Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1992-03-04 . . . .. I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. Aqenda Porecast Karch 18, 1992 CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MARCH 4, 1992 City Council Chambers * 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of February 19, 1992 SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. Commission Consideration: City Policy Statement re Granting Administrative waivers from Required Off-Street Parking Requirements PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation #13-91 Address: B-112 Surfside Applicant: David BYrnes Request: To install a transparent or cable safety rail around a proposed roof deck which would exceed the 35 height limit by a maximum of three feet. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS STAFF CONCERNS COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT Negative Dec~aration #92-~ Minor P~an Review #92-4 Archaeological Element/General Plan 1017 - ~017, Sea~ Way Add 500 square feet and two-car carport Freddie Leonard for the Keus&wan's . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 1992 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of March 4, 1992 was called to order by Vice Chairman Dahlman at 7:35 p.m. in City Councl1 Chambers. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Law. ROLL CA ToT. Present: Vice Chairman Dahlman Commissioners Law, Orsini, Sharp Absent: Chairman Fife (Excused Absence) Staff Present: Department of Development Services: Lee Whittenberg, Director Joan Flllmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of February 19, 1992 MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Law to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of February 19, 1992 as presented. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 3 - 1 - 1 orsini, Law, Dahlman Sharp Fife SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. Commission Consideration City Policy Statement #101 Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff report/policy statement on file in Planning Department). Mr. Whittenberg explained the Plannlng Commission had discussed how staff would calculate required off-street parklng spaces for commercial structures which are less than one-half of one parking space from meeting the City's parking requirements. The Commission instructed staff to prepare a policy statement formalizing a procedure allowing staff to calculate the interior walls of a structure (delete those walls from the square footage calculation) if the calculation for the exterior of the structure puts them less . . . Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes o~ March 4, 1992 than one-half of a parking space from meeting the parking requirements. This policy statement says only the minimum width requirements of the interior walls would be calculated. When and if this calculation is to be implemented in the future staff is to prepare a memo to both the City Council and Planning Commission glving the specifics of the application and the calculatlons. commission Comments Commissioner Sharp, noting two prior controversial parking issues on Main Street that were calculated by the regular measuring method, asked if those applications were re-calculated could those applicants reapply under this new regulation? Mr. Whittenberg said the two controversial parking issues would be Mr. Jim Watson's application and Mr. Hagel's request for his law offices. Mr. Hagel's request was to allow tandem parking spaces and greater than 25% compact parking spaces, not a request for a Variance from parking requirements. Mr. Watson requested a Variance on parking but he was one space short. Therefore, neither of those requests would apply to thls POllCY. commissioner orsini asked if the parking requirements are calculated by individual tenants or for the entire building? Director Whittenberg explalned the parking requirement is based on the total number of square feet of the building on the property. POllCY Statement 101 would apply only to existing City businesses which are less than one-half of one parking space from meeting the current parking requirements. If a structure already meets the parking requirements it wouldn't qualify; if they wanted to expand they would have to apply for a Variance. The walls could only be subtracted if the property itself (no matter how many tenants) is less than one-half of one parking space from meeting the parking requirements. Mr. Whittenberg noted the parking requirements presented for Tanning by Tiffany were for the entire building, not just for their particular office space. Commissioner Law said she felt staff costs for maklng these extra calculations should be borne by the applicant. commissioner Dahlman asked how the parking requirement for each property evolved at an even number of spaces? Mr. Whittenberg explained the City rounds up its parking requirement numbers. For example if an applicant needed 4.31 parking spaces the City would round it to 5 spaces. He said thlS is almost a standard provision found in most Southern California cities. MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Sharp to approve Policy Statement #101 with the following verbiage added: "The charge for staff time is to reflect actual staff time". MOTION CARRIES: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Orsini, Sharp, Dahlman, Law Fife *** . . . page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 4, 1992 Mr. Whittenberg said staff will revise Policy statement #101 and forward it to the City Councl1 for approval. Staff will inform the Commisslon of Council's action. