Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1993-04-21 ... ... . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA of APRIL 21, 1993 7:30 P.M. * City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolution: #93-26 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL m. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of April 7, 1993 IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. Resolutions Resolutions Denrine B.T's Pizza Application: Resolution No. 93-24 * Conditional Use Pennit #92-23 Resolution No. 93-25 * Variance #92-3 3. Update on the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) [For infonnation only] 4. Review of Measure "M II Growth Management Implementation Program 5. Sweet Jill's Bakery 1231h Main Street Clarification of Ambiguity 6. Minor Plan Review #93-4 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: Request: 28 Welcome Lane Judy Crichton Bill Dawson Two-story cabana and remodel to existing double-wide trailer. . . . v. PUBLIC HEARINGS Height Variation #93-1 Variance #93-3 Determination of Amortization Period Address: 1305 Sandpiper Drive Applicants: Mark and Elizabeth Thompson Property Owners: Mark and Elizabeth Thompson Request: Approval of a Height Variation for an existing covered roof access structure. 7. 8. Zoning Text Amendment #92-6 Applicant: Request: VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS VII. STAFF CONCERNS VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOU~ENT Adjourn to May 3, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. Informal workshop relative to parking. City of Seal Beach Amending the City's Zoning Ordinance to (Chapter 28) to establish setback requirements for detached accessory structures in residential zones. Amending the City's Zoning Ordinance to increase the allowable height of property line walls from eight (8) feet to ten (10) feet at those areas specificed in 128-2316.2(H) of the Code. (. ? ~ A . . . . . Pqe 3. SeIII Beaeh I'IamdDc CommWioD Aceada lor April 7, 1993 1993 AGENDA FORECAST: STAFF REPORTS PENDING: NOT AGENDIZED !I These items received a letter from City Attorney's Office dated January 25, 1993, advising them to contact the City in a last effort to resolve the various matters: * ~~~~yi of CUP~S:~'(or."Brism~~ .open~'2,;6"'~t~+ ..... .....~...../ ",. .......;0>.... . . .". ........:-:-........ . T ":BclIJ640 PCB ...aCQ.......... .. ....<<..... . 4/1193 City Attorney letter to Taco Bell. * CUP #93-_ . ZTA #92-2 . CUP #14-91 . ZTA #-- . CUP #92-7 . VAR #93-1 1005 '.' PCWTed'~:s:.~.!;.?13urgers/Needs CUP y.:.:..:..-:-.... ............."'.=^-'......... ..........~.. ,N, machines. 4/1/93 City Attorney Burgers. for video letter to game Ted's BriteffiUnmenf cafes:~ -:...... .-:-........... ... ......... '. .:.:~., Pending City Manager's work on one day permits. S' a fiettini~s7EnteiOO:nfueriflOrte..~.ar.j~eview~~ ::. P. :&.. .. . '.:.'. ........ . ;... .. ,... 'Y .'.,. . . ...M 4/13/93 Jack Viviano at ABC is now and will provide staff his near future. working comments on in this the q,~~~~w~~q~.~~ao~ Un0Ca1J9~rManna Vnve R'eacti;ate oil" 'separation facility. Tabled at request of applicant. Staff completing environmental review. Address: Business: Applicants: Property Owner: Request: 212 Main Street Masonic Lodge Brian Kyle & Jim Klisanin Seal Beach Masonic Lodge To vary from the parking requirements to allow a mixed office/retail use on the property to submit environmental documents Pendingng for applicant for review. . ....e 4. SelII Beac:b PlaJmiac CommissioD Aceada for April 7, 1!1!13 1993 MAY 05 MAY 19 JUN 09 JUN 23 JUL 07 JUL 21 AUO 04 . AUO 18 SEP 08 SEP 22 OCT 06 OCT 20 NOV 03 NOV17 DEC 08 DEC 22 . CUP #92-2/SeaSide GriU's indefinite extension. MPR #93-3/210 1st StlDimare's remodel. CUP #92-17/Main St. Deli/indefinite extension. CUP #92-13/Papillon's @ 4 mos.lentertainment CUP #92-19/Clancy's for 12 mos. extension. CUP #92-13/Papillon's @ 8 mos.lentertainment CUP #92-20/148 Main St./John's Food King/ABC [Review CUP #92-13 & CUP #92-20 at same meeting]. ft . . ---- 1994 Page 5. SelIl Beach PlanDlDc Commissioa Aceada for April 7, 1993 JAN 05 JAN 19 CUP #92-22/322 Main/Nip'n Stuff/12 mos. review/ABC CUP #92-24/1400 PCR/Glider Inn/12 most ABC CUP #92-26/3001 Old Ranch Pkwy/Tortilla Beach/12 mos/ABC FEB 09 CUP #92-13/Papillon's @ 12 mos.lentertainment (Schedule extension) FEB 23 MAR 09 MAR 23 APR 06 APR 20 MAY 04 MAY 18 JUN 08 JUN 22 JUL 06 JUL 20 AUa 03 Aua 17 SEP 07 SEP 21 OCT 05 OCT 19 NOV 09 NOV 23 DEC 07 DEe 21 CUP #93-2/901 Ocean/Kinda Lahaina @ 12 mos/ABC indefinile .' . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 21, 1993 The regularly' scheduled Planning Commission meeting of April 21, 1993 was called to order at 7:35 p.m. in City Council Chambers by Chairman Fife. PLEDGE OF AI~LEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sharp. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Dahlman, Sharp, Law, Soukup Also Present: Department of Development Services: Michael Colantuono, Assistant City Attorney Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmanll, Executive Secretary CONSENf CALENDAR 1. Minutes of A pl"iI 7, 1993 MOTION by Shm"p; SECOND by Law to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of April 7, 1993 with the following cOl"rections: Page 2: Page 23: Replace "would" with "might like to review ...11 Replaced "can find a way" with IIhoped the applicant can fmd a wny... II . Page 24: Replace"... directed staff to ...11 with "noted that the Commission action amounted to a dil"ection to staff to prepare resolutionsll. