See Table 5.05.025: Review Authority, which identifies the city official or body responsible for reviewing and making decisions on each type of application, land use permit, and other entitlements required by this Zoning Code. D Chapter 5.10: General Procedures - Sets forth general procedures for processing applications for a change in land use entitlements or development project approvals. Generally reflects 'current provisions of the Zoning Code, with some revisions based on previous City Council and Planning Commission direction. The major procedural change encompassed within the proposed Zoning Code is the "Administrative Use Permif process, which does not currently exist, but generally replaces the current "Minor Plan Review" and "Height Variation' processes and changes the approving body from the Planning Commission to the Director of Development Services. PC Staff Raport03-11-OB 60 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission staff Raport March 19, 2008 D Section 5.10.025: Public Notification - sets forth public notice requirements regarding discretionary zoning and land use development approvals. D Section 5.10.025.A: Mailed Notices, Administrative Use Pennit Matters - requires notice of the subject matter to be mailed to all property owners of record and building occupants within a 300-foot radius of the proposed project. This notice requirement is the current requirement for Public Hearing Notices. o Section 5.10.025.B: Mailed Notices, Public Hearing Matters - requires notice of the subject matter to be mailed to all property owners of record and building occupants within a 500-foot radius of the proposed project. This notice requirement is increased over the current requirement for Public Hearing Notices of 300 feet. D Section, 5.10.060: Modification of Approvals - Establishes certain thresholds' of modifications that can be considered without a subsequent review by the approving body. D Section 5.10.060.B: Minor Modification by Director - permits the Director to approve such allowable minor modmcations and establishes certain conditions to be met. . D Section 5.10.065: Revocation of Permits - Establishes procedures for the City to consider a revocation of a permit for violation of permit terms and/or conditions, or any law or ordinance of the City. D Chapter 5.15: Legislative Actions - Sets forth general procedures for processing applications for a "legislative action', such as adoption or amendment of a General Plan or General Plan Element, adoption or amendment of a Specific Plan, adoption or amendment of a Planned Development Plan, adoption or amendment of the Zoning Code or Zoning Map, and adoption or amendment of a Development Agreement. Generally reflects current provisions of the Zoning Code, with some revisions based on previous City Council and Planning Commission direction. Combines general process and procedural requirements from various sections of the current Zoning Code into a single Chapter to improve clarity of the document. D Section 5.15.005: General Plan, Specific Plans, Planned Development Plans, Zone Changes and Development Agreements - specifies adoption . PC Staff Report03-11-OB 61 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Dreft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 requirements, initiation procedures and annual review requirements, when applicable. D Section 5.15.010: Specific Procedure for Processing Applications - sets forth procedures for processing applications and coordinating muitiple applications. D Section 5.15.015: Public Notice - sets forth additional notice requirements above those required in Chapter 5.10. D Section 5.15.020: Public Hearing and Action - sets forth required public hearing actions of the Planning Commission and City Council. D Section 5.15.035: Additional Requirements for Development Agreements - sets forth additional provisions regarding Development Agreements that are in complianCe with provisions of State law. D Section 5.15.040: Additional Requirements for Adopting Specific Plans- sets forth additional provisions regarding Specific Plans. D Chapter 5.20: Development Permits - Sets forth general procedures for processing applications for administrative use permits, conditional use permits, and variances. Generally reflects current provisions of the Zoning Code, with some revisions based on previous City Council and Planning Commission direction. This chapter incorporates the major procedural change encompassed within the proposed Zoning Code: the initiation of an "Administrative Use Permit' process, which does not currently exist, but generally replaces the current "Minor Plan RevIew" and "Height Variation" processes and changes the approving body from the Planning Commission to the Director of Development Services. Combines general process and procedural requirements from various sections of the current Zoning Code into a single Chapter to improve clarity of the document. D Section 5.20.005: Administrative Use Permits, Conditional Use Permits and Variances - sets forth the appropriate approving body for these types of land use entitlements. pc Staff Report.03-11-OB 62 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 D Section 5.20.010: Review Authority - references the tables in Part II that set forth the use types that are permitted by right, permitted by right with specmed limitations, or require Administrative or Conditional Use Permit approvals. In addition, Table 5.20.010: Review Authority lists the types of land use entitlements that require either an Administrative Use Permit or a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission shall consider all variance applications. D Section 5.20.015: Review Procedure - sets forth provIsions regarding application forms and fees, notice, and decisions on Administrative Use permits and Conditional Use Permits. D Section 5.20.015.C: Decisions on Administrative Use Permits - sets forth provisions regarding notification of Director Determinations to both the Planning Commission and City Council. o Section 5.20.020: Required Findings - sets forth the required findings for use permits and variances that must be made by the approving body to grant such requests. . D Section 5.20.025: Conditions of Approval - provides guidance on the purpose of imposing conditions and the types to conditions that can be considered by the approving body. D Section 5.20.030: Appeals - sets forth the procedures for tiling appeals of the decision of the approving body. o Chapter 5.25: Director Determinations - Sets forth general procedures for determinations by the Director of Development Services. Generally reflects current provisions of the Zoning Code, with some revisions based on previous City Council and Planning Commission direction. This chapter combines general process and procedural requirements from various sections of the current Zoning Code into a single Chapter to improve clarity of the document. It also incorporates provisions regarding "reasonable accommodation' to comply with Federal law requirements. D Section 5.25.010: Zoning Conformance Review Procedures - sets forth the procedures and findings for the Director to determine zoning conformance for applications for business licenses, building permit, or other . PC Staff Report03-11-08 63 . . . Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 land use entitlements. Sets forth required findings and procedure for providing the necessary written determination of zoning conformance. o Section 5.25.015: Temporary Uses - sets forth specified temporary uses that require an Administrative Use Permit approval by the Director, and those temporary uses that do not require such an approval. Also sets forth application requirements, minimum conditions to be applicable, and the imposition of additional reasonable conditions that may be imposed by the Director. o Section 5.25.020: Waivers and ExceptionslReasonable Accommodation - sets forth provisions regarding Director authority to grant a waiver or exception from the strict application of Zoning Code requirements when necessary to accommodate uses protected by state or federal law, including but not limited to the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. o Section 5.25.020.B: Required Findings - sets forth required findings to be made based on an applicant providing substantial evidence for the Director determination. o Section 5.25.020.C: Additional Finding - sets forth the additional required finding to be made if the waiver or exception requested is to provide reasonable accommodation pursuant to Federal or State statute that "Denial of the requested waiver or exception would impose a substantial burden on religious exercise or conflict with any Federal or State statute requiring reasonable accommodation of persons with disabilities.' o Section 5.25.020.E: Administrative Use Permit Required - provides that the Director may grant relief from the dimensional requirements of this Zoning Code not to exceed 5 percent of the requirement. Please note that this provision only applies to the Zoning Code, not to Title 10: Subdivisions. o Section 5.25.020.G: Standards for Which Exceptions May Be Considered - stipulates that exceptions may be granted up to 5 percent of the dimensional requirement for front, side, and rear yard setbacks; width of buffer yards, and other dimensional standards. o Section 5.25.020.H: Exceptions Shall not be Granted - stipulates that exceptions may not be granted for exceedence of maximum allowable height and main building envelope requirements. o Section 5.25.020.1: Referral of Applications to Planning Commission - sets forth provisions whereby the Director may refer requests for pc Staff Raport03-11-08 64 Public Hearing re: Final Draft- Title 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 waiver/exceptions to the Planning Commission for consideration under the Conditional Use Permit process. o Section 5.25.025: Appeals - provides an appeal process for both Director and Planning Commission detenninations/decisions. o Chapter 5.30: Environmental Review - Sets forth general procedures the City will use for conducting environmental review to meet requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other relevant and applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations for projects subject to the provisions of this Zoning Code. o Section 5.30.010: Review Procedures - sets forth the review procedures for evaluation, preparation, public review, reviewing body responsibilities, and determinations regarding all environmental review documents. These provisions are in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ~E~. . o Section 5.30.015: Mitigation Monitoring Program - sets forth the requirements for preparation, approval, and enforcement of mitigation monitoring plans. These provisions are in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). o Section 5.30.020: Appeals - provides an appeal process for both Director and Planning Commission determinations/decisions. PART VI: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS: o Section 6.05.010: Definition of Specialized Terms and Phrases - sets forth the definition of terms and specialiled phrases utilized in the Zoning Code. Additional definitions are also provided for terms and specialized phrases in the following Chapters of the Zoning Code: o Chapter 4.10: General Site Standards: o Section 4.10.020.B: Noise o Section 4.10.025: Recycling and Solid Waste Facilities o Chapter 4.45: Transportation Demand Management; o Chapter 4.60: Hazardous Waste Facilities; o Chapter 4.65: Tattoo Establishments; and EI Chapter 4.70: Wireless Telecommunications Facilities. . . * * * pc Staff Report03-11-OB 65 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission staff Raport March 19, 2008 ATTACHMENT 4 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS NOTE: THE FOLLOWING SUMMARY HAS BEEN PREPARED BY STAFF AND IS A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE VARIOUS STUDY SESSIONS. PLEASE REFER TO ATTACHMENTS 7 THROUGH 20 TO REVIEW THE VARIOUS STUDY SESSION MEETING MINUTES FOR MORE DETAILED INFORMATION PC Staff Report03-11-OB 66 . Public Haaring re: Final Draft - TJt/a 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code. Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS February 21. 2007 Joint CC/PC Study Session Staff Overview of All Parts Except Residential Standards, Including Title 10: Subdivisions: 0 Part I: 0 Part II: 0 Part III: 0 Part IV: 0 Part V: . 0 Part VI: General Provisions Base District Regulations: Commercial, Industrial, Public lands, etc. Overlay District Regulations Regulations Applying I"Some or All Districts Land Use and Zoning Decisions Terms and Definitions February 26. 2007 Joint CC/PC Study Session More Detailed Staff Overview of Part II Except Residential Standards and Title 10: Subdivisions: o Part II: Base District Regulations: o Chapter 2.10: Commercial and Mixed Use Districts o Chapter 2.15: Light Manufacturing and Oil Extraction Districts o Chapter 2.20: Public and Semi-Public Facilities Districts o Chapter 2.25: Open Space, Parks, and Recreation Districts . PC Stafl Report03-11-OB 67 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS (Continued) March 7.2007 Joint CC/PC Study Session Staff Overview of Residential Standards: o Part Y: Chapter 5.20: Development Penn its: o Review of table 5.20.010: Review Authority - Review of Administrative Use Pennit and Conditional Use Pennit Approvals Recommended by Staff o Part": Base District Regulations: Chapter 2.05: Residential Districts: o Table 2.05.010: Use Regulations o Change In Zoning District Designations (RLD-9, etc.) o Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards o Daylight Plane Standards o Other Proposed Standards o Comparison of Proposed FAR to Current Lot Coverage Standards . May 9. 2007 PC Study Session Overview of Staff Proposed Administrative Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit processes re: o 4.05.010: Accessory Business Uses and Activities: Incidental Business Activities o o o o o 4.05.050: 4.05.055: 4.05.100: 4.05.135: 'U5.015: Drive-In and Drive-Through Facilities Extended Hour Businesses Residential Accessory Uses, Structures, and Parking Vacation Rentals Retaining Walls greater than 30 Inches Tall . PC Staff Report03-11-OB 68 . . . Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS ( Continued) o D D o D o D 4.20.025 4.25.030 4.50.050 4.65.005 4.70.030 4.75.005 5.25.020 Mav 9. 2007 PC Study Session (Continuecfl. Parking Reductions Signs Restoration of Damaged Nonconforming Structures Tattoo Establishments Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Common Interest Developments Waivers and Exceptions/Reasonable Accommodations Commission and Public Items of Discussion: D Director Determinations D Reduced Rear Yard in RLD.9 District D Exception to Minimum Garage Width D Parking Locations Exceptions - Main Street and LC/RMD areas D Projections above Height Limit D Undergrounding of Utilities o Notification Process to PC and CC regarding Administrative Use Permit Approvals by Director D Costs to Appeal an Administrative Use Permit Action PC Staff Report03-11-OB 69 Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Tit/a 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS (Continued) Mav 23. 2007 PC Study Session Staff Overview of Residential Standards: D Part II: Base District Regulations: Chapter 2.05: Residential Districts: o Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards D Exclusion of Basements Totally Below Natural Grade D Revised FAR for Lots larger than 6,000 Square Feet - RLD-9 District D Third Story Living Area FAR Standards D Daylight Plane Standards D Additional Setback Standards for 2nd and 3rd Floor Living Areas D Comparison of Proposed FAR to Current Lot Coverage Standards . Commission and Public Items of Discussion: o FAR Bonus for Porches D FAR still allows for Large Homes to be Built - Concern that Size is Not Further Limited by Proposed Standards D Uncertainty of FAR Applicability D Limit Third Floor Living Areas to No More than 300 Square Feet D No Discussion of General Welfare and Economic Impacts of Proposed Standards D Reduce Lot Coverage Standard from 75% to 60% D Concern about Proposed Open Space Standards . PC Staff Report03-11-OB 70 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning Seal Beach MuniclpeJ Code, Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS (Continued) Mav 23.2007 PC Study Session (Continued). D Development Impacts on Existing Solar Power Installations on Residential Roofs D Prohibit Third Floor Roof Decks/Size Limitation on Decks D Interplay of FAR, Daylight Plane, and Stepback Provisions D FAR Incentives and Deductions June 6. 2007 PC Study Session Commission Discussion of following items: D AUP I CUP Process including Notification, Appeal Fee, and Appeal Process D Commission Direction to Staff on AUP / CUP requirements re: D 2-Story Cabana or Mobile Home - AUP D Projections Above Height Limit - Non-Residential Districts - AUP D Automated Teller Machines - AUP D Drive-In and Drive-Through Facilities - CUP D Extended Hour Businesses - CUP D Temporary Outdoor Displays and Sales Areas - AUP D Penn anent Outdoor Displays and Sales Areas - CUP D Outdoor Dining Areas -12 seats or less - AUP D Outdoor Dining Areas - more than12 seats - CUP D Minor Accessory Structures less than 6-Feet High in Required Setback - AUP D Retaining Wall Up to 48 Inches in Height- AUP D Retaining Wall Greater than 48 Inches in Height - CUP PC Staff Report03-11-OB 71 Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS (Continued) June 6.2007 PC Study Session (Continued) Parking Reductions ands Shared Parking Programs - AUP Parking Reductions - Other Parking Reductions - CUP Signs on Main Street Up to 3 Tenants - CUP Signs on Main Street, Planned Sign program - CUP Master SIgn Program - CUP Nonconforming Structure, Specific Structural Repairs - AUP - - Nonconfonning Structure, Residential Specified Minor Improvements -AUP Nonconfonning Structure, Residential Reconstruction after Damage More than 50% - AUP D Nonconforming Structure, Non-Residential Reconstruction after Damage More than 50% - AUP D D D D D D D . D Commission gave direction or received updated 'nfonnation on the following matters: D Reduce complaints to 3 for child care operations - direction D Limit RV/boat parking on private property to 72 hours - direction D Limit vacation rentals to no more than 2 units in the RHD-20 District - direction D Staff to propose additional landscape standards for 6-7 foot high street side walls and standards for rear walls - direction D Flood zone base elevation height to be as Staff has proposed for revision D Automatic sprinklers for terraces on multiple retaining walls to be as Staff has proposed for revision . PC Staff Roport03-11-0B 72 . . . Public Hearing 19: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS (Continued) D D June 6. 2007 PC Study Session (Continuedl. Staff to further research parking issues related to boarding houses Assistant City Attorney reported that Tattoo Establishments can be regulated by CUP with separation standards Staff to further research underground requirements for service facilities for wireless telecommunications facilities Received Information from Assistant City Attorney re: Identification of speakers at public hearings Staff clarified the appeal fees for AUP and CUP matters Staff clarified notification process to PC and CC regarding AUP actions by Director Proposed hours for "Extended Hour Business" will be for those businesses that wish to operate between 11 PM and 6 AM D D D D D June 20. 2007 PC Study Session Overview of following items: D Assistant City Attorney Presentation re: Ability to require underground equipment boxes and panels for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities o Staff Overview of Proposed Provisions for Commercial and Mixed Use DIstricts re: D Building Heights D Building Setbacks D BuildIng Transition Zone Adjacent to Residential Districts D Public Open Space D Paridng Locations PC Staff Report03-11-OB 73 Public Haaring re: Final Draft- Tlffe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal CcxIe, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19,2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS (Continued) D June 20, 2007 PC Study Session (Continued). o Location of Truck Docks, Loading and Service Areas o Building Design Features o Blank Walls o Building Orientation D Ground Floor Requirements o Building Transparency o Open Space for Residential Uses o Side and Rear Yards for Residential Uses o Consistency with Design Guidelines and Specific Plans o Pedestrian Access to Buildings D Projections Staff Overview of Standards for Light Manufacturing, 011 Extraction, Public and Semi~Public Facilities, and Open Space and Parks District Provisions Commission and Public Items of Discussion: D Confirmed that AUP notice would be 300 feet and CUP notice would be 500 feet D Comments re: standards if only residential development occurs on Mixed-Use property D Comments and discussion re: parking issues in Old Town D PC Staff Raport,03-11-OB 74 . . . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft- Tlffa 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19. 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS (Continued) July 18. 2007 PC Study Session Overview of following items: D Building EnvelopelDaylight Plane Provisions D Different Standards for RLD-9, RMD-18, and RHD-20 Districts D Comparison of Actual Construction Projects and Proposed Building Envelope and Daylight Plane Provisions D Commission and Public Items of Discussion: D General Commission Support for Building EnvelopelDaylight Plane Proposals D Public Concern about Proposed Exceptions to Daylight Plane ProvisIons AUQust 8. 2007 PC Study Session Overview of following items: D Single-Family and Multi-Unit Open Space Standards D Ratio of 2nd Floor to 10t Floor Living Areas D Minimum Width of DrIveways D Minimum PenneablelMaxlmum Pavlng Standards D Projections D Architectural Protrusions D Fa!;ade Articulation D Commission and Public Items of Discussion: D Proposals Becoming Too Complex D City Goals In Establishing Open Space Standards PC Staff Report03-11-OB 75 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19,2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS ( Continued) Auqust 8,2007 PC Study Session (Continued), D What Areas Count as FAR - Garage does not D Concern about Loss of Property Rights September 19.2007 PC Study Session Staff OvervIew of following items: o Allowable Incidental Business Activities D Automobile Service Stations D Automobile vehicle SaleslService D Drive-In and Drive-Through facilities D Home Occupations D Outdoor Dining, Display and Sales Areas D Residential Accessory Uses, Structures, and Vehicle Parking D Multi-Unit Residential Project Standards D Vacation Rentals D Warehouse Retail and Large-Scale Commercial Projects Commission gave direction or received updated information on the following matters: D Direction for additional provisions re: unamplifled entertainment at restaurants, etc. D Public concern about trash dumpster locations - Staff will review at a later time D Direction for additional provisions re: small group lessons and unamplified music lessons PC Staff Report03-11-OB 76 . . . Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS ( Continued) September 19,2007 PC Study Session (Continuec:n. D Revise allowable height of children's play equipment D Additional review of size threshold for Warehouse Retail and large- Scale Commercial Projects October 3. 2007 PC Study Session Staff Overview of following Items in Part IV: D Lighting Standards D Noise Standards . D Stann Drainage and Storm Water Runoff D Recycling and Solid Waste Facilities D General Height limitations - Fences D Height limitations for Retaining Walls D Special Wall and Fencing Requirements D Off-Street Parking Requirements - Increased Standard for Single Family Homes with 5 bedrooms or more D Parking Reductions D General Parking Design Standards D Required Off-Street Loading Requirements D Sign Regulations D Landscaping and Buffer Yard Regulations Commission gave direction or received updated infonnation on the following matters: D Public concern about trash dumpster locations and maintenance - Staff will review at a later time . PC Staff Report03-11-OB 77 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning . Seal Baach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS (Continued) October 3. 2007 PC Study Session (Continued) D Question about lighting standards for football and baseball fields o Staff to propose new standards for landscaping in conjunction with property line walls higher than 6 feet D Staff to propose additional standards for off-street parking where a driveway is large enough to accommodate parking of 2 vehicles (18' x 18' in area) D Adult Business provisions cannot preclude such a use from the City of Seal Beach o Requiring all wireless telecommunications accessory facilities to be underground is possible, but would still be subject to provisions of Federal law . October 10. 2007 PC Study Session Staff Overview of following items in Section 2.05: Residential Districts: D Complexity of Proposed Standards D Existing and Proposed Developments Compliance with Proposed Standards D Staff proposed elimination of Side Stepback provisions in RHD-20 District (Old Town) for less than 37.5 feet wide and proposed use of an additional "Side Setback" instead D Floor Area Ratio D Building Envelopes and Daylight Planes . PC Staff Report03-11-OB 78 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tilla 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS ( Continued) October 10,2007 PC Study Session (Continuecfl Public comments and Commission direction on the following matters: D Public - Proposed Regulations are Complex, but will lead to less massive residential structures D Public. Floor Area Ratio and Stepbacks should be eliminated - only need setbacks and daylight plane regulations D Commission - General consensus that proposed standards are not too complex D Public - eliminate third floor living areas D Public- smaller Is better; FAR for 3rt! story should be on the lower end, not the higher end D Public - don't take away property rights; third story should be at least 750 square feet In size D Public. have FAR standard apply to all habitable living floors of a residence D Commission direction - propose FAR of 0.10 and 0.15 for "base" and "Maximum" for 3rt! floor areas and Staff to develop "Incentives" and "Deductions" D Public - Covered Roof Access Structures (CRAS) are not necessary D Commission direction - Eliminate CRAS and allow for elevator shafts instead - Staff to develop standards PC Staff Report03-11-OB 79 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning . SaaJ Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS (Continued) November 7. 2007 PC Study Session Staff Overview of following items in Section 2.05: Residential Districts: D Additional Side Setback Above 14 Feet Standards D Open Space Standards D Ratio of 2nd Story Building Area to 1 st Story Building Area D Projections D Minimum Distances Between Buildings D Building Entrance D Fa!;ade Articulation - Lots Greater than 25 Feet in Width D Windows and Trim D Porches D Additional Front Setback Above 14 feet D Design of Building Additions D Curb Cuts and Driveways - RLD-9 District D Maximum Driveway Width - RLD-9 District D Limitations on Parking and Garage Frontage D 2-Story CabanalManufactured Home Public comments and Commission direction on the following matters: D Public - the greater the number of standards imposed, the less diversity is ultimately allowed D Public - Floor Area Ratio and Stepbacks should be eliminated - only need setbacks and daylight plane regulations PC Staff Report03-11-OB 80 . . . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS ( Continued) November 7. 2007 Commission D Discussion on appropriate side setbacks - lots less than 37.5 feet wide D Leave proposed 2nd/1at floor building ratio In RHD-20 District at 140 D Do not impose fayade articulation on lots 25 feet wide or less D Concern about garage setback PROVISIONS IN Section 2.05.015.X being applied in the case of reconstruction after a fire or other disaster PC Study Session (Continued). Public D Concern about roof deck setbacks on the second floor of a residence D Concern about required window trim provisions December 5. 2007 PC Study Session Staff Overview of f!>lIowing Items In Parts V and VI: D Table 5.05.025: Review Authority - Director Commission and Council review and approvals D Part V - Review of general administrative provisions D Notice requirements are proposed to change - 300-foot radius for Administrative Use Pennit and 500-foot radius for all other public hearing matters D Required "Findings" for Use Permits and Variances D Part VI - review of new and revised definitions PC Staff Report03-11-OB 81 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tit/a 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Raport March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS (Continued) December 5.2007 Public Comments o How can microwave dishes be Installed without notice to surrounding residences PC Study Session (Continued!. o Why is no parking required for new units being installed in the Seal Beach Trailer Park D City should change zoning of DWP property D- What types of "Director Determinations" can be granted, for exceptions to development standards February 6. 2008 PC Study Session . Staff Overview of following Items regarding Third Floor FAR standards: D Review of proposed FAR for 3rd floor living areas and overview of such development in the City D Staff favors a separate FAR for 3rd floors - not a combined FAR for all living areas as that type of a standard could have possible implications for the size of 2-story residential developments City-wide Public Comments D No studies have been conducted regarding 3rd story development impacts on mold, loss of light and air, and loss of sunlight for adjacent rooftop solar panel collection systems D Seal Beach Trailer Park should be re-zoned D City has no standards for "sober livIng" housing developments D Concern on "taking" of private property rights D DWP property should be re-zoned D A separate FAR standard for 3rd floors creates an Incentive to build 3rd floors . PC Staff Report.03-11-OB 82 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipel Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19. 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS (Continued) February 6.2008 PC Study Session (Continued), D FAR should apply to all living levels; not have a "bonus" for 3rd floors D Proposed standards are a "taking" of private property and private property rights D Many people support limiting home to 2 stories in height D Third floor FAR range of 0.10 to 0.15 Is acceptable Commission Comments and Direction D - Possible- penalizIng of 3rd story development wlth an overall FAR standard D Staff to prepare proposed FAR and "Bonuses" and "Deductions" for 19\ 2nd, and 3rd floors - 3rd floor FAR to have a "Base" of 0.10 and a "Maximum" of 0.15, respectively March 5. 2008 PC Study Session Staff Overview of following items regarding Third Floor FAR standards: D Review of completed revisions to FAR provisions based on previous Commission direction; D Excluded basement areas if totally below natural grade D Revised "Base" and "Maximum" FAR for lots larger than 6,000 square feet D Proposed language to exclude an "elevator shaft enclosure" up to 40 square feet in area from FAR calculation for 3rd floor living areas D Presented infonnation regarding the maximum allowable habitable areas for 3rd floor living areas at FAR ratios of 0.10,0.12, and 0.15. PC Staff Raport 03-11-OB 83 Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS ( Continued) D D March 5. 2008 PC Study Session (Continuecfl Review of proposed code language for FAR for 3rt! floors, includin~ proposed FAR and proposed FAR "Bonuses" and "Deductions" for 3 floors; 3m floor FAR to have' a "Base" of 0.10 and a "Maximum" of 0.15, respectively - Commission detennined to maintain the 3rt! floor FAR to have a "Base" of 0.10 and a "Maximum" of 0.15, respectively and to revise the proposed "Incentives" and "Deductions" Review of proposed ratio of 2nd story building area to 1st floor building area for RHO-20 District - Commission determined to delete this provision Review of proposed Section 2.05.015.J.3.e language for "Elevator Shaft Structures" - Commission determined to retain the proposed language without modification Review of proposed Section 2.05.015.X.5 language for "Required Garage Exception - RLD-9 District". Commission detennlned to retain the proposed language with modifications Review of proposed Section 2.05.015.EE language for "Roof Decks" - Commission detennlned to retain the proposed language without modification Review of proposed Section 2.05.015.FF language for "Elevator Shaft Structures" - Commission detennined to retain the proposed language without modification Review of proposed Section 2.10.015.E language for "Public Open Space" In Commercial Districts - Commission detennined to retain the proposed language without modification Review of proposed Section 2.10.015.K language for "Building Orientation" in Commercial Districts - Commission detennined to retain the proposed language without modification . D D D D D D . PC Staff Raport03-11 ~B 84 . . . Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS ( Continued) March 5. 2008 PC Study Session (Continued) Review of proposed Table 2.20.010 language for residential units in conjunction with a golf course - Commission determined to retain the proposed language without modification that would require Conditional use pennit approval for such uses Review of proposed Section 4.05.010 language for "Accessory Business Uses and Activities" - Commission detennlned to retain the proposed language without modification Review of proposed Section 4.05.060 language for "Home Occupations" - Commission detennined to retain the proposed language without modification Review of proposed Section 4.05.140 language for 'Warehouse Retail and Large-Scale Commercial Projects" - Commission detennined to retain the proposed language without modification Review of proposed Table 4.20.015 language for parking standard for "single-unit dwellings" - Commission detennined to retain the proposed language without modification that would now require a 3- car garage for homes with 5 bedrooms and 1 additional garage space for each additional bedroom D Review of proposed Section 4.20.035 language for "Required 00- Street Loading" - Commission detennined to retain the proposed language without modification D Review of proposed Section 4.30.015 language for "Areas to be Landscaped" - Commission detennined to retain the proposed language regarding landscaping as part of street side and street rear property line walls without modification D D D D D PC Staff Report03-11-OB 85 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 OVERVIEW SUMMARY: STUDY SESSIONS ( Continued) March 5, 2008 PC Study Session (Continued), D Review of proposed Chapter 4.40 language for "Non-Confonning Uses, Structures, and Lots" - Commission detennined to retain the proposed language without modification for Section 4.40.020.A for conditionally pennltted alterations and additions and to reject proposed changes to Section 4.40.050 (retaining current City requirements for non-conforming residential and non-residential structures damaged more than 50%) Public Comments (Not Compl.~tec;l) . . PC Staff Report,03-11-OB 86 . . . PC Staff Report03-11-OB Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 ATTACHMENT 5 CITIES UTILIZING FAR PROVISIONS 87 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlfle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 CITIES UTILIZING "FLOOR AREA RATIO" STANDARD IN ZONING CODE D Albany' D Beverly Hills D Burbank D Carpinteria D Claremont D Fullerton D Glendale D Goleta D La Canada Flintridge o Long Beach D Los Altos D Los Gatos D Malibu D Mill Valley D Montecito D Monterey Park D Moraga D Newport Beach D Pacific Grove D Palo Alto D Pasadena D Redondo Beach D Rohnert Park D San Diego D San Dimas D San Francisco D Santa Monica D Santa Barbara County D Saratoga D Summerland D Sunnyvale D Ventura PC Staff Raport03-11-OB 88 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Ttfla 11: Zoning Seal Baach Municipal Code. Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 ATTACHMENT 6 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT/NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY - INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 08-1 COPIES OF INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 08-1 ARE ALSO AVAILABLE AT EACH LIBRARY IN THE CITY, AT CITY HALL, AND IS POSTED ON THE CITY'S WEB PAGE FOR VIEWING AND DOWNLOAD AT: HTTP://PUBREC.CI.SEAL-BEACH.CA.USIWEBLINK7/CITY- WIDE AGENDAS - DRAFTS - NOTICES/FINAL DRAFT AND NOTICES - TITLE 11 - ZONING CODE PC Staff Report 03-11-OB 89 . . . Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT I NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY NEGATIVE DECLARATION 08-1 for the ADOPTION OF TITLE 11: ZONING SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE This serves as the City of Seal Beach's Notice of Intention to adopt Negative Declaration 08-1 for the adoption of a new Title 11: Zoning of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and local implementation procedures. DATE: March 10,2008 PROJECT: Adoption of New Title 11, Zoning, of the Seal Beach Municipal Code PROJECT LOCATION: The project will establish new zoning standards regarding all future development within the City of Seal Beach, except for the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, which is Federal property and not subject to local zoning regulations and requirements. LEAD AGENCY: City of Seal Beach, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California 90740. PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Seal Beach, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California 90740 DESCRIPTION: The proposed Comprehensive Zoning Code Update is a complete revision of the City's Zoning Code and is intended to reflect the most appropriate and best available development regulations and standards to meet the desires of the community regarding future development within the City. Such a comprehensive revision effort has not been undertaken within the community since 1974. As such, there are many changes from both procedural and development regulation standards incorporated into the proposed Zoning Code that do not currently exist in the present Zoning Code. The proposed Title 11, Zoning, does not propose any amendments to the basic lot size, density and building intensity, setback, lot coverage, height, parking, and sign regulations of the current zoning Code. Likewise, there are no changes to allowable and discretionary land uses within the City, other than minor uses such a news stands and kiosks. New provisions related to a number of design related issues are proposed, such as floor area PC Staff Report03-11-OB 90 Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 ratio, building envelope, and other design and aesthetic matters of concem to the City. In addition an "Administrative Use Permit' approval process is proposed which would allow the Director of Development Services to review and approve several types of discretionary land use approvals that are currently reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Please refer to Appendix A to review an overview summary of the major provisions of Proposed Title 11, Zoning. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City of Seal Beach proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration for the abovEK:ited project. Such Negative Declaration is based on the findings that there are potential significant adverse impacts related to implementation of the proposed project. Copies of the Negative Declaration (ND) and supporting materials are available for review at the City of Seal Beach, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, Califomia 90740. The ND is available for review during the Public Comment Period (March 10 to April 11, 2008). COMMENT PERIOD AND PUBLIC MEETINGS: D March 10, 2008 - Public Comment Period on ND begIns. . D March 19, 2008, 7:30 PM . PlannIng Commission - conduct public hearing to receive public comments; consider the draft TItle 11: Zoning and public comments; and provide comments regarding the ND. Close or continue the public hearing. o March 26, 2008, 6:30 PM - EQCB - hold public meeting to receive public comments and provide any Board comments regarding the ND. D March 26, 2008, 7:30 PM . Planning Commission - (If Commission has continued the public hearing) continue public hearing regarding draft Title 11: Zoning; close public hearing; provide any Commission comments regarding the ND; adopt resolutions regarding NO and new Title 11: Zoning with amendments determined appropriate based on public hearing testimony. D April 11, 2008 - Public Comment Period on ND ends. o April 14, 2008, 7:00 PM- City Council - conduct public hearing to receive public comments; consider the: draft Title 11: Zoning, recommendations of the Planning Commission and EQCB, and Commis~ion comments regarding the ND. Close or continue the public hearing. Introduction of ordinance to adopt TItle 11: Zoning. . pc Staff Report,03-11-OB 91 . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tllla 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Raport March 19, 2008 a April 21, 2008 7:00 PM - City Council - (If Council has continued the public hearing) conduct continued public hearing regarding draft Title 11: Zoning; close the public hearing; deliberate regarding whether to adopt resolution adopting ND 08-1 and ordinance adopting Title 11: Zoning. Location of all MeetinQs: City Council Chambers, 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, CA Written comments reaardinQ NeQative Declaration 08-1 should be provided bv 5:00 p.m. on April 11. 2008 to: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach,CA 90740 FAX: E-Mail: (562) 431-4067 Iwhittenberg@ci.seal-beach.ca.us . ReviewinQ Locations: Copies of Initial Study/Negative Declaration 08-1 and proposed Title 11: Zoning, Seal Beach Municipal Code, are available for public review at the following locations: D City of Seal Beach, 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, California 90740 D Mary Wilson Library, 707 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach, CA 90740 D Rossmoor/Los Alamitos Library, 12700 Montecito Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740 o Leisure World Library (Leisure World residents only), 2300 Beverly Manor Road, SealBeach,CA 90740 In addition, all referenced documents are available for viewing and download at: http://pubrec.ci.seal-beach.ca. us/weblink7. Dated this 10th day of March, 2008 I Whittenberg Director of Development Service . pc Staff Report,03-11-OB 92 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tllla 11: Zoning Seal Baach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Raport March 19, 2008 ATTACHMENT 7 JOINT CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, FEBRUARY 26, AND MARCH 7, 2007 "Seal Beach, California February 21, 2007 The citY of Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission met in' a joint study session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Larson Councilmembers Antos, Levitt, Shanks, Ybaben Planning Commissioners Bello, Deaton, Ladner, O'Malley, Roberts Also present: Mr. Beaubien, Interim City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Abbe, Assistant City Attomey Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. VUkojevic, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Mr. Crumby, Deputy City Engineer Mrs. Devine, City Clerk The Mayor announced the order for the study session: 1) Overview of the preliminary draft of the zoning code; 2) Council and Commission comments; 3) Public comments; and 4) Staff comments. OVERVIEW I "PRELIMINARY DRAFT - ZONING CODE" **A copy of the "Preliminary Draft" of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes and the presentations are on file in the Office of the City CletK until final adoption. ** PC SlaffReport03-11-OB 93 Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 The Director of Development Services gave a brief summary of the events that led up to this joint study session and explained the purpose of the first study session was to review the proposed preliminary draft of the zoning and subdMsion codes: Part I - general administrative section; Part III - sets forth the standards for the different overlay zones; Part IV - establishes standards for different types of uses that can occur in multiple zones either in residential or commercial zones; Part V - general administrative provisions on how the City processes applications for permits, variances, zone changes, general plan amendments, other discretionary applications; and VI - definitions. The Director further stated the main purpose of the meetings was to allow staff to present the preliminary document as how they see it should be restructured and to incorporate current updates that reflect the current development issues that the City is faced with in Southern Califomia and receive input from the Council, Commission, and the public as to whether staff is addressing their issues. There are two other study sessions scheduled to review the development standards for commercial, industrial, oil extraction, open space, park uses within, the City, and proposed standards for residentIal development " . Overview: The sections for review this evening are 60% to 70% current ordinance . provisions - no changes just reformatted to make it easier to read and added tables and graphs to explain terms and standards to help people better understand what the City expects in certain situations. The areas with changes or are new and different will be highlighted in yellow. In preparing to update the zoning and subdivision codes staff reviewed about 25 to 30 different zoning ordinances from primarily coastal cities in Califomia and those cities that have recently updated their zoning codes to try to reflect the current state of art (from as far south as Coronado to as far north as Monterey; including cities in Los Angeles County). The Director indicated that he will quickly go over the preliminary draft but will point out any changes in a little more detail. Part I - General ProvisIons: . Table 1.05.030 - Zoning Districts: basic, change in reference designations - the current designations were too confusing to the public (zoning districts were confused as Council District) also separated and simplified the other designations to reflect the actual land use (example Service Commercial was C1 will be SC and there will be a designation for a wetland area). . . Highlighted: in Old Town most areas are Residential High Density (RHD), with the area between 12th Street and Seal Beach Boulevard and Electric Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway currently designated Residential Medium Density (RMD). Staff is proposing that the current RMD area be reclassified as RHD. . pc Staff Report03-11-OB 94 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 . Chapter 1.15 - Rules of Measurement: there are diagrams that will help architects understand how the City determines measurements for. shortest distance invoMng a structure, lot width and depth; and lot width sample calculations. Part III - Overlay District ReQulations: . No proposed changes. Areas in the Overlay Zones: Residential Conservation - Bed & Breakfast facilities; Planned Development - Leisure World; Commercial Park - DWP property at 1 st Street and Ocean Avenue; and Coastal Zone - (reserved until after Local Coastal Plan is developed). Part IV - Reaulatlons ApplyinQ In Some Or All Districts: . This major section of the code has been signmcantly updated to reflect the current state of planning in Southem California. · Chapter 4.05 applies no matter where in the City a particular land use is located ; Chapter 4.10 ,deals with noise, lighting, and maintenance standards; Chapters 4.15, 4.20; 4.25,-and 4.30 incorporates 85% current provisions with 15% new ideas on how to deal with some issues and includes graphic illustrations on what the City would like people to think about; Chapters 4.40 through 4.85 are existing codes - no changes just reformatted to reflect the new numbering system and some clean up language for better understanding; Chapters 4.35 and 4.90 are reserved for future Coastal Development and Historic Preservation codes and standards. · Table 5.20.010 is in Chapter 5 of the code that sets up staff recommended review responsibilities between an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) or a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The changes would be that the CUP would continue to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the permits that are currently approved by the Planning Commission under their consent calendar (minor plan review, height variations, etc.) would be done under the new recommended AUP. Any approvals that would require a public hearing with noticing of property owner in a radius of 300 feet of a project location would remain under the Planning Commission approval (CUP). Any minor review with noticing of 100 feet of a project would be under the, AUP approval with an appeal process of the decision - rational: it would allow the project applicants to be able to receive approval sooner without any impact to the City. In the AUP process staff would notice the meeting and list the items up for review, if it appears to be a sufficient issue the proposed language In the process would allow the Director to, refer the item to the Planning Commission automatically - this gives the process flexibility and still speed' up the approval process for those applicants who are requesting what the City has generally approved on a routine basis. The Council and Commission should review the chart to determine if they aoree with the staff recommended desionations. ' Highlighted items are the areas that the City has no current regulations covering the provision. PC Staff Report03-11-OB 95 PubJjc Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning e Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 · Section 4.05.010 - Accessory Business Uses and Activities - would be allowed if the activity occurs less than once a week; if it occurs once a week an AUP is required; and if it occurs more than once a week a CUP is required. · Section 4.05.050 - Drive-in and Drive-thru Facilities - proposing a progressive evaluation and review through AUP or CUP. · Section 4.05.055 - Extended Hour Businesses - currently referred to as 24 hour operation cut off from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.; suggested considering a change to 11 :00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. with the required permit process. · Section 4.05.090 - Outdoor Dining, Display, and Sales Standards - accessory displays and dining would require AUP and permanent displays and dining would require CUP. · Section 4.05.100 - Residential Accessory Uses and Structures - detached structures requirements would be the same for both pre-fabricated and non-pre-fabricated; maximum lot coverage not to exceed 225 square feet and must be located on rear half of lot; non-structures would not apply. · Table 4.05~ 11 0.B.1- Multi-Uliit Open Space Requirements. · Section 4.05.135 - Vacation Rentals - new section with CUP required. · Section 4.05.140 - Warehouse Retail - structures of 60,000 square feet or larger - to . require architectural design - prevent big cube look. · Chapter 4.10 - primary focus in this chapter is section 4.10.020 - Performance Standards dealing with lighting and noise - no changes just cross reference to other sections in the code. · Table 4.1 0.020.A - Outdoor Parking Area Illumination Levels By Use ., Included noise standards that are in other sections of the code to make sure the applicants are aware of the standards. Currently no standards for indoor commercial, industrial, or office building - will evaluate on a case by case basis. · Storm Drainage and Storm Water Runoff requirements for development - proposed in response to state mandates (also in other sections of the code). · Recycling and Solid Waste - current code does not address the required dumpsters for multi-units - will have equipment and design standards (Table 4.10.025.D.1 - residential and Table 4.10.025. D.2 - non-residential) · Chapter 4,15 - FenCes, Hedges. and Walls - one minor change - maximum height from 6 feet to 7 feet (solid wall with additional 1 foot of open lattice type material). Retaining wall changes were done about 4 years ago dealing with area by Gum ,Grove Park (graphics are included). · Chapter 4.20 - Off-Street Parking and Loading - major change is in the requirements for siriglefamily homes and parking lot design standards. With no objections Mayor Larson called for a recess at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:45 p.m. . PC Staff Raport03-11-08 96 . . . Public Haaring re: Final Draft - TJtla 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Mr. Whittenberg continued to review the proposed Zoning Code provisions: . Change in the number of garage spaces required - above 3 bedrooms you are required to add parking spaces. . Diagrams are included to outline layout and design of commercial parking lots. . Chapter 4.25 - Sign Regulations - added: marquee signs - to preserve the Bay Theater sign and portable A-frame signs can only be used on private property with size nmitation and ADA access. . Chapter 4.30 - Landscaping and Buffer Yards - added language and standards for Buffer Yards and landscaping standards for new residential areas of 5 units and larger as well as and all non-residential projects requiring a detailed landscape and inrigation plan (follow state requirements); alternative plans for the coastal area as required by the Coastal Commission. . Buffer Yards - require a minimum width of landscape area between an intensive use (commercial and industrial) of land and a less intensive use (residential) of land. . Chapter 4.40 through 4.85 - no substantial changes. Part V . Land Use and ZonlnQ Decisions: · Review Authority - the only change would be to implement the Administrative Use Permit. This would include an opportunity for the applicant to appeal a decision to the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Adult Business Zoning Clearance decision would be made thru AUP with appeal to City Council. The WaiverlReasonable Accommodation deals with the Fair Housing Act - ADA, decision made through AUP with appeals to Commission and Council. · Noticing radius is recommended by staff to increase mailings to property owners/residents to 500 feet Rational: to help prevent the Commissioners and Council members from FPPC violations / conflict of interest. Part VI - Terms and Definitions: · Chapter 6 has expanded with graphs and diagrams to help clarity the meaning of the technical requirements and interpretations - how staff will determine and calculate the different codes. This concludes the presentation. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION COMMENTS · The Director of Development Services was complimented and commended by the City Council and Planning Commission on how well the presentation was prepared and how the use of charts and graphics were helpful. · Commissioner Roberts asked if there was a policy on historic buildings being built prior to 1925 - Director's resoonse: it was a standard that was incorporated into the PC Staff Report03-11-OB 97 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Residential ConserVation Overlay Zone as a criteria to what would qualify for conversion to a bed and breakfast and encourage only those very old homes in town to stay as an economical viable use and under federal historic preservation regulations a potential historic structure is anything that is over fifty years old - this is a separate issue and will be dealt with after the completion of this process. · Councilman Shanks expressed his biggest concern is the expansion to an Administrative Use Permit; need to have a process to keep the Commission and Council informed before they receive calls from unhappy applicants. Commissioner Deaton concurred. Commissioner O'Malley stated that he would like to see a document that would list what was approved by the AUP. Director's response: that there would be a regular noticed meeting with him, the staff, project applicants, and interested public members. The agenda for each meeting could be sent to both the Council and Commission as to what will be up for AUP approval, a follow-up report indicating the action taken, and that there will be an appeal period at all levels. . Councilman Antos suggested that the, zoning map be more detailed - Director's resDonse: the department is in the process of digitizing the City's zoning map and make it available on-line where someone will be able to click on an area and it would indicate all the zoning requirements and PDF files (RLD-9 standards). . This Goncludes the Council and Commission comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS The Director indicated that the Council and Commission received two documents this evening: 1) an email message from Dr. Goldberg with staff response and 2) a letter from David Broomhead regarding a residential issue. ' · Robert Goldberg, Bridgeport/Seal Beach, commended the Director on an impressive presentation and document; felt that the changes would make the City more livable and would decrease the red tape where it is appropriate. This would give the Commission more control where appropriate. He stated his concerns were that there are several major commercial developments already in progress that would not be under the new changes and that there needs to be a process to address the existing non-conforming use. · There were no other speakers. Due to a schedule conflict, Councilman Ybaben suggested that the study sessions start at an earlier time. By consensus the, February 26th study session will start at the scheduled time of 6:30 p.m. and the March 7th study session would start at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner O'Malley indicated that he wtll not be able to attend the February 26th session but will view the video tape. ADJOURNMENT pc Staff Reporl.03-11-08 98 . . e . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beech Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council and Commission, to adjourn the meeting at 8:37 p.m. to Monday, February 26th, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. to continue the joint study session." 'It 'It .. * 'Seal Beach, California February 26, 2007 The City of Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission met in a joint study session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order. ROLL CAll Present: Mayor Larson -Cotincilmembers Antos, levitt, Shanks, Ybaben Commissioners Bello, Deaton, ladner, Roberts Absent: Commissioner O'Malley Also present: Mr. Beaubien, Interim City Manager Mr. Abbe, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Vukojevic, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Mr. Crumby, Deputy City Engineer Mrs. Devine, City Clerk Mayor Larson introduced Mr. Greg Beaubien the interim City Manager and announced the order of the session: staff overview of Chapter II, followed by Council and Commission comments, and public comments. REVIEW I "PRELIMINARY DRAFT - ZONING CODE" The Director of Development Services stated that the area of the zoning code that will be covered would be the standards for commercial, industrial, open space and park districts within the City as well as Title 10 (subdivision). Part II . Base District Reaulations: . Chapter 2.10 - Commercial and Mixed Use Districts: Referred to Table 5.20.010 the Land Use Entitlement or Activity indicating the permits that would be under the Administrative Use Permit (AUP) and the decisions could be appealed to the Planning Commission. PC Staff Report03-11-08 99 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Table 2.10.010 - Use Regulations - Commercial and Mixed Use Districts: The table lists the types of use and the columns indicate what regulations are required - the majority of the items listed on the table have not Changed in regards to the review authority and the uses permitted - only those items highlighted have changes: Adult Business Establishments; Banks drive-thru and ATM's - change to AUP; Commercial Recreation - separate large and small; Eating and Drinking Establishments - change to AUP; Kiosks not currently in code (allow only in major shopping centers) - permitted through AUP; Handcraft/Custom Manufacturing (Art on Glass) not currently in code; Antennae and Transmission Towers/Facilities - restriction and regulations set by federal law, at the bottom of the table are descriptions of the Limitation designations - L- 5 and L-6 are related to coffee establishment uses. Table 2.10.015 - Development Standards: Added the Floor Area Ratio (FAR - ratio of the size of the lot to the size of the building) to establish a maximum area for the number of square feet of building on a property; added Building Transition Zone Adjacent to R (residential) Districts; Building Design section is to help developers/architects to better understand what the City would like to see incorporated in new buildings; the last column of the table sets forth the subsections listed that give specific types of design standards required. Building Setbacks - Minor changes to the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) proposed that new buildings have to be built no further back than 10 feet from the sidewalk to maintain the pedestrian capability along the street and not allow curb cutouts to driveways (all access to parking areas are off the alley) and that there be setback limitations to professional office (PO) buildings. Landscape section (2.10.015.D.1 and 2) to allow air flow and sunlight where mixed use occurs (diagrams added). Sub-section E - New section for public gathering space (courtyard) for buildings over 25,000 square feet. Sub-section F.2.a - Clarify the location of the public parking areas - these are small lots. Sub-section H - Currently no standards for where the location of truck docks and loading service areas - proposed to be'through AUP. Sub-section I - Building Design Features this is more advisory than mandatory - worded ,that the Director has final design authority and the applicant can appeal the decision (diagrams added). Sub-section K - Building Orientation - the main entrance of the business should face the public street Sub-section N - This is a new section for mixed use requiring 100 square feet of open space and new required setbacks and windows. Sub-section R - Projections - proposed AUP approval . . . . . . . . . . . PC Staff Report03-11-OB 100 . . . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beech Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 . Chapter 2.15 - Liaht Manufacturina (Boeina/Pacific Gateway) & Oil Extraction (Hellman property) Districts: Currently the regulations are controlled by the Boeing Specific Plan. Sample design photos are included to help clarify requirements. Chapter 2.20 - Public & Semi-Public Facilities Districts: Land Use/Recreation is all park areas; Recreational Golf is only Old Ranch Country Club. The regulations would depend on what is adjacent to the property. Chapter 2.25 - Open Space. Parks. & Recreation Districts: Divides the open space areas from the park areas (facilities). Open Space - Natural areas can only have public safety facilities. Commercial Recreation areas designated large would be greater than 20,000 square feet. AUP approval is proposed for concession stands. The regulations for development would depend on what is adjacent to the property. . . . . . . . Title 10 . Subdivisions: . Title 10 is a new section for Subdivisions - what was previously presented is the proposed Title 11 for Zoning Codes and Standards. . Chapter 10.50 - Streetscape and Chapter 10.55 - Block Structure are the only new sections to the current Subdivision Codes. All the other chapters were just reformatted and updated language to reflect current state requirements. . Chapter 10.05 - Administration: Under the Subdivision Map Act the Planning Commission serves as the primary Advisory Agency and can approve certain types of land subdivision without City Council approval and there are other approvals that require Commission recommendation and Council approval; staff is recommending a Subdivision Technical Review Committee be established which would consist of the Planning Director, the Building Official, and the Public Works Director to consider minor lot line adjustments and to review and give technical assistance and recommendation for requests for creating new parcels either under parcel map (Planning Commission approval) or tract map (Council approval) - Table 10.05.035 Review Authority. · Chapter 10.10 - Approval Requirements: Listed exemptions from the Map Act - City Council approval only. · Chapter 10.15 - Improvement Requirements: Storm drainage requirements in compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board. · Chapter 10.50 - Streetscape: Standards and requirements for basic street design, intersections, and driveway and alleys. _ This is to give a, developer of land a better understanding up front as what the City wants to see in regards to design standards (illustrations included). PC Staff Report03-11-OB 101 Public Haering re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 · Chapter 10.55 - Block Structure: Standards and guidelines for a better planned neighborhood. · This concludes the presentation. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION COMMENTS · Councilman Shanks queStioned the parking requirement of three spaces for a four bedroom home; would that be retro-active to make it legal non-conforming for existing homes? Director's resoonse: the existing homes would be grandfathered in but if they wanted additional bedrooms they would need to comply with the current codes and standards. · Councilman Levitt stated his on-going concern about the parking at small shopping center (Leisure World) being a dangerous situation and is there anything in the current code that would allow the City to have the developer make changes to make the parking lot safer? Director's resoonse: there is nothing that would require the developer to make any changes but you can always go back and ask them to consider to make changes based on the concems of the public or Council - if the owners of the property come back to make any changes they would be under the new standards (proposed Chapters 4.30, Landscape and 4.20, Off Street Parking). · Mayor Larson said that neither the Bixby nor the Rossmoor projects comply with the new proposed ordinance regarding the parking area being located in the back and there should not be any parking that would require the drivers to back out into a main access lane. Director's resoonse: where the back parking would be is in the Limited Commercial-Residential Medium area along Seal Beach Boulevard, along Main Street and on properties that maybe in a Professional Office zone, not in the shopping centers. The proposals presented can be changed. Any changes to existing buildings and shops would be required to comply with the new codes and standards. · This concludes Council and Commission comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS · Mike Buhbe, Central Way, had three questions regarding the Preliminary Draft - Part" - 1) roof top parking (page 26) would this be possible anywhere in Old Town; 2) did not understand drawings regarding setbacks of different kinds of windows in the residences near the commercial (page 40); and 3) what the ratio for park requirements for new subdivision projects. Director's resoonse; 1) as proposed; any parking structure would require Planning Commissipn approval of a Conditional Use Permit -, there are proposed design standards for ramps; 3) ratio for park requirements would only apply to subdivision creating new residential property not commercial or industrial subdivision of land and there is a PC Staff Roport03-11-OB 102 . . . . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 standard of five acres per thousand people anticipated to reside in the residential project - in proposed Title 10, Subdivisions, there are specific land areas based on the type of housing and number of bedrooms that are proposed Robert Goldberg, Seal Beach, had a question on (page 22) table regarding building standards for commercial and mixed use districts - height (right hand column) limitation and story maximum - not consistent. Director's response: these are current proviSions of the code; the standards for Main Street were developed because there were concerns when the Main Street Specific Plan was being developed about the ability to develop three story structures. Mitzi Morton, Seal Beach, expressed her concern regarding what the cost of appeals would be using the Administrative Use Permit. Currently to appeal to Council it is $750.00. Director's response: currently for Minor Plan Review and Height Variation the fee is $150.00 for both the application and the appeal; for CUP the fee for appeal and application is $750.00; the difference in the amount is due to the administrative process cost for the appeals (CUP requires notice in the newspaper and to notice residents in a 300 foot radius (proposal would change this to 500 feet) and additional staff reports). The Council approves a fee schedule annually and any changes in the fee would be approved at that time - AUP fee is anticipated to be $150.00. Eldon Alexander, 8th Street, questioned that for the Commercial-Mixed Use- RMD the FAR was 0.9 for 2,500 sq. ft. lot but if you go to residential same lot size the FAR is,1.0 - is this an inconsistency. Director's reSDonse: the Limited Commercial with a 0.9 is for commercial development, not for residential development, and in addition to this allowable commercial development people are allowed to build residential units on top the commercial building. This does not exist in other zones in the City. There were no other speakers. . . . COUNCIL AND COMMISSION COMMENTS. Continued . Councilman Shanks commented on the fact that Councilman Ybaben would not be in attendance for the entire study session scheduled for March 7th and asked if they should reschedule the last session in order to have everyone present. Felt that much of this process is due to Councilman Ybaben's concems. . Councilman Ybaben stated that he would be viewing the video tape of the study session before the public hearings. · Mayor Larson inquired if they can reschedule the last session. Director's response: all the sessions were published in the newspaper indicating the schedule of meetings and in fairness to all parties a date later than the March 7th should be agreed to so that staff can advertise the new date and time to highlight the change. PC Staff Report03-11-OB 103 . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Commissioner Roberts stated that if the presentation for March 7th were longer than Councilman Ybaben would not be present to hear any comments. Commissioner Deaton requested that Council give direction to the Planning Commission so that they can hold the first set of public hearings and make their recommendation to the City Council - Councilman Ybaben would need to be present in order to do this. Councilman Antos stated that since the meetings are already scheduled the presentation should be given and then continue the session to a date certain to take all comments; the proposed drafts do not have any recommended compromises that deals with the two/three story issue. Stated that under Council Business they are being asked to take action without any suggestion of a compromise. Mayor Larson indicated that there would not be decisions made at the conclusion of the study sessions but to hear what is proposed by staff and for fact finding. The. Director commented that staff provided additional provisions and design features to the code for side and rear setbacks on second and third floors based on the height of walls adjacent to side property lines and the length of those walls; whether this is sufficient enough to satisfy everyone is up to Council. Commissioner Deaton asked for clarification regarding design factor for third story and roof line. Director's response: this discussion is for the March 7th session. Mayor Larson indicated that no one had a problem with the schedule and should continue as advertised. Councilman Shanks agreed and stated that if there is some dissatisfaction with this process they can vote to have additional meetings. Councilman Ybaben further stated that people are looking for immediate answers but the process is set up to present the information and then to hear any related comments. This is all information gathering and there are further meetings to be scheduled. Mayor Larson said this is not between the Council and Commission this is for the opportunity to hear what the public wants; they have divided themselves and will express their viewpoints. . .. . . . . . . . . With no objection, Mayor Larson continued the joint study session to March 7th.' .. .. .. .. "Seal Beach,: Califomia March 7, 2007 . PC Staff Report03-11-OB 104 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning Saal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Raport March 19, 2008 The City of Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission met in a joint study session at 6:00 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order. ROLL CALL Present Mayor Larson Councilmembers Antos, Levitt, Shanks, Ybaben Commissioners Bello, O'Malley, Roberts Absent: Commissioner Deaton was not present due to a family emergency; Commissioner Ladner (resigned) Also present: Mr. Beaubien, Interim City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attomey Mr. Abbe, Assistant City Attomey , Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Vukojevic, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Mr. Crumby, Deputy City Engineer Mrs. Devine, City Clerk The Mayor announced the order of procedure for the session: staff report, staff overview, Council and Commission comments, and public comments. Further stated that there are two sides to this issue and asked that everyone respect all speakers' comments. REVIEW - "PRELIMINARY DRAFT - ZONING CODE" Director Whittenberg, Development Services, indicate that this is the last scheduled study session to go over the proposed zoning code revisions and will focus on the residential development standards. (Copy of presentation is on file.) · Table 5.20.010 - Review Authority: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would go to the Commission/public hearing process - more controversial requests and the Administrative Use Permit (AUP) would be more minor and routine requests. · Table 2.05.010 - Use Regulations ~ Residential Districts: letter designations are defined; RLD, RMD, and RHD are currently used; land use types are listed; L-2 (limitations) retail and large apartment buildings (150+ units) currently only applies to the Oakwood Apartments. · DeveloPment Standards - Changing name designation of planning districts to indicate the number of housing units that can be built per acre of land in that particular zoning classification - example RLD-9 designation the maximum number is nine units of separate single units on the property of an acre of land. PC Staff Roport03-11-OB 105 Public Hearing re: Final Draft- Tlffa 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 . RLD-9 (CPElCPWJHiI~; RLD-15 (Bridgeport/Suburbia); RMD-18 (Bixby TownhomesJORCClLampson); RHD-20 (Old Town - currently RMD & RHD); RHD-33 (Oakwoodltrailer parklRiverbeach); RHD-46 (RossmoorlMontecito Road) Reminder - all the areas in the presentation that are highlighted are the changes to the proposed draft; the rest are current provisions. One of the main ideas staff is proposing for consideration is the idea of establishing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for residential development - currently what controls the size, bulk, mass of homes in town are the required setbacks, m~mum height limits, and lot coverage standard. FAR would basically limit the size of livable area that can be built on the lot - it is set forth as a ratio to the lot area of the property (Table 2.05.015.C - Allowable Base and Maximum FAR by Lot Area) the numbers are subject to change after more determination is given to the current homes being built. Proposed are. FAR design incentives and deductions (bonus and deduction, points are listed in Table 2.05.015.D.1 and D.2) - this would encourage an owner and an architect to work with those incentives and deductions to figure out how they can design a home that best meets their needs, meets the City's needs, and still allow some flexibility in the design. There are proposed provisions that are required for ratio of second story building area to the first story, maximum height of down slope skirt walls, and maximum court dimensions. Required Daylight Planes (Table 2.05.015./) - This will change the maximum building envelope at the roof line from a cube look to a more traditional slope type roof - primary building design (subsection "T") would require additional setback on the additional side step back above 21 feet and some solar access standards (section 4.10.045). This general concept is only proposed for the RLD-9, RMD-18, and RHD-20 zoning district (Table 2.05.015.1). A certITication of Daylight Plane compliance would be required. Retaining the current provisions of the code regarding the third story construction on the rear half lots that are 37.5 wide or wider - the additional setbacks and daylight planes propose provisions would impact the design of third story areas - Commission and Council will have to make the final determination- staff is trying address some of the concerns through design standards. Other changes: curb cuts and driveways (RLD-9) would address semi-circular driveways; limit the width of a garage (facing a street); retaining the maximum square feet of a garage; for water quality control (water run-off) a requirement of 60% of street facing yards shall have a permeable surface; open space requirement for single unit resident have permanent outdoor use in RLD-9 be a minimum of 800 square feet and in RHD-20 a minimum of 225 square feet, with certain design standards; and a new section would put a size limitation for a two . . . . . . . pc Staff Report03-11-OB 106 . . . e e Public Hearing re: Rnal Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 story cabana (Califomia regulations managing this program defines a cabana as an accessory structure to the main living unit and cannot exceed the size of the mobile home or travel trailer). The Director concluded the presentation with pictures of residential development with a comparison chart of the current and the proposed standards. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION COMMENTS Mayor Larson announced that at this time the Council member and Commissioners will make their comments followed by Public Comments - there will be no decisions made and further study sessions and public hearings will be conducted. . Councilman Ybaben stated that he believes that the Council does not give direction to the Planning Commission because they are an independent body and, that the Commission should work through the presented information as well as any additional comments that are presented to them and make recommended changes to the draft that would be presented to the Council for consideration; requested that a record be kept of all public comments in order to make certain that the Planning Commission address all the concems and make note whether the comments were incorporated into the changes or not - this way there is a record that all comments were taken into consideration. The document presented is a draft and, the Planning Commission is the body that will work the hardest to craft it into a final document that will become the new law. Later stated that the AUP idea has merit for residents and more efficient for the City; would reduce staff time to prepare agenda reports and would help residents to move forward with their minor projects between Commission meetings. · Commissioner Roberts indicated that the Commission is willing to take on the job and commended the Director for highlighting the areas of concern that will need additional amount of time to not only come to a conclusion but to also come to an understanding on what the changes will mean - one major concem would be the idea of open space and its effect on all properties. . Councilman Levitt asked the Director to provide a guide in layman's term for the floor area ratio and under landscaping section says .permanently maintained after approval" - how would Council ensure this will be done. Director's response: staff will compile all the comments and concerns and address them in Mure sessions. · Commissioner Bello commented that a record of all public comments is a good idea in order to make sure everyone is heard and would like to have more visuals when going through the process. · Councilman Shanks said that after being on the Planning Commission, felt it would have been ,helpful if the Planning Commission received guidance from the pc Staff Report03-11-OB 107 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tiffs 11: Zoning . Saal Beach Municipal Code. Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 City Council on their views regarding major changes this would save time if the change being considered is the direction the Council would approve; the two relatively large changes would be the administrative and conditional use permits and believes the other area would be elements on the height limits. Later stated that the AUP concept has merit and a movement in the right direction - Council needs to give direction that they agree with the concept. Councilman Antos expressed that there is currently a property maintenance ordinance that can be modified to address the long term maintenance of landscape; the covered roof access (dog house) structure should be handled architecturally; and all additions should be architecturally tied in. Later added that he is in favor of the AUP concept and that the Commission should discuss in depth with staff at what level of comfort they would have as to what would be considered routine and what type of noticing should be giVen to Council and the Commission. Commissioner, O'Malley agreed with the increase of setbacks and landscaping that would help prevent flooding in Old Town; one of the biggest jobs for the Planning Commission would be to determine what should be under the AUP and what should be a CUP - would be helpful to know that Council would want this process; felt that the Planning Commission has always taken the public comments serious but has not been documented; inquired if there is a provision that would prohibit a new structure from blocking solar panels/equipment on a neighboring property. Director's response: nothing for the existing structures the provision recommended would generally allow the solar capability from new structures. Mayor Larson realized that there cannot be any decision made at this time because there are substantial amount of changes that need to be considered; one area is the permit approval process (AUP vs. CUP) letting staff deal with minor approvals would allow the Planning Commission to deal with the more important issues; should allow this process to continue; stated that 2 books have influenced and guided him in this area: "The Zoning Game" and "The City Is The People". . . . The Director stated that this is only a preliminary draft and will continue to work on the document; there will be another study session with the Planning Commission only; will need to prepare the environmental document for a 30 day public review period; the public hearings will start sometime in June; and then it will go to the City Council for public hearings. . PUBLIC COMMENTS · Eldon Alexander, RHO 20 (8th Street), stated that the AUP is a good idea as . long as there is an appeal process and a disclosure statement that says that they pc Staff Report03-11-08 108 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Dreft - Tille 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 were notified that they could make an appeal if they did not like the results; suggested that staff keep statistics on the number of appeals and set a review period to determine if the process is working; and suggested that "adult business' on the list of AUP be a CUP instead - felt this is an area that should be treated like issuing an alcohol license. Comments regarding the floor area ratio (FAR): definition of FAR - the area permissible to build divided by the lot coverage; provided a comparison chart (on file) showing what he had calculated as to the current square footage allowed and what the proposed FAR would allow; had researched, the use of FAR and found it is becoming more out of favor and stated that FAR should not be used, instead should stay with what is used currently (flexible zoning - lot coverage with building heights and setbacks); indicated that he may have some miscalculations on the chart but would recommend that the use of FAR not be considered there are too many difficulties. The Director indicated that Mr. Alexander misunderstood the .calculations at. the bottom of the slide presentations - the pictures show the current homes and the FAR information would be for new construction projects. Mr. Alexander continued to state that the use of FAR would create a 40% reduction of use of property and this would create a majority of the homes in Old Town to be non-conforming and the Planning Commission would have more variances to consider. · Mike Buhbe, Central Way and chairman - Seal Beach for Two Stories, presented a position paper on behalf of the members of "Seal Beach for Two Stories' (on file); they believe this would be a meaningful compromise on the issue of third story residential development in Old Town; the goal of the compromise is to maintain the character of Old Town and equally important to the residents in Old Town is the general health and welfare; the proposed draft of the zoning code reminds everyone,that it has to promote the general health of the community; concerned with the large incompatible buildings being built (e.g. one hundred block on 13th Street); creates shadows, blocks air flow, and invades neighbors privacy with the height; a meaningful compromise would be to never again allow such large incompatible building; the proposed changes in the zoning code goes part way towards a compromise and commend the staff for their work taken so far; after meeting with the Director the committee has come up with eight points to their compromisE;}; the rationale for the compromises regarding the third story structures would minimize potential for illegal units and parking impact - eliminate blank wall effect on adjacent neighbors - minimize privacy impacts on adjacent properties. avoid canyon effect - preserve view corridors, breeze way, and open space for adjaCent properties; and believes that if the residents in Old Town (the only area effected) had the opportunity to vote on this issue a vast majority would not allow any further three story buildings; the votes on the Council have disregarded the wishes of the vast majority of Old Town residents; stated that the pc Staff Report03-11-08 109 . Public Haaring re: Final Draft - TItle 11: Zoning . Saal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 compromise presented would reduce the siZe of a third story and lessens the impact on neighbors and maintains the character of Old Town and the owner of a Jot eligible to build a third story can still do so and still end up with a house with thousands of square feet of living space;, if additional space is needed a basement can be built; and finally stated that the terms of the meaningful compromise are not meant to be adjusted or negotiated - this is a complete document - they would be open to thinking that may produce other meaningful compromises. Jim Croft, Hill area, inquired about the rear yard setbacks stating that there is a category of homes that do not have property facing their property in the rear yard (Gum Grove Park area) and should be exempt from this requirement. Vie Grgas, 15th Street, read a letter submitted by Patrick Kearns, 15th Street, (on file) indicating his point of view to some of the changes in the proposed zoning and subdivision codes: no penalty on height elevation if the lot is above the flood zone; questioned Table 2.05,015 RHD-20 - number of square feet; parking in general and residents should observe Ordinance #948 "Use of Garages and Carports" ; and Table 4.20.020A.1 parking requirements - more off- street parking and deeper rear offsets from the alley to the garage door could be considered. Mr. Grgas recognized the passing of former Mayor Frank Laszlo. Robert Goldberg, Seal Beach, commented that the charts and graphs presented are helpful in better understanding and clarify how the changes would effect the properties in the City (before and after); would need to study the impacts; and requested staff to provide photographs of what a 10,000 square foot home looks like compared to a 5,000 square foot home. There were no other speakers. . . . . With no objections Mayor Larson called for a recess at 7:41 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at.7:50 p.m. Due to a prior commitment Councilman Ybaben excused himself from the meeting and left the chambers at 7:41 p.m. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council and Commission, to adjourn the meetihg at 7:51 p.m.' * * * * . PC Staff Raport03-11-OB 110 . . . Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19. 2008 ATTACHMENT 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - MAY 9,2007 "STUDY SESSION 12. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning All Portions Except Chapter 2.05 Residential Districts Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg stated that after conducting three joint study sessions with City Council (CC) and the Planning Commission (PC) the council members stated that they favored the use of the Administrative/Conditional Use Permit and the PC will decide what should be placed under each category. He described the processes as follows: Administrative Use Permit (AUP) - Would replace the Minor Plan Review process and will require 100-foot notice of a project with approval or denial to be determined by the Director of Development Services. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) - Requires a 300-foot notice and publication in the newspaper. The Code revision recommends that the noticing radius be increased to 500 feet. He explained that the basic changes proposed under the AUP process will hopefully help address the less controversial items for which the PC usually would not have a lot of comments or concerns nor for which the public would have concerns. He noted that Attachment 2 of the Staff Reports provides some language for what would occur when an Administrative Use Permit is granted. He stated that the language proposes that notice of approval would be provided to the PC and CC within 3 days of any action taken by the Director of Development Services on this type of permit request. Mr. Whittenberg then reviewed the Table 5.20.010 under Attachment 1, 2007 Zoning , Code Revision, Proposed Use Permit Review Changes. (Staff Report and Table are on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He noted that the items highlighted in pc Staff Report03-11-OB 111 Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Tllla 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 green are the proposed new review items relative to proposed new development standards that do not currently exist in the Zoning Code. Chairperson Deaton referred to Table 5.20-010, Chapter 2.05 and requested an explanation of the term "Exception to main building envelope, " as it appears under the heading Land Use Entitlement or Activity. Mr. Whittenberg explained that essentially what is proposed are building envelope regulations that limit the mass of the building at the top end of the structure to prevent construction of "cube" structures up to the setback lines on the side and rear property lines. He stated that the building envelope would have the impact of moving the taller portion of a structure that exceeds the height limit into the center of the building, and would propose changing roof pitches to create a hip roof or a gable roof, rather than having a parapet. He noted that if parapets are desired, then the walls of the sides of the house would have to be moved closer to the center of the property to stay within the proposed building envelope plane. He indicated that any exceptions to the main building envelope would be subject to the CUP process. Mr. Whittenberg then indicated that the items highlighted in yellow are the items currently subject to review by the PC and are proposed to be subject to the AUP process. He explained that in proposing these changes from the CUP to the AUP process Staff is attempting to reduce the amount of time required for the application . and hearing process by half, from approximately 8 weeks to 4 weeks, to allow applicants to submit plans to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) sooner. He noted that in reviewing the table the PC can decide the items it would like to remain subject to the CUP process. Items highlighted in yellow and proposed for an AUP include the following: · 2-Story Cabana or Manufactured Homes in Mobile Home Park . Projections above height limits (Commercial and Mixed-Use District, Light Manufacturing and Oil Extraction Districts . Automated Teller Machines . Drive-In and Drive-Through Facilities . Extended Hour Business . Outdoor Displays and Sales - Permanent . Outdoor Dining Area - Seating less than 20% of indoor seating · Minor accessory structure less than 6-feet high in required setback · Retaining wall greater than 30 inches in height · Parking Reductions - Shared Parking Program . Parking Reductions - Other Parking Reduction . Signs on Main Street - Up to 3 tenant spaces . Signs on Main Street - 4 or more tenant spaces, Planned Sign Program . · Master Sign Program PC Staff Report03-11-OB 112 . . . Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - Tlfla 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning COmmission Staff Report March 19, 2008 . Nonconforming Structures - Specified structural repairs . Nonconforming Structures - Residential - Specmed minor improvements . Nonconforming Structures - Residential reconstruction after damage - more than 50% subject to specified standards . Nonconforming Structures - Nonresidential reconstruction after damage - more than 50% subject to specified standards Mr. Whittenberg then noted the green-highlighted item "Incidental Business Activity" and explained that this new proposal for the Zoning Code would cover temporary uses at a business location that are currently handled via the Special Event Permit (SEP) process. He explained that this use is proposed for either a CUP for activities occurring more than once a week, or an AUP for activities that occur only once per week. He cited examples such as having a single, nonamplified live entertainer, book readings, lectures, book signings, art shows, etc. He noted that some of these activities might be allowed automatically without having to go through either process. The Director of Development Services then reviewed the drive-in/drive through category and noted that if the drive through lane area is more than a certain distance away from residences and blocked by a building mass on the commercial property, it would go through the AUP process, but if it is within a certain distance from residences and not blocked by buildings, then the CUP process would apply. Commissioner Roberts stated that he would prefer that this item and the extended hour business items remain subject to a CUP. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff is requesting direction regarding the hours of operation for extended business noting that currently businesses wishing to operate between the hours of 2:00 am and 6:00 require a CUP. He said that Staff feels that a 2:00 a.m. closing time is "too generous" and suggests an 11 :00 p.m. closing time. With regard to outdoor seating, Chairperson Deaton stated that she would prefer to use something other than a percentage amount to determine the amount of seating that could be approved with an AUP. Mr. Whittenberg then discussed requiring a CUP for accessory uses such as guest rooms or pool houses, which are not currently allowed under City Code. Mr. Abbe clarified that this would be for something that falls short of a second unit, because the PC would not have the discretion to conditionally approve a second unit. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked whether parking could be required for second units. Mr. Abbe stated that one parking space per bedroom can be required. Commissioner Massa- Lavitt then asked whether a property owner would be able to construct a "rumpus room" above the garage. Mr. Whittenberg stated that they would not, as exterior stairways are not allowed and noted that the room would have to be physically attached to the house PC Staff Report03-11-08 113 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 at the second floor level, but even then there is a process that requires a recorded covenant on the property stating that it will be maintained as a single family home. The Director of Development Services then addressed vacation rentals, which are recognized in the Business License Ordinance, but do not appear in the Zoning Code. Staff is proposing that vacation rentals be subject to a CUP and that language be incorporated limiting the maximum number of units on a property that can be used as vacation rentals. During the discussion on retaining walls greater than 30 inches, Eldon Alexander, stated that some homes in Old Town would need to raise the grade for their lots above the flood plain to prevent flooding. He asked if these properties would require a CUP. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the current Code states that property owners would not be penalized if their lot grade must be raised to meet flood standards. With regard to parking reduction, standards, Commissioner Roberts stated that he agrees with Shared Parking being subject to an AUP, but stated that he would like to further discuss Other Parking Reduction standards. Mr. Whittenberg briefly explained the shared parking program, noting that these are found more in the larger shopping . centers. He then reviewed the proposed use permit review changes for sign regulations for tenant signs on Main Street and for Master Sign Programs. Commissioner Roberts questioned using the AUP for Master Sign Programs. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staffs experience over the last 7-10 years has shown that very rarely are any changes necessary to what is proposed. Commissioner Roberts stated that his concern is visibility to the community and he believes these should be subject to a CUP. Chairperson Deaton stated that she agreed, and would even like to require a CUP for the signs for buildings on Main Street having 3 or more tenants. Mr. Whittenberg then explained that once the study sessions are complete, Staff will create a final draft document, which will include all of the changes as discussed and based upon comments received. He noted that the Final,Draft would be the document presented at the public hearing. Mr. Whittenberg then reviewed the proposed use permit changes for legal nonconforming uses, structures, or lots, noting that minor structural repairs or improvements that do not exceed the height limit could be subject to an AUP. Staff has also proposed that residential and nonresidential reconstruction after damage of more than 50% of the structure be subject to specified standards and to an AUP. He noted that the rebuild would be subjectto the requirement of providing one parking space. . pc Staff Report03-11-OB 114 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Raport March 19, 2008 Commissioner Roberts asked if tattoo establishments were allowed by state law. Mr. Whittenberg noted that under City Code tattoo establishments are allowed subject to approval of a CUP and they also have to meet County Health Code requirements, which Staff recommends be included as standard conditions of approval of a CUP for this use. Commissioner Roberts asked if the PC could deny approval. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the PC could make a finding that it was not compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Abbe noted that he would have to research this as it may involve First Amendment implications. He noted that the City does not have the authority to completely prohibit adult businesses. He stated that the City can extensively regulate these types of businesses and would have to allow for the possibility of having 3 or 4 under U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Eldon Alexander said that he disagreed with the City Attomey regarding Supreme Court decisions, stated that all of their decisions have not eliminated community standards. He noted that Califomia has set this up in its Code and provides limitations on the location and imposes other restrictions on the operation of adult businesses. He stated that now is the time to set the community standards. Mr. Abbe indicated that an adult business would never be allowed by right, and at the very least they would be subject to a CUP and would be extensively regulated, but these businesses cannot be regulated out of existence. Mr. Alexander noted that existing zoning standards do a fairly good job of preventing the establishment of adult businesses within Seal Beach, but he would still like to see these types of uses subject to approval of a CUP. Commissioner Roberts added that he would like to ensure that the standards for adult businesses are as "tightly" written as possible. Mr. Whittenberg explained that Chapter 4.50, which is the adult business section of the Code, basically requires a zoning conformance to be determined by the Director of Development Services within 30 days of receiving an application that would be subject to meeting specific location criteria. He indicated that this process complies with the current legislation related to adult businesses. Mr. Abbe stated that he would research this issue and report to the Planning Commission. On Page 9 under Chapter 4.70 - Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff recommends approval of a CUP for a new ground- mounted tower or monopole on property not owned by the City. He noted that most of the existing towers or monopoles are currently located on City-owned property, as the Zoning Ordinance has no height limits on City property, but for location on all other property, a CUP would be required. He explained that the new technology for wireless facilities now allows for better reception at heights of 35-40 feet. Chairperson Deaton inquired about the roof-mounted towers. Mr. Whittenberg stated that these would be subject to the height limit of the zone. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked whether the pc Staff Raport,03-11-llB 115 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Raporl March 19, 2008 Code requires that the wireless equipment sheds should be underground. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would have to review the Code to see if this is included. Mr. Abbe stated that he would have to check into the new telecom laws to see if this is required. Mr. Whittenberg then continued with Chapter 4.75 - Common Interest Developments, which are proposed for requirement of a CUP. He explained that refers to a development like Leisure World, which is a stock cooperative arrangement. On Page 10, Chapter 5.25 - Director Determinations - Waivers and ExceptionslReasonable Accommodation, Mr. Whittenberg explained that this section allows an AUP for approval of relief from dimensional standards not to exceed 5 percent of the existing Code standards. Chairperson Deaton referred to Page 10, Chapter 5.25 - Director Determinations _ Temporary Uses and confirmed that if there is a substantial and detrimental impact the Director would make the determination that this would only be temporary. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. Mr. Alexander gave the example of the barbed wire above a chain link fence on the DWP property, which is temporary until the . property is developed. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that this Chapter would apply to the prohibition of placing barbed wire on residential property, but would not apply to commercial property or other uses. He explained that this would also relate to reasonable accommodation issues to meet ADA compliance regulations through federal laws. The Director of Development Services then asked if there were additional comments. Commissioner Roberts complimented Mr. Whittenberg on the work done on this report and noted that the suggested being made are related to visibility type issues. Chairperson Deaton referred to Chapter 5.25 - Director Determinations - Waivers and Exceptions/Reasonable Accommodation on, relief from dimensional standards not to exceed 5 percent of the existing Code standards and noted that for the 25-foot residential lots in Old Town,S percent would be over one foot, which she sees as huge. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that this is zoning, and noted that the Subdivision Code sets forth the minimum lot width, which cannot be changed under this chapter. He explained that if the setback requirement is 5 feet, the Director could approve for up to 2.5 inches less than the 5-foot setback, without having to bring this before the Planning Commission. He noted that this would be most commonly used for projects on irregular size lots. . PC Staff Report03-11-OB 116 . . . Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Baach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Chairperson Deaton referred to Page 1 of Table 5.20.010 and expressed her concern with the reduced rear yard in the RLD-9 Zone being subject to an AUP. She stated that the public should have the opportunity to hear about this. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this applies only to the RLD-9 Zone and Staff is proposing that the current rear yard setback area be increased from 10 feet to 15 feet across the board, automatically providing a larger rear yard requirement in the Code. He indicated that this would allow for a 10-foot setback for single-story additions to help address the issue of minimum usable open space on the property. Chairperson Deaton then referred to the exception to maximum garage width. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would have to review this item, as he is unable to recall the content at this point. He noted that a CUP is required for garages larger than a 3-car garage, and he believes this item has a provision limiting the width of a 2-car garage to no more than 20 feet, or a certain percentage of the width of the house. He stated that he would report back to the Commission on this item. With regard to parking location exceptions commercial and mixed use districts, Chairperson Deaton asked if this refers to where one is parking on the property. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct and noted that this applies only within the (LC/RMD) Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density Zone along Seal Beach Boulevard, south of Pacific Coast Highway, and the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) area. ,He explained that Code requires that parking be to the rear of the property, although in certain cases, due to circumstances, it may be necessary to allow parking in front, which could be addressed through an AUP. Chairperson Deaton then noted that projections above the height limit should be heard by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Roberts stated that he would like to see requirements for screening of roof-mounted mechanical equipment in commercial zones. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff will include standards for screening mechanical equipment from all sides in the final draft of the Zoning Ordinance, but he noted that to construct a wall around a roof to screen mechanical equipment from the view of a neighboring second story home would not be reasonable. He indicated that blocking this equipment on all sides from view at street level would be realistic. Eldon Alexander stated that now would be a good time to include undergrounding of utilities in the Zoning Code, noting that with all of the new development at the Rossmoor Center, utility poles are still visible. Chairperson Deaton noted that the cost of converting to underground utilities is quite high. Mr. Whittenberg said that underground utilities are required for all new subdivisions, and this was also discussed for the Boeing Project; however, the cost of doing this was somewhere in the range of $50-60 million. He noted that there are ways to convert existing utilities and Southern California Edison PC Staff Report03-11-OB 117 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 (SCE) does have a program that provides money to cities on an annual basis to be placed into a fund for undergrounding of utilities. He stated that some of this work took place along Seal Beach Boulevard as part of the Heron Pointe Development. . Mr. Alexander then inquired about the process for informing the Planning Commission (PC) and City Council (CC) of decisions on AUPs, asking how applicants would be made aware of their right to appeal these decisions to the PC or CC. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the City has an appeal form that is currently part of the application for a public hearing, and this form would be incorporated into the AUP application. , , Chairperson Deaton asked if a cost has to be associated with an appeal for an AUP. Mr. Whittenberg stated that once you are into an appeal process you must re-notice everyone, publish notice in the newspaper, prepare a separate set of staff reports, and conduct the public hearing, and the City would like to recover the costs involved in this process. Chairperson Deaton asked what the cost for an appeal would be.' Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the appeal fee would be half of the application fee. * (*Correction: Appeal fee would be the same amount as the fee for the initial application for an Administrative Use Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Tentative Parcel . Map.) Chairperson Deaton questioned the fairness to property owners who feel they will be negatively impacted by a proposed project on an adjoining property and would then have to pay to file an appeal on the approval of that project. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the AUP process would provide the opportunity for the Director to hear any concerns and investigate potential impacts prior to making a decision to approve or deny an AUP. He noted that the option to appeal an AUP decision would be available. Chairperson Deaton asked if when making a decision for an AUP on a project that becomes a publicly sensitive issue, would the Director of Development Services have the discretion to turn this over to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct, and noted that any AUP fees would be applied toward the total application fee for a CUP. Chairperson Deaton asked about future study sessions on nonresidential zoning. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would return at a later date with a revised draft of the ' Zoning Code. He asked that the Commissioners look through the items discussed tonight and provide comments to Staff. Commissioner Roberts asked if it would be helpful to submit written comments to Staff. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would be helpful as, long as comments are provided far enough in advance to be included in the Staff Reports for the next Study Session. Commissioner Roberts suggested conducting additional meetings to help expedite completion of the study sessions. Mr. Whittenberg e pc Staff Report03-11-OB 118 . . . Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Tllla 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 reviewed the upcoming schedule of meetings and noted that personal schedules would have to be looked at to determine when additional study sessions might be arranged. Mr. Abbe inte~ected that he appreciates having written comments submitted by the Commissioners prior to a study session, as he then has the opportunity to conduct research and to provide responses on the date of the meeting." * * .. * pc Staff Report 03-11-OB 119 . . . Public Haaring re: Final Draft - TlfIa 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 ATTACHMENT 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - MAY 23, 2007 "STUDY SESSION 8. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning Chapter 2.05 Residential Districts. Chairperson Deaton provided a brief introduction to the procedure for tonight's study session and emphasized that the objective is not about "designing a dream home: but "designing a dream community.' She encouraged all members of the community to participate and provide input. She noted that in order to give everyone present the opportunity to make comments, speakers would be allowed 3 minutes each, but would be able to return to the podium later tonight to make additional comments, again with a time limit of 3 minutes. Mr. Whittenberg requested a brief recess to prepare the projector for the PowerPoint presentation. The meeting recessed at 7:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:00 p.m. Staff Reoort Mr. Whittenberg provided a brief summary of the events preceding preparation of the preliminary draft for the Zoning Code (ZC) revision, noting that approximately 9 months ago City Council (CC) had instructed Staff to do a complete rewrite of the ZC. He stated that prior to this the Planning Commission (PC) was hearing concems on the issue of the mass and bulk of homes being built both on The Hill and in Old Town. He indicated that late in 2005 Staff had provided a presentation to the PC on the issue of "Mansionization,' that dealt with mass and bulk issues being faced by many cities throughout California and other parts of the country. He explained that the CC and PC had conducted three joint study sessions on the ZC in February and March of this year to review the draft document for the ZC revisions. He noted that the last time the ZC was revised was in 1974, and since then the City has regulated how the size of homes can be built by three basic standards: pc Staff Report03-11-OB 120 Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning . Seel Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 1. Lot coverage percentage, which varies depending on the zoning area within the City between 45 percent (College Park EastlWest, The Hill, The Cove), and 75 percent in Old Town. 2. Setbacks from the front, side, and rear property lines. 3. Height limits for each particular area. The Director of Development Services then explained that what is being heard now at both CC and PC meetings is that these standards are not enough to deal with the mass and bulk of a building. He indicated that the proposed revisions attempt to deal with these issues in three primary ways: 1. Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which is an additional standard that limits the actual square footage of a house, over and above what could be allowed by lot coverage and setback standards. Additional setback standards for second and third stories to prevent the "cube" look of buildings. Daylight plane provisions that would provide controls over the shape of roofs and discourage a flat roof structure coming out to the minimum surrounding setbacks at the maximum height allowed, preventing construction of a solid, 25- or 35-foot vertical wall running from the front to the rear of the property. . 2. 3. Mr. Whittenberg then provided a PowerPoint presentation to accompany his comments on the Staff Report and explained that the Staff Report is set up to present the FAR standards and provisions and specific design features that property owners would be encouraged to use in order to allow them to have additional floor area. He noted that FAR "deductions" are also proposed for the use of less desirable design features on homes. (Staff Report and presentation are on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) The Director of Development Services continued by noting that in recent years Staff has been hearing more about mass, bulk, and the "monotony" of new residential development, particularly as has occurred when older homes on larger, nonconforming properties in Old Town are being demolished and smaller single-family residences are being constructed on the underlying lots. He cited the example of the former Seal Beach Inn and Gardens property, where an older, certain style building was demolished and six new homes have been constructed under current standards, and some people see them as monotonous. Mr. Whittenberg stated that in preparing the ZC revision document, Staff reviewed approximately 40 different zoning codes, primarily for Califomia coastal cities that are . pc Staff Roport03-11-OB 121 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tilla 11: Zoning Saal Baach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 dealing with the same issues as Seal Beach. He said that in creating the preliminary draft Staff has attempted to incorporate many different design standards presented in these zoning codes, but other issues may be brought up during the study sessions that may need to be researched. He then briefly reviewed a listing of Bulk Regulation Standards and Design Elements to Prevent Monotony as listed on Page 5 of the presentation. The Director of Development Services then noted that as part of this process Staff met with two architects who have designed homes within the City and asked that they review the proposed residential standards and provide their comments, concerns, and recommendations. He then reviewed the proposed use of a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) noting that this is not proposed as the only way to regulate the size of structures and does not need to be included in the Code as there are other ways of limiting the size of residences; however, Staff believes the FAR should seriously be considered. He commented that Staff and the City Attorney are not aware of any legal judgment finding that utilization of FAR results in a "taking,' as this would not take away all reasonable use of the property. He reviewed the maximum size homes that would be permitted under the proposed FAR standards in the RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts and noted that Staff is suggesting additional revisions to the FAR that appear in the Preliminary Draft document with regard to lots over 6,000 sq. ft. in the RLD-9 District. Also, for third stories in Old Town, Staff has suggested an additional 0.1 FAR for living space, although the architects have recommended allowing up to 450-BOO sq. ft., as the maximum for third floor living area. Mr. Whittenberg then provided a review of Attachment 3, "Comparison of Proposed FAR to Current Lot Coverage (As Revised by Staff, May 10, 2007)," noting that under the current lot coverage and setback standards for the RLD-9 areas (College Park EastlWest, The Hill), once these are translated into an FAR number, this translates into an approximate 0.82 to 0.855 FAR. He indicated that for these areas Staff has proposed an FAR between 0.70 and 0.85. He then reviewed the proposed FAR numbers for the RHD-20 District stating that Staff has proposed an FAR between 0.B5 and 1.10. He explained that for a 3,750 sq. ft lot under current FAR standards you could have 1.4 times this number in house size, and with a proposed FAR of 1.00, you get 1 sq. ft. of house for every square foot of land area that your lot encumbers. He stated that Staff is recommending that the ability to have third floor areas be maintained, but to reduce the size of what can be proposed for third floors. He then referred to Attachment 5, which provides comparisons for various homes within Seal Beach of existing lot coverage and proposed FAR standards for allowable building area, followed by a review of the presentation section entitled "Overview of Average Size vs. A/lowaple Residence Size, n covering average home size in the RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts. PC staff Raport,03-11-0B 122 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Trt/e 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 The Director of Development Services then discussed proposed revisions to the FAR provisions stating that these would allow for development at a scale and mass that would generally be compatible with existing development, while allowing for significant design incentives. Some of the areas identified are: 1. Exclusion of basement areas if totally below the natural grade. 2. Revision to "base" and "maximum" FAR for lots larger than 6,000 square feet - RLD-9 District 3. Revision to FAR increase for lots able to have a third floor living area - RHD -20 District Mr. Whittenberg then paused for questions from the Planning Commission (PC). ,.commissioner Questions Chairperson Deaton asked whether there were any terms that needed defining prior to opening for public comments. Commissioner Roberts referred to Attachment 3 and noted that his understanding was that porches, covered patios, and garages were included in the lot coverage, and only habitable space was included in the FAR. Mr. Whittenberg explained that under lot coverage standards, a garage area is included if it is not covered by a second story, and under the FAR standards and lot coverage a covered porch is included if it has a solid roof over it; however, these have been excluded from all of the evaluations when focusing on habitable living area. Commissioner Roberts asked if Staff felt comfortable with this approach by suggesting that a bonus would be added to the FAR for porches. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there would be standard provisions that would allow certain things by right, but if the property owner adds design features over and above the standards, they would be able to have an additional FAR bonus. Chairperson Deaton stated that since 2005 the PC has been dealing with the issue of mansionization, yet based upon the material presented, there appear to be only 4 homes within the City that would exceed the FAR, but most of them fit within the FAR. She questioned whether what is being proposed would actually help address the mansionization issue. Mr. Whittenberg explained that these homes fall within the proposed FAR standards as far as the square footage allowance is concerned, but they would not fit the standards for the proposed design features such as daylight planes, building envelope, and additional side yard setbacks for second and third floor areas. Chairperson Deaton requested a definition of "Building Envelope.' Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is generally the exterior outline of the building, including rooflines. He pc Staff Report03-11-OB 123 . . . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Titla 11: Zoning Saal Baach Municipal Code. Planning Commission Staff Report March 19. 2008 explained that building envelope requirements can change the outline of a building by requiring additional angles of setback for the roof of the building so that it does not protrude above a certain defined plane. He noted that for homes with a steep mansard roof and a flat roof on top of that, the sidewalls would have to be moved in closer to the interior of the lot to keep the roofline from encroaching into the daylight plane. Chairperson Deaton again expressed her confusion noting that it appears the FAR does not really address mansionization, but yet she believes the FAR "sounds like a great idea' that could help address this problem. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the FAR is an additional restriction that doesn't exist today, and the homes shown in the presentation are not built as large as they could be under today's standards for lot coverage and setbacks. Chairperson Deaton clarified that the FAR protects the City from those who will build outside the FAR, but so far people are not building outside the FAR. Mr. Whittenberg stated that generally they are not, but cited the home at 132 13th Street as the best example of this, as the third floor is built out almost to the maximum square footage, although this is an attached 2-unit project rather than a single-family residence. He noted that this project provides an example of what is still possible under today's standards and would be outside the FAR. He reviewed the example of the actual and proposed base for FAR standards for 1305 Catalina as it appears on the Comparison of Existing Lot Coverage & Proposed FAR Table. Commissioner Roberts stated that he believes it would be useful to calculate the FAR for this property. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this information could be provided at a future study session. Commissioner Roberts said that he feels it is important that the public know his position in beginning this process. He stated that he believes in compromise and that the City can support three stories, but not under the current standards. He said he believes that the direction in which Staff is going with the information presented is "right on, " FAR and lot coverage limitations are solid factors, and that setbacks and daylight planes will provide protection against bulk. Commissioner Roberts then noted that he does not feel that the City should burden itself with bUilding volume ratios or landscape volume ratios, as this can be a very complicated approach. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that she believes using an FAR is a "workable" method for determining the actual square footage allowed on a piece of property, as it is easy to calculate, as opposed to lot coverage. She said that she agrees with most of the bonuses proposed for incorporating certain design features. Commissioner Bello stated that the City does need regulations that are very clear, as it will make the Planning Commission's job easier. She said she also agreed with the incentive designs and is deeply concerned about the mass and bulk of homes being constructed within Seal Beach. pc Staff Raport03-11-OB 124 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Public Comments Chairperson Deaton opened for public comments. Bill Ayres suggested encouraging the construction of basements, noting that there is not a lot of open space in Seal Beach to build very large homes. He said that basements can provide a lot of additional living space for entertainment or workout rooms. He added that with new technology the basements can be sealed to prevent water leaking in. He recommended excluding basements from the square footage requirement. Belinda Howell said she favors incorporating new design guidelines, but she is not comfortable with the FAR, as many of the existing larger homes in town already fall within the proposed FARs. She cautioned that the design guidelines should not be so rigid that they leave no room for architectural variety. Mike Bubbe proposed limiting the size of third stories for single-family residences to a . maximum of 300 sq. ft., that only inside staircase access be allowed, that additional setbacks from the side yards be required, that third stories be limited to the rear half of the building, allow no roof decks on top of the third floor, and that increased setbacks for the second and third story be required. He asked that those present who were in favor of these proposals to raise their hands. The count was approximately 30 people in favor. Robert Goldberg congratulated Mr. Whittenberg for consulting with two architects to review these proposals. He indicated that the FAR does provide clarity as to what can be constructed; having a base and maximum FAR and providing bonus points for incorporating the proposed design features encourages good building and good design; and the FAR prevents overdevelopment. He then indicated that Mr. Whittenberg had stated that a third story is limited to 1,320 sq. ft, and questioned why on a 37.5-foot lot current code standards allow for 6,000 sq. ft for a 2-story home and 9,000 for a 3-story home. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the 1,320 sq. ft. is the largest third story that can be constructed on a 3,750 sq. ft. lot, but most of the lots in Old Town measure 37.5 ft. x 115 ft. equaling 4,312 sq. ft. He stated that the 9,000 sq. ft. would be allowed for a lot in Old Town that is 4,999 sq. ft. in area, which would be the size you end up with because the house would be almost 50 ft. wide. Steve Cole stated that the FAR appears to be quite workable, but it does not address the community's concerns with the size of homes currently being constructed. He said . pc Staff Report,03-11-OB 125 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft. Tlffa 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Raport March 19, 2008 that the community would like to hear that this size construction would no longer be allowed. John Durett expressed appreciation to Staff for all of the work done on the study session materials so far. He stated that daylight planes and design guidelines would be key to reducing bulk, particularly in the dense area of Old Town. He indicated that the quality of life for residents of Seal Beach is what is imperative. He asked if there would be any future ruling prohibiting combining properties to create larger lotstl, as he would not want to see another home constructed in town like the one on 13 Street. Mr. Whittenberg stated that a project like the one constructed on 13th Street could not be built under the proposed new standards as a third story would be limited only to single- family residences. Warren Morton recommended slightly decreasing the FAR for third stories. Eldon Alexander stated that there are property rights that do not change, and when government takes land away, property rights are violated, as well as violating the community. He said he appreciated Mr. Whittenberg having two architects provide comments on the proposed standards, but the discussion should focus on the general welfare as well as economic concerns, related to the impacts of reducing the allowable building areas and how this would affect the City's tax revenues and school funding. Cari Thua agreed with Eldon Alexander's comments on how FAR regulations would affect the City's economy, which could ultimately lead to higher taxes for property owners. Carla Watson also spoke on the "spirit of place' that Old Town represents and supports decreasing the size of new homes and third story construction. She said she would be fearful for property owners who are now trying to sell their home that is bordered on both sides by "gargantuan" homes, which does lower property values. Mitzi Morton spoke in favor of lowering the lot coverage from 75% to 60% and also use the FAR regulations. She stated that the area for third stories should be just a little more than 300 sq. ft., but not 900 sq. ft. Chairperson Deaton asked how open space would be compatible with 75% lot coverage. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the suggestions made for required open space, both in Old Town and other areas, would impinge somewhat upon this lost coverage standard, depending upon how it is configured. He explained that if you have 75% lot coverage that allows for 5,000 sq. ft. and you have an FAR that allows 3,000 sq. ft. of floor area, you could have all 3,000 feet unger the FAR standard as single-story area, and cover a little bit more of the total lot area, and this would include the open space requirement. This would then impact PC Staff Raport03-11-OB 126 Public Hearing ro: Final Droit - Tlffa 11: Zoning . Seal Baach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 how much is on the first and/or second floor. Chairperson Deaton asked if the revised ZC would incorporate standards that would mitigate some of the complaints about yards and open space. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that the proposed ZC revisions would include this. Chairperson Deaton opened for Commissioner Comments. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Roberts stated that public comments appear to reflect that the community would like to investigate FARs and believe that this might be a workable solution. He said that people have done a great deal of conceptualizing on what all these different regulations mean and how they can be incorporated to come up with something that is agreeable to the community. He stated that it would be helpful to see 3-D models of how these proposed standards would work. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the two architects that Staff has been working with already have plans for homes showing how additional side setbacks would impact the floor plans and how building envelopes would affect existing rooflines. He pondered whether these plans could be . converted to a 3-D isometric view and stated that he would inquire about this. Commissioner Bello agreed that it would be helpful to see something concrete, and also liked the suggestion that people look at some of the houses that they don't like right now, to determine how to avoid this in future development. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that this is a difficult issue as people have different expectations of what they want to develop on their property. She noted that people who speculate on development tend to build out "to the max' because they can, and people who are building for themselves are generally much more reasonable. She said that in looking at the comments from the architects, you come up with how the FAR will not maximize itself either, as the current lot coverage is generally not maximized, and the FAR will probably not be maximized, even with the bonus points because there is another section for disincentives, which issues minus FAR points for designs that would be less desirable. She noted that she believed some of the proposed open space and landscape requirements to be "a little heavy" for a SFR on and 800 sq. ft. lot, and the private open space in multi-units is too great. She said there are a lot of parts to this that need to come together. Chairperson Deaton stated that she believes that people are willing to compromise, which is a great place to start. She agreed with Commissioner Massa-Lavitt that the PC needs to look at the details, and the open space is a big one. She noted that future study sessions should provide further clarification on how roof pitch, daylight planes, e PC Staff Report,03-11-OB 127 . Public Heeling re: Final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning Saal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 . open space, etc., fit in with the FARs. She agrees that the FAR is a good approach and commended Mr. Whittenberg on electing the right vehicle to use in addressing bulk and mass of homes, as FARs would be easy to understand, easy to calculate, and more fair than what currently exists. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt added that property owners would be able to calculate and see exactly what they can build. Chairperson Deaton then re-opened for public comments. Victor Grgas stated that he believes Staff is on the right track and seeing the whole thing pull together makes a lot of sense, as it is attempting to achieve not only minimizing the mass and bulk of homes, but also maximize the ability for architectural diversity. He asked why third story space is being proposed to be larger, since third stories are usually used for bedrooms. Mr. Whittenberg stated that what was represented by the architects was that most third stories are either a master bedroom suite or a family room, and they felt 375 sq. ft. would not be sufficient. Mr. Grgas asked what the City will have to do in the way of approving the new ZC related to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mr. Whittenberg stated that there will be at least a Negative Declaration (ND) prepared, and he doubts that a Mitigated ND would be required because the document approval does not approve any development project. . Barbara Moreland suggested bringing in pictures of homes already built in Old Town that the community is not in favor of, and visually explain what the FAR would do were these projects to come before the PC under the proposed new standards. Belinda Howell stated that currently she lives in an 800 sq. ft., 2-bedrooom home with an apartment over a legal nonconforming garage, and if they chose to remodel, they would have to demolish the garage. She said that there is small patio with a pine tree between the home and the garage and she uses the apartment as an art studio. She indicated that her husband has attempted to acquire approval of a variance to add a second story bedroom and bath and possibly increase the first floor living space without having to demolish the garage, but they don't want to lose the yard space between the two units. Chairperson Deaton noted that Ms. Howell could decide to rent the apartment and this would then increase the density. Ms. Howell noted that rentals in Seal Beach provide the opportunity for people who cannot afford to buy a home in Seal Beach to be able to live here. Chairperson Deaton asked if there has been any thought about a SFR that is not attached, but has open space in between. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was not considered as it leaves the potential for "bootleg rental units." He explained that up until 2001-02 the City allowed a person with a legal nonconforming property with too many units on it to add to the living space of the unit , subject,.to certain standards and review requirements. He said that this became a big issue and the City ultimately decided that if a property was nonconforming due to too pc Staff Report03-11-OB 128 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tit/a 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 many units, no additional living space could be added to any of the units on the property. If a person wished to add space, they had to conform to density standards, by eliminating the nonconforming units, and the provisions of this Code are not proposing to change those standards. Warren Morton referred to the section on Building Height on Page 18 of the Staff Report and suggested that along with the actual numbers for proposed height maximums, examples in the form of photos also be included. Jeff Deckner commented on the problem with third story homes obscuring sunlight to surrounding homes with solar panels. He indicated that his home has 24 solar panels for provision of energy and if a third story home were constructed next door, it would completely negate his investment. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that this issue was presented at a previous study session, and a section of the proposed Code has been reserved, to address this. He noted that the daylight plane will do a lot in addressing this, but there may be some additional standards for protection of solar panels., Mr. Abbe added that many cities are currently grappling with this issue, and as the cost of solar energy decreases and demands for environmental accountability become more . pressing, the use of solar panels is projected to increase. Chairperson Deaton asked if the proposed new Code would allow roof decks on top of a third story. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would have to review the Code, but he does believe it does. Chairperson Deaton noted that if this is allowed, then you would be having projections on top of a third story for Covered Roof Access Structures (CRAS) or for elevators. Mr. Whittenberg stated that currently there is no prohibition, but he believes that the new standards prohibit roof decks on the third floor living area, and he will verify this. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt commented that if the square footage of third floors is to be limited, theoretically you should have some room for deck space on the second floor. Commissioner Roberts asked if there are any limitations for the square footage of decks. Mr. Whittenberg stated that technically no there aren't, but practically there are provisions in the Building Code (BC) that state if a deck exceeds 500 sq. ft., there must be two separate exits from the deck, down through the house to the ground, and most people don't want to have these two stairways inside their home. Robert Goldberg commented that on third story decks the railing is often solid stucco and adds 42-inches of solid mass around the sides and rear of the home, so he is happy to hear that there will be prohibitions on third story decks, and perhaps there can also be a requirement for an open or glass railing. With regard to FARs he noted that Staff's ~uggestion to increase the FAR for homes on The Hill is a good idea. With regard to Staff's recommendation to increase the FAR bonus for third stories from 0.15 . pc Staff Report03-11-OB 129 . . . Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 to 0.25 to allow larger third story construction, Mr. Goldberg stated that a third story would be at the rear half of the home, but if a larger third story is constructed the first and second stories would have to be constructed with wider setbacks, making the house more pyramid in shape rather than a box. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the intent for the increased FAR would apply only to the third floor, and there would also be a separate total FAR for both the first and second floor combined. Mr. Goldberg recommended having one FAR for the entire structure, and if people want to add more on the third story, they would have to have a smaller base, allowing for more yard and open space. Commissioner Roberts asked for a discussion of what the next step in this process would be. Mr. Whittenberg stated that several additional study sessions would be involved. Commissioner Roberts interjected that he believes the PC is ready to talk seriously about next week, not to rush things along, but to create a schedule. Chairperson, Deaton added that this would create continuity. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the only caveat to this would be that limited Staff might not allow the time to do this each week. He suggested that to go to the level of detail anticipated should take approximately one month to six weeks to pull this information together. He recommended returning to the previous section and deal with commerciallindustIial open space, process issues, and general standards for all other zones, and place the residential on hold while Staff brings the pieces from tonight's discussion together. Eldon Alexander agreed with Mr. Whittenberg's estimation of the anticipated schedule. He then referred to Attachment 3 and noted that the FAR for third stories roughly calculates out to 0.69 for what is currently allowed, so adding a 0.1 or 0.15 or 0.25 to this is quite a reduction. He suggested showing how the daylight plane would affect the FAR, as this would include the setbacks for the second and third stories, and this would show the how much reduction would be created from the three elements of the architectural considerations. Chairperson Deaton asked if the daylight plane would reduce the FAR. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that it would not, but additional stepbacks for walls over 14 or 21 feet high and the provisions for the open space requirement on the ground floor would have the potential for decreasing the actual FAR, but would not change the ordinance provision as to what the maximum would be. He also noted that the daylight plane has the potential to allow for flat roofs, and if a flat roof is not desired, the FAR would still not be affected. Mr. Alexander referred to Attachment 2 on mansionization and noted that the impacts of third stories are minimal when located next to a 2-story home if the third story is confined to the rear half of the home, but there would be more of an impact when a 3-story home is next to a single-story home, although it would still not impact the flow of air, but solid fences would impact the flow of air. With regard to solar panels, Mr. Alexander noted that the rooftop panels are only one element of a system required to generate electricity, and the newer capacitors, or PC Staff Roport03-11-OB 130 Public Hearing 19; Final Draft - Title 11; Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 batteries, are smaller and more technologically advanced making them more affordable and easier to install inside a home. Also, the panels themselves are now smaller and have been layered to allow them to collect more energy and sunlight. He then commented that most homes in Old Town face in an east west direction allowing for more exposure to sunlight throughout the day. Chairperson Deaton inte~ected that she lives in Old Town and the sun is at an angle to her home, and she loses sunlight at about 1 :00 p.m., and most Old Town homes face northeast and southwest so that sunlight is actually striking at an angle. Mr. Alexander continued by stating that any proposed architectural design features will eventually become tiresome to people after about 15 years, and most people rebuild to create a home with a unique look. Chairperson Deaton asked if Mr. Alexander agreed that what Staff is proposing will allow for more architectural diversity. Mr. Alexander stated that the limitations of the lot sizes and setbacks in Old Town would not allow for as much architectural variety, but that is one of the advantage of-a third story, as it allows for diversity. He also noted that although porches do contribute to diversity, they do not add to the reduction of bulk, and suggested incorporating a variety of designs for use when developers construct multiple homes, such as has occurred on the comer of 5th Street and Central Avenue. Chairperson Deaton commented that it might be a good idea to review home designs . every 10-15 years to determine whether desired design features have changed and can be incorporated into the Code. Mary Lewis stated that the major concern of Save Our Seal Beach is still property values and the protection of a family's investment in property in Seal Beach. She said she does not favor FARs, which are very difficult to visualize and understand, and she believes that initially Mr. Whittenberg had not done the math, and if Mr. Alexander had not done the math, people would not have known about the 4,000 sq. ft. limitation in many places. She cited how FARs have presented problems for many people living in other coastal cities with families losing home value. She said that this fight will not go away if the priority becomes a battle over tastes and style, and what retirees want their streets to look like, as opposed to families with the need for space for children and whose major investment is their home. Chairperson Deaton asked what Ms. Lewis would recommend. Ms. Lewis stated that the priority should remain respect for property rights and commented that many who favor restricting three-story development already live in three-story homes, and arbitrarily diminishing property values in a small community creates division. Mitzi Morton stated that people do not have the right to diminish their neighbor's property values by constructing a three-story home next to a single-story home. She said that she had worked in real estate in the 1 gaO's and agents did not tell buyers interested in the wider lots that they could build to three-stories, but these wider . properties were purchased with the intent of constructing a two-story home. She noted PC Staff Report03-11-OB 131 . . . Public Hearing 1'6: Final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 that it was not until many years later after the downzoning that agents discovered that 37.S-fl. lots allowed for three-story construction. She said that the City has a right to change the Code and to downzone when needed, and the City is at that crossroads now. Ms. Morton stated that people are attempting to compromise to allow for third stories, but the community does not want to see huge mansions in Old Town. She noted that many cities are now dealing with the same issue and "bigger is not necessarily better." Chairperson Deaton asked what the economic impact of downzoning in the 80's had been. Ms. Morton noted that there was none, in fact, real estate increased in value. Eldon Alexander stated that the notion for the Residential High Density (RHD) zoning designation in Old Town is that you could also have an apartment complex to house more people, but recent census information reflects that Seal Beach is losing people. He said that population growth is necessary for economic growth, and in Seal Beach consumers are needed so that Main Street will continue to thrive, but downzoning has reduced the number of rental units that can be constructed on a property. At 10:35 Chairperson Deaton called for a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 10:42. Eldon Alexander continued by stating that while the FAR is easy to calculate and gives an idea of bulk and volume; this is not really what people look at when deciding to build a home. He said that if the FAR is used, the "NIMBYS" will come in and want to further reduce the FAR, and he sees this as a "bad political tool that is being used.' Commissioner Roberts commented that if you get a pro-development council, they could just as easily decide to increase the FAR. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that with the FAR you have an opportunity for more incentives, and also for disincentives, and you end up with a better articulated building with the kind of architecture that you are looking for, having taken the opportunity to force people to increase or decrease their FARs and doing nicer designs. Mr. Alexander countered that if you are beginning with the architectural considerations, these would not be necessary in order to have the incentives and disincentives, which he sees as an attempt to accomplish other things. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that you are attempting to accomplish other things, like presenting something that is a benefit to the neighborhood, and rather than placing one box next to another you have buildings that benefit the community. She said that altruism is wonderful, but when looking at dollars and cents and building design, many times it does not come out, so it has to be written in black and white so that everyone knows what is permitted. PC Staff Report03-11-OB 132 Public Hearing 1'6: Final Draft - Tiffs 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 Chairperson Deaton stated for the record that she agreed with Mr. Alexander's comments regarding rental units. She said the loss of many of the rental units has been a huge loss to the community, as renters have offered so much substance and texture to Old Town, but, unfortunately, it is no longer economically viable, or people don't want to provide this type of housing, or they are using these lots for their own use rather than to provide housing for renters. She noted that during her time living in Seal Beach she cannot recall an apartment building having been constructed. Mr. Alexander added that owners of rental units have no incentives or disincentives for doing anything architecturally and most of these structures are simply .stucco boxes.' on which only the minimum maintenance is done. Chairperson Deaton then closed public comments and stated that the discussion would continue at the next scheduled study session of June 6, 2007, when the PC will revisit the zoning revisions for commercial properties. Commissioner Roberts asked if there were any action items to carry away from this meeting. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff will investigate the potential for creating 3-D or other visualizations to present at the next study session on residential zoning. Commissioner Roberts asked how the concerns over economic impacts to property . owners could be addressed. Mr. Whittenberg explained that when Planning Commissions are looking at zoning decisions and determinations they do not consider economic impacts. He said that City Council will do this when making a legislative action to adopt the final ordinance, but the PC is charged with looking at zoning guidelines only from the standpoint of impacts to the community. Chairperson Deaton then added that for the next study session on residential, Staff would be preparing information on the daylight plane, open space, and incentives and disincentives. She stated that she would like to see a change in the incentives and disincentives based upon the comments received from the architects. Mr. Whittenberg noted that this has been addressed in the Staff Report presented tonight. He said that Staff would also provide a timeline for additional study sessions and indicated that the PC would probably not be revisiting residential zoning until the end of July, at the earliest. He emphasized that Staff and the PC are dealing with rewriting a document that has not been revised for over 30 years, and it is important that the community have a clear understanding of what is being proposed. Chairperson Deaton expressed her concerns over "continuity," noting that she would be happy to meet once a week as the discussion gets closer to being finalized and the PC prepares to make its recommendations to City Council. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would be no problem once the issue of "visualization" has been addressed, as this will be the most difficult to bring together. Chairperson Deaton stated that she believes photos of the homes that ~ not presented tonight would be very helpful with this. Mr. Whittenberg . PC Staff Report,03-11-OB 133 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tiffe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 noted that Staff may be able to work with the architects in accomplishing this task. Chairperson Deaton suggested making drawings of homes on transparencies and using and overhead projector and erasable markers to show examples of daylight planes, etc. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that these drawings would still have to be done to scale in order to be accurate. Mr. Whittenberg stated that public notice would be published regarding future study sessions." * * . * PC Staff Report03-11-OB 134 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Raport March 19, 2008 ATTACHMENT 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - JUNE 6, 2007 "STUDY SESSION 8. Comments and Staff Responses Re: Preliminary Draft Municipal Code Title 11 Zoning, All Portions except Chapter 2.05, Residential Districts and Title 10, Subdivisions. Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg suggested for tonight's study session that Staff and the Planning Commission (PC) go through the comments and responses presented in the Staff Report to help address issues previously raised, noting that for those questions that have already been answered there would be no discussion, unless the PC has concerns about a particular response. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He also indicated that once a general consensus of the Commission has been reached, the discussion would continue without taking any kind of vote of approval, and this would provide direction for what should be included in the final draft to be presented at the public hearings. The PC was in agreement. Mr. Whittenberg proceeded to address the Staff Report comments as follows: First bullet poInt on Page 3 In response to Mr. Goldberg's concerns with how the City will deal with new developments in progress that may be made nonconforming by the adoption of the new Zoning Code (ZC), Staff and the City Attorney will work on this and the language will be provided in 'the final document to be presented when public hearings are conducted at the PC level. Fourth bullet point on Page 5 pc Staff Raport,03-11-OB 135 Public Hearing ro: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Commissioner Roberts stated that he feels the location of truck docks and loading and service areas should be handled through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Staff proposes that these be done through an Administrative Use Permit (AUP). The proposed ZC states that review for any loading dock facility within the City would be handled through an AUP process instead of a CUP. Commissioner Roberts indicated that his justification for this recommendation relates to the discussion on the Vons Market and on proposed truck deliveries at one of the Pacific Gateway Business Center warehouses. Chairperson Deaton asked if the proximity of residences should be considered or are the City's entire commerciallindustrial uses close enough to residences to warrant a CUP. Commissioner Roberts stated there are probably only a few locations that are 500 feet or more from residential areas and he would assume that this issue should be standardized. Mr. Whittenberg stated that from Staffs standpoint this is not really a big issue one way or the other, and :Staff is merely attempting to remove a number of items from the purview of the PC and keep them at the Staff level through the use of the AUP process to help speed up processing of minor applications. Chairperson Deaton stated that she agrees with Commissioner Roberts on the public being able to have input on . the types of decisions that can impact their neighborhoods. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that she is inclined to keep this at the AUP level, as people within a 300-foot radius who are interested will receive a letter regarding these applications which will be subject to appeal. She indicated that keeping this at the easiest level as with an AUP approval is better for the developer and also in terms of work load for Staff. She said that the PC's ability to trust Staff to do the right thing is ultimately where it rests. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that an AUP, as proposed, would have a 1 OO-foot radius notice, but this could be expanded if the PC should so desire. Commissioner Bello asked if residents were to appeal an AUP, would Staff then have the option to require that the application go through the CUP process. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would have the option to require that an AUP be considered through the CUP process, should they receive comments or concems. Commissioner Bello asked about fees. Mr. Whittenberg stated that should an AUP be referred for CUP approval, the applicant would have to pay the CUP fee, but anyone filing an appeal on an AUP approval would be responsible for payment of the appeal fee. He noted that currently the fee for an AUP is $150 and $750 for a CUP. Commissioner Roberts questioned whether residents wishing to appeal an approval should have the burden of paying the fees. He also stated that in looking at AUPs vs. CUPs, one of the selling points initially was that the AUP would be more expedient for . PC Staff Report,03-11-OB 136 . . . Public Hearing 1'6: Final Draft - Tltle 11: Zoning Saal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 the applicant. He said that he does not see where trucking docks would be a time- sensitive issue. Chairperson Deaton requested a consensus on what the notice radius for an AUP and CUP should be. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the 100-foot notice for an AUP was proposed because currently this is what is required for a Minor Plan Review (MPR), but this could be extended. He noted that due to costs, should the radius be extended to 300 feet, the application fee would be increased from $150 to $200. Chairperson Deaton stated that if a project for one home will impact the immediately surrounding homes, a 100-foot notice should suffice, but if a project is to impact a neighborhood in general, then a 300- or 500-foot notice should be required. She said that in looking at the AUP it encompasses items that go beyond a MPR, such as the truck docks. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that she believes there are going to be issues even at the AUP level that people are going to be interested in, even outside a 300-foot radius, but generally these are really localized. She said that the most impacted people will be those that are adjacent, and notifying those that are further away gives more people the opportunity to know what is going on. She said she strongly feels that AUPs are a valuable part of the ZC and should be used more frequently rather than less. She also believes that loading docks should remain under an AUP and not a CUP. Commissioner Roberts stated that expanding notification is a good thing, but it does cost more money. He said he could live with a 300 feet notice, but he still believes that loading docks should be subject to a CUP. Commissioner Bello stated that she would like to expand the notice to 300 feet. Chairperson Deaton suggested that Staff prepare a list of AUP items that might roll over into CUPs so that they can be reviewed as a block. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that this exhibit appears as Attachment 1 in the May 9, 2007, Study Session Staff Report. He cautioned that the Commissioners might not come to consensus on some of these issues and many might not be settled until the public hearings are conducted. He noted that the items highlighted in yellow are proposed for the AUP process. Chairperson Deaton then proceeded to poll the Commission on each item listed to determine whether there were no objections to having it be subject to an AUP: 1. 2-Story Cabana or Manufactured Homes in Mobile Home Park PC Consensus - Subiect to AUP PC Staff Report.03-11-08 137 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 2. Projections above height limits (Commercial & Mixed-Use District, Light Manufacturing and Oil Extraction Districts Discussion: Mr. Whittenberg noted that "Exceptions to locations of truck docks, loading, and service areas' is also located on Table 5.20.010, Chapter 2.10, but apparently was not highlighted in yellow. Chairperson Deaton stated that because the PC did not reach a consensus on this item, they would leave this to Staff to evaluate. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that at the time of the public hearings Staff will begin to focus on items such as this, for which the PC has not yet arrived at agreement. With regard to Item NO.2 above, no concerns were expressed by the Commission. PC Consensus - Subiect to AUP 3. Automated Teller Machines PC Consensus - Subiect to AUP 4. Drive-In and Drive-Through Facilities . Discussion: Chairperson Deaton asked Staff to review why this item has a check mark under both AUP and CUP. Mr. Whittenberg that a two-tiered system is proposed so that if a drive-in, drive-through, or extended hour business is located within a specific distance from a residential property and is blocked by another commercial building, it would be reviewed through the AUP process, and if it does not meet these standards, it would be subject to a CUP. He noted that Commissioner Roberts stated in his comments that he believes all of these should be subject to a CUP. Chairperson Deaton asked if this same two-tier system could be used for the truck and loading docks? Mr. Whittenberg stated that it could. She said she would be comfortable using this system for truck docks. Commissioner Roberts disagreed, as along with noise and traffic patterns other things accompany drive-in and drive-through operations. Commissioner Massa- Lavitt asked if Staff is looking at the same criteria for extended hour business. Mr. Whittenberg con finned that this was correct and indicated that Staff is also proposing to change the definition of what an extended hour business is. He stated that currently it only applies if a business operates between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., and Staff is proposing that this be changed from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. so that business wishing to operate beyond these limits would require approval of an AUP or CUP. He noted that currently any business in town, except on Main Street, can stay open until 2:00 a.m. if they don't sell alcohol or have some other . land use entitlement that requires discretionary approval. Commissioner Massa- PC Staff Report03-11-0B 138 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tiffs 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 Lavitt stated that she is inclined for extended hours to require a CUP, as the impacts can be dramatic. Commissioner Bello agreed. PC Consensus - REQUJRE CUe 5. Extended Hour Business PC Consensus - RfiQUlRE cue 6. Outdoor Displays and Sales - Accessory Discussion: Chairperson Deaton asked if this will apply to any business location within Seal Beach. Mr. Whittenberg stated that currently a CUP is required for outdoor sale and display areas. Staff is recommending that temporary situations, like a "going out of business sale, . be subject to an AUP, but permanent outdoor displays would still be subject to a CUP. PC Consensus - Temporary Displays Permanent Displays Subiect to AUP B~Ql.lJP.E Cl.lE. 7. Outdoor Dining Area - Seating not more than 10% of indoor seating Discussion: Chairperson Deaton stated that she is in agreement with Staffs proposal of having this subject to an AUP if outdoor seating is 10 seats or less and in no case more than 10% of the indoor seating. Mr. Whittenberg noted that requests for more seating would be subject to a CUP, and all proposed outdoor seating along Main Street would be subject to CUP review. Massa-Lavitt asked if there were many opportunities along Main Street for expanded outdoor seating. Mr. Whittenberg stated mat this restriction would prevent restaurants from creating outdoor seating areas from previously enclosed restaurant space, which is what occurred at the current Woody's Diner location. PC Consensus -Seating less than 10% of indoor seating - Subiect to AUP Greater than 10% of indoor seating - BEQWB/= Cue 8. Minor accessory structure less than 6-feet high in required setback Discussion: Staff indicated that this would apply to barbeques, fireplaces, waterfalls, etc. Chairperson Deaton asked how this would work in Old Town, as th~ ZC states that people can place a storage structure within the 3-foot setback area, and questioned whether this would block passage for the fire department" pc Staff Report 03-11-08 139 Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Tllla 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 should both neighbors have one of the structures within setback areas of adjoining, properties. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Code allows only pre-fabricated accessory structures within the setback areas, which can easily be moved in case of emergency. . PC Consensus - Subiect to AUP 9. Retaining wall greater than 30 inches in height Discussion: Chairperson Deaton noted that in the past there had been problems with retaining walls on The Hill and asked if all of these issues have been resolved. Mr. Whittenberg explained that changes to the Grading Ordinances have made the process more difficult for people who wish to modify or raise the grade on their property, and indicated that this generally applies to existing lots on The Hill. Chairperson Deaton asked if this would include a landscaped area in front of a retaining wall to level out. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it would and the guidelines for retaining walls require stepped back landscaped areas. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt noted that perhaps the PC might be more comfortable if this included a maximum height for retaining walls under an AUP and required a . CUP for anything over this height. Mr. Whittenberg suggested a maximum height of 48 inches under an AUP and anything above that would require a CUP. He asked if it would make a difference to the PC if the wall does not abut a residential property, such as those properties abutting Gum Grove Nature Park (GGNP), noting that currently the ZC standards allow only 6-foot high wall sections with 3- foot high terraces, but some of the existing walls out there are 18-20 feet high, which would not be allowed under today's standards. Chairperson Deaton asked about walls in the front yard to level the lawn portion of a yard. Mr. Whittenberg stated that retaining walls in front yards can be only 6 inches higher than the grade adjacent to it. Commissioner Roberts inquired about retaining walls along the Gold Coast. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this area has a separate set of standards because of the Gold Coast and the grade differences there and would not fall within this zoning chapter. PC Consensus- Retaining walls up to 48 inches - Subiect to AUP Retaining walls above 48 inches - RiEQVIRE CUP. 10. Parking Reductions - Shared Parking Program Discussion: Mr. Whittenberg explained that'there are specific standards required in order to qualify for a shared parking program, including traffic studies, based a upon accepted traffic engineering standards, to detennine what the proper mix . pc Staff Raport03-11-OB 140 . Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19,2008 would be for these types of projects. He said that the City has previously used this and Staff believes that this can be managed under the AUP process. PC Consensus - Sublect to AUP 11. Parking Reductions - Other Parking Reduction Discussion: Mr. Whittenberg stated that Commissioner Roberts had expressed his concerns about other parking reductions being handled through the AUP process, as he is concerned over visibility of the community if someone is asldng for something different than what the ZC would generally allow, and he believes this should remain subject to a CUP. Mr. Whittenberg noted that because parking would affect all the neighbors around a particular use, Commissioner Roberts' suggestion would be a reasonable one. Chairperson Deaton stated that she agreed with this. PC Consensus - !i~(JYIRE cue . 12. Signs on Main Street - Up to 3 tenant spaces Discussion: Mr. Whittenberg stated that Chairperson Deaton and Commissioner Roberts both believe that Items 12, 13, and 14 should remain subject to a CUP. Chairperson Deaton confirmed that this was correct. She stated that the PC had previously approved a Planned Sign Program (PSP) that later turned out to be whatever was already in place. PC Consensus - RE9YIB5 Cue 13. Signs on Main Street - 4 or more tenant spaces, Planned Sign Program PC Consensus - ~QUlRE CIJf!. 14. Master Sign Program PC Consensus - REQUIRE ClJe. 15. Nonconforming Structures - Specified structural repairs . Discussion: Chairperson Deaton clarified whether legal nonconforming uses are all9wed by right to make repairs or improvements within the building footprint. Mr. Whittenberg explained that currently there are specific items that require a Minor PC Staff Raport03-11-OB 141 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 Plan Review (MPR) and these are the types of items Staff is proposing to be subject to an A UP. He noted that these are changes that do not allow any additional habitable living space, but allow a roof deck or a new balcony. Chairperson Deaton stated that there are concerns in town over balconies on the sides of buildings that face onto neighboring residences or back yards. Mr. Whittenberg stated that in the new residential section there are standards stating that you can only have a certain amount of the length of a building open to balconies, but they would still be allowed. He noted that this could be addressed at the next study session on residential districts. PC Consensus - Subiect to AUP 16. Nonconforming Structures - Residential - Specmed minor improvements PC Consensus - Subiect to AUP 17. Nonconforming Structures - Residential reconstruction after damage - more than 50% subject to specified standards Discussion: Chairperson Deaton asked if the reconstruction would be within the same footprint. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that it would be and there are also standards that if the structure is nonconforming due to parking, they would have to provide at least one space per unit in order to reconstruct the building, so in reality the footprint could change. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt added that the change could also make them conforming structures. Mr. Whittenberg explained that most of these properties are nonconforming due to setbacks with everything else pretty much in compliance. . PC Consensus - Subiect to AUP 18. Nonconforming Structures - Nonresidential reconstruction after damage - more than 50% subject to specified standards Discussion: Mr. Whittenberg stated that this essentially has to do with parking for nonconforming nonresidential structures, which would require that they meet a specific percentage of the required parking in order to rebuild. PC Consensus - Subiect to AUP Public Comments . pc Staff Report,03-11-OB 142 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Trtle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 Chairperson Deaton opened for public comments. Eldon Alexander stated that for outdoor dining areas it would seem more reasonable to allow 12 seats under the AUP. Robert Goldberg commented that with a proposed 300-foot notice radius for AUPs many commercial developments have no residences within 300 feet. Chairperson Deaton noted that if there are no residences within 300 feet, then this might not matter. Mr. Goldberg stated that many times architectural features that exceed the height limit can create a large mass effect. He cited the new CVS store as an example. Chairperson Deaton asked if there are residences within 300 feet of the new CVS. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there are many residences within 300 feet, but the CVS did not require a Height Variation (HV) as the building does not exceed the allowed height limit. He indicated that there was a HV for the entrance treatment at the new Pavilions Mar1<et that was approved by the PC and comments were received on this request. He noted that residences are within 100 feet of this shopping center, and explained that many times it depends upon how a shopping center is parceled. He cited the Old Ranch Town Center stating that Target, Ralph's Mar1<et, CVS and Macaroni Grill are all on separate lots. He stated that Target had an HV approved and this lot is immediately adjacent to residences, so notice would have to be provided, while the CVS store at the front of the shopping center facing Seal Beach Boulevard is probably within a 300-foot distance form the homes in Rossmoor across the street, so notice would still be required. He then stated that Macaroni Grill, which is farther north and directly across from the Rossmoor Center, would have no homes within 700 or 1,000 feet. Commissioner Roberts stated that with the Pavilions Mar1<et, those people most concemed were residents behind the shopping center. He stated that an argument could be made for placing everything under a CUP and noticing 1000 feet, but the PC is attempting to make this as reasonable and manageable as possible. Commissioner Roberts asked Mr. Goldberg to' comment on drive-throughs and extended hour business. Mr. Goldberg said he favored an earlier closing time, particularly for businesses selling alcohol. Chairperson Deaton explained that the AUP would help tighten this up, because now any non-alcohol-selling business can stay open until 2:00 a.m. Mr. Goldberg asked if this would be retroactive. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this cannot be retroactive. Mr. Goldberg asked if the City Attorney needs to be present for wor1<shops, as the cost of his services is probably high. The response was that no additional fees are being paid to have the City Attorney present. Mr. Goldberg then asked if the PC would consider conducting the next study session on residential districts on a Saturday. PC Staff Raport,03-11-OB 143 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Joyce Parque spoke regarding the installation of microwave dishes with no notice to surrounding residents. She said these should require a public notice as well as for additions to homes or new homes within the Seal Beach Trailer Park (SBTP), and these homes should be required to provide at least one parking space. Eldon Alexander stated that he agrees that drive-in and drive-through businesses should be subject to a CUP. He cited the application from Starbucks to open a drive- thru in the former Burger King location that was denied due to traffic impacts. Melinda Howell said she had visited Balboa Island and asked if Staff knew the percentage for lot coverage allowed as huge houses are being constructed there. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he believes Newport Beach has specific standards for Balboa Island and some of the other island communities in that area. There being no one- else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed public comments. Chairperson Deaton suggested reviewing the input from public comments and . discussing whether to revise any of the items discussed so far. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that with regard to wireless telecommunications facilities and satellite dishes, many of the capabilities of cities to deal with these issues are pre- empted by federal law. He stated that Staff would review Chapter 4.70 of the ZC that discusses telecommunications. With regard to the drive-thru at Starbucks, this would have required a CUP even under the proposed standards because there are residential units immediately adjacent to the subject property. He the noted that Mr. Alexander's suggestion to allow a 12-seat minimum is a good one, as most tables seat 4 persons. Chairperson Deaton stated that if this is done, she would prefer to address tables rather than seats, as this could result in 6 tables that seat 2 people. Commissioner Roberts stated that seats are the safest. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt agreed. Mr. Whittenberg noted that with tables there are requirements for providing access aisles around tables. PC Consensus - Allow 12 seats in outdoor din/no areas. With regard to telecommunications facilities, Mr. Abbe noted that there is a law dating from 1850 that originally applied to telegraph companies and that telecommunications Ai companies have been exploiting, which severely restricts the City's ability to prohibit . pc Staff Report03-11-OB 144 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 telecommunications facilities in public right-of-ways, and this also applies to wireless facilities. He said that there is more the City can do to regulate private property than public right-of-ways, but counsel is still researching this and will determine how far cities can go. Chairperson Deaton noted that perhaps the City should consider providing notice of a wireless facility going in. Mr. Whittenberg then continued the discussion on the Comments and Responses Staff Report as follows: Last bullet point on Page 9 Commissioner Roberts' commented regarding complaints and believes 6 complaints to be high and would prefer that action be taken after 3 complaints. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Staff had provided a number because in some cases it is simply a case of neighbors who don't like each other that begin to complain about a situation that may not be bothersome to anyone else in the neighborhood. Chairperson Deaton clarified if Staff means 6 complaints or complaints from 6 different individuals. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would be from 6 different individuals. Chairperson Deaton asked about how many complaints would be received in one night about a bar that has its windows open and is playing loud music. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would have to check with the police department, but very rarely does Staff receive complaints on this type of issue now, and the police do report repetitive complaints for any location to Staff. He noted that the proposed text indicates "six substantiated complaints from six different residences within 300 feet of an extended hour business within a calendar year.' Commissioner Roberts stated that a year is too long and should be decreased, as well as decreasing the number of complaints required. Mr. Whittenberg suggested 3 complaints in 6 months. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that compressing the time frame would more effectively get the attention of the business management. Mr. Abbe inte~ected that this is not drafted to indicate that the City has to wait a full year before taking action, but after 6 complaints have been received, Staff can bring this before the PC, even if a full year has not elapsed. He noted that compressing the amount of time would not work, as there could be 5 complaints in one month, and two months later another would be received, leaving in question when the 6-month time frame would begin. He recommended leaving the time one calendar year. Commissioner Roberts aSked if the City could act upon this if three complaints are received in one year. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the City could not. Chairperson Deaton asked what the critical mass of complaints would be that would determine when there is a neighborhood problem. Mr. Whittenberg explained that in dealing with this Staff notes that for the first caller it is a problem to them only, and sometimes Staff is able to resolve this with no further intervention required. He noted that these are issues that are usually addressed in the course of normal Code Enforcement procedure anyway, but if Staff determines PC Staff Report03-11-OB 145 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 that there is no Code violation these would then become substantiated complaints that Staff would begin to track. He noted that decreasing the critical mass of complaints to 3 within a calendar year would be no problem. He commented that with many of these cases the City would not have the capability to revoke a CUP. He indicated that even after the new Code has been adopted and is implemented, it will still be necessary to come back and fine tune some of the new standards if they are not working as anticipated. Chairperson Deaton suggested revising the language to clarify that the business manager must address the issue as soon as 3 substantial complaints have been received. Mr. Whittenberg noted that this could be done. PC Consensus - Reduce mass number of comDlaints to three (3). Second bullet point on Page 11 Regarding RVlboat parking limits on proprieties the City currently has provisions that allow RVlboat parking on public streets for 72 hours, and Staff has suggested that RVlboat parking on properties should be limited to 24 hours. Commissioners favored a 72-hour limit. PC Consensus - Limit RV/boat Darkin" on private property to 72 hours. . Second bullet point on Page 12 Regarding vacation rentals Staff recommends limiting these to no more than 2 units on any residential property. Chairperson Deaton asked what the Code currently allows. Mr. Whittenberg stated that currently there are no standards for vacation rentals. He explained that there are vacation rentals in town that are allowed with a business license for a rental property, but recently Staff has received more complaints related to party activities and weekly turnover of tenants who are unconcerned about the community or surrounding neighbors. He also noted that property owners have found that they can get more money from a vacation rental unit than from a month-to-month rental. He added that parking also becomes an issue when several people rent a vacation unit for a week or longer. Chairperson Deaton stated that she agreed, but wished to hear from the public. She then opened for public comments. Joyce Parque asked if this would also apply to the Oakwood Apartments (OA) , which also has vacation rentals and many of their tenants park along First Street. Mr. Whittenberg stated that as the text reads it could apply to the OA and this was not the intent. He indicated that the text would have to be revised. Chairperson Deaton asked if this equid be done by residential district. Mr. Whittenberg agreed that this could be done by applying this restriction to the single-family residential areas in Old Town and . PC Staff Report,03-11-OB 146 . . . Public Hearing 1'6: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Raporf March 19, 2008 The Hill, as OA, the Seal Beach Trailer Park, and the Riverbeach Townhomes would be in one zoning district. Chairperson Deaton confirmed that the Code would be revised to exempt OA from this restriction. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that it would be applicable only to the RHD-20 (Old Town) and the RLD-9 Zones (College Park EasWJest, The Hill, and the Gold Coast). He noted that it would not apply to OA, the Riverbeach and Rossmoor townhomes, nor would it apply to the town homes near the Old Ranch Country Club. PC Consensus - limIt vacation rentals to no more than 2 units within the RHD- 20 and the RLD-9 Districts. Last bullet point on Page 12 The definition of a "minor' addition or expansion was discussed. The Director of Development Services explained that this would apply in a situation where. a street widening project was being completed and someone wishes to make an addition to an adjacent building with the addition encroaching into a required setback onto the newly widened street. PC Consensus - Lanauaae to remain as Staff has suaaested. First bullet point on Page 13 Regarding allowable heights for property line fences, hedges, and walls in side and rear yards, Mr. Whittenberg stated that currently the Code allows 6 feet, and based upon a recent PC determination for a 7-foot wall along a property street side on Beryl Cove Way where a setback for landscaping was required, the PC might wish to include standards for wall treatments along the street side for walls higher than 6 feet. Chairperson Deaton stated that she is not comfortable with walls being constructed right on the sidewalk and favored at least one foot of landscaping between the sidewalk and the wall. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the landscape requirement would be fine for side yards, but rear yards usually abut an alley and regular maintenance is usually not done in these areas. He recommended providing consensus on the 7-foot height for side yards with a landscaped setback, and that rear yards would not require landscaping. Chairperson Deaton stated she would like to see this done for the 6-foot ,walls also. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt agreed with having landscape setback areas for side yards. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff would like to suggest a stepped back terrace treatment like the retaining walls for street side walls. He recommended that Staff create the language for this, but further revisions may be required after the Code is adopted. pc Staff Report03-11-OB 147 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning .' Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 PC Consensus - Staff to create lanouaoe for standards for landscape setbacks for 6.. and 7-foot street side walls and standards for rear walls. Second bullet point on Page 13 The initial draft of the Preliminary Code states that within the flood zone the grade on properties could be raised up to one-half the increase in elevation required to reach the base flood elevation, and Staff is proposing that this be changed to reflect that the grade height can be increased by the increase in elevation required to reach the base flood elevation. PC Consensus - Lanouaoe to remain as Staff has suooested. ThIrd bullet point on Page 13 Regarding landscaped terraces on retaining walls Commissioner Roberts has suggested that the requirement be added for automatic sprinkler systems on these . terraces. PC Consensus - Lanouaoe to remain as Staff has suooested. Second bullet point on Page 14 For parking allocations for off-street parking for single-family residences within Seal Beach Staff is recommending a minimum of 2 spaces for a single-family residence (SFR) with 1-3 bedrooms, 3 spaces for a 4-5 bedroom home, and that 1 additional parking space be required for each bedroom beyond five. Commissioner Roberts requested public comment on this item. Chairperson Deaton opened for public comments. Eldon Alexander asked about the law that allows rental of bedrooms in SFRs. Chairperson Deaton asked that Mr. Abbe respond to this. Mr. Abbe stated that you cannot prohibit the number of unrelated people that can live together within one dwelling. Commissioner Roberts stated that his concem was that SFRs would become boarding houses. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if the Code defines a "boarding house." Mr. Whittenberg stated that he believes it defines a boarding house as having 6 boarders. He noted that the proposed parking requirements are not meant to regulate the number of residents, but simply to help provide as much parking as possibl~, Mr. Olivera added that he is aware of a few cities that do place restrictions on . the number of individual bedrooms within a home that may be rented. He noted that pc Staff Report03-11-OB 148 . . . Public Haaring re: final Draft - Tlffa 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 the Ctty of Long Beach has a restriction that allows a maximum of 2 bedrooms that can be rented in any owner occupied unit. Commissioner Roberts suggested that the City Attorney return with some information on this issue. Eldon Alexander stated that in Old Town it is difficult to provide more than 2 parking spaces. He stated that if this standard is adopted, no one in Seal Beach will have more than 3 bedrooms, but will have 3 bedrooms and other types of named rooms. Commissioner Roberts noted that you could probably construct a 4-bedroom home on a 25-lot in Old Town, but providing 3 parking spaces would be a challenge. Mr. Whittenberg stated that tandem spaces within garages work well for providing additional parking. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt referred to the LivelWork Unit prOVision and asked if this would allow employees to come to a IiveJwork unit, or would it be 'restricted to the owner. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would be strictly for the business owner. PC Consensus - City Attornev to return with further information on this item. First bullet point on Page 16 Commissioner Roberts asked if there were any changes to the current Code provisions for A-Frame signs. Mr. Whittenberg stated that A-Frame signs are currently not allowed and Staff is recommending that they be allowed, subject to conditions, as enforcement of the current standard has proven to be very difficult. He explained that A-Frames would be allowed only on private property and not in the public right-of way, with a limit of one sign per business. He said that he has provided these comments for consideration during the public hearings. Second bullet point on Page 17 Mr. Abbe stated that as presented at the previous study session, discretion to regulate adult businesses is severely curtailed, and after doing further research on whether restricting tattoo parlors would interfere with free speech, he found that the courts state that the process of tattooing is "not sufficiently communicative in nature so as to rise to the plateau of important activity encompassed by the First Amendment." He said that the City can regulate and restrict, but avoid anything that may be seen as arbitrary or unreasonable, and recommended making tattoo parlors subject to a CUP with which distance restrictions can be imposed. Commissioner Roberts stated that the PC would like to see distance restrictions for schools, residential, churches, etc. Third bullet point on Page 17 pc staff Report03-11-08 149 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - TItle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 Regarding Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, equipment sheds are not currently required to be underground and Staff is continuing to research whether the City has the authority to require this. . Last bullet point on Page 18 Regarding Adult Entertainment Uses Mr. Whittenberg noted that this question had been addressed at the previous study session. Eldon Alexander stated that Chapter 5.15 of the ZC, which regulates adult entertainment businesses, appears to be quite comprehensive. Robert Goldberg stated that he wished to retract his question regarding whether the City Attorney needed to be present at these study sessions. He said that he was obviously ignorant of the extent of the City Attorney's involvement with this process and ,extended his appreciation for this. - Chairperson Deaton thanked Mr. Goldberg for his positive comments. Mr. Whittenberg noted that when dealing with land use regulation of private property it is important to have the ability to confer with the City Attorney before making any policy recommendations. Comment from Councilman Levitt on Page 19 . Chairperson Deaton stated that the PC does not require people to provide their address when speaking, but the city and the part of the city in which they live serves as a point of reference for the PC. Mr. Abbe stated that this is appropriate information to ask, and all cities do ask for this information; however. it is important to note that under the Brown Act anyone has a right to speak anonymously. First bullet point on Page 20 Regarding appeal fees, Mr. Whittenberg stated that for the record he wished to note that he had erroneously responded to this question at the last study session. He indicated that under the current provisions of the City resolutions that set forth all of the fees, appeal fees are the same amount as the application fee. He noted that Staff is not proposing that this be changed as the processing costs for an appeal are the same as for the initial application process. Chairperson Deaton stated that she feels this is a good idea for the AUP, as it allows residents to appeal at a lower level than the CUP, and the costs are less. Commissioner Roberts added that conversely, the visibility would not be there with public notice in the first place and residents would not have the opportunity to speak in opposition to a proposal. Last bullet point on Page 20 pc Staff Report03-11-OB . 150 . . . Public Haaring re: Final Draft - TIlle 11: Zoning Saal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 Staff suggested that the discussion on increasing rear yard setbacks be deferred until the next study session on residential uses, and also for the first bullet point on Page 21 regarding AUP approval for garages and carports. Second bullet point on Page 22 Regarding providing notification to City Council (CC) and the Planning Commission (PC) on approvals of AUPs, Mr. Whittenberg indicated that once a hearing is conducted and a determination made, Staff will provide a memorandum or other communication to CC and the PC within 3 days regarding the action taken. First bullet point on Page 23 - This provides, clarification on,the number of children in small family day care. Staff has vermed that the number is eight. Second bullet point on Page 23 Proposes changing the hours for extended hour business form 2:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. There having been no strong objections, Staff will propose this change in the final draft. Last bullet point on Page 23 The City Attorney and Staff are suggesting that the language for the definition for a Twenty-Four Hour Foster Care Home not be changed. Chairperson Deaton asked what the next step in the ZC revision process would be. Mr. Whittenberg stated that a study session has been scheduled for June 20 to continue with Commercial/lndustrial uses in Chapters 4 and 5, should the PC feels that they need to devote more time to this section. If the PC has no additional comments, Staff will keep this item on the agenda to allow for comments or discussion from the public. He indicated that Staff does not have anything to bring back to the meeting of June 20, unless the telecommunications information is available. Chairperson Deaton stated that she liked the idea of opening this up to the public for further comment. Commissioner Roberts inquired about the height of projections on non-residential structures and stated that he is having difficulty with the standard of 10 percent of the roof area. He suggested setting a maximum height in feet rather than a percentage. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this could be revisited. pc Staff Report03-11-OB 151 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Commissioner Roberts then inquired about the proposed open space standards for multi-family developments. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that these standards are proposed to allow for minimal open space that residents can use for barbeques or gatherings between neighbors and to allow for recreation on the property, and in addition to allow for some private open space like a balcony or patio that is fenced off. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that she believes 200 square feet of open space per unit might be a little high. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff can review this but they believe that having a private area for people to use is important. Mr. Loya, a resident of 16th Street, referred to the discussion on landscape setbacks and automatic sprinkler systems for street side walls and fences and stated that he frequently walks around town and questioned whether these landscaped areas would be adequately maintained, noting that there are many existing setback areas within the City with overgrown and out of control plants. He stated that he and his wife prefer that the setbacks not exist in residential areas as they are unattractive and the plant overgrowth can interfere with pedestrians walking on the sidewalks. Chairperson Deaton added that in Old Town the problem is that many of these areas are City property and are not setbacks and, therefore, you are not allowed to fence out to these areas. Mr. Whittenberg stated that current provisions require that 40 percent of front . yard areas be landscaped, and Staff is not proposing to change this. Mr. Loya emphasized that his concern is that this problem not be added to by requiring landscaped setback areas for street side walls. Eldon Alexander noted that a 1-foot strip of setback for the entire length of a street side wall or fence is not necessary, as cut-outs every few feet can be used and will still achieve a break in the look of a solid wall. He indicated that this might help in preventing the amount of overgrowth to which Mr. Loya referred. Mr. Whittenberg then explained that a study session will be conducted at the June 20, 2007, Planning Commission meeting for commerciaVindustrial uses and if the PC or the public have any other comments they can present them at that meeting. He stated that Staff will not prepare a formal presentation for this study session. Mr. Abbe noted that he would provide more information on regulations for rental of rooms within dwellings." * * . . pc Staff Raport03-11-OB 152 . . . . . Public Haaring re: Final Draft - Tiffs 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 ATTACHMENT 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - JUNE 20, 2007 "STUDY SESSION 10. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning All Portions Except Chapter 2.05 Residential Districts Mr. Whittenberg introduced Steven Flower from Richards, Watson & Gershon (RWG) to continue a presentation on the ability to require underground equipment boxes and panels for telecommunications facilities. Steven Flower stated that with regard to under grounding wireless antenna facilities, this can be required with a caveat, noting that the concern is the Federal Telecommunications Act (FTA), which is a federal law that broadly preempts the area of wireless facility regulation. He indicated that the City does have a reservoir of zoning authority that it can draw upon to regulate wireless facilities, so long as it meets certain conditions, as follows: 1. City standards cannot prevent wireless service providers from providing services within a given area; 2. The City cannot discriminate between service providers. Mr. Flower stated that as long as these conditions are generally met, the City can set forth standards such as those for under grounding. He continued by saying that standards for separation and distance requirements between facilities and maximum height limits can be implemented, as long, as they do not prevent the provision of services in a given area. Commissioner Roberts asked if all of these caveats pertain to both dish and pole antennas. Mr. Flower stated that he is not absolutely clear on the technical issues with regard to the difference between these two types of equipment, but from a legal standpoint it only matters whether or not these types of facilities would affect the ability of a provider to cover a specific area. Commissioner Roberts stated that he asked because at the previous discussion it appeared that there was some differentiation between a dish and a pole. Mr. Whittenberg explained that there are some specific limitations on the ability of cities to control dish antennae less than a pc Staff Report03-11-OB 153 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 certain diameter in size. He said he believed the diameter is 39 inches, but Staff would confirm this and provide the current court decisions on this issue. He cautioned that court decisions s are always changing what a city can or cannot do. Mr. Flower stated that he was under the impression that the PC was more concerned with wireless facilities rather than dish antennae. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that the PC is more concerned with wireless facilities, rather than with Direct TV dishes or antennae. Mr. Flower stated that in terms of the FTA it would be important to be very specmc about when requirements would not apply. He noted that language in the proposed ordinance states that the Director of Development Services or the PC can waive a requirement if it would require non-compliance with federal state law. He recommended including language that states "it would be waived" or "it shall be waived" if this would prevent the provider from operating the service in a given area. He cautioned that this would not mean that there would have to be blanket coverage citywide, but there could be "dead zones.' Chairperson Deaton asked how dead zones are determined. Mr.--Flower stated that this is a technical question, but the service -- provider would have to make a showing that there is a gap in coverage. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the City has several tower installations on City property, noting that currently there are three different service provider antennas on the City Hall clock tower. He explained that when a provider requests the ability to locate, certain . technical documents must be provided to Staff showing that the area is one that is underserved, and how broad an area the new service will cover. He indicated that there are also several towers adjacent to the City water reservoir along the 1-405 Freeway and at the Seal Beach Tennis Center facility. Mr. Flower added that the proposed ordinance is written to require similar submittals for facilities located off of City property. He then stated that based upon a recent court decision on Sprint VS. The County of San Diego, the 9th circuit court invalidated the County's wireless ordinance on a provision that had not previously been utilized in court cases, which stated that the County of San Diego ordinance vested too much discretion in their decision makers with regard to camouflaging, consistency with community character, and visual impact. He noted that these are standard for city zoning practices and many cities have wireless ordinances that vest this kind of discretion in their decision makers. He said that Seal Beach is taking a conservative approach and is looking at where discretion for decision makers can be "tightened.' He noted that the Sprint decision is to be reviewed by a wider panel and the County of San Diego has advised that they intend to petition for Supreme Court Review, and RWG will keep Staff informed, of any new developments in this case. He recommended looking at the ordinance now to ensure that these facilities are compatible with neighborhoods, while at the same time reigning in discretion as much as possible to avoid any problems. Commissioner. Massa-Lavitt asked if this decision addressed the location of facilities in the public right-of way rather than on, private property. Mr. Flower ~tated that there is a parallel case coming up in . the state courts that deals with the right-of way provisions under state law. He noted pc Staff Report03-11-OB' 154 . . . Public Hearing re: Final Draft - T7t1e 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Raport March 19, 2008 that the proposed wireless ordinance for Seal Beach is much broader, as it covers private property as well as the public right-of way. Mr. Whittenberg added that the issue of land use control continually evolves as court decisions are made, so changes to the ordinance may be necessary at the time it is presented at public hearings. Mr. Whittenberg then continued the Study Session by stating that tonight the PC will focus on the new recommendations for the proposed Commercial/Industrial/Open Space standards. He presented the table entitled "2007 ZONING CODE REVISION, Proposes Use Permit Review Changes' for viewing during the discussion. He then began the discussion by reviewing the following items. Bui/dina Heiahts: No changes are proposed for current building heights. There are height and story limitations for some zones and others have none because this is the way the Code has been written over the years. Staff is proposing creating another table for all of the separate standards that now exist in each of the City zoning categories. Bui/dina Setbacks: Additional standards are to be proposed for properties within the LCIRMD Zone along Seal Beach Boulevard (SBB) between Electric Avenue and Pacmc Coast Highway (PCH), for the Main Street Specmc Plan (MSSP) Zone, and the Professional Office (PO) Zone (currently there are no properties within this classification). Staff recommends a "build to line' requirement to prevent parking at the front of a commercial building. Commissioner Roberts asked if the property line begins at the interior edge of the sidewalk. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is generally true for commercial buildings, but it is not always the, case for residences. He noted that this is being proposed for areas that are primarily pedestrian-oriented retail areas, such as along Main Street. Chairperson Deaton noted that at the joint study sessions Mayor Larson had commented on women not wanting to have to walk through an alley or around and behind a building after parking or to return to their car. Mr. Whittenberg stated that today most business operations will have some sort of entry from the parking lot at the rear of the building. Chairperson Deaton then inquired about the PO District. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the Professional Office (PO) Zone is on the books, but currently no property in town falls under this designation. He noted that at one point in time a portion of the Bixby Office Park Development, north of the'1-405 Freeway, was in a PO Zone and another in the Light Manufacturing (M-1) Zone, but in the mid-1980's the City adopted an overlying specific plan that allowed the current office park. He indicated that Staff wants to keep this designation, as there is potential for its use in the future. He added that retail uses would not be allowed within the PO Zone. PC Staff Raport03-11-OB 155 Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission staff Raport March 19, 2008 The Director of Development Services then referred the Commissioners to the items listed on Page 3 of the May 9, 2007, Staff Report and to the Preliminary Draft of the Title 11 Zoning Code, Part II, Base District Regulations, Sections 2.10.015.D through 2.10.015.R - Development Standards - Commercial and Mixed Use Districts for a review of recommendations for the following items: D Minimum Yard Requirements: Building Transition Zone Adjacent to Residential Districts - page 23-24; Discussion: This would apply to transition areas between a commercial and residential zone. This usually occurs along Main Street and in the LC/RMD area adjacent to SBB, south of PCH. These standards attempt to prevent the mass of commercial buildings from casting shadows across residences, and to provide light and air circulation. Staff presented graphics on how this would look noting that the graphics are illustrative _ and not technically correct, but are to be revised with exact dimensions. (Presentation is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) In most cases this occurs across an alley where you get a rear property line for residential across from a commercial property line as with the townhomes behind the Rossmoor Shopping Center. . D Public Open Space - page 25; Discussion: For new commercial buildings over 25,000 square feet in area Staff is recommending that they include a public gathering place such as an outside patio area or courtyard measuring 25 square feet/1,000 square feet of retail building area. This has been incorporated at the new Shops at Rossmoor, which will have courtyards, an outdoor fire pit, and fountains with seating around. This would be required for new retail only. D Umitations on Location of Parking - page 25; Discussion: For the LC, PO, and MSSP zones above-ground parking cannot be located within 40 feet of a street. This would apply to parking structures and there would be some exceptions through the Administrative Use Permit (AUP) process and would provide a 30G-foot notice. D Umitations on Curb Cuts - page 25-25 . PC Staff Raport,03-11-OB 156 . . . Public Haering re: Final Draft - Tlffe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Discussion: Would be applied to commercial and retail centers to reduce impacts on traffic flow. o Umitations on Location of Truck Docks; Loading and Service Areas - page 27; D D Discussion: Staff has already received direction from the Planning Commission (PC) on how this is to be handled. Building Design Features - pages 27-32; Discussion: No existing standards within the Code. Recommend a variety of wall planes as well as roof designs to get away from a long length of a flat, square building far;ade on the street side or parking lot side. The new CVS Store reflects this with a complete roof all around the building. Commissioner Roberts asked if the City had any control on the color of buildings. Staff stated the City has none, noting that this is a very subjective issue. Mr. Abbe stated that he has not seen an ordinance that specifically regulates color. With regard to building design Staff proposes architectural detail for the street far;ade of buildings. Photos with examples of design variety were displayed. D Blank Walls - pages 32-33; Discussion: Recommend limiting the length of blank walls to a specific percentage of the building, with the remainder incorporating design standards as discussed above. Chairperson Deaton commented that the new Daily Grind will have nothing but a blank wall facing Pacific Coast Hwy. Mr. Whittenberg stated that currently there are no provisions for this, and noted that this is a very small building. Staff will check the plans to determine whether the wall will be blank. D Building Orientation - page 33; Discussion: Recommendation is that the primary entrance of buildings face a public street. There is a provision for an AUP to receive a waiver from this requirement, if necessary. Emphasis would be on preventing back walls from facing the street and would also include requirements for providing landscaping or other design features to help soften the effect. Ground Floor Requirements - pages 33-34; PC Staff Report03-11-OB 157 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Dreft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Plenning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Discussion: Suggest standards for the type of building materials and designs to be used for ground floor areas to create better articulation, greater detail, more use of window and door recesses, etc. This would apply to all commercial zones. . o Building Transparency- page 34; Discussion: Within an area between 2 and 6 feet above grade, a specific percentage of the building must be open to public view. This will also help prevent long blank walls. Chairperson Deaton asked if there were any restrictions on blacked-out windows. Transparency requirements would address this issue. o Open Space Requirements for Residential Uses - page 34; Discussion: Proposed revisions for setbacks for residential uses on commercial, mixed-use property to help provide light, air circulation, and private open space. o Required Side and Rear Yards for Residential Uses - pages 34-35; . Discussion: Provide setback requirements for second and third stories on residential within the LC/RMD Zone for provision of light, air circulation, and private open space. o Consistency with Design Guidelines, Specific Plans, or Area Plans Adopted by the City Council- page 35; Discussion: If the City has adopted a Specific Plan for a residential area or commercial property that differs from City Code, the Specific Plan standards would apply. o Pedestrian Access to Buildings Set Back from the Street - pages 35-36; and Discussion: Sets standards to help oversee design for pedestrian access from the street to the building in commercial use areas. o Projections - pages 36-37. Discussion: Suggest minor changes to existing standards for architectural projections that exceed the height limit. PC Staff ReporlO~11-oB 158 e e e e Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 Commissioner Comments/Questions Commissioner Roberts noted that the proposals for standards for facades on commercial buildings are a good feature. Chairperson Deaton asked what had been decided on whether projections above the height limit would be subject to a CUP or an AUP. Mr. Whittenberg stated he believed the PC wished to have this remain subject to a CUP, and to limit the size even further. She indicated that after hearing the public comments made tonight she is very sensitive about projections. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that mechanical equipment on commercial buildings can become an issue, particularly when you have multi-story office buildings. He noted that most of the retail shopping centers in Seal Beach don't have multi-story buildings. Chairperson Deaton. stated that she would be more concerned about architectural projections than she would the mechanical, because mechanical are necessary. Mr. Whittenberg stated that now Staff tells applicants that they must abide by the height limit, and in most cases this should be the procedure, but there may be a case where the PC would like to have the ability to adjust this on an as needed basis. Chairperson Deaton stated that this should remain subject to a CUP. Mr. Whittenberg then quickly reviewed the remaining items as follows: Part //, Base District Regulations, Table 2.15.015.B through 2.15.015.0 - Development Standards - LIght Manufacturing and Oil Extraction Districts Recommend building design features, variety in wall planes and height, massing elements, landscaping, etc. Specific Plan will override City Code. The same recommendations made for projections would apply. Part II, Base District Regulations, Table 2.20.010 - Use Regulations - Public and Semi-Public Facilities Districts Apply to private golf course developments and public uses like the police station, City maintenance yard facilities, park facilities, and associated recreation buildings. He noted that most uses on a golf course would require a CUP. Part //, Base District Regulations, Table 2.25.010 - Use Regulatfons - Open Space ~nd Parks Districts PC Staff Reporl03.11-oB 159 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 . Standard apply to public parks, the public beach, and the future 100-acre public wetland area. Most of these uses are permitted by right, but certain uses would require CUP approval, such as the tennis center. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this ends the review of proposed standards for commercial uses and he then requested direction from the Commission as to how they wished to proceed. Commissioner Roberts ask whether the City or the developer decides how much money they contribute for dedications and exactions for new developments. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the City makes the final decision, and will usually not take a dedication of land within small developments. Commissioner Roberts stated that a $10,000 exaction for a subdivision seems relatively inexpensive. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff had conferred with the City Attomey with regard to increasing this amount, but Proposition 218 states that if a tax on property is to be increased, you must have voter approval in order to d()so. . fy1r,Al:lbe stated that the City still has the authority to impose development fees, and if counsel finds that the City does have the authority to impose a higher fee, an escalator clause indexed to inflation may also be included. Chairperson Deaton asked if the 6 new homes on the property at 5th Street and Central Avenue would qualify as a subdivision. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it would not, as the underlying parcels on this property were already in existence. . Commissioner Roberts confirmed that the decision on the notification radius for the AUP would be 300 feet and 500 feet for a CUP. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this had been the consensus. Mr. Whittenberg then asked if the PC would need to revisit the proposed zoning standards for commercial uses. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that a study session on the Chapter 4.05 standards should be conducted. Mr. Whittenberg recommended completing the study sessions on residential uses and then retuming to Chapter 4.05. Public Comments Chairperson Deaton opened for public comments. Eldon Alexander referred to the LCfRMD Zone and asked if mixed-use developments can be commercial, mixed use residential and commercial, or simply residential. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. . He then asked if. strictly residential were being done in this district would the setback requirements be the same as for an all residential zone. Mr. Whittenberg stated e pc Staff Report.03-11-oB 160 e e e Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 that residential development in this area must meet the standards for the RHD- 20 Zone. Mr. Alexander then stated that he does not believe there is a parking problem in Seal Beach or in Old Town. Chairperson Deaton countered that the denser part of Old Town does have parking problems. Mr. Alexander stated that in meeting the 2-parking space requirement, the 25-foot lots in Old Town also allow for a third parking space on the rear garage pad, and the 37.5-foot lots would accommodate 4 spaces. He also noted that with an aging population, within 5-7 years there would be fewer teenagers with cars requiring parking. Chairperson Deaton asked about homeowners renting out bedrooms. Mr. Alexander stated that he knows of no one in his neighborhood who rents out bedrooms within their homes. He added that it is more likely to have. existing apartments demolished for construction of a single-family residence. Mr. Abbe cautioned that tonight's discussion is not on residential, but on commercial uses. Mr. Alexander then referred to an article entitled, "The Birth of the Property Rights Movement,. (copies distributed to the Commission) and stated that he sees the process of limiting third story development and imposing design standards as a regulatory taking. He stated that dedication and exaction fees could fall under this as well. He also noted that in Proposition 90 one of the examples used was similar to limiting third stories, and Proposition 90 passed and was approved in all 5 districts of Seal Beach. He postured that the author of the above-noted article is saying that the court decisions cited are not correct from the point of view of the original understanding of property and the takings clause as well as due process. Mr. Alexander then stated that he still does not understand why the PC cannot look at the economic impacts of making these "legislative" changes to the Zoning Code (ZC). Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would research this question and present a response at the public hearings. Mr. Alexander then referred to comments made by Councilmember Ybaben regarding his expectation to have architectural considerations for buildings within Seal Beach, which Mr. Alexander understands is Mr. Ybaben's compromise position regarding making Seal Beach look quaint. He stated that based upon the architectural considerations presented and the ensuring discussion; he would like to see what the actual proposed FAR calculations would be. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed public comments." * * * * PC Staff ReporlO~ 11-oa 161 e e e Public Haaring 1'9: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning S9a1 Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 ATTACHMENT 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - JULY 18, 2007 "STUDY SESSION 13. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning Chapter 2.05 Residential Districts Recommendation: . Conduct Study Session by receiving Staff Report, public comments and Commission Comments. Provide direction to Staff regarding items. Vice-Chairperson Roberts commented that beginning the study sessions at 9:00 p.m. or later is not getting the desired participation from the community and this must be remedied. He then indicated that there may be concem from residents of Old Town over Chairperson Deaton's absence from the last study session. He stated that he had spoken to her and she had expressed her strong desire that the process continue during her absence and noted that she would be participating again in the near future. Vice-Chairperson Roberts then indicated that tonight Staff would be conducting a discussion on daylight planes and building stepbacks at the 14 and 21-foot level and he noted that the PC would be very limited in providing direction to Staff, as this is principally an informational presentation. He encouraged public comments from the audience. Mitzi Morton stated that many people in town do not know that the PC is conducting these study sessions and asked if there were some way of getting more newspaper coverage. Vice-Chairperson Roberts noted that perhaps Ms. Morton's comments tonight would encourage more coverage. Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He stated that he would begin by presenting the concept of daylight planes and then open for comments, then follow with a discussion of the pc Staff R.porlO~11-08 162 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft- Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code. Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 step back issue. He noted that Floor Area Ratios (FARs) would not be discussed until Chairperson Deaton is able to be present. Mr. Whittenberg explained that daylight planes are one mechanism that attempts to address concems regarding the mass and bulk of buildings, but does not address the size or square footage of a building, as FARs would address this. He indicated that the daylight plane addresses the use of roof styles in reducing the height of walls adjacent to side and rear yard property lines. Vice-Chairperson Roberts confirmed that these standards would be applicable to both the 9 and 20 zones. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that these would apply to the RLD-9 (College Park East/West and The Hill), RMD-18 (Old Ranch Country Club and Rossmoor Townhomes), and RHD-20 (Old Town) Zones. With regard to the request for three dimensional renderings, Mr. Whittenberg reported that inquiries yielded the response from architects that these renderings could be done at a cost of approximately $3,000 per drawing, so Staff proceeded to research zoning ordinances for cities using daylight planes and was able to find the information needed. He then proceeded to provide a PowerPoint presentation of examples of the use of daylight plane provisions noting that they prevent the construction of homes with solid 25-foot high walls for the entire length of a lot by creating a plane that moves toward the center of the property and moves the building walls further away from the rear and side setback areas. He presented several examples of homes and the use of daylight planes accompanied by a description of the design features used to accommodate this. (Presentation is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He explained that when presenting the initial preliminary draft, some of the comments from the architects expressed concern that the proposed heights were not high enough to accommodate what is generally being constructed in town today. He indicated that for each of the City's proposed districts Staff had pulled 5 different plans for homes and has overlaid the current daylight planes for these homes over what Staff proposes. He noted that a summary table of information for each set of plans was prepared listing information on the construction of the home. Mr. Whittenberg explained that ceiling heights of homes have increased from 7 feet in the mid 1950's to 7-8 foot in the late 1950's early 60's, and today it is not uncommon to see ceiling heights of up to 8-9 feet, particularly in 2- story homes, which ultimately increases the overall height of a home. He noted that daylight planes can measure 8.5 feet from .the ground, as measured from the single- story portion of a structure, and up to 14 feet from the ground for 2-story homes, with the measurement taken from the building line through the eave up to where it intersects with the roof line. He continued presenting more examples on the use of daylight planes. Commissioner Questions . e Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that she believes that daylight planes are an excellent approach to creating diversity in architectural style and the use of roof styles. e pc Staff Reporl03-11-oB 163 e e e Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TlIia 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 She indicted that this provides a great opportunity for the community to take advantage of what this means. She commended Mr. Whittenberg on the work done on the presentation and in making the information easy to understand. Vice-Chairperson Roberts agreed that the use of daylight planes is worthy of consideration as a component of the zoning ordinance. He expressed his concern with opening the way for more Variances to exceed the height limit. . He then opened for public comments. Public Comments Melinda Howell commended Staff and the PC on a job well done. She asked how the Director of Development Services had determined what the proposed daylight planes would be, as from the examples the daylight planes appear to be fairly large and she does not see how this would allow for sunlight. Mr. Whittenberg explained that for a 2-story home in Old Town with 3-foot setbacks there will be no room for sunlight, unless the sun is directly overhead. He emphasized that under today's standards on a 25-foot wide lot a home can be constructed with a 25-foot high wall the entire length of the property. He indicated that the proposed daylight planes were determined based upon recommendations from the consulting architects. Vice-Chairperson Roberts asked about other cities that use the daylight plane. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the city with the most extensive regulations is Coronado, and Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and several cities on the Palos Verdes peninsula also use daylight planes. He indicated that much of the infonmation used to prepare the presentation came from the City of Austin, Texas, and noted that many cities now use daylight planes to deal with the mass and bulk of homes. Eldon Aiexander noted that many of the older buildings in Old Town have crawl spaces underneath the first floor that can add 1-1% feet to the height of a home. He asked whether Staff had completed preliminary calculations on what daylight plane setbacks would be for some of the properties in Old Town. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the daylight plane is one issue, but Staff is also proposing step backs for the front of the property and along the sides when you have walls above certain heights. Mike Bubbe stated that using daylight planes provides a great way to look at the issue of sunlight and privacy. He said he was wary of exceptions to the daylight plane and recommended requiring lesser daylight planes for homes in Old Town, as the lots are smaller. He noted that measuring the daylight plane up to the maximum height of the wall rather than to the roof overhang could present a problem if someone decided they wanted.a longer roof overhang. He then asked for the names of the architects providing assistance to Staff. pc Staff ReporlO~11-oB 164 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Tltla 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Warren Morton asked if a maximum height for the daylight plane would be established for different size lots. Mr. Whittenberg stated that one standard is proposed for the RLD-9 Zone and a different standard for the RHD-20 Zone. There being no one else wishing to speak, Vice-Chairperson closed public comments. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff intends to schedule another study session on residential districts to continue to work through step back issues and open space, etc. He indicated that depending upon Chairperson Deaton's ability to attend, Staff may review FARs. He added that notice of future study sessions would be published in the Sun Newspaper." * * * * PC Staff ReporlO~11-0B 165 . e e . e e Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 ATTACHMENT 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - AUGUST 8, 2007 "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 4.05.110.B1 reflects the proposed new standards for multi-unit residential development. He indicated that currently the Zoning Code (ZC) has no prOVisions for common and private open space requirements for multi-unit developments. Vice- Chairperson Roberts asked if the open space requirement would include roof decks. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that it would and noted that the proposed square footage is cumulative and does not have to be in one location. He clarified that in order to qualify as private open space (POS), a balcony or roof deck must have a minimum dimension of 5 feet. He noted that a minimum dimension for the common open space (COS) requirement must also be decided upon. Vice-Chairperson Roberts indicated that a COS area of 200 sq. ft. total for 3-4 units is approximately 66-50 sq. ft. per unit, which he believes to be reasonable. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that if the space can be cumulative, you could easily reach 225 sq. ft. of POS, particularly with a roof deck. Mr. Whittenberg agreed then referred to the last bullet point on Page 37 which proposes new open space requirements for RLD districts. He said that Staff is recommending a minimum dimension of 8 feet for a ground floor private yard area on lots less than 37.5 feet wide, which can include the setback area, He indicated that many of the plans now being submitted for new construction of homes include a ground floor patio area or balconies off of second floor master bedrooms. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if the front yard setback could be used for this open space requirement. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that only side or rear setback areas could be included, and in Old Town the homes rarely have fear yards. Mr. Whittenberg asked if the Vice-Chairperson would prefer to take comments as each section is presented or wait until the end of the study session. Vice-Chairperson Roberts stated that he would prefer to allow comments after each section. PC Staff R.porlO~ 11-0B 166 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Eldon Alexander stated that making the POS requirements cumulative works well and will lead to fewer problems with home design. Vice-Chairperson Roberts asked if 90 ft. would be a good number for lots measuring less than 37.5-ft. Mr. Alexander asked if a breezeway could be included in the POS. Mr. Whittenberg stated that one-third of this area could be covered by a second floor breezeway. Mr. Alexander noted that more families are moving into Old Town and would like the flexibility to include roof decks or patios. Vice-Chairperson Roberts suggested that a bonus be granted for 25-ft. lots that exceed the 90-ft. requirement. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that there is a provision in the bonus section for this. Robert Goldberg referred to Councilman Levitt's comment on Page 38 of the Staff Report regarding ensuring that open space is "permanently maintained.' He questioned what benefit these provisions provide to the general welfare, as they appear to add Elnly to the enjoyment of the individual resident. He said it appears. that many of these regulations are beginning to overlap in addressing similar areas and this is becoming "an incredibly complex set of rules.' He stated that the City should be careful in legislating home designs. He said that having open space requirements for multi- . family residences is good, but he is not in agreement with having minimum requirements for single-family residences (SFR). Maria Bubbe stated that she does not want a "box" next to her home, but would like to see some open space. Van Lawrence asked what the City was trying to achieve by enforcing open space. Mr. Whittenberg stated that one of the things frequently heard in the past has been the issue of homes that have solid, 25-ft. high walls along the entire length of the lot, and many residents feel there should be a minimum yard area for a family's use. He noted that the issue comes down to what the Planning Commission (PC) feels comfortable recommending to City Council (CC). He added that there are a number of concerns related to mansionization, neighborhood compatibility, privacy; blockage of sun, view, and air, etc., and creating building offsets creates more privacy between units, while open space areas break up the mass and bulk of buildings. Vice-Chairperson Roberts inquired about water runoff and permeability issues. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the California Coastal Commission (CCC) is now routinely recommending drainage systems for new construction, which may require dry wells on the property. Mr. Lawrence stated that the minimum requirements as described and combining small pieces to come up with one big piece doesn't really seem like creating open space. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the narrow 25-ft. lots do present a challenge to providing open space areas. e pc Staff R.porl~11-oa 167 . . . Public Heering 1'9: Finel Dreft - TilJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 Vice-Chairperson Robert asked for a show of hands of those present who favored the open space requirements as presented. The majority of the public raised their hands. Mr. Whittenberg then proceeded to discuss the ratio of 2nd floor to 1st floor building areas, stating that the architects had noted that due to the garage on the 1st floor the 2nd floor would always have more living space. Staff has revised the original ratios and the new proposals ~pear on Pages 40-41 of the Staff Report. He emphasized that the proposals are for 1 and 2nd floors only; 3rd stories will be discussed elsewhere in the proposed ordinance. Vice-Chairperson Roberts was in agreement that the 2nd floor ratios should be larger. Eldon Alexander stated that the 1st and 2nd floor ratios in combination with the FARs are going to make this complicated. Vice-Chairperson Roberts noted that if the 1st floor is really opened up to open space, this provides the benefit to build a larger 2nd floor than a FAR would.. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the FAR proposes a maximum square footage for habitable space on the property, and the architect can work with the FAR and the ratios to determine how the space is to be divided between the 1st and 2nd floor to incorporate a minimum size of private open space. He noted that the proposals for limiting the size of 2nd floors prevents the "maxing out" of 1st floor living space, and provides for larger setbacks and for more yard area. Robert Goldberg reiterated that this is getting very complicated. He clarified that garages and open space would not count toward the 1st floor square footage. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. Mr. Goldberg stated that if someone wants open space on the 1st floor this would limit the square footage on the 2nd floor, and if the open space is a 2nd floor balcony or a roof deck, this will impact sunlight and invade privacy, and this may result in unintended consequences. He said that these . mechanisms are overlapping and one or the other must be elected to accomplish the desired result. Mr. Whittenberg then continued with a discussion on minimum width of driveways, noting that for the Residential High Density. Zone (RHO) the City's provision has been that all driveways had to have a minimum width and that all access to garages has to be off of an alley. He stated that there is really no minimum width required, so Staff is proposing that this requirement be eliminated for the RHO Zone. He continued by discussing how area is determined where the averaging provision is utilized in the RHO -20 District for Minimum Permeable SurfacelMaximum Paving in Street Facing Yards, noting that City Code st;:ltes that you must have a 12-foot setback, but you. can a 6-foot minimum as long as you maintain an average of 12 feet. He said that this allows for building variation and referred to the sample calculation on Page 42 pc Staff Raporl.03-11-Da 168 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Dreft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 of the Staff Report for clarification. He indicated that this also deals with the issue of storm water runoff. . The next item for discussion addressed patio requirements within the Bridgeport area, and Staff has provided the text on Pages 43 and 44 that will be incorporated into the final proposal to be presented to the PC. The Director of Development Services then referred to comments on measuring the Flood Zone height for homes required to raise the grade level to meet federal flood insurance programs. He noted that the initial draft required that half of this distance would not be counted toward the height limit; however, based upon comments from the architects and a member of the public, Staff is requested that homeowners be given the full credit for having to raise the height limit above the flood hazard zone. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would like to defer the discussion on Projections Beyond Height Limits and Daylight Planes for the next presentation on daylight planes. Vice- Chairperson Roberts asked if this discussion would include discussion on CRAS and elevator enclosures. Mr. Whittenberg stated the question of whether the PC wants to . continue to allow the CRAS and elevator enclosures must be considered, noting that there appears to be more resistance from property owners to continue to permit these. Mr. Whittenberg then continued with a discussion on Projections, as listed on Page 49, and noted that this would be related to architectural projections on multi-unit structures as opposed to single-family residences (SFR). He referred to the list of proposed allowable projections and noted that although there have been no new apartment developments constructed within Seal Beach since 1989, when he became employed with the City of Seal Beach, Staff feels it would be appropriate to establish the standards for this type of development. Vice-Chairperson stated that he is concerned with the statement that projections not exceed 10 percent of the roof area, which he believes to be excessive. He said he would prefer seeing a percentage or square footage "not to exceed" a specific number. Vice-Chairperson Roberts stated that he believes public comments reflect the feeling that the proposed Zoning Code (ZC) revisions are becoming very complex. He explained that the PC will work to ensure that the proposed standards are not too complicated. He asked the Commissioners if they wished to continue with the study session. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt suggested that they continue until 10:00 p.m. and at that point consider whether they wished to continue. Commissioner Bello agreed. Mr. Whittenberg directed the PC to the bottom of Page 49 and noted the City of Long . Beach Municipal Code definition of an architectural protrusion. He said that the ZC pc Staff Raporl.03-11-OB 169 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 already has some provisions for this in the sections on building articulation, but the PC may wish to consider incorporating standards similar to those for the City of Long Beach. Eldon Alexander stated that these types of protrusions would be addressed in the proposed provisions for building design. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt noted that in Old Town side yard projections would be difficult with the 3-foot setbacks. Mr. Whittenberg stated that in Old Town a 1-ft. projection into the side setback is allowed for fireplaces and bay windows. He indicated that City Code does not allow a projection to go out as far as the City of Long Beach does. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that for districts with larger lots, this would not be a problem. Mr. Whittenberg stated that for Old Town the provisions would be for projections into the front yard only. Mr. Whittenberg then addressed Minimum Distance between Buildings and Minimum Size Courts for multi-unit developments, which tie back to the provision for common open space provisions. He stated unless major concerns are expressed, Staff will continue with the standards as presented. With regard to building entrances the provisions would apply for all SFR and multi- family homes. He referred to the discussion on "Design Elements to Prevent Monotony," on Page 2 of the Staff Report. Regarding Fa<;ade Articulation, Staff has presented these in response to the Commission's desire to prevent the "cookie cutter" look to homes. He noted that this would only apply to lots wider than 25 feet, and for the 25-foot lots in Old Town the average setback ratio allows for 181 and 2nd floor articulation. Vice-Chairperson Roberts asked what the proposed standards would be. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it was 2.5 feet for every 15-20 feet of the length of the building. Vice-Chairperson Roberts asked if this might be "too busy." Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is one example, but this can also be done from 1st floor to 2nd floor and can be horizontal or vertical. Eldon Alexander stated that he is not sure where this will apply, as most of the homes in Seal Beach are already built, and people will be building upon what already exists. Vice-Chairperson Roberts asked if this would apply to all construction or only new construction. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would apply to any new additions to existing conforming structures or to new construction, and he envisions that for nonconforming structures the current structure could remain as is, but any new additions would have to meet the new standards for fa<;ade articulations. At 10:00 p.m. Vice-Chairperson Roberts called for adjoumment. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that public notice for another study session on Wednesday, August 22nd has PC Slaff Raporl.03.11-DB 170 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 been published to continue the discussion on residential standards. He noted that hopefully Chairperson Deaton would be in attendance at that meeting. Carla Watson stated that she believes the new ZC needs to be complicated, as she believes that the existing ZC was not specific enough. She said there have been too many loopholes and she does note believe "that it should be easy to build in Old Town. n She said that people moving to Seal Beach attempt to replicate what they have seen in Newport Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, or other beach cities, but Seal Beach is not Newport Beach. She said "we need to be very careful and guarded about what we allow." She thanked the PC and Staff for the work done of the preliminary draft ZC. Mike Bubbe stated that although this is a complicated process, this ZC will be in place for a long time. He said complexity is good, as the new ZC will cover most of the potential issues that could come up in the future. Mr. Bubbe noted that with time and patience everyone will have a better understanding of the standards and the frustration level will also decrease. Joyce Parque stated that there were more than two people who were concemed about . property rights, as demonstrated by the signatures on the referendum. Vice-Chairperson Roberts requested a list for the PC and the public of all the criteria that a resident would have to consider in designing a single-family residence to refer to during future discussions on residential standards. Mr. Whittenberg noted that this appears in the second table of the proposed Chapter 2.05 listing the development standards. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would compile a list.' . . * * . PC Staff RaporlO3-11.()B 171 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Dreft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 ATTACHMENT 14 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - SEPTEMBER 19,2007 "STUDY SESSION 11. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning All Portions Exceot Chapter 2.05 Residential Districts Mr. Whittenberg referred to the document entitled "Overview of Previous Study Sessions Non-Residential Parts" and provided a brief review of previous Study Sessions on nonresidential standards noting that the May 9,2007, discussion related to the proposed use of the Administrative Use Permit (AUP) process and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. (Copy of the overview is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He explained that the AUP is proposed for those less controversial projects that may be of minor concern to neighboring residential areas. He indicated that the AUP process would include a 300-ft. notice, with the decision of Staff subject to appeal to the Planning Commission (PC). He continued by explaining that the CUP process would involve a formal public hearing with public notices to all property owners and building occupants within a 500-ft. radius. He read from a partial list of proposed items to be subject to either the AUP or CUP process. Chairperson Deaton asked if a Councilmember or Planning Commissioner should wish to file an appeal, would they be required to pay the appeal fee. Mr. Whittenberg stated that currently they are not subject to appeal fees. The Director of Development Services then reviewed the topics discussed during the June 6, 2007, Study Session, as listed on pages 4-6 of the Overview of Previous Study Sessions, and followed with the topics discussed during the June 20, 2007, Study Session, as listed on pages 7 -B of the Overview document. Mr. Whittenberg then referenced specific parts of the Preliminary Draft Zoning Ordinance, which includes standards that can apply in different zones, depending upon the use, with Commissioner and public comments following. Section 4.05.010 AccessolY Business Uses and Activities PC Staff Raporl.03-11-DS 172 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning . Seel Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 D. Allowable Incidental Business Activities Mr. Whittenberg explained that these types of activities are currently subject to the approval of a Special Event Permit (SEP), and Staff is suggesting that these types of activities be allowed by right without having to go through the SEP process, as many of these activities do not have the potential to cause any particular problems. Commissioner Roberts asked if Staff proposed that live music be allowed on a nightly basis, as long as it is unamplified. Mr. Whittenberg stated that these uses would be allowed by right for a single performer if they occur less than weekly; for' weekly occurrence on a regular basis an AUP would be required; and performances occurring more than once a week on a regular basis would require a CUP, as well as for live, amplified music. He then reviewed the Prohibited Uses and Incidental Related Activities. Public Comment Eldon Alexander stated that Bogart's Coffee House has conducted these types of proposed allowable uses for several years with no reported problems. . Commissioner Comments Commissioner Bello asked why live, unamplified music is allowed, but a magician would not be allowed. She commented that Finbar's has a magician that performs for customers at their tables and is very entertaining. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff was referring to magicians that would have a live stage show with a lot of props. Chairperson Deaton noted that perhaps this type of magician might use amplified rather than unamplified music. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would look into this issue and return with more information. Chairperson Deaton added that a comedian would need a microphone and a magician doing a stage show would also need amplification, as opposed to a magician performing at individual dining tables. Mr. Abbe inte~ected that audience response is also involved when a comedian is performing or as a magician completes each magical feat, as opposed to a live, unamplified guitar performer. Commissioner Roberts questioned whether only amplified music should be subject to the permit process, as previously the public has shown an interest in unamplified music. Mr. Whittenberg explained that currently any type of amplified music is already subject to CUP approval. Chairperson Deaton clarified that the definition of "incidental" is twice a week. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would have to research this. Commissioner Roberts stated that he has no problem with allowing unamplified music. Chairperson Deaton asked what the process would be for monthly events should there be complaints from surrounding residents. Mr. Abbe noted that these performances would still be subject to the Noise Ordinance. Mr. Whittenberg added that the City has . pc Staff Reporl.03-11-DS 173 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Dreft - TJ/Je 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Raport March 19, 2008 traditionally had no complaints on these types of activities, even though many are currently ongoing at various locations. Section 4.05.035 Automobile Service Station Pages 15-20 Mr. Whittenberg briefly reviewed the standards noting that Section B, Item 2 limits the number of services stations allowed at an intersection. He indicated that Staff is proposing the inclusion of additional design standards. Commissioner Roberts inquired about the sale of beer and wine at service station convenience stores. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this use would be subject to approval of a CUP. Public Comment No comments. Section 4.05.040 Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services Pages 21-22 Mr. Whittenberg noted that as indicated in Section E, should this type of business wish to operate a tow service, they would have to receive approval of a CUP. Public Comment No comments. Section 4.05.050 Drive-In and Drive- Through Facilities Pages 25-27 Mr. Whittenberg stated that revisions have been made based upon previous discussions, with Staff incorporating additional design standards for vehicular access and queue lane locations, and also including provisions for the requirement of a CUP. Commissioner Roberts.clarified that any drive-in/drive-through use would be subject to a CUP. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was correct. Public Comment Linda Kruger stated she lives behind Jack-In-the-Box and has concerns with drive- through restaurants being open until late at night. Chairperson Deaton emphasized that this use will continue to be subject to approval of a CUP; however, the current Jack-in-the-Box restaurant was in existence prior to the requirement of a CUP for this PC Staff Raporl.03-11-QS 174 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 use. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the drive-through for Jack-In-the-Box was approved in 1968 under a Variance prior to the City requirement for a CUP, and Staff cannot require a CUP at this location until a change in the business operation would require this. Commissioner Roberts asked if the new Zoning Code (ZC) would include any standards related to the location of trash dumpsters for food establishments relative to surrounding residences, and if not, which agency would handle this. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the City has not yet incorporated this standard, but he is certain that this can be done. He cautioned that for many of the food establishments in town, the only space for trash dumpsters is in the rear alley, which is usually immediately adjacent to residences across the alley. Commissioner Roberts stated that he would like to see standards for review of the location of trash dumpsters at food establishments. Mr. Abbe asked if Commissioner Roberts was referring to all restaurants or only to drive-inl drive-through types. Commissioner Roberts stated that all restaurants would have to be considered. Eldon Alexander stated that there is no mention of the standards for the number of cars entering a business before being allowed to have a drive-through lane. Mr. Whittenberg referred to Sec C, Item 2. Commissioner Delay confirmed that currently the ZC requires that trash dumpsters be surrounded by a wall. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that new food establishments must provide a 6-foot high wall around trash dumpsters. He noted that the City cannot impose this requirement on eateries that were operating prior to the imposition of this standard. Commissioner Delay added that the issue of trash receptacles has always been a problem, particularly in Old Town where trash dumpsters are located in the alleys. He indicated that perhaps the PC could come up with regulations to ensure that restaurants do a better job of keeping these areas clean. Mr. Abbe stated that Staff could look into the public health and public nuisance implications. Jan Morrison stated that her back yard abuts the alley between 8th Street and Main Street, and the dumpsters in the alley between Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and Electric Avenue do not have any type of wall. around them. She indicated that the trash dumpster for Athens West does have a wall around it, but is not closed. She asked if there were anything that could be done to require restaurant owner to do a better job of cleaning up these areas. Section 4.05.055 Extended Hour Businesses Pages 27-29 PC Staff Raport.03-11-QS 175 . . . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning Seal Besch Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the PC had given Staff direction that any use of this type should be subject to the CUP process. He noted that the hours being considered would be for any business operating between 11 :00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Section 4.05.060 Home Occupations Pages 30-33 The Director of Development Services stated that home occupations are allowed subject to acquisition of a City business license. He noted that the requirements are minimal, but Staff has attempted to clarify the standards so that business operators will understand how to prevent their home business from becoming a detriment to the neighborhood. He stated that business owners would be required to sign documents indicating that they are aware of the conditions for operation and are willing to abide by them. Commissioner Roberts stated that he had no problem with academic tutoring, but expressed his concern with instruction of amplified musical instruments, particularly to more than one student at a time. Chairperson Deaton added that academic tutoring is not a problem, but group teaching can presents parking problems. Mr. Abbe stated that he would have to research this to ensure that no first amendment implications are involved. Eldon Alexander commented that most parents will drop off their children for their tutoring or music lessons, and return for them when the lesson is completed, rather than parking on the street. He noted that with music lessons, the older students usually have individual one-on-one lessons. Mr. Whittenberg then noted the prohibited home occupation uses as listed on Page 33. Section 4.05.090 Outdoor Dining, Display, and Sales Standards Pages 40-45 With regard to these standards, Mr. Whittenberg indicated that outdoor dining, display, and sales areas are either prohibited or require a CUP. Staff has recommended that in certain situations they could be done through the AUP process, and the PC has provided direction as to which would be subject to an AUP or a CUP. He noted that temporary outdoor storage of sales stock could be subject to an AUP; however, a permanent outdoor sales area would be subject to a CUP. With regard to outdoor dining, the PC has directed that 12 seats or less would be subject to an AUP, and 13 seats or more would require a CUP. Sectiof! 4.05.100 Residential Accessory Uses, Structures, and Vehicle Parking Pages 47-55 PC Staff Report. 03-11-oS 176 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 Staff is recommending a number of modifications to what the current Code allows. He briefly reviewed these standards for design and materials for attached accessory structures, and the requirements for detached structures. He noted that allowable size for detached structures, as shown on Table 4.05.10.0.4 on Page 49, and indicated that those that are within 10 feet from any property line would require a Minor Plan Review (MPR). With regard to Item 2. b., iii, on Page 48, Eldon Alexander noted that children's play equipment will usually measure higher than 5 feet. Mr. Whittenberg stated that as he recalls a 5-foot height would be allowed by right, and anything higher would be subject to an AUP, but he will verify this. Commissioner Roberts suggested allowing up to a 7- or 8-foot height by right. Chairperson Deaton commented that when this equipment is too high it creates privacy issues for neighboring homes. She recommended maintaining a 5-foot height by right. Mr. Whittenberg commented that a 7-foot height by right could be allowed, as Staff is proposing that wall heights citywide be increased to 7 feet. Mr. Whittenberg continued by noting that the standard for making garages greater than . 600 square feet subject to a CUP is to be retained, and detached guest rooms or pool rooms will also be subject to a CUP. He then reviewed the standards for noncommercial tennis or other recreational courts. Eldon Alexander asked why garage space greater than 600 square feet would be subject to a CUP. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is an existing provision of the ZC due to concems with 3-4 car garages that faced the street being constructed, primarily in homes on The Hill. He noted that this serves as a design review function. Section 4.05.110 Residential Uses - Multi-Unit Project Standarcls Pages 56-58 Mr. Whittenberg then reviewed the open space standards on the size allowed based upon number of units. Chairperson Deaton requested a definition of "private open space," which Mr. Whittenberg defined as a private balcony or patio area that would only be accessible to the living unit itself. He indicated that in researching this item the smallest area of private open space was 80 sq. ft., with the largest measuring 300 sq. ft. Chairperson Deaton asked if the proposed 200 sq. ft. allowance were cumulative. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it would not be cumulative. He then asked if the PC had reached a consensus on this issue. Commissioner Roberts stated that ZOO sq. ft. would be too much, and suggested 120 sq. ft. Chairperson Deaton noted that the lot widths in Old Town are quite narrow. Mr. Whittenberg responded that these standards . PC Staff Raper!.03-11-oS 177 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Dreft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Steff Report March 19, 2008 would apply only to multi-family structures that would have to be constructed on lots wider than 25 feet. He explained that the only places where multi-unit projects would be found would be in Old Town, the Rossmoor Townhomes, the Old Ranch Townhomes, Oakwood Apartments, Riverbeach, and the Seal Beach Trailer Park. Chairperson Deaton stated that Old Town would probably be the only location where new building might occur. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the goal is to try to provide enough private open space to allow for a table and a barbeque for use by residents. Chairperson Deaton agreed that the space needs to be large enough to be usable. Eldon Alexander agreed that a private space area that accommodates a barbeque and a table with chairs would be best. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff could visit various sites to determine what size patios and balcony spaces are prevalent in town, and noted that a minimum width of a-feet would be preferable. Chairperson Deaton recommended that for design purposes the allowed length should be flexible. Mr. Whittenberg suggested that a minimum dimension should be set for either the length or width, with the opposite dimension comprising what is necessary to meet the allowed square footage requirement. The PC was in agreement. Mr. Whittenberg then noted that with regard to "Substitution of Private Open Space for Common Open Space,. Staff is considering slightly reducing allowable private open space if there is a larger than allowed common recreation area on the property. He then briefly reviewed the proposed design standards for multi-family units. Section 4.05.135 Vacation Rentals Pages 66-67 The Director of Development Services stated that currently the ZC has no provisions for vacation rentals, but the City does issue business licenses for this use. He indicated that Staff recommends that these rentals be subject to a CUP with a maximum of two (2) vacation rental units allowed and a limitation on visitor occupancy of 29 consecutive days. He explained that this would limit problems caused by tenants occupying a unit for several months for the purpose of partying or several families sharing the rental expense and occupying one rental, creating parking issues and more potential for disturbances to surrounding residents. Chairperson Deaton noted that these units are usually rented for two weeks at a time, creating the potential for greater revenues for the landlords. Section 4.05.140 Warehouse Retail and Large-Scale Commercial Projects Pages 67-69 pc Staff Raport.03-11.QS 178 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Mr. Whittenberg then briefly reviewed the standards for large scale retail or commercial projects measuring 60,000 sq. feet or larger, noting that there aren't many in town, and the potential for a future project of this type would be rare. Chairperson Deaton asked why the square footage was so large. Mr. Whittenberg stated that his research reflected zoning codes allowing 50-100,000 square foot ranges, but if the PC wished to go to a smaller number, Staff could provide a series of ranges for consideration. He noted that in the commercial mixed-use section of the ZC there are design provisions regarding building articulation and the amount of glass at the front of the building, etc. Commissioner Roberts commented on the lack of architectural interest on many of the retail/commercial buildings along Seal Beach Boulevard (SSB) with many of them designed with the building back side facing the street. He suggested a standard that would require businesses to face the street, particularly when located along a major arterial road. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff can create standards to help address this. Mr. Whittenberg asked if the PC wished to continue with the next section of the Preliminary Draft Zoning Code Revisions, which he indicated would involve . approximately another hour of discussion. Chairperson Deaton polled the Commission. The PC determined to end the meeting and continue the discussion to the next scheduled meeting of October 3, 2007. Chairperson Deaton commented that she felt lot of time had been spent reviewing items for which Staff needed no direction. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that because it had been several months since the last discussion, he wished to ensure that the Commission was in agreement. He also noted that Commissioners Massa-lavitt and Delay were not yet seated on the PC when the previous discussion had taken place. Mr. Whittenberg reported that notification of the October 10, 2007, study session on residential standards will be published in the Sun Newspaper." '" * * * - . . PC Slat! Raporl.03-11-oS 179 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 ATTACHMENT 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - OCTOBER 3 2007 "STUDY SESSION 4. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning All Portions Except Chapter 2.05 Residential Districts Mr. Whittenberg stated that tonighfs Study Session would begin with a brief overview followed by a review of Chapter 4.10 through the remainder of Chapter 4 and Chapter 5. He then proceeded to provide an overview of the previous Study Session discussions reading from the handout "Overview of Previous Study Sessions Non- Residential Parts: (Document is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He then proceeded with the material for tonight's Study Session beginning with: Chapter 4. 10, Section 4.10.020 Petformance Standards Section A - LIghting Pgs.72-75 Mr. Whittenberg began by briefly reviewed the Lighting standards and called attention to the Illumination levels as listed on Table 4.10.020A on Page 73 of the Preliminary Draft of the Seal Beach Municipal Code, Title 11 Zoning. (Document is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He indicated that the Planning Commission (PC) had previously reviewed this information. Commissioner Roberts asked why a range was provided rather than a maximum. Mr. Whittenberg stated that these numbers could be stated as a minimum and maximum illumination level. Chairperson Deaton asked why foot candles are used rather than lumens, as discussed during the study session on Main Street signage. Mr. Whittenberg explained that lumens are used when referring to illumination of a sign and not a broad illumination of an area. Chairperson Deaton then asked if samples of the different levels of illumination are provided. She asked how many foot candles a 100-watt light bulb emits. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he could not answer this, but Staff could provide photographs of different locations in town and provide the foot candle illumination levels for each area. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff had reviewed these standards for most coastal PC Staff Raporl.03-11-oS 180 Public Hearing 1'9: Finel Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning Seal Beech Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 cities within Southem Califomia and these ranges are comparable. He then noted the standard for building-mounted decorative lights on Page 73, which reflects no more than 5 foot candles measured 5 feet from the light source and noted that this applies primarily to night security lighting to the rear of commercial buildings. Chairperson Deaton stated that she likes the standards for Shielding to help reduce glare, noting that she has received many complaints regarding the lighting at Bank of America. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would speak to the management about shielding their lighting. . Chapter 4.10, Section 4.10.020 Performance Standards Section B - Noise Pgs.75-78 With regard to Noise Levels Mr. Whittenberg explained that the definitions as presented on Page 75 ge'nerally conform to state law and what is seen in a CEQA Environmental Review document. He referred to Tables 4.10.020.B.2 and 4.10.020.B.3 showing outdoor and indoor noise levels for specific uses, noting the indoor residential noise level of 45 dB, which is a state requirement. He indicated the new proposed noise . standards for Outdoor Noise Levels, Transportation Noise Sources, Indoor Instantaneous Noise Levels, Evaluation of Noise Impacts in Existing Residential Areas, and Noise Study Required, and Noise Mitigation Measures. Commissioner Roberts asked if the City has the capability of taking noise measurements, or does this type of process have to be contracted. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff does have the equipment for doing quick readings, but City Council also recently approved a second consultant for on-call services for completion of more detailed noise analyses when needed. Chapter 4.10, Section 4.10.020 Performance Standards Section H - Storm Drainage and Storm Water Runoff Pgs. 79-80 Mr. Whittenberg stated that there are provision for storm runoff for public property and roads in other sections of the Code, but because of the Water Quality Control Board permit regulations to which cities are now subject, Staff is recommending that language be included to ensure that the public is aware of these requirements. He noted that the City would be liable for any violations and could be subject to substantial penalties for noncompliance. Chapter 4.10, Section 4.10.025 Recycling and Solid Waste Facilities Pgs. 80-84 . pc Stsff Raporl.03-11-0S 181 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Tlt/e 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 Mr. Whittenberg indicated that these standards currently do not exist in the Code. He explained that Staff proposes that multi-unit projects of five or more dwellings would have to meet specific size requirements for both solid waste and recyclable material bins on the premises (Table 4.10.025.D.1on Page 82). He also noted the proposed requirements for non-residential development as listed in Table 4.10.025.0.2 on Page 83. Commissioner Roberts asked if any consideration is given to the type of business. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there are provisions that would allow for increases, if necessary, and noted that restaurants would probably have more solid waste material to dispose of. Commissioner Roberts asked if the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) has oversight over disposal of waste. Mr. Whittenberg stated that OCHCA does have maintenance requirements for trash areas, but has not established size requirements. Commissioner Delay asked if the City could require a metal container with a lid. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the City does require containers with a lid that locks. He then quickly reviewed that remaining proposed standards for trash receptacles. Commissioner Delay asked if business owners could be required to bag and tie all trash going into the container. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this has not been proposed, but Staff will review the possibility of incorporating such a requirement. Mr. Abbe interjected that he sees no legal problem with this. Commissioner Roberts asked if the number of new proposed standards is comparable to the zoning codes found in other coastal cities. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would depend upon how recently these cities have updated their zoning code. He explained that the proposals presented are comparable to other coastal zoning codes, and there are some that are even more stringent than what is being proposed for Seal Beach. He noted that the last update of the Seal Beach Zoning Code (ZC) was completed in 1974. Commissioner Roberts then stated that Staff should, therefore, be quite comfortable with what they have presented, and he how the Commission should proceed on this issue at this point. Mr. Whittenberg stated that once Staff knows what the code provisions will be, standard plan check forms will be created with a checklist to give to applicants to ensure that all standards are met. Chairperson Deaton commented that it was a shame that no business owners are present tonight to provide their input regarding the new proposed standards, which would help the Commission in making its determinations on these items. Mr. Whittenberg reminded the Commission that even after a new ZC is adopted, the need for further amendments will still become necessary as the new code standards are implemented. Eldon Alexander asked if the recreational court lighting standards applied only to tennis or bas~etball courts, and would they apply to only public courts or to private courts also. Mr. Whittenberg stated that these standards would apply to public or private sport pc Staff Raporl.03-11-oB 182 Public Heering 1'9: Final Dreft - TilJe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 courts. Mr. Alexander stated that the lighting standards should be different for a football sports complex or a baseball diamond. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff did not incorporate this as the ball fields in town that are lit are located on school properties and the City has no authority to control these uses. Mr. Alexander reiterated that the proposed lighting would not be adequate for a baseball diamond or a football field. Chairperson Deaton suggested changing the category heading to read "Recreational Lighting: with subcategories for baseball and football. Chapter 4.15 Fences Hedges and Walls Section 4.15.010 General Height Limitation Pg.89 Mr. Whittenberg referred to the tables on Page 90 reflecting the allowable heights and noted that modifications to the standards are permitted subject to the Administrative Use Permit (AUP) or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process, and he will verify that the PC had directed that these be subject to the AUP category. Commissioner Roberts noted as he recalls wall heights greater than 30 inches would be subject to a CUP. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he recalled the height being 40 inches, but he would confirm this. Chairperson Deaton asked if these standards apply to residential. Mr. Whittenberg . stated that these standards would apply to all zones within the City. He noted that Staff proposes that the new height limit for rear, street side, and interior side walls be 7 feet by right, with a provision for an additional foot of height as long as a percentage of this area remains open and is not constructed of solid material, as this will help with privacy issues, particularly in Old Town. He then reviewed Table 4.15.010.A.2 on Pages 90-91, which lists the streets where 10-foot rear walls would be allowed for lots located along these roadways. Commissioner Roberts asked if you had a 6-foot wall, could you then add a 2-foot lattice. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would be allowed. Chairperson Deaton stated that her concern is ending up with street corridors with solid walls on both sides with no greenery. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked about the requirement for having a completely new redesigned wall if desiring to increase the height to 7 feet. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that anyone wishing to increase their fence height would be required to demolish their existing fence and construct a new one. He then noted that 10-foot walls are permitted by right on property lines between residential and commercial properties, which would also require engineering. Chapter 4.15 Fences Hedges and Walls Sect/on 4.15.015 Height Limitations for Retaining Walls Pgs.93 . pc Staff Raport.03-11-oB 183 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Retaining walls below 48 inches would not require a permit, but terraced, landscaped areas in between multiple retaining walls must have an automatic sprinkler system for irrigation. Chapter 4.15 Fences Hedges and Walls Section 4.15.025 Special Wall and Fencing Requirements Pg.96 Mr. Whittenberg noted standards A. and B., which indicate: A. Walls for swimming pools, spas, and similar features are subject to state building code requirements. B. One architectural feature, such as an arbor, trellis, or archway, will be permitted by right at the front of a property for each 100 feet of street or private easement frontage. Commissioner DeLay stated that Leisure World has barbed wire at the top of their 10-foot walls. He asked if this was permitted. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the current code has no provisions for prohibiting the use of barbed wire. Eldon Alexander referred to the City Council (CC) hearing of the appeal of Variance 07-2 for 429 Beryl Cove Way and stated that the applicants had presented a very nice design with pilasters that more than offset what any plantings could do. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that she has observed the work in progress and it may not necessarily reflect what was presented to CC. Mr. Alexander said the fears that higher walls would create streets with long concrete corridors may be unfounded. Chairperson Deaton commented that the entire ZC should not be revised based upon what one applicant proposes to construct. Commissioner Bello asked if the fencing around the DWP property is temporary. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is a security fence for the property and is essentially a permanent fence. Chapter 4.20 Off-Street Parking and Loading Section 4.20.020 Required Off-Street Parking Spaces Pg. 100 Table 4.20.020.A.1- Pgs. 102.110 Mr. Whittenberg quickly noted that the PC had provided direction on how to deal with shared parking programs and other types of parking reductions, with most of these being ~ssigned to the AUP process. He referred to Table 4.20.020.A.1, which reflects the direction of the PC, noting the requirement for the provision of 2 off-street parking pc Staff Raporl.03-11-OB 184 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 spaces per residential dwelling unit, with the number increasing based upon the number of bedrooms in a residence. Commissioner Roberts asked for the definition of off-street parking, to which the Director replied, two parking spaces within an enclosed garage. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if tandem parking is allowed. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that it is allowed. Eldon Alexander stated that he had observed parking in various locations in Seal Beach and noted that when a 16th Street resident had applied for a Variance to construct a deck over an enclosed courtyard on a nonconforming structure this was approved when the applicant provided proof of adequate parking space for an economy car and an electric vehicle in the rear driveway apron. He indicated that what is proposed is a redefinition of what parking space is, which means that for most properties in Old Town that now have 4 parking spaces, this redefinition would reduce these to 2 spaces. He again stated that he does not believe there is a parking problem within Seal Beach. Chairperson Deaton asked how Mr. Alexander determined that most 25-foot lots in Old Town have 4 parking spaces. Mr. Alexander expla-ined that two cars are parked in the garage and two cars can be parked in the driveway apron. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the City does not define driveway parking as off-street parking. Mr. Alexander countered that the PC had defined the driveway apron as off-street parking when it . approved the 16th Street project. Mr. Olivera clarified that this project was approved for a 37.S-foot lot on Ocean Avenue and the applicants were not stating that they had two legal parking spaces, but were simply able to fit these two vehicles on the driveway. Mr. Whittenberg stated that for years the City has required a parking standard of 2 spaces per dwelling unit in an enclosed garage and has never defined the driveway apron space behind homes as meeting the parking requirement. Mr. Abbe added that the Code will require a minimum size for these spaces, and regardless of what mayor may not have been approved in a Variance it is not binding upon subsequent applications or the use of the Municipal Code. Mr. Alexander asked for a definition of off-street. Mr. Whittenberg repeated that the definition for off-street would be parking spaces in an enclosed garage. He noted that simply because people park in their driveway apron does not mean that this meets the off-street parking requirements. Commissioner Roberts noted that a new .home in College Park East (CPE) would usually have 4 bedrooms, and requiring a 3-car garage "is not going to fly," as this is not what CPE is trying to solve. Mr. Alexander added that this probably would also be the case on The Hill and in College Park West (CPW). Mr. Whittenberg stated that for CPE, CPW, and The Hill, space designations on the driveways could be designated for parking. Joyce Parque stated that in CPE there is not enough space from the sidewalks to the garages to use for parking. She then commented that allowing houses in the Seal Beach Trailer Park (SBTP) discriminates against the rest of Old Town, as there are no parking requirements for the trailer park. She also asked why it costs 3 . times as much to build a home in Seal Beach as it does in Newport Beach. PC Staff Raporl.03-11-oB 185 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Dreft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report Merch 1 g, 2008 Chairperson Deaton stated that perhaps different areas of the City do need different parking requirements, as each section has different needs. She suggested dividing up this section by area of the City in an attempt to address the needs of each separate area. Mr. Whittenberg explained that in the late 60's early 70's the SBTP was approved under an Unclassified Use Permit with the requirement to maintain common open parking for the entire park spaces with a ratio of 1.5 spaces per property unit. He noted that when a new unit is installed, residents are not required to provide parking in the trailer space itself, although some of the spaces do have parking. For those that do have parking, the City continues to require that they maintain these spaces, but there is a common pool of parking with assigned spaces. He reiterated that these parking standards are for single family homes and what Staff had heard during previous study sessions on residential was that there was a concern that with the construction of larger homes with a lot of bedrooms and more kids with cars, this would create greater density of cars and increased parking problems. Chairperson Deaton mentioned that many owners of these larger homes are now renting out bedrooms, and this is another issue related to parking that should be addressed. . Commissioner Roberts stated that rebuilds in CPE would be rare, and because of the size of the lots, he does not believe that teardown and rebuild will become a trend there. Chairperson Deaton suggested that this issue be re-visited prior to the public hearings on the revised Code. Chapter 4.20 Off-Street Parking and Loading Section 4.20.025 Parking Reductions Pg. 111 Mr. Whittenberg briefly noted that the PC has directed that shared parking programs related to commercial parking standards be subject to an AUP. Commissioner Massa- Lavitt asked if the parking standards for commercial properties, as proposed in Table 4.20.020A.1 are the same as in the current City Zoning Code (ZC). Mr. Whittenberg stated that most of these standards do not exist in the current ZC. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if discussion on these standards should be conducted. Mr. Whittenberg noted that this discussion had taken place at a meeting for which Commissioner Massa-Lavitt had been absent. Chairperson Deaton asked what her concerns were. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt referred to Page 105 and asked if the standards for auto sales and service stations had been thoroughly reviewed. Mr. Whittenberg stated that most of the parking standards are current standards, but the process for discretionary approvals is not currently a part of the ZC. Mr. Whittenberg continued by noting that the major focus of shared parking standards is to give people a better idea of how parking lots are to be designed and landscaped. Commissioner Roberts stated that he thought one of the objectives was to have everything shaded, when the trees are mature. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the objective is to have 10 percent landscaping and enough trees for 50 percent shade coverage after 5 years of PC Staff Reporl.03-11.0S 186 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft- TilJe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 1 g, 2008 installation. Commissioner Massa-lavitt then asked about shared parking. Mr. Whittenberg stated that these requests would be subject to discretionary review and approval and he believes the PC had agreed that this would be subject to the AUP process. He noted that shared parking program must be designed based upon Urban land Institute standards. Chapter 4.20 Off-Street Parking and Loading Section 4.20.030 General Parking Design Standards Pg. 114 Mr. Whittenberg briefly reviewed parking design standards noting additional provisions for drainage, landscaping, markings, and wheel stops and curbing, which currently are not required. Chairperson Deaton asked why wheel stops are necessary. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this prevents a collision with the car parked in the facing space and prevents cars cutting across parking lots. Chairperson Deaton stated that landscaped curbs are good for percolation purposes, but wheel stops have the potential for people tripping over them. Commissioner Roberts asked about the City's policy on speed bumps. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff is not proposing this, but would have . no major concerns with permitting speed bumps in parking lots. Chapter 4.20 Off-Street Parking and Loading Section 4.20.035 Driveways Pg. 124 Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Staff is proposing a standard for the widths of entrance and exit aisles into large parking lots with more than 200 parking spaces. Chapter 4.20 Off.Street Parking and Loading Section 4.20.040 Required Off-Street Loading Pg. 125 The Director of Development Services stated that Staff proposes required loading space areas based upon the size of a building, as indicated on Page 125. Commissioner Delay asked about allowing parking along Pacific Coast Highway (PC H). Mr. Whittenberg stated that street parking would not be covered in the ZC, but is determined by each city, and City Council has determined to maintain PCH as a two- lane road with parking available. Chapter 4.25 Sign Regulations Pgs. 129-158 . PC Staff Raport.03-11-oS 187 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Flnel Dreft - TItle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code. Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the PC had reviewed this Chapter earlier this year, including the Table of Uses, and had completed the Main Street Sign Regulations approximately 3 years ago and there are no changes. He briefly reviewed Section 4.25.020 on Prohibited Signs and noted that by and large City sign standards have proven to be reasonable. He explained that although the Bay Theater has the only marquee sign in Seal Beach, sign standards have been added to address this type of signage, and Staff is also proposing that portable A-Frame signs be permitted on private property, subject to specific size and design limitations as outlined on Page 142. Chapter 4.30 Landscaping and Buffer Yards Pgs. 159-177 The Director of Development Services stated that this is all new language, but has had prior review by the PC. He indicated that these standards require that a landscape and irrigation plan be submitted for specific size projects within the City, and this would include the required water quality measures. He specified that this would apply for multi-family residential projects of more than 5 units, and all non-residential projects. He noted the provisions for buffer yards and shading requirements for parking lots. Commissioner Roberts asked if developers of projects within Seal Beach have reviewed these standards. Mr. Whittenberg stated that was not done, and he believes the City should create standards based upon what they wish to see within the City. He indicated that Staff has attempted to create standards that will provide clarity for developers in designing parking lots for large projects. He then explained that Section 4.30.045 on Buffer Yards is a new addition to allow for an increased width of landscaped areas between properties with differing land use classifications. Chapter 4.40 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots Pgs. 179-190 Staff has proposed no changes whatsoever to this chapter. Chapter 4.45 Transportation Demand Management Pgs. 191-196 Staff has proposed no changes whatsoever to this chapter. Chapter 4.50 Adult Businesses Pgs. 197-198 PC Staff Raporl.03-11-DB 188 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Trtle 11: Zoning . Seal Beech Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 The PC has previously reviewed this chapter and determined that these uses cannot be subject to the AUP process. Mr. Abbe added that the City must ensure there is a theoretical possibility for a minimum number of adult uses, and Staff will use whatever the maximum separation may be and is within the legal requirement. Mr. Whittenberg added that the City cannot establish separation standards so as to preclude an adult business from locating within Seal Beach. Chapter 4.55 Affordable Housing Bonus Pgs.199-208 Mr. Whittenberg indicated that these provisions are required in order to comply with state law. Chapter 4.60 Hazardous Waste Facilities Pgs.209-234 This reflects existing language from the current ZC, which was provided by the County of Orange several years ago, and has been adopted by the City of Seal Beach . Chapter 4.65 Tattoo Establishments Pgs. 235-240 This chapter was previously reviewed by the PC. Chapter 4.70 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Pgs. 241-258 Mr. Abbe indicated that the City can pass an ordinance requiring that all wireless facilities must be under grounded, but this would be subject to federal law, which states that a city cannot prohibit a wireless facility. Chapter 4.70 Common Interest Developments Pgs. 259-262 These standards would apply to a development similar to Leisure World, which is a stock cooperative. Chapter 4. 75 Condominium Conversions Pgs. 263-267 Staff has proposed no changes whatsoever to this chapter. PCSlaffRoporl.03-11-DB 189 . . . . Public Heering 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning Seel Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 Chapter 4.80 Tenant Rights Pgs. 268-270 Staff has proposed no changes whatsoever to this chapter. Chapter 4.85 Use Classifications Pgs. 273-286 Staff has proposed no changes whatsoever to this chapter. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff had advertised for a continuation of this discussion at the Planning Commission (PC) meeting or October17, 2007, but he will be on vacation on that date. He asked if the PC wished to continue with the discussion on Part V on the 17th, or would prefer to wait until November 7, 2007. The Commission agreed to wait until November 7th. Commissioner Roberts noted that he wished to continue the discussion on residential parking and open space standards during another study session. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff will need time to research this information and due to the holiday schedule he recommended scheduling the study session for the second meeting date in January 2008. Chairperson Deaton suggested that in order to create no further delay for the public hearings, the PC conduct an adjoumed meeting in early January 2008 to conduct this study session. Mr. Whittenberg suggested scheduling the adjourned meeting for Wednesday, January 16, 2008. Chairperson Deaton agreed and polled the Commission. Commissioner Roberts stated his feeling is that the PC will take the time necessary to get this process done correctly. regardless of the potential for delays." *' *' *' . PC Staff Raporl.03-11-D8 190 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 ATTACHMENT 16 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - OCTOBER 10, 2007 "STUDY SESSION 1. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Trtle 11, Zoning Chapter 2.05 Residential Districts Mr. Whittenberg provided a brief overview. of previous study session discussions on Residential District standards and noted that copies of all relevant Staff Reports have been made available for the public tonight. He emphasized that at this meeting the Planning Commission (PC) and Staff wish to receive public comments in order to generate the final draft of the Zoning Code (ZC) revisions for presentation to the PC at a final study session in January 2008, prior to beginning the public hearings in February or March 2008. He then indicated that at the study session of July 18, 2007, concems had been raised regarding the number and complexity of new regulations. He explained that Staff had provided a copy of the Preliminary Draft to two architects who work on projects in Seal Beach on a regular basis, and they have provided helpful comments on the technical aspects of these standards, and Staff has attempted to eliminate the provisions that the architects said made no sense. He noted that Staff has added a number of new regulations to address areas of concern that were voiced by the public to City Council (CC), the PC, and to Staff. He then referred to Page 4 of the Staff Report (Staff Reporl is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) and explained that the areas of single-unit residential (College Park East, College Park West, The Hill) would be under the new proposed RLD-9 District. He indicated that the proposed new standards appear in gray on the extreme left of the page with the yellow highlighted areas showing the conformity to these standards for the fIVe homes listed. He noted that the pale blue highlighted areas would not apply to this type of development, and the white areas reflect noncompliance. He then referred to Page 5, which summarizes the areas of non-compliance for these homes and noted that these are primarily design issues that can easily be resolved during the design phase. He then reviewed the table on Page 6 for the RHD-20 District for the Old Town area, again indicating that most of the noncompliance items could be pc Staff Raporl.03.11-oB 191 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 dealt with during the design phase and Staff is suggesting that the side step back for 2nd and 3rd stories be eliminated and that only an indentation along one side be required. He added that it has been 33 years since the City Zoning Code (ZC) was comprehensively revised and Staff must now "play catch up" with what are becoming normal features in zoning codes today. He stated that he believes the proposed standards allow people to design a home, but will require that some thought be put into this process. Public Comment Mike Bubbe stated that although the proposals are complex, he believes this will create less mass in the buildings constructed. He indicated that the majority of people in Old Town do not want 3-story homes, but want smaller structures and the proposed standards will help accomplish this. Eldon Alexander stated that he finds the proposed standards to be complex, and said it would be no problem to apply to new construction or a rebuild, but an addition or remodel to a nonconforming structure would require discretionary review under the . Variance (VAR) or Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. He also disagreed with Staffs comment that the City needs to "catch up" with other zoning standards, as he has researched what other cities are doing with their zoning codes and found that they are using fewer tools. He recommended keeping the standards simple from the point of view of the homeowner in working with the architects. Commissioner Roberts referred to Page 6 of the Staff Report as asked which standards Mr. Alexander felt to be most burdensome. Mr. Alexander stated that he does not agree with the use of Floor Area Ratios (FAR), but the daylight plane could help reduce mass, but stepbacks only become a duplication of this. He said that in reality you only need setbacks and daylight planes without step backs. Commissioner Roberts asked if Mr. Alexander would be comfortable with using only these two standards. Mr. Alexander said this was correct. Commissioner Roberts asked if this was Mr. Alexander's personal opinion, or was it the opinion of Save Our Seal Beach. Mr. Alexander stated that he always comes here under his own name, but he has an obligation to report everything to Save Our Seal Beach. Mr. Morton stated that he goes along with what Staff has presented, but noted that using a 1.20 FAR would be more practical than 1.40. Chairperson Deaton asked that Mr. Morton present this information during the discussion on FARs. Commissioner Comments . PC Staff Raport.03-11-DB 192 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Dreft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Plennlng Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 Commissioner Massa-lavitt stated that she believes all of the proposed standards are legitimate in terms of wanting to get really good architecture on the street for all to enjoy. She said the issue of stepbacks adds to the articulation of the building and she does not think that the standards are too complex. Commissioner Bello agreed that the standards are not too complex and that there are advantages to the complexity. Commissioner Roberts stated the standards are borderline complex, and he disagreed with Mr. Alexander on the use of step backs, as they help to prevent the canyon effect along the side of a building, as opposed to daylight planes which is a projection type issue. He said that he feels the PC must have a very firm footing in terms of what it wishes to do with this task. Commissioner Delay asked Mr. Alexander if he had any suggestions for a better way to approach daylight planes. Mr. Alexander stated that once the ZC is set up there will be the capability to make changes, but he is not prepared to offer an alternative. He confirmed that he favors using the daylight plan to create architectural diversity, as opposed to using stepbacks. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the provisions actually suggest that a certain percentage of a wall be stepped back, so a portion of it can still be straight. Commissioner Delay asked Mr. Alexander if he were approaching this from the angle of the architect. Mr. Alexander said he did not have a response. Commissioner Delay stated that he believes the PC should proceed with the proposed standards. Chairperson Deaton agreed with Commissioner Delay that the way the PC is going is excellent, and the PC can take a look back in January 2008, as Commissioner Roberts has suggested, to evaluate whether the work completed is overly complex. Floor Area RatIon (FAR) Page 8 Mr. Whittenberg reviewed the definition for FAR noting that it was created after careful review of 24 zoning ordinances from other cities within California that utilize FARS to regulate residential development, and Staff feels that the FAR provides a very clear way to determine the overall square footage that can be constructed on a lot. He noted that although you can use daylight plane. setbacks, etc., to control mass, these do nothing to set a limit on the square footage of a habitable area. He explained that FARs are calculated by taking the lot size measurement and determining the percentage of the lot to be covered, then the lot size is multiplied by the percentage and this gives you the PC Staff Reporl.03-11-oS 193 . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 1 g, 2008 total number of square feet of habitable space. Mr. Whittenberg then reviewed inclusions and exclusions for floor area calculations and explained that attic space must measure more that 7 ft. high in order to be considered habitable space. Commissioner Roberts asked if Part VI; Terms and Definitions contains a definition of "enclosed.' Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would verify this. He then continued by stating that in completing the initial draft document on FARs a descending percentage of FAR as the lots got larger was noted, so Staff is recommending that for lots 6,000 sq. ft. or greater, the FAR remain constant to allow homes on these lots to generally be in conformance with regard to mass and bulk standards. The Director of Development Services then noted that the analysis of the FAR for 30 recent residential development projects reflects that only 1 home in the RL-9 and 4 in the RHD-20 district were constructed with square footage greater than the proposed FAR. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if a "maid area" would not be counted if it cannot be seen from the street, could there be a window at the back of this area.- Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff proposes that the roof of this room could be no higher than 2 feet above grade level. Chairperson Deaton confirmed that basements with a room height of 7 feet or more would also be included in the FAR. Mr. Whittenberg stated that staff is recommending revisions to this. The Director of Development Services continued by stating that most homes recently . constructed in the RLD-9 District are on the average built at 70 percent of the proposed FAR standard, and in the RHD-20 the average is 87 percent of the proposed FAR. He said that what most people are building could be accommodated under the proposed FAR standards, and noted that the FARs on Page 21 pertain to 2-story homes. He then reviewed the proposed revisions beginning on Page 23 as follows: o Exclusion of basement areas if totally below natural grade of the lot. o Revision to "base" and "maximum FAR" for lots larger than 6,000 sq. ft. (see table on Page 25) o Revision to FAR increase for lots able to have a 3rd floor living area - RHD-20 District (see table on Page 27). Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Staff recommends a 3rd story FAR of 0.15 - 0.20, but the PC must provide direction to Staff regarding the preferred size for 3rd stories. He then noted that the PC could consider eliminating 3rd stories on lots wider than 40 feet, or require CUP approval for 3rd stories on these lots subject to an FAR limit for the size of this area. He reviewed the current standards for the size of 3rd stories as shown in the table on Page 29, noting that most of the 100-foot deep lots are located between 4th Street and 1st Street in Old Town, and most of the 117-foot deep lots are located between 5th Street to Seal Beach Boulevard (SBB). Chairperson Deaton asked about doing away with the FAR for 3rd floors and just setting a maximum for square footage permitted. Mr. Whittenberg stated that one of Staffs recommendations is that if the PC . pC Staff Raporl.03-11-oS 194 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Trt/e 11; Zoning Seal Beech Municipal Code. Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 wishes to continue to allow 3rd floors on the wider lots, they be limited to the FAR allowed for the 1st and 2nd floor. He then proceeded to review the proposed revisions to FARs for the RLD-9 and RHD-ZO Districts, as presented on Pages 30-33, and the changes to Table 2.05.015.0.1: Additional Design Feature FAR Bonuses on Page 35- 47, noting that most of these changes are a result of comments received from the architects, the PC, and the public. Chairperson Deaton asked for further explanation on keeping the 3rd floor FAR the same as the 1st and 2nd floor. Mr. Whittenberg referred to Page 30 and explained that for a lot measuring between 4,000 - 4,999 sq. ft. the Base FAR would be 0.80, and staff is recommending adding 0.15 - 0.20 for the Maximum FAR for a 3rd floor area, which would be approximately 4,000 sq. ft. of living space. Chairperson Deaton clarified that this proposes that for an 8,000 sq. ft. 3-story home on a 50-ft. wide lot, the allowed 8,000 sq. ft. would be for the 1st and 2nd story and any square footage for the 3rd story must be taken from the 1st and 2nd story. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is one recommendation; with the others being to eliminate 3rd stories altogether, to allow 3rd floors with an additional FAR of 0.15 or 0.20, or to establish a fixed square footage for all 3rd stories. He noted that in setting a fixed square footage, the PC must set a number for lots 40 feet or narrower, and another for lots 40 feet or wider. Chairperson Deaton asked why Staff decided against recommending an additional 0.10 for 3rd stories. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the architects had noted that for some lots this would be as small as 375 sq. ft. and most 3rd floors are used for a master bedroom suite, which usually requires 400-450 square feet for this type of design. Public Comment Maria Bubbe stated that she is in favor of 2-story homes, and would like to see smaller square footage proposed for Srd stories, as it is too dense in Old Town and these large homes are not compatible with the neighborhood. Mike Bubbe stated that excluding basement for FARs is a good idea, and he would like to see no 3rd stories on lots 30-ft. or wider, as this may lead to more combining of lots in order to construct larger 3-story homes. H~ stated that 3rd stories should be limited to 300 sq. ft. and commented that master bedrooms don't have to be on the 3rd story, as even 300 sq. ft. can be an invasion of privacy for adjoining neighbors and can impede sunlight and air. He recommended a FAR ratio of 0.06 - 0.08 for 3rd stories on lots 37.5 ft. wide or less. Mr. Bubbe then indicated that he has requested elimination of 3rd story roof decks, and also a limitation on 3rd story balconies to a minimum size of 50 sq. ft. Barbara Barton requested a prohibition of 3-story homes in Old Town. PC Staff Raporl.03-11-0S 195 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beech Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 . Warren Morton agreed with Ms. Barton, and stated that he believes that the FAR, including the garage area, should be 1.20 instead of 1.40 to help decrease the size of 1st and 2nd floors. He also noted that the 3rd floor FAR should be 0.10 or 0.12 to limit the range to 300-400 sq. ft. of living area, as well as incorporating proper daylight planes. He also recommended allowing 3rd stories only if the design would be compatible with surrounding properties and not obscure light or air. Victor Grgas said that smaller is better, and the FAR for 3rd stories should be on the lower end, rather than higher. He said he likes the concept of FARs, as this allows for architectural diversity and the concept is really not that complex. Joyce Parque spoke against taking away property rights and stated that people should be able to do what they intended when purchasing the property. She stated that the argument for a "fluid zoning ordinance" would interfere with this, and said that 3-story homes do not bother her. With regard to FARs, she. stated that simplicity is better, and people are building smaller homes, and 3rd stories should be at least 750 sq. ft. Ricki Layman stated that after attending the study sessions and listening to the input . she recommends placing this issue on the ballot so that the community can vote for what they want for their city. Mitzi Morton said she thought the objective was to get away from mansionization, yet people will still have the ability to construct a 9,000 sq. ft. home. She stated that with global warming and the cost of utilities people should begin downsizing. She noted that she does not understand why garages are not included in the FAR, since they are part of the building and take away open space. She stated that she opposes 3rd stories, but if they are to be allowed, the size should be limited, and this would also help address the need for elevators in homes. Eldon Alexander stated that he agreed that basements and subterranean garages should not be included in the FAR. He recommended that a maximum FAR be established with no additional FAR for the 3~ floor. Chairperson Deaton confirmed that Mr. Alexander was proposing that by having one FAR the property owner could decide the square footage for each floor. Mr. Alexander confirmed that this was correct. He reiterated that he does not want to eliminate 3rd stories. He recommended looking at the perspective that the property and home is the purview of that homeowner and government cannot do anything to change this without the permission of the property owner. Mark spoke in support of limiting the height for homes to 2 stories. He stated . that the people through their elected officials make the laws and codes for buildings. pc Staff Report.03-11-oS 196 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Dreft - TilJa 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 Commissioner Comments Commissioner Delay stated that he would await further input. Commissioner Roberts made the following comments: 1. Table on Page 29 is "way out of balance." 2. Opposes 3rt! stories. 3. Disagrees with having a single FAR for entire structure. 4. Having a separate FAR for 3rd stories maintains the scale based on lot size and accompanying building that would fit to that lot size. 5. Supports a 0.15 FAR for 3rd stories. 6. Disagrees with Staff recommendation to limit 3rd stories to 40-ft. lots. Believes 3rd stories should be allowed by right on lots 37.5 ft. or wider. 7. Agrees with Table 2.05.015.C on Page 30. 8. Would like to look at Item 10 on Page 40 regarding lot Coverage and attempt to provide some benefit to lots less than 3,000 sq. ft. He then commented that, hypothetically, when the new Zoning Code (ZC) is adopted, all properties would then become legal nonconforming, and should someone wish to construct a 3rd story, would he or she then have to build their home in conformance with the new code. Mr. Whittenberg stated Staff is considering suggesting that everything that exists as of the effective date of adoption of the new ZC be considered legal nonconforming; therefore, all new structures would have to meet the new standards, but only additions to existing structures would have to conform to the new codes. Mr. Roberts stated that he would endorse this recommendation. 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 3rt! 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 ~bout a separate FAR ~r fixe? square foo~age for 3 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. pc Staff Raport.03-11-oB 197 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TftJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 . 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 3 in favor Massa-lavitt and Roberts 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 PC Staff Report.03-11-oB 198 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TrtIa 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 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 jfwishing to build a 3rd story, you would have an additional 0.12 - 0.15 for the 3rd floor only. Commissioner Roberts expressed his concem 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 inte~ected 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 concems 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. Mr. Abbe requested direction on what the FAR would be for lots greater than 40 feet. He confirmed that third floors should be allowed by right on lots measuring 37.5 - 40 ft. pc StafT Reporl.03.11-oB 199 Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - TJt/e 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 wide, using the same FAR standard. Chairperson Deaton stated that she believes the homes that need 3rd stories more are the ones on 25-ft. wide lots, because they have less square footage to work with, and she has a problem with the whole concept of allowing 3rd stories for lots 37.5 - 40 ft. wide, but not allowing them on homes on 25- or 50-ft. wide lots. She said that this would be overly contrived and she feels it should either be yes you can or, no, you cannot have a 3rd story. Mr. Abbe confirmed that 37.5-ft. would remain as the minimum. Mr. Whittenberg suggested taking a short recess before going on to daylight planes. The meeting reconvened with the discussion of daylight planes. Chairperson Deaton stated that this might be the most difficult concept to grasp. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he believes Staff has provided some fairly representative graphic samples that should make comprehension easier. He explained that currently the Zoning Code (ZC) has basic height and setback standards, and as long as a structure remains within these setbacks, it can go to the maximum height for the entire size of the building. He said that the daylight plane essentially creates a "pup tenf around the lot that states that at the edges close to adjoining properties the building can . only go to a specific height, with the maximum height allowed as you move toward the interior of the lot. This concept attempts to move the main bulk of buildings away from adjoining property lines. He noted that Staff is also recommending that there be a daylight plane off of the alley to lesson the bulk of 2nd and 3rd stories along the alley ways. He then reviewed the graphic examples of daylight planes and discussed the use of gable roofs, single and multiple dormers, shed/flat roofs, and gable roof/dormer combinations. Chairperson Deaton commented that this provides for architectural distinction. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt referred to Page 55 and asked about the gable roof projecting outside the daylight plane. Mr. Whittenberg stated that these types of exceptions would automatically be allowed. Chairperson Deaton asked if there were any disincentives. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the disincentives would require reductions in the FAR once the length of the structure exceeds the exceptions. Commissioner Roberts referred to the shed/flat roof and noted that if someone wished to have this done the full length of the house, the reduction in the FAR might not be incentive enough to prevent this. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he believes the reduction was increased from 0.1 to 0.3 or 0.4. He noted that Staff intends these to be the only exceptions into the daylight plane, and anything longer would be subject to approval of a CUP, and this could only be increased by a specific percentage. He then indicated that Staff will be reviewing a table of proposed daylight planes later in the discussion, and noted that for walls less than a specific height there will be one set of measurements, and as the wall height increases the numbers will change to reflect this . and attempt to bring the structure closer to the center of the lot. He emphasized that PC Staff Raporl.03-11-oS 200 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Report Merch 1 g, 2008 there would still be a maximum height to the daylight plane envelope, with allowances made for the angle of a roof pitch, preventing the bulky boxed look to a house. Commissioner Roberts asked if more than 45 degrees were the accepted angle. Mr. Whittenberg stated he has only seen such standard for Oak Park, Illinois where there are many English Tudor style homes, with a 6- or 8-12 pitch roof on them as opposed to the 4-6 pitch roof. Mr. Whittenberg then briefly reviewed General Development Information and discussion on 5 properties in the RLD-9 Zone and 5 properties in the RHD-20 Zone, as shown on Pages 59-61, followed by a brief overview of proposed third story daylight planes for 3 of the properties under discussion. He then reviewed Table 2.05.015.1 on Pages 65-66 showing side yard daylight planes and explained that originally for the RLD-9 Zone Staff had proposed an initial height of 14-ft. at the interior side setback; however, the architects said this was too restrictive to accommodate a standard 2-story home, and suggested that this be changed to 16 feet at the lot line. Mr. Whittenberg .continued by. stating that for the RHD-20 Zone Staff had proposed a height of 16 feet and is now suggesting 19 feet at the lot line. He said that Staff believes that the FAR helps deal with the issue of overly large homes, and mass and bulk will be decreased using the daylight plane. He indicated that most of the concerns have been with 2-story homes with flat roofs built up to the maximum, so Staff has designed these standards to accommodate a 2-story home being built today in Old Town or on The Hill, with standard interior ceiling heights, that will still meet the daylight plane standards. He then explained that 3-story homes would require something different both from the sides and the rear off of an alley. Chairperson Deaton asked how the higher ceilings would affect daylight plane requirements. Mr. Whittenberg explained that 2-story homes would require that the 2nd floor be setback in to stay outside of the daylight plane, or to allow a certain portion to pop out based upon the exceptions. Chairperson Deaton asked if this would be a "stepback." Mr. Whittenberg said that a stepback is something different, which would be covered later. He then provided a brief review of Table 2.05.015.1 reflecting the proposed street side setbacks for corner lots, which are proposed to require that a portion of the 3rd story be moved back from the 1st and 2nd floor, but design features such as dormer windows would still be allowed. Chairperson Deaton asked if this would keep shadows from being cast. Mr. Whittenberg stated that although this would help, Staff does not have the capability to complete a shade and shadow analysis, as shade and shadows will vary throughout the year. He emphasized that the objective is to attempt to reduce the mass and bulk appearance of a 3rO story to surrounding properties from the street, side, interior, and rear alley. He noted that Staff is not concemed with visibility from the front of the lot, as 3rd stories are not allowed on the front 50 percent of the lot. Mr. Whittenberg then continued with an overview of the standards for the rear yard daylight plane and noted that the proposed standards are PC Staff Report.03-11-oS 201 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning Seel Beech Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 . easily attainable, as there is a 1 D-ft. minimum rear yard setback, and none of the properties evaluated in the RLD-9 Zone came near to exceeding this. Chairperson Deaton asked for discussion on Item 3.e. on Page 67 regarding Covered Roof Access Structures (CRAS). Mr. Whittenberg requested direction from the PC regarding CRAS, and emphasized that a CRAS is not necessary to get to a roof deck, and currently there are many homes in town with roof decks that use an open stairway for access. Chairperson Deaton stated that the PC needs to look at CRAS for roof decks and at CRAS for elevators, as a CRAS is not necessary for stairs, but is necessary for elevators. She commented that up until recently the PC had fairly clear way of approving or denying a CRAS based upon the level of opposition, but recently there has been more opposition to these structures. Public Comments With regard to daylight planes, Victor Grgas cautioned that the City not find itself forcing an architectural style upon property owners and limit creativity. He said that his home has an open exterior staircase to the roof deck and maintenance can be a pain, but he . believes that a CRAS is not needed for roof access. He recommended that if the PC does decide to continue to approve these structures that they require that these structures be set back to the middle or rear of the home where they would not be intrusive. Eldon Alexander stated that he is neither for nor against CRAS and believes that people should be able to build what they wish, and he does favor elevators to roof decks as many homes in Old Town have no yard area for children to play, nor are there many parks. Mike Bubbe said he agrees with the concept of daylight planes, and i:Ioes not oppose elevators to third floors, as long as the roof cover is located in the center or rear of the structure so as to be as non-obtrusive as possible. He said he opposes any type of CRAS on 2- or 3-story homes and would prefer to see exterior staircases. He noted that despite the many roof decks in town, they are very rarely used. Warren Morton agreed with prohibiting roof decks on 3rd floors with on outside staircases used to access 2nd floor roof decks. Joyce Parque questioned how this change could be enforced, as there are already several homes in Old Town and on The Hill with elevators, and many eRAS throughout the City; . PC Staff Raporl.03-11-oS 202 e . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Commissioner Comments Chairperson Deaton stated that her home has a roof deck with outside stairway access. She noted that there have been many leaks in the roof deck, but none over the stairway. She said they do require a lot of maintenance and she regularly uses her roof deck. She agreed with Mr. Alexander's comments that people do use roof decks, but because of the height she would not be comfortable with children usin~ this space. She said she favors elevators, as they provide easy access to 2nd and 3 stories for older adults or for the disabled, and she would oppose allowing eRAS for stairways because they are unsightly, and though new standards have decreased the size, they all require a lot of maintenance. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if the current Code allows roof decks on 3rd stories. Mr. Whittenberg stated that technically a CRAS o~floors is not disallowed, as long as the railing around the deck is at the 35-ft. height point, which means the floor level must be at approximately 31.5 feet. He indicated that the majority of comments reflect opposition to allowing roof decks on 3rd floors. He recommended that if elevators are to be allowed, they should be limited to only a 2nd floor roof deck. and to the 3rd floor interior of a home. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that because the 3nl floor opens onto the 2nd floor deck, the elevator shaft could be incorporated into the 3nl floor building. She then stated that the multitude of CRAS structures in town is presenting an aesthetics problem, but she would favor allowing elevators to the 2nd floor. Chairperson Deaton countered that if a jerson cannot walk, they would not be able to walk up the stairs for access to a 2n floor roof deck. She also noted that because space is at a premium in Old Town, not allowing people to have 3rd stories would be penalizing them for owning 25-ft. lots, and they should be allowed to have access to their roof deck. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt ~reed, but asked how this would be done. Chairperson Deaton stated that perhaps 3 stories need to be allowed on any size lot. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt questioned how you would make a CRAS unobtrusive. Chairperson Deaton noted that as Mr. Grgas stated, a CRAS should be located toward the center or rear of the structure. Mr. Whittenberg commented that one benefit of an elevator is that because the housing is a straight up and down shaft this makes for a much easier design to where it can be central to the sides and rear of the home, as opposed to a stairway, which. under the Building Code (BC) must be continuous from the deck all the way down to the 1st floor and this tends to create more of a design challenge. He suggested adding standards that would require that the CRAS not be located along the immediate side walls of homes, and that on the Inside of the home a closet area be created from the 1st to 2nd floor that could be converted to an elevator in the future. Chairperson Deaton asked about retrofitting. Mr. Whittenberg stated that no matter what the situation, there will be difficulty with retrofitting. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt added that the real issue becomes how to make a CRAS aesthetic and keep it from interfering with the view from surrounding homes. Chairperson Deaton noted that if you have an elevator you must also have a stairway pc Staff Roport.03-11-oB 203 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 for fire safety, but you don't want to cover the stairway and the elevator, as this would create a huge structure. She noted that people need to be aware that if they decide on an elevator they will give up a lot of square footage when designing their home, as they must have access to a stairway. She stated that if a CRAS is allowed on elevators and not on stairways, the problem of CRAS will be cut down considerably. Commissioner Bello stated that after listening to all of this, she feels there is a lot to be said for having a 1-story home, but she is in favor of elevators for the elderly and disabled. She then indicated that she favors eliminating CRAS. She asked if using the daylight plane would limit architectural creativity. Mr. Whittenberg stated that in extreme cases it would, such as with a home with a flat roof and high walls along the property line, the daylight plane would require that a certain length of the wall would have to be setback in approximately 2 feet. He noted that it would not change the style, but would affect the arrangement on the 2nd floor. He indicated that Staff is attempting to address the problem with. flat roof homes being. constructed up to the minimum setbacks and to the maximum height. Commissioner Roberts stated that the exceptions to the daylight plane help address . concerns over limiting architectural diversity, as they are quite liberal in allowing features to project through the daylight plane. and he feels comfortable with this. With regard to CRAS he indicated that this is really not a problem in any other part of the city except Old Town, and he will vote based upon Chairperson Deaton's recommendation that CRAS not be allowed over staircases. Wrth regard to elevators, he believes the city does have to deal with this issue, but he would like the ordinance to include this within the structure of the 3rd floor so that this would not require a separate enclosure for the elevator shaft. He added that for elevators on 2-story homes, he would like to see standards that require the CRAS to be located at the center or rear of the home. He indicated that decisions on retrofitting should be subject to an AUP. Commissioner Delay asked if Mr. Whittenberg found this acceptable. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he would proceed as directed by the PC and City Council. Commissioner Delay stated that building a CRAS is "asking for a lot of trouble.' Mr. Whittenberg explained that although the CC and the PC have made provisions to allow CRAS, they really are not a necessary structure, but elevators are an issue that must be dealt with to gain access to 2nd floors and roof decks. He noted that existing standards have helped to address the size of CRAS, so some of these general concepts as well as the recommendations for locating CRAS can be incorporated into the revised ordinance, as well as the requirements for elevator shaft space to be incorporated into the 3rd story living space. He confirmed that the direction of the PC is to jettison CRAS and return with standards for elevators on 2nd floors and for incorporating elevator space on the 3rd floor living area. Chairperson Deaton added . PC Staff Raporl.03-11-D8 204 e . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TItle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 that the PC also wishes to prohibit 3rd story roof decks. The Commission was in agreement. Eldon Alexander stated that he has no objection to the PC's direction to Staff and then referred to Page 9 to the list of items to be included in or excluded from the FAR. He noted that if elevators are to be included with 3rd floor living area, this should be included under exclusions to the FAR. Commissioner Roberts stated that he could live with this. Chairperson Deaton stated that if this is the case, then the PC should indicate a maximum square footage for 3rt! floors. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff could retum to the proposed sizes, noting that the elevator shafts would probably encompass 4-5 feet, or approximately 16-25 square feet. Commissioner Roberts requested that Staff retum with some definitive dimensions for elevators. Mr. Whittenberg recommended ending tonight's study session and continuing the discussion at the scheduled meeting of November 7, 2007. He noted that there would be one public hearing item on that agenda for a request to have live entertainment at Kobe Steak House. Chairperson Deaton stated that she did not want the public hearing to go too late, as members of the public attending the meeting to take part in the study session might begin to leave before the discussion begins. Mr. Whittenberg recommended having the remaining discussion on residential first, then the public hearing, followed by discussion on nonresidential standards. He noted that discussion must also be conducted on patio areas, private open space, and garages. Commissioner Roberts asked about discussion on size limitations for 2nd floor roof decks. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there have never been limitations set for the size of roof decks, but noted that under the Building Code (BC) there are requirements for two separate stairway exits for decks larger than 500 sq. ft. and for most homes this becomes a limiting factor for deck size. Mike Bubbe requested clarification on the PC's direction on whether to allow 3rd stories by right on lots 37.5 - 40 feet or wider. The Commission confirmed that 3rd stories would be allowed by right on lots 37.5 feet or wider. Mr. Whittenberg added that the 3rd story for these lots would be limited to 0.10 and 0.15. Mr. Abbe noted that since there is no study session scheduled for the October 17, 2007 meeting, he would not be attendance, and Assistant City Attomey Flower would serve as counsel at that meeting. Mr. Abbe then indicated that he would be on vacation on November 7,2007. He wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving." * * * * PC Staff Roporl.03-11-oB 205 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning Seal Beech Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19, 2008 ATTACHMENT 17 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - NOVEMBER 7,2007 "STUDY SESSION 7. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning Chapter 2.05 Residential Districts. Section 2.05.015.5 . Additional SIde Setback Above 14 Feet ... Pages 81-88 Mr. Whittenberg again utilized the Staff Report entitled, "October 10, 2007, Planning Commission Study Sessions, Chapter 2.05, Residential Districts," and began by referring to Page 81 noting that these standards would apply to lots 37.5 feet wide, or wider, and would require that walls along side yard setback lines on new structures measuring 14-feet or higher be subject to an additional setback. He reiterated that this would provide additional building separation between residential units and would help address concerns expressed by the Commission and the public regarding the increasing size of homes and would help incorporate more design diversity. He then proceeded to review the proposed standard as outlined on Pages 81-89, noting that for lots within the RHD-20 District that are less than 37.5 feet wide Staff proposes once a wall reaches a length of 50 feet, that at least one building offset be required for a certain length and depth along one side of the building, and the wall could then continue at the minimum setback line. Another proposal would be that a portion of the 2nd floor area be setback, but not for the entire structure, which would help with the proposed standards for open space within Old Town. Chairperson Deaton clarified that patios could qualify as an inset, if so desired, but would not be required. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was correct, but the patio requirement would have to be met in another area of the structure. Commissioner Roberts asked if the Commission were comfortable with one side being a completely flat plane. Chairperson Deaton noted that pop-outs could be used. Mr. Whittenberg explained that bay windows could be used, but projections on homes on 25-ft. lots are only allowed to go out 1 foot. He also noted that the recently adopted State Building Code states that all walls and windows that are 3 feet or. less from a property line must have a 1-hour fire-rated PC Staff Raporl.0:;'11.oB 206 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 assembly. He stated that this may result in windows being set in further from the wall plane and may also increase the use of courtyards to provide more space for windows. Chairperson Deaton stated that she would like to see some pop-outs on the other side of the building inset, which would add square footage back to the structure. Mr. Whittenberg stated that architectural features such as bay windows or fireplaces rarely add living floor space to a home. He suggested that lots less than 37.5 feet stay away from the additional setback on the 2nd floor and create more useable yard area on the 1st or 2nd floor once the building wall goes beyond 50 feet. He added that this would also make roof pitches different. The Director of Development Services then explained that these standards would not apply to homes in Bridgeport or Surfside, as they have different standards. Public Comments ~ Warren Morton aske:Ej.if doors within the 3-foot setback also have to be 1-hour ratedo- Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that they would. . Robert Goldberg asked about windows that are 37 or 38 inches from the property line. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the 1-hour rated windows would not be required. Mr. . Goldberg asked if the architects agreed with the 5-foot perpendicular walls for the inset, which for 25-ft. lots would leave a floor area approximately 14 feet wide. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the architects made these suggestions and felt that this would be a good compromise. Mr. Goldberg noted that the open space requirement at ground level is a minimum of 90 feet, and rather than have both the inset and the patio, most people would probably just construct the open space patio. Victor Grgas asked if a balcony can be constructed on the 2nd floor of homes on lots 37.5 feet wide or wider. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that you could construct a balcony on the 2nd floor of these homes. Eldon Alexander cautioned that the greater the number of standards imposed, the less diversity this would ultimately allow. Mike Bubbe stated that the proposed. standards provide for more interesting architecture and allow for more open space. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Roberts stated he favors the articulation but wonders is 5 ft. x 10ft. would Qe too much and might limit the property owner's ability to design his or her home PC Staff RaporlO3-11-0S 207 . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 as desired. He said he would favor a smaller area of articulation that could be done on both sides of the home. . Chairperson Deaton noted that if the articulation is required after a 50-ft. length, then every house will have a patio 50 feet in, especially on the smaller lots. She said she would like to see more options for designing homes with 1st floor patios. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the idea was that you can go a certain length of wall before requiring a break, so the number can change. He explained that having shorter distances for the insets can be more difficult structurally and more costly. He noted that although this comes close to meeting the open space standard, Staff did not want to use this to meet that standard so as not to force someone to use this. He indicated that Staff could retum with some altematives when presenting the final draft, such as having a minimum 3-ft. x 10-ft. indentation for every 35-40 feet of the length of the wall. Chairperson Deaton suggested using square footage and pop-outs. Mr. Whittenberg stated that these options do appear in other areas of the Zoning Code (ZC) and added that pop-outs of no more than 8 feet in length can project up to one foot into the side yard setback, but these would have to be 1-hour rated. Chairperson Deaton stated that she agreed with Commissioner Roberts' comment that a 5-foot offset would be too great. Commissioner Bello also agreed with smaller offset requirements as this would allow for insets on both sides of a building. Mr. Whittenberg reiterated that Staff would provide altematives in the final draft and floor plan samples for consideration by the Commission. He also recommended establishing a minimum dimension for the offsets. Section 2.05.015.88 - Open Space Requirements Pages 90-95 Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff is proposing three separate standards as follows: 1. For the RLD-9 District a minimum of 800 sq. ft. of private, useable outdoor open space would be required for single-family residences (SFR). 2. For lots 37.5 feet wide within the RHD-20 District a minimum of 225 sq. ft" of private, useable outdoor open space would be required for single-family residences. 3. For lots less than 37.5 feet wide within the RHD-20 District a. A minimum dimension of 8 feet for any side would be required, including a required side yard setback b. At least 40% of the required 225 sq. ft. (90 sq. ft.) must be provided on the ground floor c. Remaining area may be provided in any combination of second floor decks or balconies having a minimum dimension of 5 feet. . pc Staff Raporl.03-11-oB 208 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TJtJe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 d. No more than 33% of the ground floor area may be covered. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt suggested distributing the open space allowance to all floors of a SFR and including roof deck space into this allowance. For example, 100 sq. ft. of a 500 sq. ft. roof deck could be counted as part of the open space requirement. Public Comments Victor Grgas stated that roof decks should not be included in the open space requirement, and the dimension should remain 500 square feet. Commissioner Massa- Lavitt clarified that she is not suggesting that roof decks be smaller, simply that a portion of the square footage be allowed to be counted as open space to help meet the minimum requirement. He then stated that 37.5 sq. ft. lots should be required to provide a minimum of 3 off-street parking spaces. He indicated that one of these spaces could be a carport and would not have to be enclosed. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Staff had received a letter from Mike Bubbe related to the issue of additional setbacks for 2nd floor roof decks to help address privacy issues for neighboring homes. Commissioner Roberts stated that he believes there should be a limit on the accountable square footage of roof decks towards meeting the open space criteria. He confirmed that the 90 sq. ft. on the 1 sf floor can only be used in side setback area. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. Chairperson Deaton asked for comments on setbacks for 200 floor decks. Commissioner Roberts stated that the setback would have to be substantial to meet the intended objective. Mr. Whittenberg stated that when he and Mr. Bubbe had discussed this, he had explained that the daylight plan requirements may create this effect, as the rail for a deck would not be allowed to project into the daylight plane. He indicated that Staff would provide examples of plans and show how the daylight plane would create setbacks on 2nd floor decks. Commissioner Roberts confirmed that for lots 37.5 sq. ft. wide, or wider, the requirement for open space would be 800 sq. ft. Mr. Whittenberg stated that for lots in the RHD-20 District 37.5 ft. wide the requirement would be 225 sq. ft., all to be provided on the ground floor, and for the RLD-9 District it would be 800 sq. ft. Commissioner Roberts suggested setting the standard at 40 feet wide. Mr. Whittenberg noted that when reviewing these standards the architects had no problem with the 225 sq. ft. requirement. Chairperson Deaton asked that Staff provide examples to give a better idea OT what these dimensions would look like. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff can provide. examples of homes that are currently in the planning phase. PC Staff Raporl.03-11-0S 209 . . . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final DlClft - rilJe 11: ZonIng Seal Beach Municipal Code. Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Section 2.05.015 - Ratio of Z'dStory BuIlding Area to 1st Story Building Area Pages 96-99 Mr. Whittenberg referred to the table on Page 97, which reflects 1st and 2nd floor ratios for several homes within Seal Beach, and noted that Staffs initial proposal was a ratio of 75-80%, but with garages not counting as living space, this number did not work in Old Town. Staff now recommends for the RHD-20 district that the 2nd floor living area cannot exceed 1.4 times the 1st floor IMng area, which will also help limit the size of 2nd stories. He noted that no changes are recommended for the RLD-9 district ratios. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked what the ratio would be if the garage were included. Mr. Whittenberg responded that it would be close to a 1: 1 ratio. Commissioner Massa- Lavitt then commented that this might provide a better idea of what the size of the entire structure would be. Commissioner Roberts stated that making the number smaller would allow for less open space on the ground floor. Eldon Alexander pointed out that . using a smaller number. would lead to people making the ground floor as large as possible. Commissioner Roberts indicated that 1.4 would be a good starting place. The Commissioner was in agreement. Sect/on 2.05.015L - Projections Page 100 Mr. Whittenberg briefly reviewed the proposed standards for projections above the height limit for buildings containing 3 or more residential units, noting that the proposal for common rooftop open space is open for discussion. Commissioner Roberts stated that he does not see why rooftop open space would be needed on a multi-unit structure. The Commission agreed to eliminate this provision. Section 2.05.015M - MinImum Distance Between Buildings and MInimum Size of Courts - RMD and RHD Districts Page 101 Mr. Whittenberg reviewed the proposed standards, noting that this would apply to multi- unit structures, and would serve to increase privacy of primary living room windows, main entry areas, and main living space. Mike Bubbe commented that the DWP Property and the property on Marina and 1st Street have the potential for this type of development, so these standards should be carefully reviewed. Chairperson Deaton noted that the proposed standards would allow for more open space rather than less. pc staff Raporl.03-11-oB 210 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Dreft - TilJe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Commissioner Roberts inquired about the current zoning for the DWP property. Mr. Whittenberg .indicated that the zoning is for a 150-room hotel on the northerly 30 percent of the lot and 70 percent for passive open ~ace. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt inquired about the zoning for the property at 1 Street and Marina Drive. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is currently an oil extraction zone and any changes in the zoning would require General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, etc. Mrs. Bubbe stated that she totally approves of the courtyard idea and should there be further building of multi-units in Old Town the density should be kept low with lots of open space. Section 2.05.015N - Building Entrance Page .102 Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is a new provision that requires defined entry ways with articulation, as shown on Page 102, and applies to all residential development. Commissioner Roberts said that in this regard his home, as well as many others in College Park East (CPE) would be categorized as legal nonconforming. Eldon . Alexander asked if the required square footage would include stair steps off of porches. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would include a porch extension going out into the front setback as opposed to a recess, but would not include the stairs. Chairperson Deaton requested that Staff provide information on the building entrances in College Park East (CPE) and confirmed that if a legal nonconforming structure were destroyed by fire or earthquake, etc., the property owner could rebuild as it previously existed. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was true, as long as the new structure meets Building Code requirements and specific Zoning Code (ZC) parking standards. Section 2.05.0150 - Fat;ade Articulation - Lots Greater Than 25 Feet in Width Pages 103.104 The Director of Development Services reviewed the provisions for fac;:ade articulation along the street frontage of homes on lots wider than 25 feet. He then described the example as shown on Page 104. Chairperson Deaton stated that she would also like to see fayade articulation on 250ft. lots. Mr. Whittenberg explained that there is an average setback requirement for homes in Old Town and most homes on 25-ft. lots are articulated height wise rather than length wise, but if the Commission so desires, this standard can include 25-ft. lots. Victor Grgas agreed that it is very difficult to articulate the front of a home on a 25-ft. lot and noted that the best thing to do is to minimize one side of the building. Commissioner Roberts commented that imposing too many standards might create a problem with all of the homes looking the same. . PC Staff Reporl.03-11-oS 211 . . . Public Haaring 1'9: Final Draft - TItle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Section 2.05.015P - Windows and Trim Page 105 Mr. Whittenberg noted that these standards would create architectural interest and shadow by using window recess, trim, or an altemative design. Eldon Alexander questioned whether this feature might become tiresome. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff could provide examples of different styles of homes with this window treatment. Mr. Alexander questioned whether a 2-inch depth requirement might be excessive. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the new building code changes will lead to more homes with the windows setback from the framing to conform to the 1-hour rating. Section 2.05.015Q - Porches Pages 106-108 Mr. Whittenberg again stated that the proposed standards are meant to create architectural diversity at the front of residential structures. He noted that porches are not required, but if people want a porch, it would have to conform to the standards as presented on Pages 106-108. With reference to Item 3 on Page 107, Mr. Whittenberg explained that the initial proposal was to limit the width of the porch across the front of the house, but the architects questioned the need to limit width. Commissioner Roberts asked if a minimum setback from the property line for the bottom step should be included. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Building Code prohibits any encroachment across the property line and the minimum distance from the property line to the first step is 3 feet. Eldon Alexander asked how this would affect homes in CPE that have crawlspaces. Mr. Whittenberg stated that homes in CPE are required to have an 18-ft. front yard setback. Section 2. 05. 015R - Additional Front Setback Above 14 Feet Pages 109-111 The Director of Development Services explained that when walls exceed a height of 14 feet, an additional front setback will be required to ensure there is enough building offset along the primary street-facing fa9ade of residential units. He then reviewed the table on Page 110 in which the front step backs for various lot sizes are presented. Eldon Alexander asked why pop outs could not be used here as well to help break up the wall effect. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that allowable architectural projections don't accomplish this effect at roof level, and the additional front setback significantly Changes the roof and wall lines. Chairperson Deaton stated that the diagram walls still look straight up and down. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the area will change as the width of the lot changes, and as the length of the 14-ft. high walls changes. He noted that basically when the height of walls over 14 feet exceeds 70% of the maximum PC SlalT Raporl.03.11-OS 212 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 1 g, 2008 building frontage, a stepback of at least 8% of the lot depth will be required, not to exceed 12 feet. Chairperson Deaton asked why this could not exceed 12 feet. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was because Staff does not want to create this effect for the entire length of the building, as this standard is simply to provide some articulation at the front of the building. Commissioner Roberts added that this would encourage 2nd floor street-facing balconies. Warren Morton asked why a projection on the front fayade could not be used instead of a setback to create the articulation. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the City only allows a 1-foot projection into required front yard setbacks and a 1-foot projection would not create enough differentiation. Section 2.05.015U - Design of Building Additions Pages 112-114 Mr. Whittenberg explained that this section provides examples of desirable and undesirable design features .for building additions, as proposed by Staff. He noted. that these standards are proposed to authorize the Director of Development Services to determine whether a proposed addition meets the design provisions for additions, but this decision can be appealed to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Roberts . confirmed that this would not be subject to an AUP. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. Chairperson Deaton asked if an appeal fee would be required. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it would be required to cover the cost of mailing public notices and for the public hearing. SectIon 2.05.015V - Curb Cuts and Driveways - RLD-9 District Pages 115-117 The Director of Development Services explained that with regard to circular driveways, all the circular portion of the driveway has to be behind the front yard setback line. Section 2.05.015W - Maximum Driveway Width - RLD-9 District Pages 118-119 The maximum proposed width of a driveway leading to parking facilities is 18 feet. Section 2.05.015X - Limitation on Parking and Garage Frontage Pages 120-127 No changes are proposed for the existing standards that require a Conditional Use Permit for garages for more than 3 vehicles. Mr. Whittenberg then reviewed the setbac~ provisions for garages facing the street, as shown on Pages 124-127, and . indicated that the proposed standards attempt to address not having the garage door pc Staff Raporl.03-11-oB 213 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning S6a/ Beach Municipal Coda, Planning Commission Staff Raporl March 19, 2008 as the primary visual feature of a house. Commissioner Roberts stated that in the case of a rebuild he would like to see provisions to allow people to construct the garage in its previous location, if they so desire, even if it is the primary front facade. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this could be permitted with the requirement to add window treatments or framing, etc., to help give the garage door better design articulation. Chairperson Deaton stated that although she understands what Staff is attempting to do, she agreed that these standards could be limiting and other alternative design options should be explored. _ Mr. Whittenberg then briefly reviewed the following sections noting that previous discussion has been conducted on these standards. Section 2.05.015Y - Minimum Permeable Surlaces - Maximum Paving In Street Facing Yards _ _ Pages 128-129 Section 2.05.015Z - Minimum Site Area Devoted to Landscaping Page 130 Section 2.05.015AA - Required Planting on Downslope Lots Pages 131-132 Section 2.05.015CC- Pedestrian Walkways Page 133 Section 2.05.01500 - Development Standards for 2-Story Cabana/Manufactured Homes peges 134-136 Mr. Whittenberg explained that the new proposed standards for 2-story cabanas would require approval of an AUP to construct a 2-story cabana or to establish a 2-story manufactured home within the Seal Beach Trailer Park. He also reviewed the proposed size limitations for a 2-story cabana and the maximum permitted height for manufactured homes and noted that the size limitation for the 2nd floor of 2-story cabanas would not apply to manufactured homes. He emphasized that all setbacks for 2-story cabanas and manufactured homes shall be in conformance with Title 25, California Administrative Code, and the City cannot modify these requirements. Section 2.05.015EE - Old Ranch Town Center Development Plsn Overlay Page 1.37 PC Staff Raporl.03-11-oB 214 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TiIJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 After completion of the Study Session discussion, Chairperson Deaton inquired about the discussion on the number of required parking spaces based upon the number of bedrooms in a single-family residence (SFR). Mr. Whittenberg stated that at a previous study session Staff was directed to return with standards that would not require as many parking spaces per bedroom. Chairperson Deaton stated that with the requirements for open space and patios, it would be difficult to provide 3 parking spaces for a 4-bedroom SFR, particularly on the smaller 25-foot wide lots. Mr. Whittenberg noted that as he recalls, the discussion was to require a 3-car garage for homes with 5 or more bedrooms. Commissioner Roberts stated that in College Park East (CPE), where parking is not a major issue, there are many 5-bedroom homes that have a 2-car garage. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there was some discussion that in CPE the driveway area in front of the garage could be counted as required parking. Eldon Alexander asked whether the discussion on Section 4 has been completed. Mr. Whittenberg stated. that other than the continuing discussion on required parking spaces and private open space requirements for multi-unit developments, Section 4 was completed at the October 3, 2007, meeting. 2. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning All Portions Except Chapter 2.05 Residential Districts To be continued to the scheduled meeting in December 2007." it ... .. .., PC Staff Raport03-11-08 215 . . . . . . Public Hearing 1'9: FinaJ Draft - 77tfe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code. Planning Commission staff Report March 1 g, 2008 ATTACHMENT 18 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - DECEMBER 5, 2007 "STUDY SESSION 11. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning Code, Chapter 5.00 Land Use and Zoning Decisions and Chapter 6.00 Terms and Definitions. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he anticipates that this will be the last study session, and based upon direction from the PC tonight, Staff will take all comments, including those from previous study sessions, and incorporate them into a Final Draft of the Zoning Code (ZC) and for presentation at the January 23, 2008 meeting. The Director of Development Services then referred to Table 5.05.025. provided as a supplement to the Staff Report, which lists the review authorities for various types of discretionary actions, as set forth through the entire proposed ZC. He indicated that the yellow highlighted items reflect specific direction given by the PC at the meeting of June 6, 2007. He explained that there are two main categories: the Administrative Use Permit (AUP) process, and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. He noted that the AUP process is a new process that is very similar to the Minor Plan Review (MPR) process, and Staff has placed the less controversial items that would not require regular PC review within the AUP category. He noted that the land use entitlements are broken down by ZC Chapter and these standards will be placed in the Final Draft. He then briefly reviewed the highlighted items describing the changes made based upon direction from the PC. Chairperson Deaton asked if the Final Draft would include highlighting of the changes made by the PC. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff will provide an Appendix document that will include all of the meeting minutes for the study sessions conducted as well as the presentation materials used during these meetings, responses to comments received, and any tables provided. The Director of Development Services then referred to Chapter 5.00 on page 109 of the Preliminary Draft ZC and noted that this chapter serves as the main administrative portion of the ZC that includes the following sections: pc Staff Raport.03-11-oS 216 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: ZonIng . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 Review Authority General Procedures Legislative Actions Development Permits Director Determination Environmental Review He briefly reviewed the contents of each Section and noted that the majority of the information in Chapter 5, with the exception of the establishment of the AUP process, basically reflects how the City operates today, and little has really changed. He pointed out that notice for public hearing items has changed from a 300 foot radius to 500 feet, notice for Minor Plan Reviews will remain a 100-foot radius, and notice for AUPs will be a 300-foot radius. He noted that the increase in the noticing radius for public hearings is a result of state conflict of inter~st provisions indicating that as a decision maker if your property is within 500 feet of the property in question, you are deemed to have a conflict, and if you receive a notice on a publiC hearing, you will know that there is a conflict and you must abstain from participating in the pUblic hearing. He pointed out . that if notices to be delivered number more than 1,000, instead of a mailed notice the City may provide notice by placing a display advertisement in at least 1 newspaper at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Mr. Whittenberg then reviewed the required findings for approval of a CUP, Variance, and AUP, followed by a brief discussion on Chapter 5.25, Director Determinations. The Director of Development Services then explained that Chapter 6.00 consists of the Terms and Definitions portion of the ZC. He indicated that proposed additions to the current content as shown on pages 138-146 consist mainly of graphic representations of ideas of what terms and definitions actually mean. He briefly reviewed the graphic representations and noted that the new ZC will include many of these. Mr. Whittenberg indicated this ends the .Staff Report and noted that unless the Commissioners have questions regarding administrative issues, Staff is prepared to begin work on the Final Draft Zoning Code, which will incorporate all of the changes discussed during the study sessions. He stated that this draft will be ready for presentation at the PC meeting of January 23, 2008, and after review Staff will prepare the environmental review document (Mitigated Negative Declaration [MND]) for public circulation followed by the public hearings on the ZC, which should begin at the end of March or beginning of April 2008. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked what would be mitigated in the MND. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he is not certain, but there may be a . couple of issues that will require mitigation measures, but there will definitely not be an PC Stall' Raport03-11-oS 217 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - rilJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report Merch 19, 2008 Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He then thanked the Commission and the public for their time and participation in this process. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that Mr. Whittenberg and Staff have done "a magnificent job" on this huge undertaking. Chairperson Deaton also thanked Staff. Joyce Parque asked about microwave dishes that are installed without notice to surrounding residents. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the City Attomey will be providing text for this in the Final Draft. Ms. Parque then stated that she is not clear on why there are no parking requirements for houses in the Seal Beach Trailer Park (SBTP). Mr. Whittenberg explained that the SBTP is govemed by an old Unclassified Use Permit (UCP) and is required to have a common parking area on the property for the use of all residents, and is not required to have parking for each individual space. Ms. Parque stated that perhaps parking requirements should be imposed, as now 1,700-1,800 square foot homes are going into the park. She noted that originally there were only trailers in the park that could be moved, but the homes that are there now have concrete foundations rather than a chassis and cannot be moved. She stated that the pre-fabricated homes being brought into the park are huge. She also suggested changing the zoning for the DWP property to residential. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the DWP property is controlled by a Specific Plan (SP), which is not part of the ZC, and an application to amend the SP would have to be made. Chairperson Deaton asked if the City has any authority over the SBTP. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the City has the authority to approve or deny 2-story cabanas, or any proposed structure with 2nd floor living area must come before the PC for review and approval. He added that state law changed in 2007 regarding trailer space adjustments, requiring agreement of the park owner(s) and that of adjOining trailer space occupants, but the City no longer has the authority to approve or deny these requests. He noted that trailer parks in California are govemed by Title 25 of the Califomia Code of Regulations. Chairperson Deaton then commented that it appears Ms. Parque is stating that the SBTP is now being converted into a high density housing tract. She asked if zoning for the SBTP appears in the ZC. Mr. Whittenberg explained that with regard to the SBTP the ZC only discusses construction of 2-story cabanas, and everything else is done administratively. Chairperson Deaton asked if the state is .allowing this to happen. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this discussion is straying too far from the issue of the ZC and suggested adding this discussion to a future agenda. Mr. Abbe added that the City is currently exercising the maximum amount of control allowed over the SBTP. Chairperson Deaton requested that this issue be placed on a future agenda. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would be happy to meet with Ms. Parque after the first of the year to respond to any questions she might have related to the trailer park. With regard to the DWP property, Chairperson Deaton stated that as she understands, the applicant would have to apply for a change in the SP. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the property owner always has the right to request a Change to a SP. on his or her property. He noted that a PC Stall Reporl.03-11-oB 218 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code. Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 property owner can reo.uest to revise the SP, adopt a new SP, or delete the SP and approve some other land use entitlement. He stated that the property owners made a request several years ago to eliminate the current SP and approve a land development on the site and had submitted an application along with plans, which Staff reviewed and found to be incomplete, so Staff notified the property owners of the deficient items and they have never responded. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that over the years Staff has spoken with hundreds of people regarding what can be done on this property, but because it is under the SP, the only way that something else can happen on this property, is for an application to be submitted to revise the SP, adopt a new SP, or delete the SP and approve some other land use entitlement. He noted that the only other way would be for the City to initiate this process, and this would require City Council direction. Mr. Bubbe thanked Staff, the Planning Commission, and the public for all of the work done on the ZC.. He then referred to pages. 120, 132, and 135 of the Draft ZC noting the discussion on a 5% expansion of the floor or lot coverage devoted to the approved use or uses. He requested clarification on why these would be granted. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would have to refer to the actual language in the Proposed . ZC. He indicated that generally these proposed standards would allow for slight variations based upon a particular issue that may exist due to an unusually lot configuration where a Variance would not be required. He stated that he would be happy to meet with Mr. Bubbe to go over this section and respond to his concerns." * * * * . pc Stall Reporl.03-11-oB 219 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Dreft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beech Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 1 g, 2008 ATTACHMENT 19 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - FEBRUARY 6, 2008 "ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Deaton opened oral communications. Joyce Parque stated that prior to the completion of the Final Draft Zoning Code (ZC) no studies have been conducted regarding the impact of third stories. She noted that although there has been discussion on the problems with third stones of mold, loss of light and air, and loss of sunlight for solar panels, there have been no studies regarding how these issues might affect the health of residents. She noted that there has been no discussion on re-zoning the trailer park, sober liVing housing, the taking of private property, nor has there been discussion on re-zoning the DWP property. Chairperson Deaton clarified that the Final Draft Zoning Code is exactly that; a draft and the Planning Commission (PC) will be conducting public hearings on everything prior to forwarding the document to City Council. She added that there would be plenty of time for input from the public. Seth Eaker presented the Seal Beach Chamber of Commerce calendar of community events through the month of March 2008. He then commended the excellent work done by the Directors of the Public Works and Planning Departments in assisting The Crema Cafe and for being on the side of businesses within Seal Beach. Robert Goldberg stated that although the concept of FARs is a good one, FARs and third stories don't work well together. He explained that because there are proposed maximum FARs for different size lots and if by right you can build a third story on your lot and get an extra FAR, this then creates an incentive for construction of three-story homes. He noted that in order to maximize the value of your home, the proposed Zoning Code (ZC) makes it necessary to construct a third story. He indicated that with FARs the City would essentially be granting a big bonus for third stories. Chairperson Deaton clarified that what Mr. Goldberg is stating is that there is a maximum FAR for a certain residential building; therefore, when we say you can have more FAR for a third story, what would be more equitable would be to take the maximum FAR and distribute PC Staff Raporl.03-11-oB 220 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning Seal Beech Municipal Code, Planning Commission Staff Report March 19, 2008 that for the structure. Mr. Goldberg confirmed that with a maximum overall FAR, you would not get extra FAR for a third story. He proposed allowing third stories, but not granting a FAR bonus for this. He noted that the effect of this would be building a smaller first and second story and the net effect would be more open space and there would be no financial incentives to having a third story. He commented that he believes the general consensus of the community is that third stories are a concem, but that they do not need to be banned altogether. He said that the approach the City is taking to mitigate third stories is a good one and this can be done by limiting the size of third stories. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed oral communications. . ~ 7. -Final Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning, Chapter 2.05, Residential Districts - Section 2.05.015.C: Floor Area Ratio, and Section 2.05.015.0: Floor Area Design Incentives and Deductions. Chairperson Deaton stated that she had requested that this item be placed on the . agenda for further clarification on the concept of FARs. Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg stated that what the Planning Commission (PC) has considered in the past for third story living areas on lots 37.5 feet wide or wider in Old Town was to establish a separate Floor Area Ration (FAR) limitation for third stories. He explained that the current Zoning Code (ZC) allows for third story living space on the rear half of lots at least 37.5 feet wide in Old Town. He noted that these lots provide for 30 feet of buildable width on the third floor, and if the lot measures 117.5 feet deep, this allows for 50 feet of buildable area on the rear half of the lot, which would create approximately 1,500 sq. ft. of allowable third floor living area. He indicated that the PC and City Council (CC) had discussed setting a limitation on the size of third floor space to not allow as large a size as 1,500 sq. ft. He stated that at the October PC meeting several straw votes were taken to help establish a FAR from .10, .12, and.15, and there was general support for all of these ratios. He said for the Final Draft Staff had intended to show this as an outstanding issue for which the PC would make a final determination during the public hearings. Mr. Whittenberg then noted that with regard to Mr. Goldberg's comments, the incentive that he described is an existing incentive that is included in the ZC today, and is allowed . by right. He explained that as proposed in the revised ZC a FAR of .15 would limit the pc Staff Raporl.03-11.Qa 221 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning Seal Baach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 1 g, 2008 size of a third story on a 37.5-ft. wide by 117.5 deep lot to 661 sq. ft., where the current ZC would allow up to approximately 1,500 sq. ft. He stated that the additional design incentives (building envelope, daylight planes, articulation, etc.) would help minimize the size of third stories. He noted that the PC could impose a FAR reduction if a third story is to be constructed, but Staff would discuss this and Mr. Goldberg's concems with the City Attomey to ensure that the proposed FARs and any restrictions would be viable. Commissioner Roberts stated that although he understands what Mr. Whittenberg is suggesting, he still has a basic problem with "penalizing people for a third story and squeezing down first and second floors." He noted that the only reasons someone would build a third story would be to have additional square footage or to have a view. He indicated that limiting the FAR and distributing it over three floors may lead to having no third stories at all. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff is recommending that the PC approve having a separate FAR for the third floor, and not combine it with the overall FAR. Commissioner Roberts noted that Mr. Goldberg had recommended setting a maximum FAR for the entire structure and he feels that this is just a clever way to puta damper on having third stories at all, as the only reason for a third story would be to add square footage, and this would be at the expense of taking the square footage from the first and second floors. Mr. Whittenberg stated that approximately 95% of the plans submitted for third stories consist of a master bedroom or a recreation/family room on the third floor, with the first and second floor housing the primary living space. He reiterated that Staffs recommendation to limit the size of third stories allows for reasonable use of the third floor for either a master bedroom or family room. He noted that during the study sessions the PC heard testimony that the current allowable size for third stories is unacceptable; many in the community would be willing to accept third stories with a reasonable reduction in the size of third floors. He added that both the PC and City Council would have to make the determination as to what would be more "reasonable." He stated that Staff suggests establishing a separate FAR for third stories on 37.5-ft. wide lots in Old Town because the FARs designed for all of the other areas in town are based upon standard two-story development, which is allowed throughout Seal Beach. He continued by stating that the only areas in town that allow for third stories are the Rossmoor condominiums and Oakwood Apartments. He noted that this has been a proviSion of the ZC since the 1970s. He summarized that the issue was to attempt to preserve some rights to having third floor living space while making it more compatible with neighboring properties, which in many cases are restricted to two stories, and try to create standards that allow reasonable use of the third floor area. He noted thatthe PC's discussion on the .10 to the .15 was focusing on this. Joyce Parque argued in favor of leaving the ZC as is with regard to third stories and stated that the PC was simply attempting to make Old Town look the way the PC wants it to lo.ok. Also, with regard to the proposed standards for balconies and patios to provide private open space, she. noted that many of the patios within the Bridgeport PC Staff Reporl.03-11-0S 222 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Trtle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 1 g, 2008 neighborhood are being enclosed to create livable space. She again spoke against the taking of private property and property rights. . Maria Bubbe expressed her appreciation for Mr. Whittenberg's comments. She stated that she lives in a one-story house on a 37.5-ft. lot and the key thing is that 3-story structures are not compatible with the Old Town neighborhoods. She said that one of her biggest fears is that someone will construct a huge, 3-story home next door. Mike Bubbe stated that he agrees with Mr. Goldberg's comments and at least 80-90 percent of the people in Old Town he has spoken with would rather limit homes to two stories. He noted that although one-third of the lots in Old Town are 37.5 feet wide and would be allowed a third story, many people are now buying two 25-foot lots and combining them to create 50-ft. lots so that they can construct larger homes. He reiterated that the key issues are sunlight, air circulation, and privacy. He indicated that although most people. would prefer, to have only. two. stories, the. community was directed by City Council to work out a compromise to allow third stories. With regard to FARs, Mr. Bubbe recommended that a FAR of .10 be used to allow smaller lots to have a third story with a maximum of 587 sq. ft. He also stated that if design incentives are . used, the maximum FAR should be .15, which would allow for a range of square footage from approximately 582 sq. ft. to 881 sq. ft. Chairperson Deaton asked if the design incentives that would drive the FAR to .15 had been identified. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the PC has only provided direction to Staff regarding design bonuses for first and second floors but not for third stories. He indicated that Staff could proceed to develop these bonuses, if the PC so directs. Commissioner Roberts asked Mr. Bubbe if he agreed with Mr. Goldberg's proposal that a maximum overall FAR be imposed and to not allow extra FAR for a third story. Mr. Bubbe stated that he did agree with this, and it is certainly worth considering. Chairperson Deaton stated that she likes the idea of an overall FAR allowing more open space. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff could prepare a report to the PC on proposed FARs and FAR bonuses and deductions for 1St, 2ni:l, and 3rd floors, and asked if the PC wished to schedule another study session to review this information. The Commission agreed that another study session would be appropriate." * * * . . PC Staff Raporl.03-11-oS 223 . . . Public Hearing 1'9: Finel Draft - Tit/e 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Planning Commission staff Report March 19. 2008 ATTACHMENT 20 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT - MARCH 5, 2008 (TO BE PROVIDED AT COMMISSION MEETING) PC Staff Raport.03-11-oS 224 .; 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 -~ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ~ City of Seal Beach Pfanning Commission Meeffng Minutes of March 5, 200S could be done, but the most accurate is counting parked spaces throughout the day. He explained that LL&G did survey counts, and the ULI accumulation was applied to vacant spaces, and a forecast of what was vacant was done, which is more accurate than taking a theoretical center and applying it to every use. . Twila Mandella, Crystal Cove Way, said that she has experienced Vans for over 20 years, and this can be studied for years, but you will never have an accurate count of parking, as throughout the year Vons conducts several events in front of the store, which brings in more traffic. She said that there were 60 employees in the previous smaller store, and this larger store will open with up to 125-150 employees, and this number will vary, but it will carry over into the parking area. She stated that if this creates parking problems, it will lower the value of her property. Commissioner Roberts stated that this item should be continued to April 9, 2008, and Staff will let the PC know if they have enough data to make a determination. Chairperson Deaton noted for the record that she believes this item should be continued until after Vons opens for business. MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to continue Variance"08-1 to April 9, 2008, and direct Staff to re-noitice this item. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Bello, Delay, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts None Deaton Mr. Whittenberg advised that publiC notice for the April 9, 2008, hearing will be mailed and will be published in the Sun Newspaper, and noted that based upon the information presented by Staff on April 9th, the PC could determine to defer the decision to a future date. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt requested a short recess. The recess began at 8:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION 3. Study Session - Final Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning: D Review of Chapter 2.05, Residential Districts - Section 2.05.015C: Floor Area Ratio, and Section 2.05.0150: Floor Area Design Incentives and Deductions, Including Third Floor Standards; and D Review of Completed Revisions to Various Proposed Zoning Code Provisions Based on Previous Commission Direction or Requests for Additional Commission Direction. 9 ot 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 CIty of Seal Beach PlannIng Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008 Staff Report . Mr. Whittenberg thanked the Planning Commissioners for their patience in participating in the study sessions on this issue since February 2007. He explained that tonight Staff will attempt to provide language on issues for which the PC had previously provided direction and finalize the Zoning Code (ZC) document. The Director of Development Services began with the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and noted that it appears from previous study sessions that the general consensus is that this idea makes sense for utilization in the new ZC. He explained that currently Section 2.05.015C of the ZC sets forth FARs based upon lot size, and Section 2.05.0150 sets forth design incentives to allow for an increase in the FAR if additional design features are incorporated and deductions to the FAR imposed for the use of less desirable designs features. He referred to Attachment 1 containing information on FARs on Pages 14-23, and noted that the minute excerpts for all of the study sessions are also included as attachments to the Staff Report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He stated that based upon the study session discussion from May and October of 2007, Staff has revised the basic FAR provisions as follows: 1. Exclude basement areas, if the basement is totally below natural grade level. 