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation #13-91 B-112 Surfs ide Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (staff report on file in the Planning Department). This is a request to install a transparent or cable safety rail around a proposed roof deck which would exceed the 35 foot height limit by a maximum of three feet. commission Comments The Commission discussed a prior application (C-24 Surfside) where the Planning Commission allowed after-the-fact installation of a safety railing allowing the applicant to service his skylights safely. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that there are two separate issues between the application for C-24 and B-112 Surfsidei the different uses of the roofs. At C-24 Surfs ide the 36" high steel tube safety rail was needed to allow cleanlng of roof skylights. The Commission required the placement of an intermediate rail at a lower height to prevent the possibility of falling and sliding off the structure under that 36" rail. B-112 wants a roof deck. If the roof is to be used as a deck, the top of the roof has to be less than 35' so the required parapet can be placed at the 35' height limit. Mr. Whittenberg read four letters received by the Department into the Record (attached to these Mlnutes). from: Planning They were Michael Arnstein, Al16 Surfs ide/Vice Pres. Bd. of Directors Dennis & Jeanice Camp, C-39 Surfside Sonia & Ron Putney, C-34 Surfs ide Harland Anderson, BlOB Surfside It was noted that Mr. Arnstein's letter indicated he is the Vice President of the Surfs ide Board of Directors but does not state he was writing on behalf of the Board of Directors. Vice Chairman Dahlman opened the Public Hearing. David Byrnes * B-112 Surfside Mr. Byrnes read a prepared statement (attached to these Minutes). Mr. Byrnes said he was asking for permission not forgiveness (after building without permits). He said he plans two 4'x 6'skylights on his deck. The Commission approved his covered roof access structure (CRAS) to 42' on October 2, 1991 (Resolution No. 1649). That would be a 7' structure on a 35' deck. He said "I assumed . . . Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 4, ~992 that I would have to put a safety railing up there. That would leave me at 38'. The 1n1tial plans were a 37' house. I wanted 8' ceilings throughout. It is very possible to build four levels in Surfside. It comes out to about 1500 square feet on a 25' x 35' lot. I can still build a 35' house and have four levels. I've dropped two ceil1ngs to 7~' hence losing the ... I was going to have a 9' ceiling in the master bedroom, I lost the 2', I'm at 35' to the top of the roof line. I'd also 11ke to know who is going to assume the liability for the dangers of servicing the skylights if you guys do not approve this? ...". Commissioner Law asked if Mr. Byrnes knew how many Surfside houses had railings above the height 11m1t? Mr. Byrnes said he didn't know. He said this has never been an issue before. When C-24 came before the Commission the applicant didn't show up for the meeting and no one said anything. vice Chairman Dahlman asked Mr. Whittenberg about the rule of allowing a CRAS 7'above the height limit. Mr. Whittenberg clar1fied that the Commission is talking about two different uses of a roof: 1. C-24 doesn't have a roof deck and therefore they have a roof line at 35' and can request a Height variation to have a parapet above the 35' height 11mit because it is not a required parapet under the building code. That parapet could be as high as the Planning Commission would agree to approve --- any height between 0' and 7'. 