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Shm"p, Law, Fife, Dahlman, Soukup . e . Page 2 - City of Seal Beach · Planning Commission Minulcs of AI"II 21, 1993 SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. Resolution #93-24 fOl" Conditional Use Permit #92-23 regarding the denial BJ's Pizza. Resolution #93-25 fOl" Val"iance #92-3 regarding the denial of BJ's Pizza. MOTION by Shm"p; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Resolutions #93-24 and #93- 25. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, Soukup, Law Mr. Colantuono stated this constitutes the legally final Planning Commission decision denying the two applications for B.J. 's Pizza; the appeal period begins tonight. 3. Update on thc Fcde..al Implcmcntation Plan (FIP) Mr. Whittenberg presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. An appellate court decision required the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt emission control measures to supplement State and local control efforts. This decision requires EPA to adopt an FIP, containing adequate emission control measures to attain air quality standards for ozone and carbon monoxide by 2010 and 2000 respectively. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Fife t.o receive and file this report. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Fife, Dahlman, Soukup, Law 4. Review of Measure "M" G."owth Management Implementation Program Mr. Whittenberg presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. To contirme receiving local street maintenance and improvement funds from Orange County's local Transportation Authority, the City must comply with Growth Management Program requirements. This enables the City to remain eligible to receive local turn-back funds, estimated to be $140,000, in the form of Measure M sales taxes and Proposition Ill. Commissioner Dahlman said one goal of Measure M was to mitigate traffic impacts of development. In Huntington Beach there is a plan to build approximately 5,000 homes which will likely have an impact on Pacific Coast Highway in Seal Beach. He asked if . Page 3 - Cily of SCIII Deach · PL1nning Commission Minnles or April 21, 1993 Huntington Beach was mitigating this impact? What does this mean to the City of Seal Beach? Mr. Whittenberg replied the proposed housing project is planned for an unincorporated island area surrounded by the City of Huntington Beach except on the Ocean side. At one point Orange County, under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions, allowed the City of Huntington Beach to process the environmental documentation. This was an agreement between Orange County and the property owner. The Draft EIR was reviewed by the City of Huntington Beach's Planning Commission and City Council. The County and property owner decided to take the environmental review function back to the County level. The City of Seal Beach felt the questions regarding specific traffic mitigation measures were not adequately addressed in the City's EIR. Seal Beach's comments (approximate 16 pages) were related to the traffic issues and inadequately identified impacts along Pacific Coast Highway through Seal Beach and unincorporated Sunset Beach area. Orange County has indicated they will prepare a new EIR on the project which will be distributed for review and comment. The City of Seal Beach will review this document closely and make comments. Staff will be sure there is adequate disclosure of potential impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. e Chairman Fife asked if the City of Seal Beach has any adjacent lands ripe for development which could be in the same situation, whereby the City of Seal Beach would be asked to prepare an EIR? Mr. Whittenberg replied the only Orange County areas adjacent to Seal Beach are the Rossmoor area and Sunset Beach on Pacific Coast Highway. The areas are built out with a minimal potential for development bringing traffic impacts. As part of the Measure M Growth Management Implementation program all the Orange County cities will eventually concur on a standard type of traffic impact analysis that would be done for development projects with definite thresholds. This would ensure that all Orange County cities, when reviewing development proposals, would look from the same reference point. The level of impact under Measure M is now any type of a project which puts more than 2400 trips onto a street classified as a Measure M street. In Seal Beach the only street in that classification is Pacific Coast Highway. That threshold level of trips will probably be reduced by 50% under the final programs adopted. Chairman Fife asked what the expression "Is it phased" meant? Mr. Whittenberg replied the term refers to a project which takes more than five years to build out. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to adopt Resolution #93-26, recommending approval ofthc "McasUI'c M G,'owth Management Implementation Programll to the City Council. .. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Shaq), Law, Fife, Soukup, Dahhnan . . e Page 4 - City of Seal Beach * PI~nning COlllllli~sion MII1I1I~s of AI'. il 21, 1993 s. Sweet Jill's Bakery 1231h Main StI'ect. Clarification of Ambiguity Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The City has been approached to establish a bakery at this site. Staff was concerned the use could be considered an intensification of use. Commission Comments The Commission discussed how to determine whether this application should be classified as a retail use or a restaurant use for parking and other purposes. The Commission agreed the City's municipal Code needs updating and more helpful details to make this more clear on this issue. Commissioner Dahlman asked staff for a list of any and all cases of ambiguity which were addressed by the Planning Commission and subsequently decided by the City Council. Staff was directed to