2. Revised the base and maximum FARs to keep the ratio the same for lots 6,000 sq. ft. or greater, no matter the how large the lot. . He then noted that Staff has added language to eliminate Covered Roof Access Structure (GRAS) from the ZC and to exclude Sid floor ele'Jator shaft enclosures of up to 40 sq. ft. from the FAR. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked what the 40 sq. ft. would include. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this area would include the footprint for the elevator shaft and the minimum required landing area in front of the elevator, as required by Building Code. He noted that equipment would not be included in this 40 sq. ft. area, as most residential units are hydraulic lifts with the equipment located within the shaft area above or below the elevator. Eldon Alexander noted that first and 2nd floors would lose square footage, as the elevator shaft would have to go through these floors. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff could create an exclusion for elevator shafts on first and 2nd floors. Chairperson Deaton clarified that this would allow for 40 sq. ft. .on each floor to be excluded from the FAR. Mr. Whittenberg confinTIed that this was correct and that anything beyond 40 sq. ft. would be included as part of the FAR. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if this would include the landing on each floor. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this would be included in the 40 sq. ft. He added that Staff would modify the language throuJlhout the section on FARs to allow an exclusion for interior living space on first and 2n floors of 25 sq. ft. for the e\e'Jator shaft; 40 sq. ft. of a 2nd floor roof deck to allow for the elevator shaft, the landing, and any equipment; and 25 sq. ft. for elevator shafts that open onto 3rd floor living space. . 10 of 20 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 -~ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ~ City of Seel Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008 Robert Goldberg asked how the FAR treats staircases, which would be the alternative to elevators. Mr. WhittenbefJI stated that it counts only on the first floor and noted that the staircase and 2nd and 3 floor landings don't count as living space. Mr. Goldberg noted that impacts for an elevator shaft would be comparable to a staircase and should be considered in the FAR. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the design of the stairways varies, making if difficult to assign a specific FAR exclusion, but noted that 40 sq. ft. would probably be a reasonable number for staircases. Chairperson Deaton asked what the exclusion would be for homes having both an elevator and a staircase, which would usually be the case for two- or three-story homes. Mr. Whittenberg explained that an elevator is not required by ZC, but Staff has suggested that homeowners be given a credit for building the elevator inside the living space. Chairperson Deaton stated that she would like to keep the proposed language as presented by Staff and only allow an exclusion for an elevator on 3m floor living space. Commissioner Roberts agreed. Mr. Whittenberg then proceeded with a discussion on 3m floor FARs and noted that at the last few meetings Staff proposed a base FAR of 0.10 for 3rd floor with a maximum of 0.15, with the requirement to include incentive design features in order to be granted the maximum and deductions made for the inclusion of less desirable design features. Chairperson Deaton requested. an' example of what the 3rd story FAR would be for someone constructing a home on a 37.5-ft. wide lot while staying within all of the ZC standards. Mr. Whittenberg stated that for a 37.5 wide x 117.5 long lot, the base FAR of 0.10 would allow for 440 sq. ft. on the 3rd floor, and with design incentives the maximum FAR would be 0.15, or 661 sq. ft.; however, deductions could be imposed if less desirable design features are used, which could create a FAR of less than 0.10. Eldon Alexander noted that there may be the perception by the public that using FARs could lead to oversize homes leading the PC to reduce FARs. He stated that under the current ZC 3rd stories are allowed on the rear half of 37.5-ft. wide lots or wider with a maximum allowable square footage of approximately 1,500 sq. ft., and a 3rd story roof deck could also measure 1,500 sq. ft. He indicated that a reduction to 440 sq. ft. was in essence "stealing" an opportunity for property owners to use their property to construct larger homes. He added that the wider lots are traditionally marketed by stating that homeowners can "build more" and have greater utilization on larger lots. He pondered whether there were more practical solutions to this, as the law provides that when you purchase a property you have rights for everything under and over the property. Wrth regard to concems expressed about having a 3-story home affecting air circulation, sunlight, and privacy, Mr. Alexander noted that if this is a concern, then it would be wise for a homeowner to purchase neighboring lots and maintain them free of any development. He also proposed renting the 3rd or 2nd floor of a neighboring home and leaving those floors vacant in order to preserve privacy. He then postured that using only daylight planes, building envelope, stepbacks, cutouts, and design incentives this would probably reduce the size of a 3rd story to approximately 900 sq. ft. He proposed a FAR of 0.15 with a maximum of .20 for a 37.5 x 117.5 ft. lot providing a range of 660 sq. ft. to 880 sq. ft. of living space. Chairperson Deaton asked about what a 50 x 117.5 ft. lot would look like. Mr. Alexander stated that this size lot would provide a range of 11 of 20 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 Saal Beach Planning Commission Mealing Minutes of March 5, 2008 881 sq. ft. to 1,174 sq. ft. He added that he does disagree with Staffs description of what people want for 3rd stories, and noted they usually want both a recreation room and a master suite on the 3rd floor. . Robert Goldberg requested clarification on Mr. Whittenberg's comment that the base FAR could be reduced based upon the use of the proposed design features. He noted that he assumed that the base was the base, regardless of the design features. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was the initial proposal; however, based upon discussion the PC requested that this language be removed and deductions would now be applied to the base to minimize the use of less desirable architectural features. Chairperson Deaton asked if this applied only to 3rd stories. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that this would apply to all floors. Mr. Goldberg stated that he did not pick this up in reading that section of the ZC and noted that perhaps the language could be more explicit. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the language appears in Attachment 1. Mr. Goldberg then inquired about his comment on how the current ZC as well as the proposed ZC provides incentive for people to build 3rd stories in order to maximize the value of their home. He proposed the compromise of having a ZC that permits 3rd stories, but does not provide a financial incentive for building them. He recommended doing away with the Additional Floor Area Ration for 3rd stories in the RHO 20 District and setting a FAR for the whole . structure, and the PC could then determine to increase the base and maximum FARs. . He noted that this would have to create more open space around structures. He reiterated that a ZC that is neutral to financial incentives for 3rd stories would best serve the community. Eldon Alexander stated that the history of Old Town is that not many 3rd story homes have been constructed due to concems over mansionization. He said that usually it is developers who construct homes based upon the potential for profit, but families are concemed with building a comfortable home that meets their needs. . Mr. Morton referred to Page 17 of the presentation and questioned the FARs and asked how for a 37.5 x 100-ft. lot could he be granted a 3rd story FAR of 562 sq. ft. Mr. Whittenberg referred to Page 22-24 and explained that incorporating some of these design incentives would provide for a greater FAR. Mr. Morton noted that for a 50 x 117.5-ft. lot the 0.15 FAR for a 3rd story is 881 sq. ft., which is huge, and he believes that a standard FAR of 0.1 0 should be used regardless of the size of a lot. Mike Bubbe stated that after talking with many people in Old Town, 80 percent do not want 3rd stories. He indicated that Mr. Goldberg's recommendations are very reasonable, and noted that through the years as the City has grown and evolved property rights have also changed, with regard to what people can and cannot do with or on their properties. He stated that with more lots being combined and larger homes being constructed, the community is concerned with preserving sunshine, breezes, and privacy. Joyce. Parque stated that she was in agreement with Mr. Alexander's comments regarding taking away property rights. She noted that most of the 3-stoiy structures in . 12 of 20 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 -~ 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 Meeting Minutes of Marr;h 5, 2008 Old Town are apartment complexes, and people with larger lots are being discriminated against by limiting 3rd stories. Commissioner Roberts stated his concem with Mr. Goldberg's recommendation is that the PC would immediately have to address the issue of increasing the FAR and would find that because of the cost involved in building a 3rd story, homeowners would then maximize the first and 2nd floor to get the most square footage. He noted that this would hinder what the City is attempting to do in terms of "canyon effects" with first and 2nd stories. He said that although he believes a FAR of 375 sq. ft. is a bit small, he is comfortable with the proposed FARs and the bonus incentives are reasonable enough to allow for a FAR of 0.15. Chairperson Deaton stated that the PC got to addressing the issue of 3rd stories as a result of an argument among Old Town residents on whether 3rd stories are desirable, and City Council (CC) made the decision to pass an ordinance prohibiting 3rd stories, and a petition drive promising to take this to a vote was launched, and the issue was then passed on to the PC for resolution. She continued by noting that proponents on both sides of the issue were asked to come to a compromise, and she believes that over the last 13 months a lot of hard work has gone into this process. She agreed that people like to build recreation-rooms and master suites on 3rd floors, but if neighbors are being harmed by this, it is not right, as both people have property rights, and how do you divide down the middle? She said that the PC has essentially been asked "to cut the baby in half," and the result is that no one is going to be happy. She congratulated Mr. Whittenberg on his work on the FAR Table, and stated that this was a very creative and constructive way to handle this problem, and is the product of a lot of thought that gives people altematives and allows for diversity. She said if someone really wants that large 3rd story, they will have to incorporate the bonus incentives. She continued by stating that she stands by all of the phone calls and comments she received in opposition to 3rd stories and she is willing to stand behind this product that has resulted from 13 months of work. Chairperson Deaton then stated that she knows the people of Old Town have asked for no 3rd stories, and apologized that it has not ended up this way. Commissioner Bello stated that the PC and Staff have worked very hard and from the beginning have known what the people of Old Town wanted, and that there would have to be a compromise. She also complimented the Director of Development Services for all of the hard work done on the new ZC. Commissioner Massa-lavitt stated that Mr. Whittenberg has done an astounding job, and she does know that she could have done anything as good. Commissioner Delay asked if it were possible to have some flexibility to change the ZC. Mr. Whittenberg stated that all of the proposals will be revisited during the public hearings and the PC will make recommendations to CC for modifications to items within the ZC until the CC adopts an ordinance on the ZC. At that point the only way to amend the ZC would be to conduct further public hearings. Commissioner Delay stated that 13 of 20 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 Se81 Beach Planning CommIssion Meating Minutes of Meith 5, 2008 he is satisfied with the FARs and complimented Mr. Whittenberg on a "wonderful job," and stated that he believes Staff has come up with the best solution. . Eldon Alexander said that we are not here to congratulate Mr. Whittenberg, but to study the ZC, and he is getting perturbed when it appears that all discussions end with a statement on all the work Mr. Whittenberg has done. He stated that he also has done a lot of work, but the PC has failed to come up with a definition of "mansionization" in order to "get rid of this big bugaboo." Chairperson Deaton inte~ected that Mr. Alexander knows what the process is: he has been a huge part of this process, the PC has taken his input, and the ZC has been changed based upon that input, and for him now to say that the PC has not studied this in the last 13 months, listening to what he has to say, is not accurate. Mr. Alexander stated that the PC has only listened to a small faction in town, and this is how this process began, and the PC has not looked at what this actually requires. Chairperson Deaton thanked Mr. Alexander for his opinion. Chairperson Deaton requestetl a consensus from the PC for the table of FARs on Page 17 of the presentation handout using the range of 0.10 to 0.15. The Commission was unanimous in moving forward with this proposal. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the actual language for this proposal appears on Page 19 of the handout. He then referretl to Page 22-26 where the proposed design incentives and deductions tables appear. Chairperson Deaton asked if there were any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Roberts asked if daylight planes feed into the incentives. Mr. Whittenberg explained that daylight planes restrict the roof pitch of what is built on 3rd floors, but does not necessarily limit the FAR. Commissioner Roberts asked if it is possible to get around the daylight plane with setbacks. Mr. Whittenberg stated that increasing setbacks is one of the basic ways to meet the daylight plane. Commissioner Roberts asked if Mr. Whittenberg was comfortable in having two standards do the same thing. Mr. Whittenberg stated that what Staff has attempted to do is to create a reasonable size area for buildings while encouraging people to move the structure in towards the center of the lot, allowing for more open space. Commissioner Roberts then referred to Item 5 on Page 24 and noted that this is a very important item in terms of privacy and he could see moving the FAR bonus up to .02 or .03 to encourage this type of window on 3m floors. Mr. Whittenberg stated he would use .02 in the proposal and see where this goes. The Commission agreed. Mr. Whittenberg added that Staff could present more ideas on how to deal with privacy incursion from 3rd floor windows. Chairperson Deaton suggested'using a .02 FAR bonus for all 3rd story side windows. The Commission concurred. . Robert Goldberg referred to No.7 on Page 24, which grovides for a FAR bonus for having fewer windows and stated that visually many 3 stories project a large mass effect from the rear, and windows help to break up this solid mass. Chairperson Deaton stated that plantings of vines help cover these walls and provide relief from the mass. Mr. Goldberg recommended removing No.7. . 14 of 20 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .20 21 22 .~ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 - City of Seal Baach Planning Commission Meating Mlmrtas of March 5, 2008 Joyce Parque stated that these standards should also be applied to two-story homes and to the homes in Bridgeport, as they are covering 2nd story balconies and converting them to living space, and creating more wall mass. Chairperson Deaton asked if there are FAR bonuses for first and 2nd stories. Mr. Whittenberg noted that these are listed in Attachment 1 of the Staff Report. Chairperson Deaton polled the Commission regarding eliminating Item 7 on Page 24. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt also recommended deleting Item 7 and increasing the FAR bonus for Item 5 from .01 to .02 and Item 6 from .02 to .03. The Commission was in agreement. Commissioner Roberts noted that this would eliminate the need to impose 3rl:l floor setbacks. Chairperson Deaton asked if this would affect the daylight plane. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would depend upon the roof pitch. Chairperson Deaton proposed increasing the FAR bonus for Item 5 from .01 to .02 and leaving Item 6 as proposed at .02 and deleting Item 7. The Commission agreed. Mr. Whittenberg then referred to the proposed design incentives on Pages 25-26 and noted that a FAR deduction would be imposed if construction is at the minimum setback for more than 40% of a 3rt! floor side yard wall. He suggested that, based upon this discussion, Item 6 on Page 26 should be removed. The Commission agreed. The Director of Development Services then referred to Page 28 and noted that the proposed ratio of 2nd story building area to 1st story building area for the RHO 20 District is 120-140. He explained that a 120 ratio for ground floor living space for a 25-ft. wide lot would equal a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. and on the 2nd floor the maximum would be 1,200 sq. ft.. Chairperson Deaton asked what Staff would recommend after conducting discussions with the architects. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it doesn't make a difference. He added that the smaller number probably encourages more ground floor space to be built, so that the percentage can be maxed out on the 2nd floor, so the smaller the number the larger the ground floor and the smaller the 2nd floor. Chairperson Deaton then stated that the PC must decide how much ground floor space should be allowed. Mr. Whittenberg noted that there are other standards that will prevent 1st floors taking up all of the ground space. Eldon Alexander proposed eliminating the ratio altogether, as this would already be addressed by all of the other proposed standards. He cautioned that imposing design incentives could limit creativity and diversity of design. Chairperson Deaton agreed with Mr. Alexander. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this is a discretionary item, and if the PC feels the other standards are sufficient to address this, then this ratio would not be needed. He recommended maintaining this for the low density areas of town, to prevent construction of "boxes. on The Hill or College Park EastNJest, and on the 50-ft. lots that are being created in Old Town, which leaves the potential for 4,000 sq. ft. of ground floor living space. Chairperson Deaton confirmed that in this case a second story could not be constructed. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this home could have a second story. Chairperson Deaton asked how the FAR comes into play here. Mr. Whittenberg explaiiled that the FAR is going to be based upon lot size. He noted that this may not be as necessary for the RHD-20 District as for some of the other districts. 15 of 20 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 Beech Plenning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008 Commissioner Roberts stated that in reviewing some of the tables, he does not believe that the PC has ever analyzed that number with the examples provided. He suggested eliminating the ratio. Mr. Whittenberg suggested removing it and addressing it in the Staff Report during the public hearings. Chairperson Deaton stated that she would like to know if the new ZC is addressed without this ratio, and whether having it will complicate matters. She noted that Mr. Whittenberg's recommendations would be helpful when removing this ration and preparing the Staff Report for the public hearings. The Commission was in agreement. . Mr. Whittenberg then referred to Page 33, Elevator Shaft Structures, which states that elevator shaft structures above the 25-ft. height limit must be incorporated into the 3rd floor living area. Chairperson Deaton asked if the ZC prevents elevators from being constructed on the sides of homes. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the ZC stipulates that the structure must be in the interior of the home and the opening must face either the front or rear of the lot. He noted that the 7-ft. allowance above the 25-ft. maximum would apply to 2-story homes and would be subject to the AUP process. Continuing with Page 34, Required Garage Exception - RLD-9 District, Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff recommends garage parking standards be on a sliding scale based upon the number of bedrooms in the home, and increased once there are more than 5 bedrooms. He noted that exceptions. would be granted for homes with 18-ft. wide by 20-ft. deep driveways, where the driveway could count for one of the required off street parking spaces. Chairperson Deaton asked how many spaces would be required for a 5-bedroom home. Mr. Whittenberg stated that 3 spaces would be required with the driveway counting for one space with a 2-car garage; and for a 6 bedroom home, 4 spaces would be required, with one on the driveway and 3 in the garage. Eldon Alexander asked what the definition of a "bedroom" would be. Mr. Whittenberg stated that a bedroom is a room with a closet. Joyce Parque asked how the short driveways in CPE could be counted for parking. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the driveway must measure 18-ft. wide by 20-ft. deep in order to take advantage of this. Ms. Parque noted that in Old Town, cars are required to be parked inside garages. Chairperson Deaton asked what the pleasure of the PC would be. Commissioner Roberts asked if the standard could be 18 ft. deep x 18ft. wide. Mr. Whittenberg stated that under the Vehicle Code there are prohibitions against parked cars blocking the sidewalk. Commissioner Roberts stated that parking in CPE is not a problem, and never will be. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff is attempting to allow credit for people that do park their cars on their property. Commissioner Roberts stated that he does not want this to be so restrictive since 95% of the car population can fit on an 18-ft. driveway, but the driveway would not be inconformity because it does not have the 20-ft. depth. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff is comfortable with the 18-ft. by 18 ft. dimensions, as many of the homes in CPE have an 18-ft. setback. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt added that those garages that have doors that swing upward could be a problem. Commissioner Roberts recommended allowing the 18-ft. by 18 ft. dimensions for the RLD-9 District. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that she believes. it needs to be 20 feet deep, as even if the garage has a roll-up door, residents are not going to pull right up to the garage door when parking, and there are a lot of SUVs out there. Mr. Whittenberg . . 16 of 20 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 -~ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 -~ CIty o( Seel Beech Plennlng Commission Meeting Minutes o( Merch 5, 2008 noted that if residents can't get their SUV in or out of their own garage, they would probably park along the curb in front of the house. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that this is not meant for people living in CPE now with the existing conditions, but for when someone wants to add a 5th bedroom. Commissioner Roberts reiterated that he does not see a problem. Mr. Whittenberg suggested allowing the smaller dimensions with the requirement for a roll-up door. Commission Roberts stated that he does not see the need for roll-up doors. Chairperson Deaton stated that the bottom line is that if their car is overhanging the sidewalk, it is a police violation, and they will get ticketed. She then noted that most people have gone to roll-up garage doors anyway. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt added that the PC does not want to create the potential for people wanting to count the driveway as a legal parking space getting ticketed for having their car hanging over the sidewalk. Chairperson Deaton polled the Commission on allowing the 18-ft. by 18 ft. dimensions subject to the requirement of a roll-up door. The Commission agreed. Eldon Alexander asked if the same standards would apply for garages in Old Town. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this only applies to the RLD-9 District, and noted that it could be applicable in the RHD-20 District, but homes would have to provide a 24-ft. tuming radius from the end of the 18-ft. area in front of the garage in order to get out onto the alley, which would require setting the garage in 27 feet as opposed to 9 feet.. Chairperson Deaton asked that Staff provide Mr. Alexander with the reference page for the garage requirements in Old Town. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the same standard applies as for the rest of Seal Beach. Mr. Alexander suggested that an exception be made for the RHD-20 District, as a parking space could be provided on the driveway pad in front of a 2-car garage. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Mr. Alexander is referring to a parallel space across the front of the garage, so that the car blocks the garage, and the other option is one that allows for entry into one of the garage spaces, even with a car on the driveway. He added that tandem parking is allowed under the new ZC. Commissioner Roberts asked if it were illegal to park parallel to the garage door. Chairperson Deaton said it is not, but it is not counted as a parking space. Mr. Alexander stated that the same problem would exist in CPE and The Hill, if a car is parked on an 18 ft. x 20 ft. pad. Mr. Whittenberg noted that parking parallel in front of alley garages does create a problem for neighbors when residents are having difficulty backing their cars out of their garages. Chairperson Deaton agreed. Mr. Whittenberg noted that most of the 5 bedroom homes in Old Town are being constructed on the wider lots, making it easier to provide a 3-car garage. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that the garage exception would apply only to the RLD-9 District with the 18-ft. by 18 ft. dimensions and the requirement for a roll-up door. Mr. Whittenberg then referred to Page 39, Roof Decks, and reviewed the language stating that the required deck railing cannot exceed the main building envelope sides. He noted that for a 2-story home, the building envelope would force the required railing to be moved inward, depending upon the roof pitch of the home, so that the deck will not reach to the edge of the home. He added that roof decks will not be allowed above a height of 21.5 feet for lots more than 37.5 feet wide. 17 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 City of Seel Beech Planning Commission Meeting Minules of Merch 5, 2008 Mr. Whittenberg then continued with Page 40, Elevator Shafts, and explained that these. would be subject to the AUP process if they exceed the maximum height within a particular district. He then reviewed the standards for each district as listed on Pages 43-44. . Chairperson Deaton noted that the time was 11 :00 p.m. and requested a motion to continue the meeting beyond 11 :00 p.m. MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Bello to proceed with the Planning Commission meeting of March 5, 2008 beyond 11 :00 p.m. until all business has been completed. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Deaton, Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts None None Mr. Whittenberg continued with the Commercial Zone standards on Page 45 related to Public Open Space and stated that for commercial buildings over 25,000 sq. ft. open space must be provided at a ratio of 25 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. of building area, with minimum dimensions of 15 .ft. and within 40 ft. of and visible from a street-facing. property line. He added that AUP approval would be required for commercial buildings that are not within 40 ft. of and visible form a street-facing property line. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked what would be in the open space. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the space would include street furniture and seating areas. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if this open space would have to be located in one area, or could it be spread throughout the property. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the open space must have a minimum dimension of 15 ft. in any direction and could be spread throughout a center. . With regard to Building Orientation on Page 49, Mr. Whittenberg noted the ZC states that the main entrance must face a public street, but this may not always be the best design for shopping centers, so Staff is suggesting that this be done through an AUP to allow Staff to determine designs for street-facing elevations. Chairperson Deaton requested that language be included requiring that rear-facing buildings provide some type of screening for elevations facing the street. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff could add language addressing the design treatment of the exterior of walls facing the street. Mr. Whittenberg then discussed proposed language for the Recreation-Golf District that states that any residential use on a recreational golf property would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and must meet the design standards for a single-family residence (SFR) or for multi-family residence if there are multiple living units. With regard to Accessory Business Uses and Activities on Page 56, the Director of Development Services referred to Page 60 and noted the permitted types of entertainment activities that can occur by right, 7 nights a week on a business property. . 18 of 20 .~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .20 21 22 -~ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 - City of Seal Baach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008 He noted that for amplified, live music or something on a stage, a CUP would be required. Mr. Whittenberg then moved on to Home Occupations on Page 61 and stated that these would also be allowed through the AUP process. Chairperson Deaton suggested that AUPs be subject to a 12-month review. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff will provide notice of AUPs and people will have an opportunity to express concerns, and based upon that Staff will issue or deny a permit. He noted that the option to revoke these permits will always be available. The Commission agreed that a 12-month review be imposed on AUPs. The Director of Development Services then referred to Page 69, Warehouse Retail and Large-Scale Commercial Projects, and noted that in several places in the ZC there is language about the amount of square footage that would define this type of use. He said that Staff needs direction from the PC on a maximum square footage for this type of use. He indicated that 20,000 square feet was proposed at one time. Chairperson Deaton stated that she was fine with 20,000 sq. ft. and Commissioner Massa-Lavitt agreed. The Commission was in agreement. Mr. Whittenberg briefly reviewed the standards for off. street loading noting that the proposed standards provide for at least 2 customer loading spaces per business establishment or 1 customer loading space per 20,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Roberts stated that 20,000 sq. ft. is very large, and proposed 10,000 sq. ft. On Areas to be Landscaped on Page 79, Staff proposes when a street side or rear property line wall over 6 ft. high is constructed, that landscape pockets with minimum dimensions of 1-ft. deep by 5 ft. long are provided every 25 ft. along the length of the wall. The Commission was in agreement. Mr. Whittenberg then referred to Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots on Page 82 and noted that a CUP may be granted to rebuild a home as it was without it having to meet the standards for fac;:ade articulation and the additional front step back above 14 feet. He then explained that the ZC standards for restoration of nonconforming residential structures with damage of less than 50% would not change, and if damage is greater than 50% the structure can be rebuilt but would have to meet FAR and Main Building Envelope standards as part of the reconstruction. Commissioner Roberts asked if this applied to both single-family residence (SFR) and multi-unit structures. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that it applies to both and stated that for SFRs there are provisions for rebuilding, but the required parking must then. be provided. Commissioner Roberts stated that it appears that individuals are being punished for having experienced this type of disaster. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that this is pretty typical for most cities. Mr. Whittenberg stated that many cities will require that any rebuilds of nonconforming structures be completed to current city standards. Commissioner Roberts stated that he would vote against this. Chairperson Deaton confirmed that the current ZC states that for damage greater than 50% in order to rebuild as was, you must provide the minimum number of required parking spaces, 19 of 20 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 Saal Beach Planning Commission Maetlng Minutes of March 5, 2008 meet minimum setbacks, meet height standards, etc. Chairperson Deaton stated that she is fine with this. Mr. Whittenberg noted that all homes in CPE, CPW, and the Hill are in conformance with the existing code. Mr. Whittenberg suggested that these items be left out and that the ZC remain as is for damage to nonconforming structures. The Commissioners all agreed to leave the ZC as is. . Chairperson Deaton then thanked everyone for participating in this process tonight. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Flower stated that he does have the information requested by Chairperson Deaton related to a legal case involving the City of Half Moon Bay, but he will defer his report until the next scheduled meeting. Chairperson Deaton requested that Mr. Flower prepare a memo to forward to the Commissioners. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Massa-Lavitt requested an update on the Seal Beach Townhomes Project. Mr. Whittenberg reported that the application had been withdrawn. Commissioner Bello requested a rundown of the future scheduled meetings. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the March 19, 2007, will entail a public hearing for the entire Zoning Code. Chairperson Deaton added that the March 19th meeting would begin with the ZC section on Residential Uses, and she is committed to getting through it on that evening. . Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Final Draft Zoning Code would be provided to the Commissioners on Friday or Monday and after that members of the public may request a copy. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Deaton adjourned the meeting at 11 :30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~...^- _ Ds......<:l::. ~ Carmen Alvarez, Executive se~retary Planning Department APPROVAL The Commission on approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Wednesday, March 5, 2008. . 20 of 20 Public Hearing 1'9: Final Dreft- Title 11: Zoning Seel Beach Municipal Code, City Council Staff Report Apri/14, 2008 . ATTACHMENT 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, MARCH 26. 2008 . . CC Staff Raport.Q4..14-0S 19 . . . March 26, 2008 STAFF REPORT - Supplemental To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - FINAL DRAFT - MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 11: ZONING SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Conduct continued Public Hearing by receiving the Supplemental Staff Report, public comments and Commission discussion; consider the "Final Draft Trtle 11: Zoning" and public comments; and provide comments regarding Negative Declaration 08-1. Close the public hearing. If the Commission determines to close the public hearing, take the following actions: D Provide any comments regarding Initial StudylNegative Declaration 08-1, and D Adopt Resolution Number 08-13, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Amending the Seal Beach Municipal Code by Deleting Chapter 28, Zoning, in its Entirety and Adopting a New Title 11, Zoning. (Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the Resolution) BACKGROUND: This is a continued public hearing from March 19 to receive additional public testimony regarding the consideration of the adoption of a new Zoning Code for the City of Seal Beach. Please refer to your previously distributed copy of "Seal Beach Municipal Code Final Draft - Trtle 11: Zoning, March 2008" to review the document under consideration for review and adoption. The "Final Draft Trtle 11: Zoning" is noted as Attachment 2 of the Staff report, but not provided due to the length of the document Copies were made available at each library in the City, at City Hall, and posted on the City's Web Page for viewing and download at: 'http://pubrec.ci.seal-beach.ca.uslweblink7/City-wide Agendas - Drafts - NoticeslFinal Draft and Notices - Title 11 - Zoning Code", on March 11, 2008. \\SBNAS\U....\LWhlttenberglMy DocumentslZoning Coda RavlsIona\Sea1 Beach RevlslonslFlnaJ Dmfl Zoning CodeIPC Staff Roport.03-2B-oB.doc\LWI03-2B-oB Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft. TiIJa 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEfVED, STAFF RESPONSES, AND COMMISISON DETERMINATIONS AT MARCH 19, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING: Public Comments: During the March 19, 2008 Public Hearing the Commission received comments, questions, and suggested revisions from a total of 12 persons. Provided below is a brief summary of those comments: CJ Seth Eaker, Seal Beach Chamber of Commerce - supports the proposed provision of Section 4.05.010 regarding un-amplified live entertainment at a commercial business location and supports the determination of the Planning Commission that approval of a "Shared Parking" program should be by Conditional Use Permit, and not by Administrative Use Permit. CJ Mike Buhbe - would prefer there be no three-story residential development allowed but supports the proposed Zoning Code provisions as a good compromise; supports the complexity of the proposed residential development regulations; and requested confirmation that the proposed Zoning Code would not allow for a roof deck on the roof of a third floor IMng area. . D Carla Watson - supports the proposed Zoning Code provisions for three-story residential development as a good compromise. CJ Dave Bromhead - supports the proposed Zoning Code provisions for three-story residential development as a good compromise. CJ Tom Blackman - would prefer there be no three-story residential development allowed but recognizes the problems and commends the efforts of the City on the issue. CJ John _ - supports the proposed Zoning Code provisions for three-story residential development as a reasonable compromise. CJ Jim Wotfelt - will soon be living next to a three-story home and feels that all homes should be limited to 2 stories in height D Joyce Parque - believes the proposed FAR standards are a "downzoning" of property, even for lots that are currently limited to 2-story construction; Bridgeport . PC Stall Raport.03-~ 2 . . . Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Dreft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beech Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Rsport March 26, 2008 should not be allowed to enclose existing roof decks above an existing first floor living area as additional IMng space; new units being placed in the Seal Beach Trailer Park should be required to provide 2 parking spaces, as are all other homes in the City; how can a 10,000 pound microwave dish be installed without any notice to neighbors? !J Scott Levitt - City should evaluate whether there will be economic impacts on the community due to any loss in property tax revenues if the size of homes that can be built is limited; asked whether the proposed Zoning Code been reviewed by licensed architects to see if all of design standards work together in a reasonable manner; posed a question regarding "comice' provisions in Section 1.05.020.C; asked why is "window trim" being required and whether the 15% landscaping requirement can be met in narrow side yard areas; suggested the tenn "total structural coverage" is used in the FAR Bonus Table, but is not defined; asked how does setback provision in FAR Bonus Table, Item 19 apply to Old Town. The Commission asked Mr. Levitt to provide a copy of his written comments to Staff for its review and evaluation. !J Eldon Alexander - City should evaluate whether there will be economic impacts on the community due to any loss in property tax revenues if the size of homes that can be built is limited; requested Staff to explain why no economic analysis is before the Planning Commission; feels there is no parking problem in Old Town other than the area bounded by Pacific Coast Highway and Electric Avenue and Twelfth Street and Seal Beach Boulevard; questioned why the proposed increase in required garage parking spaces; requested clarification of the definition of a "bedroom' as a room that includes a "closet", as verbally stated at the March 5 Planning Commission Study Session. !J Warren Morton - feels the City is on the right track and should continue on. !J Robert Goldberg - City Council should consider any potential budget impacts upon the community as part of the budget approval process; believes the City finances are beginning to show problems. Staff Responses: !J In response to comments of Tom Blackman, Director Whittenberg clarified that 3- story single-family homes can only be built on lots in "Old Town' that are 37.5 feet wide or wider. PC staff Reporl.03-28-OB 3 Continuad Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, SupP/!lITI8ntal Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 D In response to the request of Eldon Alexander, Director Whittenberg explained that the Planning Commission, as a recommending body to the City Council on land use matters, does not normally consider economic impacts absent express direction from the City Council; economic impacts of any project are not part of the required environmental analysis under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); the City Council, as the final decision-making and legislative body of the City, always has the discretion to consider potential economic impacts of any of its decisions. Please review additional discussion below regarding "Discussion of Economic Impact Study Request." Commission Direction and Determinations: D "Shared Parking Program" approval to require Conditional Use Permit approval, not Administrative Use Permit approval. Motion by Roberts/second by Massa- Lavitt: Approved S-O. D Section 2.0S.01S.x.3 language to require an .offser, not a "setback." Motion by Roberts/second by Bello: Approved 5-0. . D Commissioner Roberts requested that proposed Resolution 08-13 contain language requesting the City Council to consider fiscal impacts. The Commission concurred. Please review additional discussion below regarding "Discussion of Economic Impact Study Request." D Commissioner Roberts requested Staff to address at a future meeting the "satellite dish" issue being raised by Joyce Parque. [J Commissioner Roberts indicated he supported the proposed parking standard for S bedroom or larger homes. D Commissioner Roberts requested an update on the issue of trash area enclosures, location and upkeep. Director Whittenberg indicated that after meeting with Orange County Health Care Agency and Orange County Fire Authority representatives that this issue will trail the adoption of the Zoning Code and that Staff will return in the future with potential amendments to the Zoning Code to address this issue. D Commissioner Roberts indicated he had no comments on Negative Declaration 08-1. . pc Sta1f Reporl.03-2lXlB 4 . . . Continued Public Hearing re: Final Draft - 71tie 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, SUpplemental Plennlng Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 At the request of Director Whittenberg, the Commission indicated its concurrence regarding the requested re-numbering of TItle 11 as presented in the Memorandum re: "Proposed Numbering - Title 11: Zoning", dated March 19.2008. Additional Staff Responses after Review of Public Hearing Discussion: CJ CJ The proposed 'FAR Standards' do not constiMe a "downzoning: In the context of residentially zoned properties the term "downzoning' is used by some people to characterize a zoning decision that reduces the number of. permitted residential units on a particular property. The proposed "FAR Standards' of Title 11: Zoning, do not reduce the number 0 permitted units. CJ The existing development standards for the BridgeporVSuburbia area are not being changed in any manner by the provisions of Title 11; Zoning. CJ Parking requirements for the Seal Beach Trailer Park were established by an 'Unclassified Use Permit" that was approved when the trailer park was re-Iocated to its current location. A common parking area was approved as part of that action. CJ Staff is investigating the satellite dish matter and will report back to the Planning Commission on this matter at a later time. Proposed Chapter 4.70: Wireless Communications Facilities, incorporates standards and procedures that are in compliance with the provisions of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and any interpretative decisions thereof issued by the Federal Communications Commission. CJ The provisions of Chapter 2.05: Residential Districts, were reviewed by 2 licensed and practicing architects that have designed many homes in Seal Beach. Many of the provisions in the "Preliminary Draft' document were revised based on their comments and suggestions. Please refer to the July 18, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report, pages 13 through 62, which provides a review of comments received regarding the proposed residential development standards from these architects, the Planning Commission, other commenting parties, and revisions that were incorporated into the "Final Draft' based on all of that input pc Stall Reporl.03-26-0B 5 Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report Merch 26, 2008 Staff Responses to Comment Letter from Scott Levitt (Revised Letter of March 21, 2008): Please refer to Attachment 3 to review the complete comment letter from Scott Levitt (Revised Letter of March 21, 2008). Provided below are Mr. Levitt's comments and a Staff Response. a. Sect. 1.10.015(A) Director shall determine uncertainty will just create, biasness, accusations of biasness as well as lawsuits that we will all pay for Staff Response: Director Determinations are appealable to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 1.10.015.0.5: Appeal. b. 1.15.020(C) Chimneys, eaves, cornices, and bay windows up to 12 ft. length are not included in measurement of buildings, what about longer than 12 ft. ? Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the language and is proposing a revision to clarify the intent of the provision. We propose the follOwing revised language: . .C. Measurements Involving a Structure. Measurements involving a structure are made to the closest wall of the structure. Eaves and cornices are not included in the measurement Chimneys, S8':S8, 8sFRiss8, and bay windows up to 12 feet in length are not included in the measurement. Other features, such as covered porches and entrances, are included in the measurement. Structures or portions of structures that are entirely underground are not included in measuring required distances. See Figure 1.15.020.C.1: Measurements Involving a Structure, and Figure 1.15.020.C.2: Architectural Projections into Setbacks. . c. 1.15.045 "Floor area is the horizontal area of ALL floors in a building" B. states "Does not include garages, carports" Staff Response: Section 1.15.045: Determining Floor Area, includes the following introductory statement "91.15.045 Determining Floor Area. PC Staff ~rl.03-26-0B . 6 . . . Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Dreft - TttIa 11: Zoning S981 Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report MaJch 26, 2008 Floor area is the horizontal area (expressed in square feet) of all floors included within a building or buildings, accordina to the followina rules:" (Emphasis added. Sub-section B: Excluded from Floor Area, clearly indicates those types of floor areas that are not included in "Floor Area," including garages, carports, and unenclosed porches. d. 1.15.055 Lot Coverage "ratio of the footprint of all structures Including garages" Staff Response: This is a correct statement Lot Coverage is a "maximum" standard, and is defined in Chapter 6 as "the ratio of the footprint of all principal and accessory structures on a lot to the lot area," which cannot be exceeded and the Floor Area Ratio is a separate standard that also cannot be exceeded unless the development utilizes the Additional Design Incentives set forth in either Table 2.05.015.0.1: Additional Design Incentive FAR Bonuses" or Table 2.05.015.E.1: Additional Design Incentive FAR Bonuses - Third Floor." e. Table 2.05.015 (pg. 7) Max lot Coverage is 75%, Std now on for example 2500 sq. foot lot, Sides (3x2x100=600)+(19x9=171)+(19x12=228}=999, give 60% MAX lot coverage, same scenario for 110' and117.5' lots Staff Response: The basic building envelope is influenced by both lot coverage and required setback standards. In the existing Code, the RHD-20 District has a 75% lot coverage ratio. However, required setbacks, which are "minimum standards," reduce the available area in which a residence can be built. Accordingly, due, in great part to Code required setbacks, few, if any of the lots within the RHD-20 District can be built with 75% lot coverage. Generally, lots in the RHD-20 District have an effective lot coverage of between approximately 60% and 69%. Taking into consideration only the setback standards (there may be other Code requirements that reduce available lot coverage) lots that are 117.5 x 50 .feet in the RHD-20 District could have a maximum lot coverage of approximately 66.8%. Please refer to Attachment 4 to review the detailed calculations of the effective, allowable "lot coverage". Based on the required "minimum setback" standards of the Code, which are not proposed for any change, and assuming the following basic development standards of a 12-foot front yard setback and a 9-foot rear yard setback (assumes a 15-foot wide alley) with a second floor projection of % of the required rear yard setback, lots in the RHD-20 District have the following effective, allowable "lot coverage": PC Sta1l Reporl.03-26-0B 7 Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning . 58al Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 D D D D D D D D 25 X 100 foot lot (2.500 SQuare feet): 25 x 117.5 foot lot (2.937.5 SQuare feet): 37.5 x 100 foot lot (3.750 SQuare teet): 37.5 x 117.5 foot lot (4.406.25 SQuare feet): 40 x 100 foot 101 (4,000 SQuare feet): 40 x 117.5 foot lot (4,700 SQuare feet): 50 x 100 foot lot (5.000 SQuare teet): 50 x 117.5 foot lot (5.875 SQuare feet): 63.5% 65.3% 66.8% 68.7% 66.8% 68.8% 66.8% 68.8% f. Table 2.05.015 Why are you excluding exterior stairs and limiting. Staff Response: This is an existing Zoning Code provision set forth in Section 28-400.C: Prohibited Uses (single-family dwellings). The prohibition was adopted to discourage illegal conversion of living space in a residence into a separate living unit and having a separate entrance, i.e., the exterior stairway. The prohibition was originally adopted by the City Council by Ordinance Number . 1380 on December 13, 1990 and revised by Ordinance Number 1429, adopted on January 26,1998. g. Why don't you NOW provide max square feet based on the proposed changes on all three standard lot sizes in Old Town, instead of just giving FAR's? Staff Response: This information is provided in this Supplemental Staff Report. Please refer to pages 14 through 23, and Attachments 5 through 7. This information has also previously been provided in the Staff reports or Presentations of: D March 7, 2007 Joint City CounciUPlanning Commission Presentation by Memorandum dated March 6, 2007 re: Zoning Code Revision - Chapter 2.05: Residential Districts; Residential Development Standards Comparison - Current Developments and Proposed FAR and Lot Coverage Standards: RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts; D May 23, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report, discussion on pages 4 through 8, and PC Staff Raport03-26-08 8 . . . . o Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft- TItle 11: Zoning Saaf Beach Municipal Code, SuppJamantal Planning Commission staff Report March 26, 2008 Attachment 4: Preliminary Draft Zoning Code Revision - Comparison of Existing Lot Coverage and Proposed FAR Standards re: Allowable Building Area; and Attachment 5: Residential Development Comparison - Current Developments & Proposed Standards, March 7 Joint City CouncillPlanning Commission Study Session; o o July 18, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report, discussion on pages 3 through 16, and o Attachment 1: Comparison of Proposed FAR to Current Lot Coverage (As Revised by Staff May 10, 2007); o Attachment 2: Preliminary Draft Zoning Code - Comparison of Existing Lot Coverage and Proposed FAR Standards re: Aflowable Building Areas; o Attachment 3: Residential Development Comparison - Current Developments & Proposed Standards, March 7 Joint City CounciVPlanning Commission Study Session; o Attachment 4: Development Analysis - Projects in Proposed RLD-9 District; and o Attachment 5: Development Analysis - Projects in Proposed RHO- 20 District. o October 10, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session Presentation, discussion on pages 4 through 49. o January 23, 2008 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report, discussion on pages 1-4, and o Attachment 1: Final Draft Zoning Code - Chapter 2.05: Residential Districts; Section 2.05.015.C: Floor Area Ratio; and Section 2.05.015.0; Floor Area Design Incentives and Deductions, pages 14-21 ; o Attachment 2: Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - May 23, 2007; and o Attachment 3: Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - October 10, 2007. o March 5, 2008 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report, discussion on pages 1-5, and o Attachment 1: Final Draft Zoning Code - Chapter 2.05: Residential Districts, pages 1-54; PC StafI Roporl.03-25-OB 9 Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TdIa 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 CI Attachment 2: Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - May 23, 2007; CI Attachment 5: Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - October 10, 2007; and CI Attachment 8: Planning Commission Minute Excerpt - February 6, 2008. h. Table continued, how can you recess windows 2' and why does it have to have Trim? I thought this town did not want cookie cutterfTruman show? Now every home built will have window trim. Staff Response: The window articulation standards only apply to street-facing windows and no specific design solution is mandated. i. Table continued 15% landscape. where?? On the side yards? So fire and emergency personal will no longer be able to get through, and people will store their garage cans outside of the sideyards? Staff Response: The 15% landscape standard is proposed to recognize the . need for permeable areas for NPDES permit compliance, the current landscape standards and the proposed "Open Space Requirements'. Upon further review of this matter as related to the RHD-20 District, Staff is proposing modifications to only require the provision of the "Open Space Requirements" set forth in Section 2.05.015.8B in lieu of the "Minimum Site Area Devoted to Landscaping (%)," as set forth in Table 2.05.015: Development Standards for Residential Districts, on page 10 of Part II: Base District Regulations. The proposed modification will require revision to Table 2.05.015: Development Standards for Residential Districts, and to Section 2.05.015.Z: Minimum Site Area Devoted to Landscaping. The provisions regarding "Minimum Permeable Surface - Maximum Paving in Street Facing Yards' set forth in Section 2.05.015.Y are proposed to remain without any modifications. The revised language to Table 2.05.015 would read: . PC Sta1l Raport.03-26-08 10 . Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TIlle 11: Zoning SaaJ BflBch Municipal Code, SUpplemental Planning Commission Staff Report Merch 26, 2008 Minimum Permeable SurfacelMaximum 60/50 60/50 60/50 60/50 60/50 60/50 M Paving in Street - Facing Yards (%) Minimum Site 40i Area Devoted to 25 15 15 (SS) 15 15 (Z) (SSI Landscaping (%) . Planting Required on Downslope Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (AA) Lots Open Space Requirements (BB) Minimum Common Open Space per unit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (BB) (sq. ft.) Minimum Private Open Space per unit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (BB) (sq. ft.) Pedestrian Walkways Yes Yes (CC) . PC staff Raport.03-26-08 11 Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TiIJa 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 The revised language to Section 2.05.015.Z would read: OZ. Minimum Site Area Devoted to Landscaping. In all residential districts except the RLD-9 District and the RHD-20 District no less than 15 percent of any site shall be devoted to landscaping. With the exception of areas for entry and exit, all required front and street side setbacks shall be landscaped and such areas shall be credited to the required landscaping. A minimum of 25 percent of any lot in the RLD-9 District shall be devoted to landscaping. Also refer to Section 2.05.015.88: Ooen Soace Reauirements for BDD/icable ODen SDace reaulrements in the RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts." j. FAR table bonus, landscaping? Where does the invasion of property rights end? The City is now going to try and dictate the type of plants in people's yards...1 thought the city wanted "architectural creativity?" Staff Response: The provisions of Table 2.05.015.0.1: Additional Design Incentive FAR Bonuses, are oDtional Items that a homeowner can utilize if they . choose. These "design incentives" are not mandatory. k. FAR table bonus table, 14, "total structural coverage" is not defined anywhere, and if you are limiting the coverage, then you can't give FAR bonus Staff Response: The "Design Incentive" referenced is now item 10 in Table 2.05.015.0.1, and the language has been revised from the "Preliminary Draff' language of ". . maximum totsl structural coverage. . " to read in the "Final Draff' as ". . . maximum totsllot coveraQe . ."The term "lot coverage" is defined in Section 6.05.010: Definitions of Specialized Tenns and Phrases. I. FAR table, 19, every second story in old town will be back 10 feet from 1St, so no more dbl high entry, great rooms? Every home will look the same, this requirement, NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED. Staff Response: The "Design Incentive" referenced is now item 15 in Table 2.05.015.D.1. As stated above in response to item oj", the provisions of Table 2.05.015.0.1: Additional Design Incentive FAR Bonuses, are oDtional items that a homeowner can utilize if they choose. These "design incentives" are not mandatory . . PC Sta1! Raport.03-26-oB 12 . . . Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Drat! - TiIJe 11: Zoning Seal Be8Ch Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 m. FAR 29, this is a violation of rights? speak to the city atty about this, plans require structural engineer, not architect, that is IBC, lets not deviate from that... Staff Response: The "Design Incentive' referenced is now item 21 in Table 2.05.015.0.1. As stated above in response to item oj", the provisions of Table 2.05.015.0.1: Addftional Design Incentive FAR Bonuses, are oDtionalltems that a homeowner can utilize if they choose. These "design incentives" are not mandatory. The provisions of the California Building Code will still apply. n. FAR 2.05.015.02 Deductions for flat roof or parapet wall within 10 feet of an interior side yrd??? How can anyone have any roof deck then...why not allow 20-30 feet of parapet walls along the side of a home in old town. Staff Response: The proposed provision is to discourage the use of a flat roof or parapet wall treatment within 10 feet of an interior side property line. Exceptions are provided in Section 2.05.015.J.4.c.1. This provision addresses a major neighborhood compatibility issue of walls extending to the maximum allowable height at the minimum interior side setback line. Roof decks are still allowed, but the required guard rail around the roof deck is not allowed to encroach into the required "daylight plane." If a homeowner determines to develop such a flat roof or parapet wall closer than 10 feet to an interior side property line, it would be allowed by right but the applicable "Design Feature FAR Deduction' would be applied. o. Determination of Daylight Planes. This is out of control, who exactly is going to certify... this is a town with 3 foot sideyards, everyone here knows it, and has somehow accepted it. (pg 30) Lets see a rendering of suchlll Staff Response: The proposed regulations are an attempt to deal with neighborhood concerns regarding the perceived mass and bulk of residential developments, particularly along interior side property lines between adjacent structures. Section 2.05.015.J.2: C,ertification of Daylight Plane Compliance, indicates that the certification, if required by the Building Official, can be prepared by a licensed, engineer, architect, or surveyor. Drawings prepared by Staff that super-imposed the proposed and actual "daylight planes" were provided as part of the July 18, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report, as indicated below: CJ July 18, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session Staff Report, discussion on pages 23 through 37, and PC Staff Raporl.03-26-08 13 Continued Public Haering 1'9: Final Dreft- TIIia 11: Zoning . Sasl Beach Municipal Coda, Supplemental Planning Commission staff Report March 26, 2008 1:1 Attachment 6: Plans/Daylight Plane Analysis - 608 Balboa; 1:1 Attachment 7: Plans/Daylight Plane Analysis - 1435 Crestview; 1:1 Attachment 8: Plans/Daylight Plane Analysis -1025 Driftwood; 1:1 Attachment 9: Plans/Daylight Plane Analysis - 716 Island View; 1:1 Attachment 10: Plans/Daylight Plane Analysis - 709 South Shore; 1:1 Attachment 11: Plans/Daylight Plane Analysis - 208 First Street; 1:1 Attachment 12: PlanslDaylight Plane Analysis - 118 Eleventh Street; 1:1 Attachment 13: Plans/Daylight Plane Analysis -148 Twelfth Street; 1:1 Attachment 14: Plans/Daylight Plane Analysis - 234 Thirteenth Street; 1:1 Attachment 15: PlanslDaylight Plane Analysis - 243 Fifteenth Street; and 1:1 Attachment 16: Proposed revisions to "Main Building Envelope", Section 2.05.015.1. Also refer to the October 10, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session Presentation, pages 53 to 80 for additional discussion regarding daylight planes and examples of the proposed concept and proposed exceptions. . p. Pg. 35, Fayade Articulation Sect 0, is the director or this committee really going to tell everyone the design their house needs to be, even though they do not want cookie cutter homes. Staff Response: The fayade articulation standard does not impose a standard design solution. The standard is proposed to eliminate the "flat fayade" design which has no articulation whatsoever. This provision does not apply to lots that are 25 feet wide or less. q. Pg. 37, R. additional stepback above 14 feet, you are already requirin9 a 10 foot setback for 2nd story. Maybe this could be explained? There is NO reason for this requirement, everyone in OLD TOWN purchased a home with 3-5' side yards and next to other homes with 3-5' sideyards, everyone knows there is little or no privacy, making someone intenrupt a normal floorplan is too much of a burden. See Sect S. on next pg. as well Staff Response: The comment is unclear. There is no requirement for a 10- foot second floor setback. As discussed above in item "I", there is a 'Design Incentive" referenced now as item 15 in Table 2.05.015.0.1, that contains that language. As stated above in response to item oj", the provisions of Table 2.05.015.0.1: Additional Design Incentive FAR Bonuses, are oDtional items that . pc Stall Report.03-26-OlI 14 . . . Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Dreft - TItle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Plennlng Commission staff Report March 26, 2008 a homeowner can utilize if they choose. These "design incentives' are not mandatory. Staff also believes the comment is regarding the "Preliminary Draff' version. The "Final Draff' version proposes separate standards for lots less than 37.5 feet wide and for lots 37.5 feet wide or wider. Please refer to Section 2.05.015.T: Additional Side Setback or Stepback Above 14 Feet. The standards are proposed to provide increased privacy between adjacent properties. Also refer to the October 10, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session Presentation, pages 81 to 89 for additional discussion regarding additional side setback above 14 feet, and proposed revisions that are now included in the "Final Draft" Zoning Code in Section 2.05.015.T: Additional Side Setback or Stepback Above 14 Feet, on pages 41 and 42 of Chapter 2.05: Residential Districts. r. Sect BB Open Space Requirements, 225 sq. ft. of outdoor space, permanently maintained, but not allowed in the "street" setbacks??? BB(3)(b). Where exactly will this open space be if not in the setbacks???? Staff Response: Please refer to the October 10, 2007 Planning Commission Study Session Presentation, pages 90 to 95 for information on the "Open Space Requirements.' The purpose of the proposed standard is to have useable, private, open space on residential properties for use by the occupants. Specific "exceptions" to the design standards are proposed for lots in the RHD-20 District that are less than 37.5 feet in width. s. Sect 4.80.010 CUP for condo, this issue needs to be addressed as a staff decision if all requirements are met. CUP's are generally not issued for real property ownership issues. Staff Response: This is an existing Zoning Code provision set forth in Section 28-2322: Conversion of Existing Apartments to Condominiums, which was originally adopted by the City Council by Ordinance Number 1261 on December 21, 1987. No changes are proposed to the provisions of this Section, only re- numbering to be consistent with the current Municipal Code numbering system. t. Sect. 4.80.030(4)(a), it appears that no building in town can be converted to condos anymore as it is now 1 unit per lot with little exception, why??? PC Staff Raporl.03-26-oB 15 Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TdJa 11: Zoning . Seal Beech Municipal Coda, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 Staff Response: This is an existing Zoning Code provision set forth in Section 28-2322: Conversion of Existing Apartments to Condominiums, which was originally adopted by the City Council by Ordinance Number 1261 on December 21, 1987. No changes are proposed to the provisions of this Section, only re- numbering to be consistent with the current MuniCipal Code numbering system. DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY REQUEST: As indicated above, the Planning Commission, as a recommending body to the City Council on land use matters, does not traditionally consider fiscal matters or economic impacts, nor is any analysis of economic impacts required under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Council, as the final decision-making and legislative body of the City, always has the discretion to consider potential economic impacts of any of its decisions. Moreover, staff believes that any analysis of economic impacts in this instance would be extremely speculative for two reasons, among others. First, several assumptions would have to be made (e.g., the number of new and substantially remodeled homes, the size of those homes, the eventual selling price of those homes, which factors, including . location, size, views, neighboring homes, proximity to the beach, proximity to schools, proximity to stores, architectural and design amenities, have increased or decreased the selling price). Second, many residents have testified that homes adjacent to three-story houses will decrease in value; it would be likewise speculative to quantify potential adverse economic impacts on properties in proximity to lots where homes might be built to maximum allowable size, and whether the owners of such lots will seek an adjustment in real property taxes. Due to the speculative nature of such a venture, Staff has prepared the following information to again review the potential impacts of the proposed "Floor Area Ratio. standards on the size of homes currently being built within the City. Provided as Attachments 5 through 7 of. this Staff Report are tables that provide information on the potential impacts of the proposed FAR standards in comparison to the maximum allowable habitable areas currently permitted through the utilization of the minimum setback and maximum lot coverage standards for properties in the RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts. Those tables provide the additional information that was utilized in the analysis of 30 recent residential development projects either constructed or approved for construction in . PC Staff Reporl.03-26-OB 16 . . . Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Dreft - T1lIa 11: ZOning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 the City and reflect the current proviSions of the "Final Draft Zoning Code' from the information provided as Attachment 4 of the May 23 Planning Commission Staff Report. As discussed above in the response to the Comments from Scott Levitt, the following information is provided regarding the actual maximum lot coverage permitted in the RHO- 20 District based on the required minimum setback provisions. Based on the required "minimum setback" standards of the Code, which are not proposed for any change, and assuming the following basic development standards of a 12-foot front yard setback and a 9-foot rear yard setback (assumes a 15-foot wide alley) with a second floor projection of % of the required rear yard setback, lots in the RHD-20 District have the following effective, allowable "lot coverage": o 25 x 100 foot lot (2.500 sauare feet): 63.5% o 25 x 117.5 foot lot (2.937.5 SQuare feet): 65.3% o 37.5 x 100 foot lot (3.750 sauaTe feet): 66.8% o 37.5 x 117.5 foot lot (4,406.25 sauare feet): 68.7% D 40 x 100 foot lot (4.000 sauare feet): 66.8% D 40 x 117.5 foot lot (4.700 sauare feet); 68.8% D 50 x 100 foot lot (5.000 sauare feet): 66.8% D 50 x 117.5 foot lot (5.875 sauare feet): 68.8% Provided below is a summary of the information regarding the following items for the evaluated properties in the RL0-9 and RHD-20 Districts, which is set forth in the tables provided as Attachments 5 through 7: D Lot Size D Actual Project Habitable Area D Maximum Habitable Area Based on Lot Coverage/Setback Envelope Coverage D Actual Project Habitable Area as % of Maximum Habitable Area Based on Lot Coverage/Setback Envelope Coverage D Maximum Habitable Area Lot Coverage/Setback Envelope CoverageIProposed Base FAR D Actual Project Habitable Area as % of FAR - BaselMaximum D FAR BaselMaximum as % of Maximum Habitable Area - Lot Coverage - Setback Envelope Coverage PC Staff Raporl.03-25-OB 17 Continued PubflC Hearing re: Final Draft - TiIJe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 RLD.9 DISTRICT PROPERTY SUMMARY The following summary is provided for the 12 properties evaluated in the RLD-9 District ~-':-'.l:- _t?,J..t,~~'!'i:- ."5'~~~('.~G'{~l' (ffi"-- '~f :4~~1ItJ'r ;"~l1f~R~'~.~~~~-.y,\~~\'~-" ~,:r,j~ .,+ --J~.t,w~~~- '~'.'.),~:4[:- ~ ':\~r'-~~ t J-c:;o', 1'.1; ',.~ Average Minus ;.-, -,", '--'-I,-Ih~"'-' -1 .,,1':"'- '.![ , 1 .<>- i" '" I _ ~ '. I ;:',' ,11 '~_I :.. ':... \I:~ ~'~r:f---"-i.~ ~-<(" "'0 "I 1,;..,' _- ,I ".' L. - ','Ii. ~-~ - \.I~ "~ 'lj-/';('j'i~i"<~'''t it.,!!, u' ,'I"., '~., ,i.:"Mlnimum"/ '..,", /!:,:: Minlmurn1ii- -. Evaluation ltem;-, l ."'1::... AVerage~~" . \1, ' 'I \~, ~~'"i"~I"-' '~\\.,Jl1',.:.:' "~~1~r ~-'-_\ r '--'014'_..:;"=.........,"1,' ": i;j: ". - ,"II"!.lJ!I~\-'.^..: ;i~ '~": '.f I " I.. II' _' 4-l:r r'" ..' ~ ,':"; ;~:'}'~ MaXlmUm"_':r1r 101 ~~,.-,,--;\lI;l1'''':--~;:-.m''''c; ~~-~:; MaXimum'J . ~. ~~~~~,;.f1. ~t. -;~~~'~~~~;(l;~ .-"':..l.i'" ~~'!"'"~ 4, .rJ.::. ,'~\"t:t ,,-,..~r~;'~~ ~ t'1 'k.......----.-JO' , _." " ..... '__ ',' ','., , _ '..," ~l !~'~~~, '-f~,~'iofsiZe'~~ ~~. ~ ~t 6,371 5,000/10,092 6,136 , , R" ' ,," l!I~ ',. ,"']" '"' ,,",:, '"I'" Actual Project~.'_:1 2,967 1,866/5,914 2,783 .. . '. - t" j-~~l- Habitable Area<'r,l .- _ ""..,_.;. r , '\.,.," ,I ",' ~, , .- Maximum Habitable ,I "~I ,- -.. ,"j l~' ,,- ," j Area Based on lot . 4,554 4,100/8,683 5,122 >.' . k_ , .1,'1 -~- '_,. '-~' .."- . Coverage/Setback, , " ""'r' II,,'" ..j" ~ ~...~, ". _.- . EnveloJ)e Coverage ,"_ , ,,-., -. ',' I" "'I. :. Ac;:~~1 ~~j~t, ::Y . Habitable Area as, 55.8 42.2 / 82.5 54.5 __ "1'" - c,_ "",~, " , "~' % of Maximum . ., ., ,,' , (' . Habitable' Ar9a i ' . '-- ,.. '" ~ : , ',r"", 'L"'" 1 ~'{' 'r~ MaxmUm"}l.i"~ .-' ,.' ,,_'" '-l'I'iltll" '" 5,357/4,616 5,162/4,458 . Habitable Area. ' 4,100/3,750 and " ,I", ""-~'jBI' ...:,;.- . LotC;:q~e_rig~~~,!C!: 8,683/7,064 : . Proposed Base : ,",'- ."....~FAR:'.I~r~:., ': 1 '>:".r':V, I,!, ,,' ,:;'~~~ t;;:,o~.-'" , r" - .'.... ." ::'i.h!l '. -~. . ' . :'_ . Ac;~al f>roj~~~';~ 63.9/57.0 48.8/43.0 and 61.8/54.4 Habitable Area' as',. ,'. % .of FAR ;Sase,i 100.5/88.0 I ,~" --, ~(., ',' .'!-'f.-.;....:...>:....~~,.l:'it~ . t-_~- and Maxlmum.~'. " 0, . > ',' _._...' 't' " ".+-_,..I,I'/II.,,-r;--' I,: FAR Base and;'.: . , .' " ;,:': 1 ,-, ~,. "-rt I - " " 81.4/93.0 and 86.9/98.8 ,L_M8XJmum.as% of-_- 86.8 / 98.8 " . .,..,.'::", " h,:If-"':"'--, 91.5/103.7 - Maximum HabItable '~"-;--- c-"" ir'Ar8a"';~~~l:;.,,~--,a ,~... -:. 1'1 'J ~~" ~ -", - \' , ,,' "~'11 ,,' ,', , , "0', """ PC Stall Raport03-2r;.oB 18 . . . . . Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TilJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 The above summary analysis indicates the following regarding current development projects in the RLD-9 District I:J On average, current nesidential development is occurring at approximately 55% of the maximum allowable habitable area permitted under the current Zoning Code provisions. I:J On average, current residential development is occurring at approximately 64% of the proposed "Base FAR" and at 57% of the proposed "Maximum FAR' standard. I:J One of the 12 projects evaluated has an actual project habitable area that exceeded the "Base FAR' by 30 square feet, or 0.5 %. I:J All of the other properties evaluated had an actual habitable area that was less than 80% of the proposed "Base FAR', with the range being between 48.8 % (a single-story home) and 76.9%. On average, the proposed "Base FAR' and "Maximum FAR' standards would reduce the current maximum allowable habitable area by approximately 13% for the "Base FAR' and 1 % for the "Maximum FAR'. I:J PC Staff Report.03-25-08 19 ,. Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TiIJa 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Coda. SUpplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 25, 2008 RHD-20 DISTRICT PROPERTY SUMMARY 2-STORY MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT SITES The following summary is provided for the 13 properties evaluated in the RHD-20 District . that are not permitted to have a third story IMng area due to the width of the lot: ~.l~ .Ev8fuatioiNtfim'~if~ O~j+t:l?~f:Av~rag' e17~~~: .:.,~1t" Minimtm'"j,;q~ 16tr 4", _ _ I',o:r 1_1,"'" .j,'-- -.. "',"l , ",10 I" .1'. ",,' .1".' ,......~ ';.'I~!l~Ci'''''. ~';,',. 'e ""'1'" .." "1'1'1. ,'., ,. ,"~'.." .- I" ... M":';"'.' .'. .,." I' ' I~~""II:;': '~;:\\!\I-r~:: ;,1;, " ~, ~ ,r~;t,';,':1 " ~I~:~,' ,"!~(.\; C~' ~:,I~':'I,:I'\I" ,. ~ I '"I,' ClAJmum~~ ,'.'. -'. 1'1, ~" ,r'''l .,1 ~I ~'['. ~ ~,. '"i'l',~~li -, I I'rll" -," '""I .1. 1...1 '" I I, - - r- '" 11'1I\ ['- I < I"'. '_~~ ;!;.~i~;;' ~:~t.,.l 1l. -l;-~:~ I ~ 1:_ ~",~ ;'I,'.'Ij'.,S.';r-~H1" O-_.'!".~ I:J~ ':- _ - > '," : ':"1.l,~ '[I,:...:tL~~~~ __~~ ... ::.:'r>-.....-r~t'1~j\i, _ ~"...1: -.>j.d:,L.,'~ -, ~J ~,)-._;-;.. .....i~~~-:p"f. ,. l...l- ,;<~ "~ ,.,~I~l.T..':;"":';';"(".' ~I' I~ "I' "';"-L'I',. S. ~''''''~'~I\-.,.,u -'~ I' 2964 469/ "ii.~.',;" i9t . 1~!,;I;!:~~1l~il':\'i, 2, 3,636 ~,': t.: ActuaiP.J.(;~ce~':g 2,635 1,373 /3,113 0.':'"..' .", -", b" ~~ ~.,. "-_,, \~:. " :. :.' Hab!til le~a il.ll::' : MaXuTlum Habitable\) . ~ _. __".-_ -'f'-',-'-- .._.~~._h , ~ n., v; .. Area Based on Lot.~ . .:Cov8rage1Seti:iack:!!~ . . '.... -"'" .~: '.;.. . "h....~ -' .. "+ " . ',En"e)o~ C~verage,i:" ",' I ~ q , - . d ,', ; , - , "..,' ~" , .,', I 'I : ',' : ~~,~!Actll~1 ProJ~.',;,,: Habitable Area. as % of . MilXlTn'Um Habitable.'.::.: 'i' ' .' ',I" '1'1', "I' : Are~. Based orl.Lot ~'.t . 1 ,,- _. ...-- , ',. ". - ~ - ..~..' . Coverage/Setback. ",. -.'1 I ,- 1'," ,.L'. _ ,.';' :' Envelope Coverage:,. , d'. ,.,....,1;1 _ .,." ....1 : Maximum Habitable: , , I, ,'" ~-- 'j'", \", ,'" '".,.., .J'~\' : "",0. Area ~ Lot ::' :.'. :"~\1: " ."c'overagetS~~~~~I':. - ~ ..--.'. -:-~. E. f.." '1~""':"iT:J '''''.~-;, \!t' :,-,'.1rh_ nveo~II.,t;r;:~,.~" ,', '''', ,~ """'1 1111,'1',".>.,- ~ 0 '~fr CoverageIProP.QSed J::. ' 'I ~,'_' .1~.' - ~ B'as'e" FAR~J;""'~,@l , "'.;," I _ ,_. _. ,.~;-:~~.' " _11 , . .':''- AcbJal P~'Kt Ti I' It .., I.' ,- . ..;r.'.',~, 1~.,L .,;,::!,.1.~' Hab!tilble Area' as, % of, ~ " . ~ t".1;> ,-.- ',"",l~~.r.-.;[' .~t)W" . "", FAR - Base and~,,- !. . ~",~r,., ,~~ -\ '-.0'" JI"'I\(;" _ ,; '~I, 1"1 -: 'C,l ,I ," Maximum: ,:!,~,(I:,,- -'l t'~'l.''''-o- ..L',." ,. ,., \';:~'_ ..,c~_,/ -"t'?, '",'. .-.,.;i-f"" ...:_.,1 l,.' "," .(,. FAR ease-and-,::~'lt',: " ," ..~""" ,'''' '. J ,. ,l" 'I '\_ !' "I,tI. . . Maximum as % of ~.:" , - .~ ,.,- " I, _ ..-,.. .~_ MaXimLim'Habit8b)e~: ~,,'.\.dtf.;2'.' ~'Are....,- - 'r:j'.';f,~iV "'-', jill',,' ',,'\I~,'I ~r ' "' a:, ,I:,,' I . ".".: PC Staff Reporl.03-26-DB 3,870 / 3,380 2,562 / 2,562 and 4,887 /4,340 69.7/79.2 34.3/41.0 and 95.0 / 91.9 3,870/3,380/2,840 4,887 / 4,340 / 2,996 and 2,562/ 2,562/2,469 92.4/83.7 46.7/42.5 and 103.8 /94.3 71.0/78.3 61.3/68.5 - 69.0/ n.1 and 96.4/106.0 - 96.4 /106.0 20 "...-- ~.....' ...,.... , ,Average Mlrius. ; \1fMlnlmeurii.,1.!:.. ... \i~11. -." ',' . ""::"... -J:.. r.! .',-,.,c, .MaXlmum '" ' ...._'.. . . \~ 2,948 2,707 3,897 / 3,368 70.6/81.6 . 3,897/3,368/ 2,860 95.5 /86.4 74.4/82.1 and 85.9/94.7 . . . . ContinU8d Public Hearing 1'9: Final DTlltf - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beech Municipal Coda. Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 The above summary analysis indicates the following regarding current development projects in the RHD-20 District that are 2-story maximum allowable development sites: 1:1 On average, current residential development is occurring at approximately 79% of the maximum allowable habitable area permitted under the current Zoning Code provisions based on the setback envelope coverage standard. Cl On average, current residential development is occurring at approximately 86% of the proposed "Base FA~ and at 84% of the proposed "Maximum FA~ standard. 1:1 Four of the 13 properties evaluated had an actual habitable project area that exceed the "Base FA~ by: 1:1 23 square feet; 0.7% (1116 Ocean) 1:1 103 square feet; 3.8% (1307 Ocean) Cl 5 square feet; 0.2% (234 Seventh), and Cl 53 square feet; 1.8% (148 -152 Twelfth) All of the other properties evaluated had an actual habitable area that was less than the proposed "Base FAr:?', with the range being between 46.7 % (a single- story home) and 99.8%. 1:1 On average, the proposed "Base FAr:?' and "Maximum FA~ standards would reduce the current maximum allowable habitable area based on the setback envelope coverage standard by approximately 14% for the "Base FAr:?' and 5% for the" Maximum FA~. 1:1 PC Staff RaporlO3-2ll-OB 21 Continued Public Hearing re: Final Draft - Ttf/a 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, SUPP/9menta/ Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 RHD-20 DISTRICT PROPERTY SUMMARY 3-STORY MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT SITES The following summary is provided for the 5 properties evaluated in the RHD-20 District that are permitted to have a third story living area due to the width of the lot "",~' ,-" I '~~'-. r"'lij"'\_" -'I~I,,:,1 ,\/' 'j "".~" (:" ".;~\"I'I'" ,'I '~" ',-1 9 " k" , "," I ,.~. ',~o _ ~" :1") ;:'3.:stci' "." '.. ~ '. :~;l'~~IU~~~~::I~~I~~: "~~~~~~~!txe~~.~; :Minlinum J .', Ave~geil~ ~i;.q':'" ,-.. ..ry,!,:.;-, 1..:,,-, ":."""''l---'O~f~rl~~ ....fI.~ :;..;.- , 1'~~',:t~"".~w~", "'.C..- ":~'" 3;Story: i ; MaxJmurn ., :1', Mll'!us", llionies Only - . , r"~l:~"'" I J}f t'-\'~ ' '\"''':1. ;: 'I i "l;~ t).~" I' ('; "I ~l - -,.-, "'".., -I ,,,., ..,.", '. ..,'",. ~ 'J, >, '" 1'''11,"' i",':, l'l. r.' I' ,,\:..o.~ ~~ ' ';1~1'1~ I,~ 'I ','"\ ~'- :' ':~'Homes J ,. , .', 'M'.' '. J ~! ...."AYe~c9~'- "yl, , '~', - I l:J;'j, d' ., '~'rt;i , , ,- "r ,f """-'\" ,.~ " I :l,,~'rl.. -' \I~I,", .' ,: : Inlmum, I .I~:i~r'.' '-~'-a'~'~~J.J~~"'~: ~i;',.. l~.;-" -~~ ~ ;~ ~~;: ~~ cf- f-' r=~ '.'1 ~. J~.t:"J -~ -f' -L "H' -;-., " ",.:,l' 'r':" I,MaXlmum (C_. Minus""''''.c 1,\',c,"o~r .(" J' '.<,}'i'" ,,,c.,..~ "c' "~,;',' .I;c~ n Y:'" t .1" r=_"' I .'",.::..: '" 'I ; .;:::; , t I ~ - _" ; ,~" r;: ,~ . ,[',,1,..-- ,lh L',,-~;lli - I' F L"_'-' ~ f"."~"" ~~ l","'~~ 1"-'_ 1 r '~,l;" "l:"~"1~'rl , ,IJ ,,' ", ! ''''-c-._. , r' - I I p ,. ~ 'r ".-,.'1 'e< :!, j' '" I- , I" -, 1 j \ " -" 1 . ~ PIC ;r Minimum1,: W~{,'i\l !~""\itri,;l ;' :'i'~~'T. , i~.';illm'>< .'i.".<JW"'l".;~ lie. 1 k..F"1 ,,', I. !~~ ,"',,' ',~;"',,'.;' r \"~\~l~""~' ,',' ,,",,{ r , : ~r ' "I ,~, ~,! ~ 1 I : " . ' - (. l ~r' MaXi ,"~~', 1....._"..1 I ..' :i?-:- ':~", I.i.(.-~""'nl t ~~[" ' ,_,a \ =Ib. ~'..,' P' . _, _~.".~ ~_. ,.... '__. . ,- t'. >- ......... T:.l~-t.f '~ mum...... ..!';",';.;.~, ~t"':.~'-"l<'~,', \,;-,-<-~,:'f' -_':;~'-' ~ ":~~ ~'-''1,..; ~';'~-c.~.ioI'J':>:.t .:.';;~ ,L'" " 4..Y; 'i..-/. t, r n$~o_T' 1 '.....; ,." . -.., , '~"'l,', ,.' .,1 ", ....... , ,i..-,_, ~ -', , 3,881 3,750 3,750 3,750 '~" , . Lot 'Size.' ; 'I ". 3,750 \; " ;1, 0'1 1,1' " 1"" )'1 -,- ,,"...' - ',t- - , 2,669 3,093 1,7561 2,512 2,948 " Actual PJoject.\' : :'Hab~bl~ Arlia'.,/ 4,054 ,~I:"", ':\'..,' .,.'';'~. _,'_ _,' 5,9591 5,452 1 5,3791 5,5261 5,37915,323 '1""'11~'1 -, Maximum~_" -'r~' ~ ~r7'- -, - ., -, ",. ". f . " Habitable Area ,~" 5,841 5,450 5,323 and 5,577 ," I. _ -'10 ' " i II " - ~ _ J '.'}'. Ehl~.~ ~ on~ Lot ',:':' 7,8361 Coverage/Setback' , 7,152 II" I,', E "I' 1~"'J"~r',li" .' ''.", nve ope ,:.:',~. .1 I;:,,:;. '" ,,'. ,-_...-' ~r,~-~~~" :',1':.'; Coverage ;':'i''l.1' "I" ., ."" "I tl"-' :','1, I' 46.91 57.6 21.3/76.0 46.5 55.2 " Acl!Jal,P,,?jest.-;,: -. .- ,., ........1;. 37.3 : Habitable Area'as'd , D ' ..', 'l~ . ,- I,: . , Yo of MaxJmum,.~" . J . ~t"_rJ-. '(,' ... Habitable Ai'ea:~i;, , '.. '; l,"., -.", 'I. ~, . - . ~i ~ .,;, :Bal!'.!ld~~ :'L:o~:':~1 ' Coverage/Setback. . P-"" . ., -:,. ,~ ..;T.J--'~1,~l' '-"':-1"/" ;,.,1. Envelopei,..tt ' " . ' '! l' - " " " , I, ~ ' i .r t '. 'I' 'c ' " '<, r" ::::- '. ,oyeragliL?:~ . ':';'('MJw'l rr->,r_;, ~ -,,":, 5,9581 5.452 1 5,3791 5,526 1 5,379/5,3231 . ',. ',:.' ax mumn ., " '1\" 1,'1 -. P: ,", 'I "~I" " d'I,,, . Habitable Area .:< 5,841 1 5,450 1 5,3231 5,577 1 3,562 "li,i-i . c., ~..'. .,< e"'~f,;,;.'t',. 3,642 3,562 3,562 and 3,562 ~.g. 1\f" ,. LoL, i;:,~j', ...,"~,I'l":"'-"" ",,- '1'-"\ Coverag6/Setbacki 7,8361 -'~rj-~ C '., ,- . ~ .t"J'~~:L;J. c ,.~.\ Envelope".'~,' ,I 7,1521 "I -'In,. .', ,( . , ,111" .::" ~: Covei'ag81: "t: I 3,965 -""':", U -"II" " , ,. t :.,; .,' Proposed B8se~"" ''-~'I-:t~~'' .. ~-1o'O"'l.- 'l. .__ , '"c" . 1,-..... "I'~:'.' FAR~'"".'c.,,, ;, '''''.- " ,. " "." '", PC Staff Raporl.03-26-0B 22 . . . . . Continued Public H8IlTing 1'9: Final Dreft - TilJe 11: ZOning Seal Beach Municipal Code. Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26. 2008 RHD-20 DISTRICT PROPERTY SUMMARY 3-STORY MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DEVELOPMENT SITES (Continued) , .' Evaluatron"lterh111;AUel1tge'l iJ' '::;joI'~'L"" .-::-<':-..', !., , -:I',~~"jf_-' '. ;.c....)~~".- "- < 1lt!l:' , .', ,<., ' " ~A . ,TH >. ,Average"\ Mmlmum'l ., verage:~ r~ : '3-StO,y" . ~FI ' ,," ,~" . T~l" /1' '~11 ~1""":~"': ~:;'~ /' to 1:1,~: i\' ~J, -"I~,\.',""!\' '" I':" '~I,~,. ',' l : Hom8i ~6nl' 2' ~'I",') 'c m!J :::1 ~1 ',ll,~I. .' :~~!;, .'\3,.5 ry: ,I . ,Maximum.. ...Minus .;. 1"(1 " ~'/I.. ,1M Y'1 ,': '. ; :)\\,!\!,,;i I} ~: j{. "#~j:'i ~~~{:t ,.'tilt'.. ","."\'(1. ,.'t'i>f.'\:. -,. '" '\ii'~'C1 I.', .\' omes'.I;I,' ""'1 r' "" Minimum I , '>' "A' . ,,I., ,,' '..- .,;, r '",I), wrage. ;',' [, '. ";1)"~'I'~a \ <, i'w. ~,.;.., -6.~ ' , c'1u'I:,,:,I'..!,l~;l/- Mu'imum ~1 ":~\E~(" . -. .\-r, :-'i-~- .i.~-~-' ~i~ .:;:~. "~~~'" it.:-~. ~ "Only." ..~ 'm .;c'm-".>,".. , '~'. Minus'.';":' '1-'1' .0'- 1 ... . ';" ""~ . ,.-i.. .,1~ '~mc-" "~f~!ll'c ~J,', <. ;";~l'f'f''ii:.' ".I~il' ," tl'!1 "":'" c".' l'H T,-::'I~"" .' , " ~.. ~ 1'- l' . - 1- . \ '~ -. I -n-'.-:d" ." .,,, .'~mrcJ{; V'''I,~tl ,:/,4,',', "'"t 'rl~ ~ .. :'L;f1~ ,Il~.,',l~""! l'~t'~' ;i, .. I" ;..m, " ",,'LMlnlmum/.., " " I ' , r~, " 1 f ' fir" i'" '~I ',I oil' , ,,", l" "'l~ 1'\\ ~.,'\~"' ""'j , "'" hI hlf \ ' J ,'1 J~l\"'- j I~' ,J.llf1; ;.'I".,I\\!'~.. '.'''w....,. , II I 1 . \', ;.', :~,,' ,I ( ,"J ',' "~,\',.LII ~,., "~l,\,~.'t;,.":,, .,' 'l-' ~,'~",\ '; ~I,: it', ,', " ',' .... 1(:') '.;,.' i'1111\\~,IJ~rL,JI: \ I'll, '!"'~ ,~jl J~.jr;: :J.T;'CI~t~~~~ll\,> ,~;~;.~,I .' 1/'Maximum ,',: . 'c :;",",,_ '_1",'.r-,..~ \..ft';i'l"~~ 75.0/ 86.8/ 49.8/44.3 70.5 /67.0 82.8 /78.6 . ;., Actual ~roj8Ct'r;:' ;. Habitabie'),r8"a""as' 62.7 82.5 and 113.8 , " , . ",' ~'r"r',ojI' /108.1 % of FAR - Base:: '~,I-c ';i-rid' Maxrmum~!f.' ,iI.J . ..... ,-, . - -.' . '.~ {. ,'D "... -,'" ....-",....~-,f'.;. ~.-.. 50.5 / 59.0 64.5/74.6 66.2 / 76.7 - . : FAR Base'and 7.' 62.0/ 65.3/ ,~ ~ " ,~ " ."", " 'II '" I,' I, ' .. MaXimum as % of 71.9 and 75.7 and - and 66.9 / n,5 p;_:"' -;- Maximuri.~~1tl:~ - :q.'I~ _<.r.d '-- H". ;- ~~r-~~ 62.8/ 65.4/ 55.4/64.7 63.9/74.0 ,. Habitable Area = . 72.9 75.8 and - ~ _ -', ,- f," ,. "" ~; i'" 1, 'u . , Lot Coverage ~;: . \ ' ,- ~"~ -.., ,,,- - .. ~ \'" ,- 66.2/76.7 , Se,~ac,,~ ~x~'~~f ~,., ~,c~v~rage"),}ti(:r: - '. ~"l" J, ''';jj~'". l . ,,;" . ~~....\ "!1- ~'-,~ t;'i <> 66.9 / n,5 ' " """'\"I',jl'.-"(j I'll"'!' , - - ,,' , ~ ", rl ' ~ The above summary analysis indicates the following regarding current development projects in the RHD-20 District that are 3-story maximum allowable development sites: o On average, current residential development is occurring at approximately 37% of the maximum allowable habitable area permitted under the current Zoning Code provisions based on the setback envelope coverage standard. o On average, current residential development is occurring at approximately 74% of the proposed "Base FA~ and at 64% of the proposed "Maximum FAR" standard. o One of the 5 properties evaluated had an actual habitable area that exceeded the proposed "Base FA/?' by 492 squane feet, or 13.8%. The property did not PC Staff Reporl.03-2B-08 23 Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Dreft - TtIJa 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 exceed the proposed "Maximum FAR"; it was 98.3% of the proposed "Maximum FAR." D All of the other 4 properties evaluated had an actual habitable area that was less than the 83% of the proposed "Bas8 FAR." The range was between 42.0% (single-story residence) and 82.8%. D On average, the proposed "Bas8 FAR" and "Maximum FAR" standards would reduce the current maximum allowable habitable area based on the setback envelope coverage standard by approximately 36% for the "Base FAF?' and 26% for the "Maximum FAF?'. D On average, when the reduction in allowable habitable area by the proposed "Base" and "Maximum' FAR for third story habitable area is deducted, the proposed "Base FAR" and 'Maximum FAR" standards would reduce the current maximum allowable habitable area based on the setback envelope coverage standard for the 2-story portion of the residence by approximately 25% for the "Base FAF?' and 16% for the "Maximum FAR". D This indicates that the proposed FAR for third floor habitable areas results in approximately 44% of the overall maximum habitable area reduction for the proposed "Base FAF?' and 56% for the "Maximum FAR". . . pc Staff Raport.O~26..QB 24 . . . Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TiIJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda. supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26. 2008 COMPARISON OF ALLOWABLE THIRD FLOOR LIVING AREAS: CURRENT CODE AND VARIOUS PROPOSED FAR STANDARDS: Provided below is a table that indicates the allowable habitable building area for third floor living areas for previously discussed ranges of "Base" and "Maximum" FAR, and the current Zoning Code allowable habitable building area and derived FAR ratios. Please note that the calculations for the "Current Allowable Area and FAr?' assume all lots are served by a 15-foot wide alley, and that the third floor area encompasses full utilization of the rear 1/2 of the lot area allowed by current provisions of the Zoning Code including the minimum side and rear yard setbacks. Third Story Maxlmum Allowable Habitable Areas: Various FAR Alternatives and Current Zoning Code Provisions :..; ,~,~ -""'~~1f.tji~i-M ""~i;U)T,\:;j ,1\;'01<('\'. ..-!{; 0>15;~ .1<-';' l-' "v"" :,~~~A,i,~~~~~:" , LOT siZE:;: ":.~,I~" 0,1 ~~ --;~ "/1-"' 1'.. " ~:,t . " :~~~; .:,0:20':' . w ~ ,- ~ ~ I -- ~ FAR,:'I:r ',. ."' _~,,,,;,~::,,,- .- ~~:'l:'AREA ;1)' . FAR.,.i ',~ FA.R"? ' ,~, r:~, 'f ':'., an -I ,..I@~f \":'1:" ,', ( '("'" ,1,\,'F<lf.'~;'(.' , , i, ',' ~ + ,J,~" . , '!'I" :1,1. ." "',I ."'- " : \'" . .1:, ',~ ~ \ . ,,1I ~ .,' . . . '\""-+l''''r.:.J:', 3,750 375 562 750 1 ,365 (0.36) 37.5x100'S~: . , ., ,..., ;37.5 x 117:5/ 4,406.25 440 661 880 1,627 (0.37) . .. ~," -- l;' I'" . "~i ~\;~ 4,000 400 600 800 1,456 (0.36) 40x 100/fW)" 11,.. , ,.c...,'qAl"}I~: ."40 x ~i1'7:5%1:";i 4,700 470 705 940 1,752 (0.37) , -. 'I ...j-'. ,'" "~(~f; 5,000 500 750 1,000 1 ,820 (0.36) , 50 x fog. ,,1\,; '~~..;~'t~Jit\ti 5,875 587 881 1,174 2,170 (0.36) The above FAR altematives result in the following average FAR percent of the current allowable maximum habitable area: o 0.10 FAR = 27.2% of current allowable maximum habitable area; o 0.15 FAR = 40.8% of current allowable maximum habitable area; o 0.20 FAR = 54.4% of current allowable maximum habitable area; The Commission has previously determined to retain the FAR range of "Base" and "Maximum" of 0.10 and 0.15, respectively. Public comments have been received in support of those FAR ranges and in support of a FAR range of 'Base" and 'Maximum" of 0.15 and 0.20, respectively. PC Stall Reporl.03-26-OB 25 Continued Pubf'1C Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TtIJa 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 NEGA TlVE DECLARA TION 08-1: The subject Negative Declaration has been prepared by City Staff and is in the required public review and comment period of March 10 to April 11, 2008. The Environmental Quality Control Board will be reviewing Negative Declaration 08-1 on March 26 at their 6:30 PM meeting and providing any comments for future consideration by the City Council. The Planning Commission and interested citizens may also provide comments on Negative Declaration 08-1 this evening that will also be forwarded to the City Council for consideration during their public hearings on this matter. The Negative Declaration was provided to the City Council on March 10 and to the Environmental Quality Control Board and Planning Commission on March 11. A copy of the "Notice of Intent to AdoptINotice of Availability" was published in the local newspaper and was provided as Attachment 6 of the March 19 Planning Commission Staff Report for the information of the Planning Commission. Copies of the Negative Declaration will be available at the Planning Commission Public Hearing for interested persons to review. Copies are also available at each library in the city, at City Hall, and is posted on the . City's web page for viewing and download at: http://pubrec.cLseal- beach.ca.uslweblink7/City-wide Agendas - Drafts - NoticeslFinal Draft and Notices - Title 11 - Zoning Code. In the final analysis, this continued public hearing is the culmination of a 13-month long consideration by the Planning Commission of a comprehensive revision and update to the Zoning Code of the City. The Planning Commission has participated in 13 study sessions and a continued public hearing, in which it has considered numerous drafts, revisions, and suggestions conceming the Zoning Code. Among other items, the Commission has considered recommending: no changes to the Code with respect to residential height limits; limiting residential structures to two stories; and numerous variations of staffs recommendation to allow third stories subject to design features. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct continued Public Hearing by receiving the Supplemental Staff Report, public comments and Commission discussion; consider the "Final Draft Title 11: Zoning" and public comments; and provide comments regarding Negative Declaration 08-1. Close the public hearing. . PC Staff ReporlO3-26-Oll 26 . . . Continued Public Haering 1'9: Final Draft - TiIJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipll/ Code. Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Raport March 26, 2008 If the Commission determines to close the public hearing, take the following actions: o Provide any comments regarding Initial StudylNegative Declaration 08-1, and o Adopt Resolution Number 08-13, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Amending the Seal Beach Municipal Code by Deleting Chapter 28, Zoning, in its Entirety and Adopting a New TItle 11, Zoning. (Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the Resolution) ~n~&6 Development Services Department Attachments: (J) Attachment 1: Resolution Number 08-13, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Amending the Seal Beach Municipal Code by Deleting Chapter 28, Zoning, in its Entirety and Adopting a New Title 11, Zoning Attachment 2: Final Draft Zoning Code, March 2008 - Note: Previously provided and not included due to length. Additional copies will be available at the public hearing Copies are also available at each library in the city, at City Hall, and is posted on the City's web page for viewing and download at: http://pubrec.cLseal-beach.ca.uslweblink7/City- wide Agendas - Drafts - NoticeslFinal Draft and Notices - Trtle 11 - Zoning Code Attachment 3: Comment letter from Scott Levitt (Revised Letter of March 21, 2008) Attachment 4: Calculations of Effective, Allowable "Lot Coverage" - RHO- 20 Lots Attachment 5: RLD-9 District - Summary of Lot Coverage, Floor Area Ratio and Allowable Habitable Building Areas PC Staff Raporl.03-2!>-OB 27 Attachment 6: Attachment 7: PC Staff Report.O:>-26.re Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - TiIJe 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 RHD-20 District - Summary of Lot Coverage, Floor Area Ratio and Allowable Habitable Building Areas, 2 Story Development Sites RHQ..20 District - Summary of Lot Coverage, Floor Area Ratio and Allowable Habitable Building Areas, 3 Story Development Sites . . 28 . . . Continued Public Hearing 1'9: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning Saal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NUMBER 08.13, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING CHAPTER 28, ZONING, IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 11, ZONING PC Staff RaporI.03-26.{)B 29 . . . Continued Public; Hearing (9: Final Dmlt - TJtie 11: Zoning Seal Beach Munic/p81 Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 25, 2008 RESOLUTION NUMBER 08-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE SEAL BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING CHAPTER 28, ZONING, IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING A NEW TITLE 11, ZONING THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. The City Council and/or the Planning Commission held a total of sixteen Study Sessions regarding a new Title 11: Zoning of the Seal Beach Municipal Code between February 21,2007 and March 5, 2008. . Section 2. At the conclusion of the March 5, 2008 Study Session the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare the proposed "Final Draft Tttle 11: Zoning of the Seal Beach Municipal Code' for public hearings. Section 3. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. 915305, staff has prepared Initial StudylNegative Declaration 08-1 evaluating the environmental impacts of the proposed "Final Draft Title 11: Zoning of the Seal Beach Municipal Code'. Initial StudylNegative Declaration 08-1 is currently undergoing the required public comment period, and all comments received will be cc:'lnsidered and evaluated by the City Council during future public hearings on the proposed "Final Draft Title 11: Zoning of the Seal Beach Municipal Code." Section 4. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 19, 2008 and continued to March 26, 2008 to consider the proposed "Final Draft Title 11: Zoning of the Seal Beach Municipal Code'. .. Section 5. At said public hearings there was oral and written testimony and eVidence received by the Planning Commission. PC Ststf Report.03-26-08 30 Continued Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning . Seal Beach Munic;ipal Code, SUpplemental Planning Commission Staff RIlpOft March 26, 2008 Section 6. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in Section 1 through Section 5 of this resolution and pursuant to 99 28- 2600 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: A. The Proposed Title 11: "Zoning' is a complete revision of the City's Zoning Code and is intended to reflect the most appropriate and best available development regulations and standards to meet the desires of the community regarding future development within the City. Such a comprehensive revision effort has not been undertaken within the community since 1974. As such, there are significant changes from both procedural and development regulation standards incorporated into the proposed ZORing Code that do not currently exist in the present Zoning Code. B. The proposed project consists of the adoption of a Comprehensive Zoning Code Update. The proposed Title 11, Zoning, does not propose any amendments to the basic lot size, density and building intensity, setback, lot coverage, height, parking, and sign regulations of the curr.ent zoning Code. Likewise, there are no changes to allowable and discretionary land uses within the City, other than minor uses such a news stands and kiosks. New provisions related to a number of design related . issues are proposed, such as floor area ratio, building envelope, and other design and aesthetic matters of concem to the City. C. In addition an "Administrative Use Pennit' approval process is proposed which would allow the Director of Development Services to review and approve several types of discretionary land use approvals that are currently reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. D. Said proposed Title 11: Zoning does not include any provisions that are inconsistent with the adopted General Plan of the City. Section 7. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends adoption of Title 11: Zoning to.the City Council as set forth in "Seal Beach Municipal Code: Final Draft Title 11: Zoning", dated March 2008 and on file in the Office of the City Clerk, with the following recommended revisions: A. Revise Title 11 by adding the Title designator "11' in front of all Chapter, Section, Table, and Figure Numbers. This is based on a concem that the current Chapter, Section, Table, and Figure Numbers could be confused by someone not overly familiar with the Code as being a Chapter, Section, Table, or Figure Number that would be found in Titles 1-6 of the Seal Beach Municipal Code. . pc Sta1! Report.03-26-08 31 . . . Continued Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - TJtie 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 25, 2008 The revised Chapter, Section, Table, and Figure numbers would be as indicated in the below samples: [J Chapter 1l1.05:Title, Components and Purposes; [J ~ 11.1.05.005: Zoning Code Adoption; [J Section 11.1.05.005: Zoning Code Adoption; [J Table 11.1.05.025: Zoning Districts; and [J Figure 11.1.15.020.A: Shortest Distance. B. Revise Section 1.15.020.C: Measurements Involving a Structure, to read: "C. Measurements Involving a Structure. Measurements involving a structure are made to the closest wall of the structure. Eaves end cornices ere not Included In the measurement. Chimneys, 98\'88, 99R'li988, and bay windows up to 12 feet in length are not included in the measurement. Other features, such as covered porches and entrances, are included in the measurement. Structures or portions of structures that are entirely underground are not included in measuring required distances. See Figure 1.15.020.C.1: Measurements Involving A Structure, and Figure 1.15.020.C.2: Architectural Projections into Setbacks. . C. Revise Table 2.05.015: Development Standards for Residential Districts, page 10 of Part \I: Base District Regulations, to read: PC Stat! Report.O~26-08 32 eontinued public Hearing re; Final Draft - Trtle 11; Zoning seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning CommissiOn Staff Report March 26, 2008 . Minimum Permeable surface/Maximu m Paving in 60/50 60150 60150 60/50 60/50 60/50 (Y) Street -Facing Yards (%) Minimum Site 40i Area Devoted to 25 15 15 @Bl 15 15 (Z) @In . Landscaping (%) planting Required on Downslope Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (AA) Lots Open Space Requirements (BB) Minimum Common open Space per unit Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (66) (sq. ft.) Minimum private Open Space per unit Yes Yes Yes . Yes Yes Yes (BB) (sq. ft.) Pedestrian War~ays Yes Yes (CC)" 33 pC staff Report.03-26-0S . . . Continued Public Hearing ra: Flnsl Draft - TIlle 11: Zoning Sesl Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 25, 2006 D. Revise Section 2.05.015.X: Umitations on Parking and Garage Frontage, sub- Section 3: Additional Setback fOr Garage Facing Street to read: 3. Additional 68*sek Offset for Garage Facing Street If a garage is located on the front half of a lot and faces the street, the garage walls and doors must be eet Ilael{ offset at least 5 feet from the face of the main residence. See Figure 2.05.015.X.3: Additional gstl3ssk Offset for Garage Facing Street. E. Revise Figure 2.05.015.X.3: Additional Setback for Garage Facing Street to read: "Figure 2.05.015.X.3: Additional gsY1s8lr Offset for Garage Facing Streef F. Revise Section 2.05.015.Z: Minimum Site Area Devoted to Landscaping to read. OZ. Minimum Site Area Devoted to landscaping. In all residential districts except the RLD-9 District snd the RHD-20 District no less than 15 percent of any site shall be devoted to landscaping. With the exception of areas for entry and exit, all required front and street side setbacks shall be landscaped and such areas shall be credited to the required landscaping. A minimum of 25 percent of any lot in the RLD-9 District shall be devoted to landscaping. Also refer to Section 2.05.015.88: ODen SDsce Reauirements for aDDlicable ODen sDsce reauirements in the RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts." G. Revise Section 2.05.015.EE: Roof Decks to read: "EE. Roof Decks. Roof Decks are allowed in the residential districts pursuant to Table 2.05.015: Development Standards for Residential Districts. In addition, all required roof deck railings in accordance with the provisions of the Califomia Building Code shall not exceed the main building envelope and height limit provisions of Table 2.05.015.J: Determination of Daylight Planes - RLD-9, RMD-18, and RHD-20 Districts, and Section 2.05.015.K: Bui/ding Height - RLD-9 and RHD-20 Districts. The prOVisions of Section 2.05.015.J.4: Exceptions to Main Building Envelope, are not applicable to roof decks. In the RHD-20 District roof decks are not allowed above a height of 21.5 feet for lots FR8F8 tI'l8R 37.5 feet wide or wider." PC SlBff Report.03-26-08 34 Continued Pubflc Hearing ra: Final Dl11ft - Tille 11: Zoning . Seal Beech Municipal Code, SUpplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 25, 2008 H. Revise Section 4.20.020: Shared Parking, sub-Section A.1: Permit Requirement, to read: '1. Permit Requirement .~A t.BR'liRiBtFStivB A Conditional Use Permit may be approved for shared parking facilities serving more than 1 use on a site or serving more than 1 property. The use permit may allow for a reduction of the total number of spaces required by this Chapter if the following findings are made, in addition to the required findings pursuant to Chapter 5.20: Development Permits, Section 5.20.020: Required Findings:" I. Revise Section 6.05.010: Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases: 'Bedroom" to read: '"Bedroom': any room located within a dwelling unit that is used primarily for sleeping purposes by its residents and that contains at least 70 square feet of floor area and contains a closet. Rooms designated . as a "den," "library," 'study," "loft. or other extra room that satisfies this definition and is not a kitchen, living room, or bath will be considered a bedroom." (INSERT ADDITIONAL REVISIONS AS DETERMINED BY COMMISSION UPON CONCLUSION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS) Section 8. The Planning Commission also requests that the City Council consider conducting an "economic impact analysis' of the proposed Title 11 to determine if there would be any clearly identifiable and substantially adverse fiscal impacts to the community as a direct result of the adoption of Title 11: Zoning, as recommended. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2008, by the following vote: . PC Staff Report.03-26-08 35 . . . AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners Continued Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - TdIe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 25. 2008 Lee Whittenberg Secretary of the Planning Commission PC Staff Report.03-26-08 Ellery Deaton Chairperson of the Planning Commission 36 . . . Continued Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - TItle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 25, 2008 ATTACHMENT 2 FINAL DRAFT ZONING CODE, MARCH 2008 - NOTE: PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED AND NOT INCLUDED DUE TO LENGTH. ADDITIONAL COPIES WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING COPIES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE AT EACH LIBRARY IN THE CITY, AT CITY HALL, AND IS POSTED ON THE CITY'S WEB PAGE FOR VIEWING AND DOWNLOAD AT: HTTP://PUBREC.CI.SEAL-BEACH.CA.USIWEBLlNK7/CITY- WIDE AGENDAS . DRAFTS - NOTICESIFINAL DRAFT AND NOTICES - TITLE 11 - ZONING CODE PC Staff Report.03-26-08 37 . . . PC Staff Report.03-26-08 Continued Public Haering re: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Coda, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 25, 2008 ATTACHMENT 3 COMMENT LETTER FROM SCOTT LEVITT (REVISED LETTER OF MARCH 21, 2008) 38 . . . Continued Public Hearing ra: Fine! Draft - Ttlle 11: Zoning Sae!8each Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 SEAL BEACH PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 3/19/08 rev. 3/21 1. Economic Impact on the City. Majority of taxes based upon property values: a. Not as many people will teardown old to build new, thus NO reassessment, no increased revenues b. Each square foot adds assessed values, translated to increased tax revenues c. Where is the Objective, outside 3rt! party consultant, analysis and results of such study? 2. where is the review from an Outside, Licensed AlA architect to see the feasibility of building a new home based up on the proposed FAR changes and Elevation. 3. 4. Specific Items: a. Sect. 1.1 0.015(A) Director shall determine uncertainty will just create, biasness, accusations of biasness as well as lawsuits that we will all pay for b. 1.15.020(C) Chimneys, eaves, comices, and bay windows up to 12 ft. length are not included in measurement of buildings, what about longer than 12 ft.? c. 1.15.045 "Floor area is the horizontal area of ALL floors in a building' B. states 'Does not include garages, carports' d. 1.15.055 Lot Coverage 'ratio of the footprint of all structures including garages' e. Table 2.05.015 (pg. 7) Max lot Coverage is 75%, Std now on for example 2500 sq. foot lot, Sides (3x2x100=600)+(19x9=171)+(19x12=228)=999, give 60% MAX lot coverage, same scenario for 110' and117.5' lots f. Table 2.05.015 Why are you e~cluding exterior stairs and limiting. g. Why don't you NOW prOVide max square feet based on the proposed changes on all three standard lot sizes in Old Town, instead of just giving FAR's? h. Table continued, how can you recess windows 2' and why does it have to have Trim? I thought this town did not want cookie cutterlTruman show? Now every home built will have window trim. i. Table continued 15% landscape, where?? On the side yards? So fire and emergency personal will no longer be able to get through, and people will store their garage cans outside of the sideyards? PC SIafI Report.03-26-08 39 Continued Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - Tille 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report MarGh 25, 2008 j. FAR table bonus, landscaping? Where does the invasion of property rights end? The City is now going to try and dictate the type of plants in people's yards...1 thought the city wanted "architectural creatiVity? k. FAR table bonus table, 14, "total structural coverage" is not defined anywhere, and if you are limiting the coverage, then you can't give FAR bonus I. FAR table, 19, every second story in old town will be back 10feet from 1st, so no more dbl high entry, great rooms? Every home will look the same, this requirement, NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED. m. FAR 29, this is a violation of rights? speak to the city arty about this, plans require structural engineer, not architect, that is IBC, lets not deviate from that... n. FAR 2.05.015.02 Deductions for flat roof or parapet wall within 10 feet of an interior side yrd??? How can anyone have. any roof deck then... why not allow 20-30 feet of parapet walls along the side of a home in old town. o. Determination of Daylight Planes. This is out of control, who exactly is going to certify...this is a town with 3 foot sideyards, everyone here knows it, and has somehow accepted it. (pg 30) Lets see a rendering of suchlll p. Pg. 35, Fa~ade Articulation Sect 0, is the director or this committee really going to tell everyone the design their house needs to be, even though they do not want cookie cutter homes. q. Pg. 37, R. additional stepback above 14 feet, you are already requiring a 10 foot setback for 2nd story. Maybe this could be explained? There is NO reason for this requirement, everyone in OLD TOWN purchased a home with 3_5' side yards and next to other homes with 3-5' sideyards. everyone knows there is little or no privacy, making someone interrupt a normal f100rplan is too much of a burden. See Sect S. on next pg. as well r. Sect Be Open Space Requirements, 225 sq. ft. of outdoor space, permanently maintained, but not allowed in the "street" setbacks??? BB(3)(b). Where exactly will this open space be if not in the setbacks???? s. Sect 4.80.010 CUP for condo, ~his issue needs to be addressed as a staff decision if all requirements are met. CUP's are generally not issued for real property ownership issues. t. Sect. 4.80.030(4)(a), it appears that no building in town can be converted to condos anymore as it is now 1 unit per lot with little exception, why??? WHY ARE WE CHANGING THE CODE????? BECAUSE 20-30 PEOPLE IN THIS TOWN HAVE MADE IT THEIR PERSONAL QUEST AND HAVE THE FREE TIME TO DO IT??? PC Staff Report.03-26-08 40 . . . . . . Continued Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - Title 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 25. 2008 THE CURRENT CODE WAS ADOPTED IN 1973, ....IS THE TOWN FALLING APART? How many people on the Hill wanted code changes? How many in CPE? How many in CPW? Why are we changing these areas at all? Because 2-3% MAXIMUM want it, why would the City change any code at the request of 2-3% of the population. There is no reason or justification for it. The debate started over 3m stories, keep the changes restricted to that then. It appears this whole debate has created a "tail is wagging the dog" scenario. As a real estate attomey, real estate broker, licensed general contractor, and having been in the residential and commercial construction industry for over a decade, I would be happy to assist the City in refining the proposed changes so that building a new, beautiful home in Seal Beach does not become such a burden that no one will no longer want to do it, and we will be stuck with many old, dilapidated, non-conforming structures. -Scott l. Levitt PC Staff Report.03-26-08 41 . . . Continued Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - TdIe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 25, 2008 ATTACHMENT 4 CALCULATIONS OF EFFECTIVE, ALLOWABLE "LOT COVERAGE" - RHD-20 LOTS PC Stoff Report.03-26-08 42 . . . Continued PubflC Hearing ra: Final Draft - 77tle 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 25, 2008 CALCULATIONS OF EFFECTIVE, ALLOWABLE "LOT COVERAGE"- RHD.20 LOTS D 25 X 100 foot lot {2.500 SQuare feet),;, Calculation of Maximum Buildable Area by Minimum Setback Standards: 100 feet - 12 feet (front yard setback) - 9 feet (rear yard setback) = 79 feet 25 feet - 6 feet (side yard setbacks) = 19 feet 79 x 19 = 1,501 square feet 4.5 feet x 19 feet (second story overhang in rear yard) = 85.5 square feet 1,501 + 85.5 = 1,586.5 square feet + 2,500 = 63.5% D 25 x 117.5 foot lotJ2.937.5 SQuare feett, Calculation of Maximum Buildable Area by Minimum Setback Standards: 117.5 feet - 12 feet (front yard setback) - 9 feet (rear yard setback) = 96.5 feet 25 feet - 6 feet (side yard setbacks) = 19 feet 96.5 x 19 = 1,833.5 square feet 4.5 feet x 19 feet (second story overhang in rear yard) = 85.5 square feet 1,833.5 + 85.5 = 1,919 square feet + 2,937.5 = 65.3% D 37.5 X 100 foot lot (3.750 SQuare feet)~ Calculation of Maximum Buildable Area by Minimum Setback Standards: 100 feet - 12 feet (front yard setback) - 9 feet (rear yard setback) = 79 feet 37.5 feet - 7.5 feet (side yard setbacks) = 30 feet 79 x 30 = 2,370 square feet 4.5 feet x 30 feet (second story overhang in rear yard) = 135 square feet 2,370 + 135 = 2,505 square feet + 3,750 = 66.8% PC Ststf Report03-26-08 43 Continued Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - ntJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 . D 37.5 X 117.5 foot lot (4,406.25 square feetl.;, Calculation of Maximum Buildable Area by Minimum Setback Standards: 117.5 feet- 12 feet (front yard setback) - 9 feet (rear yard setback) = 96.5 feet 37.5 feet - 7.5 feet (side yard setbacks) = 30 feet 96.5 x 30 = 2,895 square feet 4.5 feet x 30 feet (second story overhang in rear yard) = 135 square feet 2,895 + 135 = 1,919 square feet + 2,937.5 = 68.7% D 40 x 100 foot lot (4,000 square feetl.;, Calculation of Maximum Buildable Area by Minimum Setback Standards: 100 feet - 12 feet (front yard setback) - 9 feet (rear yard setback) = 79 feet 40 feet - 8 feet (side yard setbacks) = 32 feet 79 x 32 = 2,528 square feet 4.5 feet x 32 feet (second story overhang in rear yard) = 144 square feet 2,528 + 144 = 2,672 square feet + 4,000 = 66.8% . D 40 x 117.5 foot lot (4.700 square feet),;, Calculation of Maximum Buildable Area by Minimum Setback Standards: 117.5 feet - 12 feet (front yard setback) - 9 feet (rear yard setback) = 96.5 feet 40 feet - 8 feet (side yard setbacks) = 32 feet 96.5 x 32 = 3,088 square feet 4.5 feet x 32 feet (second story overhang in rear yard) = 144 square feet 3,088 + 144 = 3,232 square feet + 2,937.5 = 68.8% . PC Slalf Report.03-26-08 44 . . . Continued Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - TdIe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 25, 2008 o 50 X 100 foot loU5.000 SQuare feet),;, Calculation of Maximum Buildable Area by Minimum Setback Standards: 100 feet - 12 feet (front yard setback) - 9 feet (rear yard setback) = 79 feet 50 feet - 10 feet (side yard setbacks) = 40 feet 79 x 40 = 3,160 square feet 4.5 feet x 40 feet (second story overhang in rear yard) = 180 square feet 3,160 + 180 = 3,340 square feet + 4,000 = 66.8% o 50 X 117.5 foot lot (5.875 SQuare feet}; Calculation of Maximum Buildable Area by Minimum Setback Standards: 117.5 feet - 12 feet (front yard setback) - 9 feet (rear yard setback) = 96.5 feet 50 feet - 10 feet (side yard setbacks) = 40 feet 96.5 x 40 = 3,860 square feet 4.5 feet x 40 feet (second story overhang in rear yard) = 180 square feet 3,860 + 180 = 4,040 square feet + 5,875 = 68.8% PC Staff Report.03-26-08 45 . . . Continued Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - TdIe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2008 ATTACHMENT 5 RLD-9 DISTRICT SUMMARY OF LOT COVERAGE, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND ALLOWABLE HABITABLE BUILDING AREAS PC Staff Report.O~26-08 46 . C<lntInuod__""F/n6J",",,&_ S8618tJach Cads. __"""""""'SbdI_ """"" 20. 200B RLD-9 DISTRICT SUMMARY OF LOT COVERAGE, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND ALLOWABLE HABITABLE BUILDING AREAS . Addross Lot Actual Projact Lot Coverage MaxImum Habitable Actual Project Maximum Habitable Area - Actual Project FAR Base and Size Habitable Area and Area Baaed on Lot Habitable Area aa % of Lot Covarage and Habitable Area Maximum aa % of Propoaed FAR Coverage/Setback Maximum Habitable Proposed Saae FAR u%ofFAR- Maximum Habitable Envelope Coverage Area Baae and Area Maximum 1305 Catalina 5,410 2,441 45% - 0.75 4,468 54.6 4,866/4,057 60.1/53.1 83.3/94.5 1445 CalaUna 6,000 3,230 45% - 0.70 5,000 64.6 5,000 /4,200 76.9 167.3 64.0196.0 1435 Crestview 7,625 2,964 45% - 0.70 6,463 45.9 6,463/5,337 55.5/48.6 62.3/94,4 1701 Crestview 8.408 5,914 45% - 0.70 7.165 62.5 7.165/5,864 100.5/66.0 82.11 93.6 705 Drtflwood 5.000 2.506 45% - 0.75 4,100 61.1 4,100/3,750 66.8/59.0 91.5/103.7 612 Ebb TIde 10,092 3,662 45% - 0.70 8,683 42.2 6,683/7,064 51.8/45.4 61,4/93.0 910 Fathom 5,411 2,471 45% - 0.75 4,470 55.3 4,47014,056 60.9/53.7 90.81102.9 821 Island VIew 5,100 1,666 45% - 0.75 4,190 44.5 4,190/3,825 48.8/43.0 91.3/103.5 416 Marble 5,100 2,423 45% - 0.75 4.190 57.6 4,190/3,825 63.4 155.9 91.3/103.5 Cove 901 MarVssta 5,600 2,568 45% - 0.75 4.640 55.3 4,640 /4,200 61.1/53.9 90.51102.6 700 Soulll 5,959 2,942 . .45% - 0.75 4,962 59.3 4,96214,469 65.8/58.1 90.1/102.0 Shore 210 SurfPface 6,750 2,626 45%-0.75 5.674 48.3 5.674/4,725 55.6/48.6 83.3/95.2 Average 6,371 2,967 NA 4,554 55.6 5,357/4,616 63.9/57.0 86.8/66.8 Minimum I 5,000/ 1,866/5,914 NA 4,100/8,663 42.2182.5 4,100/3,750 and 48.8/43.0 and 61,4/83.0 and Maximum 10,092 8,683/7,064 100.5/66.0 91.5/103.7 Average 6,136 2,783 NA 5.122 54.5 5.162/4,456 61.6154,4 66.9198.8 Minus Minimum I MaxImum ~V~IIlla-lb....fU; ~Cod.R bd:...._ISt..II~~.lK-..o4IDrdZanlngCo:dlVU.D_fVtJlotc-.g.... FM~T"03-2tIoedodLVM3-2S-m . . . Continued Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - TttJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, Supplemental Planning Commission Staff Raport March 25, 2008 ATTACHMENT 6 RHD-20 DISTRICT SUMMARY OF LOT COVERAGE, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND ALLOWABLE HABITABLE BUILDING AREAS, 2 STORY DEVELOPMENT SITES PC Staff Report.03-26-08 47 f~ ease end MaxImum as .,. 01 lI\ayjltlultl l\3bllable Afea . \.<)\ c""ertll" . S8llJl1l''' EnveloP" covet1lll" ".,.,.,.... ActUal project l\3bltable Afea as'" 01 fAR- ease and lAexlmUm . RHo-2.0 OIS1R1Cl _, of '-'" ""'..........-.- """" .... """,..UO -- -""" ..... 2. S10R'f oEVELOPMENT sl1ES "",yjltluItI "ab\lable p.rea . \.<)\ covet3I1e1S8\bl1c1< En....loP" CO'i"t3gel propoaed 9358 fAR 609- 12.4 ~ /83.1 ~- 138 ~ ~ 98.6 ~- 14.6' ,,02.3 ~- 3/"". 81. ;11 ~- 3/"". 61. "-'1 01.. . ~- 3/60. 13. 96 4 ~- 73.31 , gij.4 ~06- 3/8. 73. 96 4 6' . ~- 73.3', gij.4 ~- 3180. 13. 96 4 81.6/ . 100.1/90.1 3.090 . l1ab\8 AC.\1Ial project \.<)\ co't8f39" \ft\aJ'lmUm l\3b LOt ~abltable AfeA sa .,. 01 and ,."... eas~ o~~ .k fA3J'lmUm "abllable d fAR covet3g..~e...-c. a a..,.ed on LOt proP""" En""IOP" CO"et3ge ~vet3ge1S8\bl1C.\( EnveloP" Co'Iel3ll" . ACtuaIProlec.\ "ab\labla ,."... \.<)\ SIIAI 4.269,4.155 Add'- 94.3 103.6 2.1!>O 74.9 72.9 68.2 79.0 97.0 88.3 2,'$Ii) 4.340 /2,996 3.067 2.6117 3,125 3,3!>O 76.6193.0 90.2 72.4 4,155 3.001 4,269 3.725 75'10 .0.85 75'10-1.00 3.113 3,638 99.8/89.3 4,8&7 54.1160.9 2.6&1 3.3!>O 2,&53 2,150 1116 ()cean 2,996 75'10.\.00 &7.1 96.4 4,340 4,&&1 6ll.9 4.340 4,ll81 2,426 2,'$Ii) QcellJ\ 1301 3.362/2,93& 61.2 15'10 - 0.85 &9.0 100.2/9\.1 91.9 2,938 3.352/2.9311 3,352 4,001 4,001 &4.5 85.& 70.7 71.6 4,340 3.352 4.ll87 4,007 75'10 - 0.&5 16'10 .1.00 2,644 2,969 3.525 3.525 161& ocean 20& first - 7&.9 86.7 3,352/2,938 4.001 &1.& 73.4 3.352 4.007 75'10 .1.00 2.&32 2,938 200 second 42.5 0\6.1 4,001 16.0 3,352 4,001 2.&;1 2,938 2021"\11II 3.352/2,938 &3.6 76'10 .1.00 4.007 34.3/41.0 3,362 3,362 4.001 4.001 76'\0' \.00 2.943 2.54& 2.938 2()4-212 f\I\h 234S~ ~ 16'10.1.00 ...___~_~~....,..,.....,.........."...~l"""'''''--- ~_.........---'-' ~--- \,313 2.938 2.938 E\8venlh 121 Address Lot Ac\IllIl projecl Lot coveralle MaXImum Habitable f\C\lI31 Project MaJdnlUl1l llabllable Area - Actual Project FAR Ba"" and Size llabllable Araa and ......a BaSed on l-ot tlabltab\e ......a aa 'f, of l-ot coveralle/SetbBck Habitable AJe8 MaXImum as .,. of proposecl F,e.R Coverelle/S8tbBCI< MaXImum Hab\lable Envelope covarelle/ aa'f, of FAR- Ma.lmUl1l Habitable envelOpe CoV"",ge ......a Baaed on l-ot Proposed BaSa fAR Base and ArelI- Lot Coveraga - covaralle/S8tb8ck MaJdmUl1l Selbael< Envalope Envelope Coveralle Coverage \4&\52 'Twelfth 2,938 2,99\ 75%-\.00 4,007 13,352 74.61692 4,007 I 3,3521 2,93l1 \0\.8192.6 73.3/80.6 - 67.6 / 96.4 23\-235 2,500 2,470 60% - \.00 2.600 12,687 95.019\ .9 2,600 12,667 I 2,500 96.6169.6 96.21 \06.8- AlIeen1h 93.0 I \02.3 209 s\lde8lllh 2,469 2,204 60% - \.00 2,562 1 2,562 66.0186.0 2,5f)l12,56212,469 62.6/15.\ 00.41 \06.0- 96.4/ \06.0 --.T 2.635 1 tlA T 3,67013.360 69.7/192 3,87013.360 12,640 92.4 1 83.7 7\.0/18.3 ... T 2.56212,562 and 34.3/4\.0 and 4,667 14,340 12,996 and 46.7 142.5 and 6\.3186.5- ___, '" '1Af\ 95.019\.9 2,5f)l12,5f)l12,4ll9 \03.8194.3 69.0171.\ and 00.41 \06.0- 96.4/ \06.0 - - . 74.41 62.\ and -----=- ,4&\52 'Twelfth 2,W<> 23\-235 2,500 2,470 60% - \.00 2.600 I ~,OO I AlIeen1h 209 s\lde8lllh 2,469 2,204 60% - \.00 2,562 1 2,562 66.0186.0 \ 2,5f)l12,5621 0/.,"". I \ \ Avaralle 2,964 2,635 tlA 3,87013.360 69.7/192 3,87013.360 12,640 92.4 1 83.7 7\.0/18.3 Mlnbnurnl 2,469/ \,37313.\\3 NA 2.56212,582 and 34.3/4\.0 and 4,867 14,340 12,996 and 46.7 142.5 and 6\.3186.5- MUln'um 3,836 4,86714,340 95.019\.9 2,5f)l12,5f)l12,4ll9 \03.8/94.3 69.0171.\ and 00.41 \06.0- 96.4/ \06.0 Avaralle 2,948 2,707 tlA 3,897 13.386 70.618\.8 3,697 13,38612,860 95.5 / 86.4 74.41 62.\ and Mlnua 85.9/94.7 Minimum I MaXbnum ~__~"';;;'-2~2008 RHD-20 DISTRICT (continued! ,.- Of un _~...-.-..... "'" ..u-ow..... """'................... 2. STORY DEVEl-OPMEtl1' SITES (ConlfnuedJ . . ---------~_._~--'- . . . Continued Public Hearing ra: Final Draft - TJtJe 11: Zoning Seal Beach Municipal Code, SUpplemental Planning Commission Staff Report March 25, 2008 ATTACHMENT 7 RHD-20 DISTRICT SUMMARY OF LOT COVERAGE, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND ALLOWABLE HABITABLE BUILDING AREAS, 3 STORY DEVELOPMENT SITES PC Staff Report.03-26-08 48 ContInu8d Public H9arlnQ": Fh!J Draft ~ .ZonkV Seal BettdI"'~, __~stsIr_ Mareh 28, 200B . . RHD-20 DISTRICT (Continued) SUMMARY OF LOT COVERAGE, FLOOR AREA RATIO AND ALLOWABLE HABITABLE BUILDING AREAS 3 STORY DEVELOPMENT SITES Addross Lot Actual Lot Coverage llaxlmurn Actual Project Maximum Hebltabl9 Are9 - Actual Project FAR Base end Maximum e. Size Project and Habitable Are. Habitable Aree 81 % of I.ot CoverngelSotback Habitable Are9 ',l, of MllXlmum Hebltable Hebltable Propoaed Buod on Lot Maximum Habitable Envelope Coveraool as%ofFAR- Arao -I.ot Coveraoe- Area FAR eoveragolSotbacl< Are9 Baaed on I.ot Pr0p<>B8d Base FAR Base and Setback Envelope Coverage Emelopo CoveragoJSotback Mlllllmum Covenge Envelope Covernoe 217 SIxlh- 4,406 1,756 75% - 0.80 7,836/7,152 22.4124.6 7,638/7,152/4,185 42.0/362 53.4/81.8- 61.0/67.8 236 Thirteenth. 3.750 2,948 60% - 0.85 5,379/5,323 54.8/55.4 5,379/5,323/3,562 82.8/71.5 66.2/76.7 - 66.9/77.5 233 Fourteenth. 3,750 2,276 60%-0.85 5,600 15,705 40.6/39.9 5,800 15,705/3,562 63.91552 63.6/73.6 - 62.4/72.3 243 FlIleenth. 3,750 4.054 80% - 0.85 5,379/5,323 75.4/76.2 5,379/5,323/3,562 113.8/98.3 662 /76.7 - 66.9/77.5 308 3,750 2,312 60% - 0.85 5,600 I 5,705 41.3/40.5 5,600 I 5,7051 3,562 64.9156.1 63.6 I 73.6 - Seventeenth- 62.41 n.3 --..... \ : ~CocIIR blt.._~~~OlwtIlorqCcdlrW.OnlfH)lotc-.g.hl FAR~T"'03-28t111 ,Addres" lot Actual I..ot coverage lIoJdtnum ACtual project MoJdmum Hebltable fU88 - Actual proJect FAR Sa"" and h\OXlmum as Sl~ projeCt end \-llllJIIabl. ,.,.. Hab\table fU88 ... 'to 01 Lot cov.ragelSetback l\8b\1Jlble - 'to 01 Ma,,\mum Habitable Habitable proposed aa.-donLot h\OXlml/m l1ab\t8ble Envelope CoVerage! ell 'to of FAR- A"'" - I..ot Coverage - - FAR cov.rogo/llOtbAck Area aased on lot proposed B.... FAR 8a.e and Selback Envelope coverage envelope eoveragelSelback h\OXlmum covorage EnVelope Cov.rage Average 3,88\ 2,669 NA 5,9581 5,841 46.9131.3 5,95815.84113,666 13.5163.5 62.6/12.5 and 64.\ 113.5 Av.rage - 3.750 3,093 NA 5.45215.450 51.6 5.45215,450 /3.562 86.6182.5 65.3/15.7 and 3-S\Ory 65.4175.6 l1o~ Only Minimum I 3,150 \,158/ NA 5.319/ 5,323 and 21.3/16.0 5.31915,32313,562 and 42.0 /362 and 53.4/61.6 - Maximum 4,054 1,63611,\52 1.63611,15214.165 \\3.81108.\ 81.g /67.8 and 66.2176.1 - 66.9/71.5 Av.rage 3,150 2,5\2 tlf\ 5.526 1 5,571 46.5 5,526/5,~ 13.562 10.5160.9 64.5114.6 end Mlnue 63.9/14.0 Minimum' MaJ<lmum 3-S\Ory 110m'" 3.150 2.948 tlf\ 5,319 1 5,323 55.2 5,319/5.323/3,562 62.8/11.5 66.2/16.1- Only' Average 66.9 / 71.5 II\lnu" Minimum 1 MaJdrnum ..."......,.._~,...;,...26.""'" RHD-20 DISTRICT \COntinued) _y", '-'" _""'" "-""" "'''' """" ^"" AU-""'....., .....,,- - """" 3 STORY DEVEI..OPMENl SITES (Conl/nuedl . . 'flU884torY ~"",e lbroo-e\O<Y ~orne perrnlu.d; 2.ell>fY hO.no consuucted lb........"'<Y borne penn\lll>Cl; l.ell>fY borne cona1nJCllld . " - --------~------'~_._-