2. B-112 is different. The City's municipal code specifically states that the only parapet which can be granted under the Height Variation process is a parapet not required under the building code (~). Once you have a roof deck you are required to have a parapet around the roof deck area. The City's position for a roof deck parapet is that the top of the parapet has to be at the 35' height limit. If the roof is to be used as a deck, the top of the roof has to be less than 35' so the required parapet can be placed at the 35' height limit. If the roof is not to be used as a deck then the roof line can be at 35'. If an owner wants access for maintenance purposes the owner can apply for a Height Var1ation for a guard railing at a height the Commission would deem appropriate. Commissioner Dahlman asked if Mr. Byrnes could achieve his desired result by building a CRAS and not marking the words "Roof Deck" on his plans? Mr. Whittenberg said no. Once an owner has a permanent access to the roof area it is class1fied as a roof deck. C-24 Surfside does not have a CRAS, he has pUll-down stairs. . Page 5 - p~anning Commission Minutes of March 4, 1992 Mr. Byrnes said he was told by the Planning Commlssion that if he were not to bUlld the CRAS and have a pull-down stairs he could have a railing under the Minor Plan Review process. He said it appeared staff was taklng away the convenience of a CRAS. He asked staff if he placed the exterior door at the bottom of the stairs could he have a railing? Mr. Whittenberg said no because he still would have a roof deck. Mr. Whittenberg explained that at C-24 Surfs ide the skylights covered the majority of the roof area, not leaving an area available for roof deck purposes. When thlS applicatlon for B-112 goes through the plan check process they will note it has a permanent access plus a large roof area and classify it as a roof deck. Mr. Byrnes asked if he had a mechanical stairway with a moveable skylight could he have a railing? He said "... my next door neighbor came before the Commission two years ago, I don't think he came before the Commission, but he had a roof deck and he wanted to put a 'doghouse' in and they said no problem with the 'doghouse'. He's at 35' feet and he has a deck above that with a jacuzzi and a rail at almost 40'. I've got the pictures ...". . Mr. Byrnes said he felt everyone else in Surfs ide has done this and he's the first person who has been turned down by the Planning Commission. commissioner Orsini explained members on the Planning Commission have changed and therefore, opinions have changed. This Commission considers applications in depth and sets limits. Commissloner Orsini asked staff if the applicant had no CRAS then could he have a railing around the roof? Mr. Whittenberg said in talking with the Clty'S plan check engineers if the applicant does not have an area on the roof that classifies as a roof deck then a parapet is not required under the building code and a parapet could be permitted by the Commission. Mr. Byrnes said he was under the impression that if he installed a drop down stairs in his bedroom with an operational skylight gOlng out onto his deck he could come back and apply for a railing so he wouldn't falloff servicing his roof. Mr. Whittenberg said that would be his understanding, as long as the plan check engineers would not consider it a roof deck. . commissioner Sharp said the Surfs ide home owners association had expressed a desire to keep the height limlt at 35'. He felt that association should have some weight in saying what's built there. Mr. Whittenberg said a property owner in Surfs ide needs to get approvals from three organizations: (1) Surfs ide 's Board of Directors/Homeowners Association needs to approve the architectural design; (2) the City's approves the construction; (3) the California Coastal Commission approves a Development Permit. Mr. Whittenberg said he talked to the Assistant Regional Dlrector at the Coastal Commission about Mr. Byrnes' request and he indicated the Coastal Commission would probably not recommend approving a . Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 4, 1992 structure higher than 35' in Surfs ide with the exceptlon of the CRAS itself. commissioner Sharp said he personally could not approve a roof deck at any height without having a solid, 3' (minimum) parapet around it when adults and children would be using that roof deck. He would not feel safe with just a railing. Mr. Whittenberg reminded the Commission that if they were to approve a parapet around a roof deck on this application that parapet would have to meet building code requirements. It's up to the plan check engineers to make sure a structure meets code requlrements. . commissioner Dahlman referenced the Camp's letter in support of this application, noting it said "We feel that if Mr. Byrnes is granted the variance, it should be a precedent setting situation due to the fact that we and others anticipate building in the future." He interpreted the letter to say "O.K., let's just go ahead and raise the height limit to 38' and get it over with". Mr. Byrnes referenced the telephone message to the Planning Department typed in at the bottom of the Camp's letter which said they want a 35' height limit with a 3' safety rail. He said his house was built in 1927 and is a death trap and must be rebuilt. He felt the majority of the houses in Surfside are at 35' with a deck on top. Commissioner orsini said what about the houses that conform to the 35' height limit? Is this fair to them? Mr. Byrnes said he was talking about the Putney