research prior actions on ambiguity so the Planning Commission can figure out how it has been approached in the past when trying to clarify the Code for the future. Mr. Colantuono said resolutions must be prepared explaining the reasons for the Planning Commissions' determination therefore, it is most useful if the reasons reflect the purposes for which the permit requirement was imposed on one of the two uses. The Commission might want to state their decision that it is treating this like a take-out restaurant because it has the following risks which can be regulated through the CUP process --- trash cans for litter, how much packaging can be used, etc. However, if the Commission decides it is more like a sit- down restaurant, the Commission would want to articulate its reasoning, Le., why a permit isn't required. In either case, Mr. Colantuono encouraged the Commission to look to what is believed to be the apparent purposes of the permit requirement in this context. Chairman Fife asked what if the Commission determined it was neither type of restaurant but a retail use? Mr. Colantuono said the question would be, is this the kind of use that requires a permit or not? To do this would require looking at the uses in the zone which require permits and look at the purposes that permits serve in each of those instances to see if there are similar aspects of this use that requires a permit. Mr. Colantuono said staff's ultimate recommendation would be to process a Code amendment for more detailed clarification and expansion. Mr. Colantuono said that if the Commission finds Sweet Jill's Bakery is a retail use, the consequence would be the business license that's presently on hold would issue and no land use permits would be required. This is an expressly permitted use, and Sweet Jill's Bakery could commence operation. That Code change would apply to the next application. Conversely, if . . . Page S - City of Seal Deaeh · Planning <.:ommission Minutes of AI,,'il 21. 1993 the Commission requires a permit which is subsequently approved by the City Council, the applicant will have to seek a permit. Commissioner Dahlman said City Ordinance #948, in defining 'restaurant' says II this definition includes 'coffee shops'" Chairman Fife asked if going from the site's present use, a wool shop, to a bakery use would require preparation of a Negative Declaration per the City Council's new directive? Mr. Whittenberg said no because the basic parking requirements are the same. When a code provides a list of expressly permitted uses the drafters create a catch-all category. If the Commission determines this use is more like a retail establishment, for which a permit is not required, a third option would be to make a finding of similarity. Code interpretations are recommendations to the City Council whereas a finding of similarity is a final Commission decision in the absence of an appeal. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Fife to determine the application for Sweet Jill's Bakery would be a retail use and pass this on to the City Council. Staff is requested to present the Commission with a definition of "loes1aumnt". Before the vote, Commissioner Soukup asked for the applicant to be refunded the application fee. Mr. Colantuono said the Commission does not have the authority to change the fee structure of the Ci ty . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Slull'p, Fife, Dahlman, Soukup, Law Staff will prepare a resolution for Commission consideration at the May 5th meeting. The matter with then go the City Council for concurrence. *** 6. Minor Plan Review #93-4 28 Welcome La ne Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp asked if these were the standard conditions placed on similar applications, with none being added or deleted? Mr. Curtis said yes. Commissioner Dahlman asked for a status report on the lot lines in the Trailer Park. Mr. Whittenberg said this application does not necessitate the moving of any trailers. The City is enforcing the lot lines. . . . Page 6 . City of Seal Beaeb · Plllnning Conlllli.sion Minules of ^I,ril 21. 1993 Commissioner Soukup asked if a wall will be removed from the trailer itself] Commissioner Sharp explained that under current State regulations all four walls could be removed, leaving just the floor, therefore no extraordinary ability to convert exists. Commissioner Dahlman asked staff if there were any possibility of converting this to a duplex based on the design? Mr. Curtis said no, because the entrance to the second floor is in the middle of the first floor. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Minor Plan Review #93-4. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Shm'p, Dahlman, Fife, Soukup, Law Staff will prepare a resolution to reflect this decision and present it at the May 5th meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. Height Variation #93-1 Variance #93-3 1305 Sandpiper D.'ive Determination of Am0l1izat.ion Pel'iod Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicants, Mark and Elizabeth Thompson, are seeking approval for an existing covered roof access structure. Mr. Curtis said several letters regarding this application were received and have been included in the Commission's packet. Since then, five (5) other letters have been received from: Jerry Anderson Leonard Rai f Ira Hermann Hal Kurkjian Rabbi Laibson 130 I Sandpiper Drive 203 7th Street ] 235 Catalina Avenue 1220 Catalina Avenue 4364 Ironwood Avenue Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp asked how the Commission would be considering this application? Mr. Colantuono advised the three applications have been scheduled at once to avoid the applicants of having to come before the Planning