residence which comes before Surfside's architectural committee next Tuesday. It has not been built. The plans show two bays of skyllghts exactly like C-42. They will probably want a railing. Mr. Whittenberg discussed the helght measuring system in Surfside. until six months ago, the heights were measured from the average height of the ground on which the structure was going to be set. Now all the heights are measured from the crown of the street. This makes a difference in helght. Under the old measurlng process you'd find structures that would, from the street level, measure 38' because the height averaging allowed for that. Therefore, almost all of the existing structures in Surfs ide were built under a different height measuring system than the current system in place. Mr. Byrnes said that A-104 measures close to 40' and the two houses in front of him are 38' to the top of the roof with no roof decks. Mr. Whittenberg said today those structures would not be allowed to be built at that height. . Harland Anderson * B-108 Surfside Mr. Anderson spoke in opposition to this application, speaking in favor of maintaining the 35' height limit. . . . Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of Karch 4, 1992 He said the California Coastal Commission restricted his house to a 35' to the top of his chimney. He felt A-102 was closer to 40' than 35' and they had to cut an 8' chimney off. He said he assured by Lee Whittenberg, Barry Curtis and Mike Cho of the city's Planning Department that there would never be another home in Surfs ide built over 35. He said he was robbed of hlS million dollar Catalina Island view by a house exceeding the height limit. He depended on the City to maintain the 35' height limit. He and his wife went out of the country last year and came home to find a house built in front of theirs that exceeds the height limit. He asked if anyone was really doing their job? He sald he waited at one Planning Commission meeting until 2:30 a.m. and was never heard. He stated "... one gentleman on the council was sound asleep at this time ...". He said "There's one builder, in the Colony there, that actually told our Colony president that he should mind his Colony business and he would build his houses any way that he chooses. And he has almost a walk through through the ... Planning Department because I have three of his buildings that have robbed me of my view". He said he was disabled from the telephone company and since they built their house five years ago they have had their view robbed three times. He said he and his wife have decided to move out of the Colony. He talked to a realtor who estimated the view stolen from his has devaluated his property $50,000. H1S family asks him if there is any justice and why his view has progressively been stolen from him. He asked why the owners on A row, who have an unobstructed view, have been able to rob at least twelve homes of their views? He said he could hardly blame Mr. Byrnes for wanting to "... get up to where you can get your neck out of the hole and see what's going. Because there is literally a Berlin wall built in front of us on A row. Over 50% of the houses on A row are illegally over height". Commissioner Dahlman said the height limit in Surfside was discussed thoroughly about a year ago. One of the al ternati ves was to give everyone the same height limitation as the then highest home. That was rejected because it would have been a 40'limit. They agreed to settle on 35'. Regarding A row, Mr. Anderson said the Coastal Commission admitted to him a new employee made a calculation error. They admit the employee should never have given out the 37' height. Additionally, there was more helght on the foundation due to the averaging method. Mr. Anderson has threatened to have a laser survey put on this house that's blocking his view. The top of its chimney would be close to 45'. He said he has been to the Planning Department fifteen times and apparently the City Attorney is afraid to release lnformation on how the City rationalized and why they allowed this house to be so grossly over built. . Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 4, 1992 Commissloner Dahlman asked Mr. Whlttenberg if a laser measurement was needed and if the City had a short measurlng stlck for one of the two dimensions used in calculating survey data? . Mr. Whittenberg sald a laser survey instrument is more accurate than the City's instruments. The structure at A-I02 was built under the old measuring provisions which allowed for averaging. There was approximately a 2' average allowed on that structure as part of the compliance with the existing code. Additional height was added to the structure that was not shown on the plans. That went to the City Council for a determination as to whether or not to require the additional height to be removed. The Council determined to allow 1 t to remain. Mr. Anderson has requested lnformation on City Council deliberations that went into making the A-I02 decision but those determinations were made in closed session and to date the City Attorney says that is not public information. The City Attorney is still reviewing this matter and staff doesn't have a final determination. The other issue regarding A-I02 Surfs ide is that Mr. Anderson has threatened litigation against the City regarding the matter and that is also a concern of the City Attorney. There are a number of issues involved. The problem with Surfside and non-conforming uses in Old Town is there are structures which have been built over a long period of time, over several different sets of standards. Determinations cannot be made based on what's happened in the past with a different set of rules that are no longer in place. commissioner Sharp said the building of the structure at A-I02 is what caused the measuring requirements to be changed. The Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments Commissioner Orsini said the telephone calls he has received call for taking a stand and maintaining the 35' height limit. If thlS application were to be approved what would the Commission do if someone in Old Town wanted one also? He would have to vote to deny this appllcation. commissioner Sharp said he felt the Commission could not make the necessary findings to approve this application. He would have to vote to deny. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to deny this request for a guard rail to be built around the roof at 3' above the 35' height limit. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Orsini, Law, Dahlman Fife . Vlce Chairman Dahlman informed the applicant of his appeal rights to the City Council. *** . . . Page 9 - P~anning Commission Minutes of March 4, ~992 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 112 & 114 First Street. Seal Beach Bruce Stark * No Address. Seal Beach Mr. Stark spoke about the Cox Construction Company houses at 112 and 114 First Street. He asked if 3' side yard setbacks or 6' distance between houses still existed; he was told that the ~ provides for those distances. He asked if two houses were built side-by-side could one entry porch extend into the adjoining lot? Where you would have to walk on the neighbors' property to get into the house? Mr. Whittenberg told him that issue is under consideration by the City Attorney's Office. There is a Code provision exempt1ng concrete flatwork from the setback requirements. Mr. Stark asked if the steps from the front door could extend into the neighbors yard? He was told that is part of the concrete flatwork. He asked about the height limits for a fence and gate on the front of property. He was told a fence in the front setback area cannot exceed 42" in height; behind the front setback area the fence can be 6' in height. Mr. Whittenberg said the builder has been advised that the security gates between the two homes need to be lowered to 6'. Mr. Stark said "Yes, I'm talking about Mr. Cox's two houses on First Street. And it gives the impression that Mr. Cox has an 'in', as Mr. Anderson indicated for another contractor, with the Building Department to do practically anything he wants to do". Mr. Stark presented the Commission with photographs. Mr. Stark continued, saying "I would suggest that Mr. Cox appeared on behalf of the City staff and Mr. Cox is being pa1d off handsomely for coming down and giving his warped testimony". Mr. Stark said he has never asked for nor imposed special considerations. He said "You know and I know that staff 1S not doing that. They reward their friends and punish their enemies. And it's refreshing to hear other people come forward and say the same thing that I've been saying for a decade. That they see it too. And the quest10n to this Commission should be, how long are you going to put up with it?" commissioner Dahlman said "I certainly don't find it refresh1ng to find out that that's true. Although it's better than finding it out (interrupted)". Comm1ssioner Sharp asked Commissioner Dahlman what he meant by saying he found it refreshing to find out that that is true? commissioner Dahlman clarified that he had said he found it was not refreshing to find out that it's true. Commissioner Sharp said "Are you saying that staff is giving special privileges? Because I would take exception to that very quickly". Commissioner Dahlman said "No. I d1d not say that. And I didn't mean to say that." He continued, "Let me make one thing perfectly clear ... Mr. Stark said that he found it refreshing to see other people pointing these things out. I basically was disagreeing with him. And for my part it is not very refreshing. That's what I said". . . . Page 10 - P1annlnq Commission Minutes of March 4, 1992 commissioner orsini said "I don't feel that there's special privilege in saying who's at the counter is getting what they want. But what I wlll say, and WhlCh I have seen since I have checked out