Commission on three separate occasions and to save the Commission multiple hearings. To give the City Council the same privilege, should an appeal be filed, he recommended the Commission take an action on all three applications. Any appeal . Page 7 - City of Seal Deaeh · Planning COllllnis"oll Mlllules of A"ri121, 1993 will be deemed as an appeal of al1 three applications, the Council will have the whole package and can resolve the matter in one hearing. Mr. Colantuono explained further that staff's recommendation is the Commission approve the Height Variation, deny the Variance and make a finding that an appropriate amortization period is sixty (60) days. If the Commission imposed conditions on the Height Variation that the applicants could not live with, then the applicants would have two options --- (1) comply with those conditions or (2) remove the observadome after sixty days. Mr. Whittenberg said two other letters were received prior to the April 7th meeting and, for the Record, they are: Arthur Axelrad Alan Shields 1310 Catalina Avenue 1300 Catalina Avenue It was determined that when the applicant's initial1y began to build the Planning Commission reviewed their plans. Because a CRAS was an allowed use, the Planning Commission did not review the plans specifical1y to look at the CRAS. e Commissioner Dahlman asked how the Code read at that time? Mr. Whittenberg said the previous wording of the municipal Code said you could have a CRAS seven feet (7') above the allowable height of the zone in which the property was located. That was the only provision, there were no other standards. Public Hearing Speakers in favor of this application: Mark Thompson * 1305 Sandpiper Drive. Seal Beach Mr. Thompson presented his testimony; attached for the Record. Mr. Colantuono asked Mr. Thompson for his thoughts on the current salvage value of his CRAS? If the dome were removed from the house and sold to be used elsewhere what could he get for it? Mr. Thompson said he had no idea. Mr. Colantuono said the only evidence the Commission has of the salvage value is staff's suggestion that it had a certain purchase price, the applicant's evidence of the purchase price and staff's belief that it is probably worth half of what the applicant paid for it. He advised Mr. Thompson he now has the opportunity to give the Commission other information if he wishes to. Otherwise the Commission will base their decision on the information they do have. He stated he wanted to give Mr. Thompson a clear opportunity to provide whatever information he wished. Mr. Colantuono said the amortization value of the dome is at least $22,000 using staff's criteria. He asked Mr. Thompson if there were other elements of value the City should be considering? . Other ways to calculate the value? Mr. Thompson said nNo". . It e Page 8 - City of Seal Beach · I'L11l11ing COlllmission Minlllcs of April 21, 1993 Joan Liddyard-Williams * 708 Southshore Drive. Seal Beach Ms. Williams said she feels the observadome is an asset to the neighborhood, it's beautifully built and is an inspiration to all. She said the Thompson's are generous with the neighborhood children by taking them into the observadome. Mitch Berdrawn * 701 Marvista. Seal Beach Mr. Berdrawn said the dome is an asset to the community, adding the difference in the observadome is part of its beauty. Rick Zamonza * 701 Marvista. Seal Beach Mr. Zamonza said the observadome is weIl built and there's nothing wrong with it as it is. Dennis Brown * Thompson's Architect rNo Address GivenlJ Mr. Brown said he disagreed with the staff report in the way it stated the CRAS was reviewed and approved. He stated that in the initial stages of the project he had much conversation with the Planner assigned to this project. It was submitted for a Minor Plan Review and he was told it was approved except for the dome. He was then told the dome was not fully approved until more details were submitted. He developed the design/construction details based on the actual dome that Mr. Thompson wanted to use. The plan was resubmitted and when he was at the Planning Department counter he went over the details with the Planner. At the Minor Plan Review hearing the dome was discussed and approved. He disagreed with the statement that the details don't show what was really going to be there. The focus appears to be on the opening door, that it protrudes from the dome's surface. It does protrude and that is also shown on the details submitted. There is a difference in the dome as detailed being the same as the dome that was on the elevations and previously submitted to the City for review and approval. That's why the decision was made to request construction drawings before any approval was considered. After the details were submitted, reviewed and approved, he didn't understand why this hearing was being held and this subject is being discussed. If there wasn't enough information on the construction drawings for a decision to be made, why wasn't it asked for? If there was any problem with the material of the dome, why wasn't that brought to everybody's attention? Why didn't anyone care at all until we were half way through construction? "This is not a project we were trying to get through the back door. This is a legal, submitted --- we went through your system and we got it approved. And we built it. And it was signed off. And now we're here two years later and we're trying to defend this thing. ... If a City can come back after something is review, and approved and built and make a resident or anybody else, tear a building down I think people should be made aware of the possibility of the jeopardy they are putting themselves in by doing anything in any city... " . Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Brown to clarify where the plans were submitted and reviewed? Mr. Brown stated the plans were submitted to the Planner, over the counter, and he said it would require a Minor Plan Review. Commissioner Sharp elaborated, saying when the plans came before the Planning Commission, the dome was never on the plans. Mr. Brown said "It was. It has always been in the plans from day one". Commissioner Sharp said "The dome was e e Page 9 - City of Seal Deach · I'L1nning (;ommi..ion Minule. of April 21, 1993 not there. What looked like a skylight was there when it came before the Planning Commission. We didn't go into it in detail because we weren't required to at that time... the dome with the door on it never came before this Commission". Mr. Brown said he knew the Planning Department staff approved it. Mr. Brown felt that details submitted subsequent to the request for the details indicate clearly that it is an observatory with a door. Mr. Brown said that after the plans went in for the building permit plan check they came out with a Building Department approval stamped on the plans. Chairman Fife said he was serving on the Planning Commission at that time and said he has no recollection of seeing the dome, or any discussion of the CRAS serving a dual function as access to the roof and an observatory. Mr. Brown asked if the Planning Commission review of the project would be on record? Chairman Fife said he reviewed the Planning Commission Minutes and they didn't reflect the dome and/or the possibility of its being used as an access and observatory. Chairman Fife said he believed it is an unusual enough situation that he would have remembered it if it had occurred. Director Whittenberg clarified that when a proposal comes before the Planning Commission for a Minor Plan Review the Commission is seeing floor plans and elevations, not detailed construction drawings. Mr. Brown is referring to a request from the City's Building Department at the time the project went through City plan check and subsequent to Planning Commission approval. The Building Department requested further detail on the CRAS. The City has no record the Planning Commission ever had documentation providing details of the CRAS. This is standard, a full set of construction drawings is not required for Commission review. It would cost the applicant a lot of money if the basic concept is not accepted. The City recognizes the structure was legally approved, obtained building permits, and was built in conformance with the plans. The City has changed its guidelines and now all of these uses are having to come back before the Ci ty . Commissioner Dahlman said the confusion may stem from the fact the Planning Commission didn't see plans for anything other than a CRAS --- a structure, covered, on the roof that allows access to the roof. It was spherical but there was no side view. He said he couldn't believe the Planning Commission at that time would have approved a different use other than a CRAS. Commissioner Soukup indicated there are many footnotes scattered across the plans with a legend, much minute detail. But there is no footnote describing a dome and there is no information. There was no reason to believe it would be anything other than a CRAS. Mr. Brown said at the time the plans were submitted for the Minor Plan Review, Mr. Thompson "... was trying to decide which dome he wanted to use. So we could not give an exact drawing of what it was going to be like because we didn't know what it was going to be like". Commissioner Soukup asked if he could have referenced it as a CRAS? Mr. Brown said they probably could have. Commissioner Soukup indicated that if it wasn't defined at first, it could become anything after the fact. Commissioner Dahlman said that to go above the height limit . the municipal Code required it to be a CRAS. Mr. Brown said their intent was to get a dome . . e Page 10- City ofScul Deach * Planning c.;onlllli.sion Minules uf AllIil21. 1993 installed so when you looked at the plans you'd have an idea what it was going to be like. He did not know why those details didn't get back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Brown asked if the Commission had known it was an observadome would they have approved it? Commissioner Sharp said "I wouldn't have". Mr. Brown concluded by saying he supported the project. He didn't feel the Thompson's should be held responsible for confusing times in the City. Letters for the Record Mr. Whittenberg entered the following letters for the Record: Ira Hermann Leonard Rai f Rabbi Laibson 1235 Catalina Avenue 203 7th Street 4364 Ironwood Avenue Speakers in opposition to this application: Jerry Anderson * 1301 Sandpiper Drive. Seal Beach Mr. Anderson clarified that it was not half way through the CRAS construction that he spoke to Mr. Thompson but on the first day of construction. In February, 1990 he met with Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, Joyce Risner, then-Councilmember, Bob Nelson, then-City Manager. The dome went up and came down for a short time. While the dome was down he spoke with Mr. Thompson and suggested a compromise, bring the dome down to 25'. If the CRAS is the important element, then have a CRAS similar to what the other City residents have. He had impromptu conversations with his neighbor Mr. Thompson and they took place before Mr. Thompson incurred the costs associated with the dome. Mr. Anderson said a CRAS should be just that --- a water-tight area to enter onto a roof deck. CRASs are not to act as a bathroom, kitchen or observatory. Mr. Anderson said that because the elevations and' floor plans were well drawn he felt to omit the fact that it might/might not have a door and act