some of these things, there's a lot of mistakes going on over the counter. To where things, when you check later on, you're findlng varlations in things and, as I said, ... if someone really doesn't go out and actually measure each individual thing you can find a lot of mistakes on these things. And I don't know if it's staff just over the counter. They look at the blueprints and then people aren't following the blueprints; I've seen that also. To where what's on the jOb site isn't what's on the plans. So, I don't feel it's a special privilege but I do think there are mistakes being made". Mr. Whittenberg responded by saying he would not deny that once in awhile a mistake is not made. Staff deals with a number of applications and the Planning and Building Departments are not perfect. In the case of Mr. Cox's properties the approved plans did not indicate the security gate between the two properties; those were added after the last Building Department inspection. Staff noticed at that time that the concrete flatwork had been done which included an entry step that goes across the property line. Under City QQgg prOV1Slons it's very clear that the height of the securi ty gates is too high. Mr. Cox has been so informed. Regarding the entry steps, the QQgg says a structure is something that cannot be located within a setback. Mr. Whittenberg read the ~ definition of "structure"; staff is seeking City Attorney determination on the exclusion of "paved areas" within that deflnition. The City Attorney will ask are the steps part of the structure itself or required for the entry? If the steps are determlned to be part of the structure itself and not a paved area, staff will inform Mr. Cox that he will need to revise his entry to meet ~ requirements. "I don't think that's giving anyone a special privilege" said Mr. Whittenberg. commissioner orsini asked if both homes were sold at some time to different owners and they wanted a privacy fence between the two homes what happens to those steps? Mr. Whittenberg said he could not answer that question because the City Attorney has not replied. If the steps are not part of the structure an easement could be required. If part of the structure, the steps would need to be redesigned or the entry changed. A neighbor can always grant a formal easement to a neighbor which would be recorded and shown on the title. Mr. Stark added that there is 5' 9" between the buildlngs, not 6'which he said proves his point that "... if you've got an 'in' wi th the BUllding Department you can have a lot of creative thinking as to how you can get around the City ~ and some people and do it and some people can't. Just like that front yard setback. Because the City ~ is very, very clear ... and yet that's exactly what Mr. Whittenberg's Department did which allows . page 11 - P1anning Commission Minutes of March 4, 1992 Mr. Cox to build his house farther out towards the street than anybody elses. If that's not a special privilege, I'll eat it". Mr. Whittenberg told Mr. Stark the measurement between structures should be taken from foundation to foundation and not taken from stucco wall to stucco wall. Vice Chairman Dahlman said over the last several years the Commission has sought not to look another way when things are brought to their attention and to seek a more level playing field and more equal treatment. STAFF CONCERNS 124 & 125 Cottonwood Lane Mr. Whittenberg presented a memo on the separation between 124 and 125 Cottonwood Lane in the Seal Beach Trailer Park. The footing for 125 Cottonwood which has proposed new construction for it has been poured and it's not 6' from the structure next door. The foundation will be required to be cut back to achieve the 6' distance. The submitted plans showed a 6' separation between structures but it's 5'7" or 5'8". . Regarding property lines, Mr. Whittenberg said the requirements for mobile home parks requires a distance between the trailers, not a distance from a property line. There are no defined lease areas in the Seal Beach Trailer Park. commissioner orsini said he had been in the Trailer Park and was approached by a tenant who had a fence erected on her property while she was away. She has a 2' setback to the fence and the neighbor, who built the fence, has a 4' setback to the fence. Mr. Whittenberg said he would bet no permit was issued for the fence and the fence wl11 have to come down and asked Mr. Orsini for the address. Regarding the issue of defined boundary 11nes in the Trailer Park, showing one lease area to the next lease area, Mr. Whittenberg said the City Attorney's Office is researching that issue and the Park may be required to provide that information at some future time. . Regarding the issue of setbacks in the Trailer Park, the required distances differ depending on trailer orientation, for example 6' or 10' or 3'. It depends if it's trailer-to-trailer or trailer-to- cabana or a side-of-a-trailer to end-of-the-trailer. There are different situations discussed in the California code re trailer parks and not all trailers will have the same distance requirement. 126 Cottonwood has submitted a proposal but will not be moving. 125 Cottonwood will be required to have a 6' separation between 124 and 126 Cottonwood trailers. Trailers at the corner of a road would be required to have a 3' setback between the side of the trailer and the roadway. . Page 12 - P1anninq Commission Minutes of March 4, 1992 Map of Trailer Park Commissioner Orsini asked about requiring a tract map for the Tra1ler Park. Mr. Whittenberg said initially a lease line map was prepared by the Park indicating sizes of the leasable areas for the tra1lers. It is not a formal, legal document and was never recorded. commissioner orsini asked if it is within the City's authority to request a map of the Park showing the Commission where it is going 1n the future? Mr. Whittenberg said the City Attorney's Office is reviewing the question if staff can request a map or not and will advise the City. Comm1ss1oner Orsini said the original map shows 25' lots. Can they change that size? Mr. Whittenberg said if the City were to require a Parcel Map to be submitted to the City for review and approval of the Park, the proposed lots could be at any size. They would not have to meet the standard requirements of the City for a 25' x 100' lot because it wouldn't work for a trailer park. . Comm1ssioner Orsini asked if the City 1S allowed to request a Parcel Map does the parking area have to be included? Do the parking spaces have to conform to standard sizes? Mr. Whittenberg said the map would probably be handled similarly to a condominium map. There would be individual units indicated as separate entities and common roadways and parking areas would be one lot that would show interior circulation roadways, the parking area the communi ty center. staff would have to check on what sizes the parking spaces are striped. Commissioner Sharp reminded Comm1ssioner Orsini that the State has the ultimate authority in the Park. Agenda - Walt Miller Commissioner Sharp asked Walt Miller if he had something to add to the discussion? Mr. Miller said he had received a letter from the Planning Department stating he would be on the agenda but when he arrived he found he was not on the agenda. Mr. Wh1ttenberg said staff probably forgot to follow-thru and put the application on the agenda. Staff will research and telephone Mr. Miller. Staff apologized. Disabled Vehicles Commissioner Orsini asked about disabled vehicles on two parking lots --- one on Seal Beach Boulevard and one on 16th Street at the railroad right-of-way. Mr. Whittenberg said it's a continuing issue in dealing with the railroad company to get those cars towed. The Navy quit claimed this property to the railroad company. Staff will go out and look at both these lots and report back. . . . . Page 13 - P~annlng COMMission Minutes of March 4, 1992 ADJOURNMENT Vlce Chairman Dahlman adJourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. *** Respectfully Submitted, CJo~~~ Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Planning Commission. APPROVAL: The Plannirg Commission Minutes of March 4, 1992 were approved on March ~1992. ~ -~ . . . z;onill or1?lJn ~ (J..~ j. ?h~,t"G t :50(.( t;>it1c J C4 q ~ ?-t.l3 c::/ t.. I C/u/';?~1/91~ : ~.iu, lJlu--zTJ~, I ~ ~.~~...~' ~ ~~ -ftu;u./:itQ I ~ ~ / t::J ~ CIJAd .hi! tpJ W r ~ ~ d/m ;t{). ~.ffud --bp;, , I 'UMlW/ ~ ~ Jvt 4J tit, ~ :~~ 35/1 ~O pfto d 40 cdW~ ,MJJ' 4.3# U UM~~ 4L '~ ~~~~ 4 a . ? ~ :;fS ~ I~ ~02 ~ LJ/W; ~{. / I \ ~~ -<<JPl~~ I:! MJ cfI.;t;uj)) k . k ~ j: ~ 66 ~ (JAq Ctvht 1 /J/ajf lut-~ A~ ~ ~ : Ot/AJI Iu buu2~kw ~~ ;ZO d,;; cI :Icmd ~ ~ dear j,,~~~ Ii! ~~aJ 1k ~ /1; ~, ~!t:ffj I:~ ~0~,~~~~ 1'1 ~ ALJ a AA/frlb tInd ~ ~ 4 II pnd ? J d.t5ld ta L0 4 Aj; .-.icJ I cJ.trvL oL :vt .& 011k- ~ ' ~ ,. .dUL :~ '~o~ " VWJ 1#tu.A/JiJ.~~M ~ ,~ CVJuX ~.~ Au .de 35/. , ))mil) ~ ~ /ued IhaL- ~ ~ l,.:tIuti!J I1UU ~,. ~u/ ~/M,,& 3# City of Seal Beach Planning C9mm1SS<<ln SUBMITUO FOR REQg~g .~y;[fiL!_m!'-'1!LOore _.~B ~8 _~ . : Itd 10 k added.? ~ ~ JdJJ &d- 'A,4~a~4?~~ ':ft:j;JIt;-?n ~ ~ / -Yo JunR ~ ~%Z;;1Jm t1 ~ 31/ 6mL:J6 ~@/~5tjd-/a31 . I' II II . " I II I: I 'I j r I 1/ . . . (City i)~ Seat 18eaeh Plannmg Comml"ION . SUBMITTED FOR R~~ D 1m ByC)~Dat0 -= A 116 Surfside Ave. Surfside, CA 90743 March 2, 1992 Planning Commission City of Seal 8each 211 Eighth Street Seal 8each, CA 90740 Ro: HEJGHT REGULATION - SURFSIDE VARIATION RECONSIDERATION - 8112 In that several A and 8 Row houses have previously been allowed to exceed the 35 ft. height limit, and 1n that 8 Row houses in Surfs1de from 874 to 8117 have little possibility of any view (unlike A Row houses which have an ocean view and unobstructed space and C Row houses which have an unobstructed view of the harbor), and in that the proposed 8112 height is within the prescribed 35 ft. he1ght limit and the requested safety rail can be considered an architectural appurtenance far less obtrusive than a parapet or other "legal" architectural additions, I believe it is appropriate to approve this safety rail and that, in fact, it would be discrimination ag~inst this 8 Row homeowner and other 8 Row homeowners from 874 to 8117 not to allow such a safety ra11 if requested. Sincerely, ~~~-. Michael W Arnstein Vice-President/8oard of Directors Surfside Colony . Denn1S & Jean1ce Camp C-39 P.G.Box 421 Surfs1de, CA. 90743 Cd~ of ~d Beach P~~~nn~ ~~Q~~ SUBMlmO FOR RIRD By, \ F.llMo.no Date _ 2 ~~ February 28, 1992 To Whom It May Concern, As homeowners of C-39, Surfs1de, we would 11ke to express our op1n1on regard1ng Mr. Byrnes recons1derat1on of exceed1ng the he1ght Ilm1t on h1S new home. We feel that 1f Mr. Byrnes lS granted the var1ance, 1t should be a precedent sett1ng sltuat1on, due to the fact that we and others ant1c1pate bU1ld1ng 1n the future. . We feel that whatever var1ance lS granted should be extended to any future construction w1thout the homeowner hav1ng to come before the plann1ng comm1SS1on to plead the1r case, thereby wast1ng the t1me and money of the C1ty. Th1S would mean the law of 35 foot Ilm1tat1ons would need to be rev1sed. It lS our bel1ef that what lS good for one lS good for all. ) J;;re~ The Camp's March 4, 1992 PHONCON" At 2:19 Mrs. clarlfled that she and be 351 plus allowlng a Camp telephoned the Plannlng Department and her husband would llke the roof helght llmlt to 31 safety rall. C\o~ Jdan Flllmann, Secretary Plannlng Department . . . . " ('~i1v of Seal 3eac~ PlclOilifig r()r''''l~~r~., SUBMITTED FOR RECOI ,) !8Y~ ~~ Date c..~r< <4 ~ ~ Harland C. Anderson B 108 SurfsJde Ave., Svrfs1de, C~llf C}07Lr 3 Feb. 29, 1992 C1tv Counc1J of the C1tv of Seal Beacl1 oJ 211 Elplrth St., Scpl Be2ch, C~llf He; V2r18~ce 13-91 Bl12 SurfS1de Dear Cou~c1l ~embers~ Tre arrrov~l of the heifht request would provide a grant1nf of specl?l pr1velege not extended to all B 8 Crow propert1eE'o I h2ve a toof deck at the Jegal he1ghto It 1S my experience that tlre w1nd velocity at the 35' ne1~ht 1S so freat you cpn't use the deck comfortably unless tl1e roof deck has a SOlId erc]osed rRll. A SOllO rallp 3' above tl1e 350' Ilm1 t will obstruct the surrov~d il1g homes V1e",'. The four refu12tJl1f ?ferC1es, Surf81~~ CoJony, C211forn1a Coastal Comw1sslon, City of Seal Reach & Or~r[e County codes all s-'-lpulate r' ),lr]X.llLd.1 35' helf,ht JJ)'llJt. I ur{"e vou to cl8n~r th" S VClrlRnC0. ':'hank you. SIncerely yours, ~~(!/~ Harland Co Anderson ~ David A. Byrnes ~~ of Scar e. ' '~ P/annmg Comlli,,, J SUBM/I iiD FOR RECORD 1BJ~ .I;/~ Fro~ 2, Date ...s, ~- 9 ~ . . YRN~ . ~', March 4, 1992 . To: The Planning Commission of Seal Beach It is with extreme frustration that I address the planning commission this evening. Less than a year ago this same issue came before the commission regarding the property at C-24. From the Planning Commission Minutes of March 20,1991 . "Mr. Whittenberg advised that the ~ requires a safety structure approximately 36 inches in height surrounding a roof deck. These safety structures are usually built as part of the house and would be a stucco wall, a roof line extension which is shingle~ etc. Normally the floor area of the deck would be at the maximum height limit and the safety structure would be above that as part of the allowances to exceed the height limit under the Minor Height Variation. Therefore, if a homeowner had a solid stucco safety wall to secure his roof deck the total height could be 38 feet. ... Mr Whittenberg advised this is currently allowed under the code." commissioner Orsini was absent and the remaining members voted in favor of approving a Minor Height Variation. (4-0). It was actions such as these along with the existing structures built in Surfs ide that lead me to invest a substantial amount of time and money to design a home that did not detract from the character or integrity of the neighborhood. . Since Surfside was annexed to Seal Beach in 1968, these safety railings have been deemed appropriate and legal as long as" it does not detract from the character or integrity of the neighborhood, nor does it impair the primary view from any property within 300 feet."* Post Office Box 2~2, SUrfside, CA 90743 , . . . . . David A. Byrnes It is not my 1ntention to circumvent any safety issues or block any property owners view by installing the type of safety railing that the City recommends, but to build a home that is safe as well as functional. With this in mind, my architect has offered to design either a cable type railing similar to the one at C-24 or a solid glass railing comparable to the railings at B-99 & B-100. Either of these railings would maintain a safe environment without sacrificing any of my neighbors views. Sincerely, ~ QI1q-- .~ - David A. Byrnes B-112, Surfside * Staff Report, March 20, 1991, Page 2 of 3 Post Office Box 212, Surfside, CA 90743