as an observatory dome "... I feel has to be an act of deception ...". Regarding the City's approval of the many other CRASs, those CRASs provided a simple roof over an access --- this is an observatory. He said there is no latitude to grant the Height Variation or the Variance. Regarding the amortization period, he felt it's time for the observadome to be removed. He said he's seen three observatories in his lifetime --- one a Griffith Park, one at Big Bear Lake and one next door to his house. The most dominant feature on his house is a Mark Thompson's dome. He said he will suffer financially when he tries to sell his home. Alan Shields * 1300 Catalina Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. Shields, a City resident for thirteen years, said the aluminum observadome is beyond the spirit of ingress and egress for a CRAS. He has spent $15,000 in his yard, for a patio cover, to pretend the observadome is not there. The observadome is industrial looking, unnecessarily obtrusive being on the peripheral wall, obstructs views and privacy, has roofing materials that Page 11 - City of Seal 8each * !'Ianning Conuuission Minutes of ^lwil2l, 1993 . do not match, and is a functioning observatory. He presented the Planning Commissioners with a petition [attached for the Record] dated March 1990 signed by Seal Beach residents opposed to the observadome. He also presented a copy of Mr. Thompson's Minor Plan Review application in 1989 and 1993. He felt the applicant established a pattern of stating (on the applications) the observadome would be appropriate for the neighborhood, trying to minimize the degree of non-conformity and therefore controversy, over the application for the Variance. This house in not unique in any way that would justify the need for a Variance. Arthur Axelrad * 1310 Catalina Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. Axelrad, a 24 years Marina Hill resident, asked for a definition of "primary view". Mr. Colantuono said this is not a defined term in the municipal Code, it's a term the Commission must decide. Mr. Axelrad said he doesn't live behind the dome, he lives under the dome. He said he should not lose free and unrestricted use of his property so his neighbors can enjoy their rights, he felt the issue is a matter of balancing rights. Letters in Opposition were presented by Mr. Whittenberg for the Record: e Mario Voce Hal Kurkjian Alan Shields Arthur Axelrad Lester Hauth Audrey Hauth Carla & Perry Watson Susan Mauer Jerry Anderson 730 Catalina 1220 Catalina 1300 Catalina 1310 Catalina 1315 Catalina 1315 Catalina . 1365 Catalina 1665 Catalina 1031 Sandpiper Recess Chairman Fife called a recess at 9:35 p.m. The meeting commenced at 9:45 p.m. Rebuttal - Mark Thompson. Applicant Mr. Thompson expressed his concerns about the way this project has evolved, saying he didn't want his neighbors to be upset. He said "1fT had the opportunity in the very beginning, and if I hadn't spent the money to build this dome, if I had had the opportunity that we have tonight before I made this huge expenditure, and if 1 knew that these people would be as upset as they have been, I wouldn't have done it. Because it's not worth it to me to undergone the emotional trauma that we've undergone ... we were on Eyewitness News, Channel 7 ... now that's an invasion of privacy... when 1 built the dome the idea was to cover the roof. I thought, gee, it would really be nice to have something that's a little bit unique in the community and maybe some of my neighbors would like to enjoy it with me ... my intent was never to deceive anybody ... everything was done legally... ". He noted that if he replaced the dome with another roof, he wanted to know what material impact that would have on his neighbor's view. Regarding his interest in astronomy, Mr. Thompson said he uses the dome when it's windy but also uses his roof deck and driveway. Mr. Thompson said"... it seems to me that this discussion about e the shape is ... really irrelevant. Because what I think what we're talking about here is fear and Page 12 - City of Seal Deach · Planning (;olllllli..ion Minute, of April 21. 1993 e emotion. And I want you to pay attention to that because that's a lot different than talking about the legal issues here and the fact that this was something that was legally approved and the fact that you've approved every single other person in this community who's applied for a Height Variation, and the fact that if you den y me that's discriminating ... II . Chairman Fife asked Mr. Thompson to elaborate on a possible new roof, and its being the same height as the dome? Could it be flat? Mr. Thompson said he didn't want to get II... hung up on the idea of height", saying he was more concerned about the shape of the CRAS roof and the fact it's still going to be there. He still needs to cover the area. He felt it would make very little difference to his neighbors whether it's a dome or a pitched roof. Commissioner Soukup, referencing the shape of the CRAS roof, asked Mr. Thompson if he could chose between an industrial look or a residential look? Mr. Thompson said he couldn't answer the question directly. His compromise solution was to paint it or to apply material to the dome making it look more like the house's roofing material. None of his neighbors have approached him with conciliatory ideas. Mr. Thompson urged the Planning Commission to look at their deliberations carefully as this issue doesn't only affect him, it affects many other people who will have hesitation about building something and fear that what they've built may be reversed. This is not just an issue of whether somebody likes the way a dome looks. e Mr. Colantuono asked Mr. Thompson if he could provide a copy of his written bid for the CRASs' reconstruction for the Record? Mr. Thompson said yes. Mr. Colantuono asked if this was for the construction of an entirely new CRAS or are-roof? Mr. Thompson said it would be for a new roof. Mr. Colantuono asked Mr. Thompson if the telescope he said he used in his yard was a different telescope than the one used in the CRAS? Mr. Thompson said the telescope he uses measures eight inches long (8") by three and one half inches (31/2") in diameter. There is nothing permanently mounted in the CRAS, his telescope is portable. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Thompson how he uses the dome as an observatory, how does he get into a position to open the roof to look at the sky, is there a cockpit? Mr. Thompson said he has a ladder that goes up to the dome area. There's a floor there which is the appropriate height above the door. There's a bench there for him to sit on with his telescope. He can't stand up, he must sit on the bench. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Thompson whether when the dome was built did it meet the spirit of the rule at the time? Mr. Thompson said he has never read an ordinance in which the spirit of the ordinance is inherently talked about. The purpose of the dome was to provide something that was unique and it was in the spirit of the ordinance because it covered the roof. e He said . . e Page 13 - City of Seal 8e.1Ch · }'J:mning COlllllli~~ion Minules of April 21. 1993 "If I had had any idea at time that it would be construed as something bizarre it wouldn't have gone Upn. Commissioner Soukup said the size of Mr. Thompson's telescope doesn't constitute, to him, an avid astronomer. Commissioner Soukup said he has a 200 power telescope on a tripod and different lenses and he is not an avid astronomer. He asked Mr. Thompson if the CRAS were to be changed would it effect his hobby as an astrologer? Mr. Thompson replied it is not a question of affecting his hobby, it's a question of his property. Commissioner Soukup asked if Mr. Thompson felt his CRAS did more than allow access to his roof deck? Mr. Thompson said it turns around, it allows him to see the stars, it shields him from the wind. Commissioner Dahlman indicated this CRAS meets the new standards in terms of size but testimony has stated that it impairs view, is situated peripherally and the roof doesn't match. These are significant differences between what the Code now requires and what was built. Mr. Thompson agreed, saying he studied all the CRASs the City previously reviewed. Every single request for a Variance was approved. Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Thompson how much of the aluminum portion of the CRAS he used to go out onto his roof deck? Mr. Thompson replied he has enough clearance and doesn't use it at all. Chairman Fife asked what is the elevation of the floor of the roof deck from grade? Mr. Thompson said he didn't know. The elevation from grade to the top of the dome is under 32'. . From the top of the dome to the floor of the roof deck is about 12'. The door is 6'8". Mr. Thompson asked his wife if she had any comments she would like to make? Mrs. Thompson said no. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp said the Commission should grant the application with removing the observadome and a new roof being installed. The observadome is inappropriate for the neighborhood. He felt it wasn't the intent of the law that the observadome be put up in a residential neighborhood. Chairman Fife asked staff about the vertical height of the CRAS when and if a new roof is installed. Mr. Curtis said if a pitched roof were put on, similar in pitch to the remainder of the structure, it's possible the new roof would be about one foot shorter than it currently is; it would not be a lot shorter than the dome is now. A flat roof would be substantially lower but a flat style would not match the rest of the house. Commissioner Fife asked if there were CRASs with flat roofs on houses with pitched roofs? Mr. Curtis said there may be one or two but he was unsure. e e e Page 14 - City of Seal 1Ie.1ch · ('Imming Commission Minll\"s of April 21, 1993 Commissioner Dahlman said this is an approvable structure as a CRAS but as it stands today it cannot be approved. Ideally it should be centrally located but that is not feasible. But everything possible must be done to minimize the view impairment and this would include re- doing the roofing to match the remainder of the house, lowering the height by l' - 2' if possible, and maintaining adequate access to the roof deck. Commissioner Dahlman commented to the applicant that he had no problem with his having an observadome on the roof as long as it's under the height limit. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to approve Height Variation #93-1 , staff's Alternative #1, with the following conditions: require the applicants to remove the existing observadome roof of the CRAS and install a new, pitched roof which is similar in type and material to t.he rcmaindel' of the stl'uct.III'e's roof. Mr. Colantuono recommended the Planning Commission address all three applications tonight regardless of how anyone application is decided. The Commission can give staff direction about the time. If the Commission is silent at this stage, staff would bring back a resolution consistent with the Commission's finding on the amortization question. Commissioner Soukup said he favored staff's Alternative #2 because that would more closely reflect the original concept which the Planning Commissioners approved at a prior time. Commissioner Dahlman said a dome-shaped roof would be lower in height. What the Commission has approved since 1990 is roofing materials similar to the rest of the roof. Commissioner Soukup said the dome-shape roof could be covered in similar roofing materials. Commissioner Dahlman requested the applicant be asked if he would prefer Alternative #1 or #2. Mr. Thompson said he would need time to review the two Alternatives before answering. Commissioner Dahlman said he would then want to leave the motion as it stands. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Shm'p, Fife, Law, Soukup Commissioner Dahlman said that if the Commission were to allow a variation from the rules on height then the City would be subject to a flood of similar applications and the City would eventually have a higher height limit that we have now. That would subvert the present ordinance, the applicant cannot meet the requirements of it not being a special privilege and therefore a Variance cannot be approved. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Shar'p to deny Variance #93-3. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Shm'p, Fife, Soukup, Law . . . Page IS - City of Seal De:lcb · 1'1:U1llillg COllllni.<101I Minlllc~ or ApI il 21, 1993 Commissioner Dahlman said he agreed with the staff report's approach to count as amortization time all the time since the observadome was built since he felt the applicant knew the observadome was controversial from the start, even before it was completed. Commissioner Soukup requested a review of the figures. Mr. Colantuono suggested the Planning Commission use the numbers most favorable to the applicant that seem reasonable. Given the high figures and the amount of time involved, even a high numerical figure is consistent with staff's ultimate conclusion. The numbers the Planning Commission should use are: $7,000 $2,100 ($3,500) $13,000 Original Cost (Applicant's figure) Installation Cost (Applicant's figure) Salvage Value (Staff figure, undisputed by the applicant and it was used when purchased). Re-roofing estimate (copy of bid to be provided by applicant). $18,600 Total Value The task before the Planning Commission is, are these calculations reasonable, is there an element of value missing. If the figure $18,600 is reasonable, then how do you express that number in terms of years of use? The courts have upheld other Planning Commission's decisions that five (5) years was enough time for a substantially more valuable commercial structure (a billboard valued at $50,000). Chairman Fife said he had three estimates to re-roof his house needing 2000 square feet of roofing and none of the estimates has exceeded $10,000. To re-roof 42.25 square feet should not cost $13,000, even to build the structure. Commissioner Soukup asked if the new roof be amortized over the life of the home? Mr. Colantuono said the Commission is not amortizing the new roof, they are amortizing the value of the observadome. When you value something you value how much it takes them to get it in place (purchase and installation), then you value what's left over (applicant could sell observadome), then you value what it will take to install a new roof on his house. Commissioner Dahlman said the cited precedent is about $10,000 per year and if it has been three years and the value is less than $30,000 then the amortization period has already expired. Mr. Colantuono said this is a reasonable conclusion. Chairman Fife said he felt the amortization period should be sixty (60) days from the date of final Commission action, which would include any appeal to the City Council. He felt the applicant would want to appeal and that would eat away at the sixty day period. The clock should start to run when all that is done. . . . Page 16 - City of Senl Be:tch · 1'1:llll1ill1( COlllllli.~i(J1I MII\lIle~ of ^I,ril2l, 1993 Mr. Whittenberg said once an appeal is filed that stays any Commission determination until a decision is made by the City Council. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to determine that three years has passed since the observadome was built, that is enough time to amortize $30,000 of use, the amortization period is determined to have expired fOl' this use sixty (60) days from the date this decision is final. Commissioner Law asked how long does the applicant have to actually take the observadome off? Mr. Colantuono replied that on the sixty-first (61) d~y the applicant no longer has a right to maintain the observadome and would be in violation of the law and the City could prosecute him for this. In practice, however, the City works with people to bring them into compliance with the law because it's better to achieve voluntary compliance than to go to court. The City would look for the applicant to be making diligent efforts to be well on his way. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Sharp, Fife, Soukup, Law Mr. Whittenberg stated the applicant's appeal rights, noting staff will be preparing a resolution that will come back to the Planning Commission for final adoption. On adoption, that will start the clock running on the ten (10) day appeal period. Because Mr. Colantuono will not be present for the May 5th Planning Commission meeting, staff will bring the resolutions back on May 19th. If adopted the appeal period would start that evening. *** 8. Zoning Text Amendment #92-6 Proposed Amendment No.2 Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Part 1 would establish setback requirements for specified types of non-habitable, detached accessory structures. Part 2 would increase the allowable height of property line walls from eight (8') feet to ten (10') feet on major arterial streets and abutting certain vacant non-developed areas of the City. Commission Comments Commissioner Dahlman asked if the Gold Coast (Ocean A venue, east of the pier) is included, does that mean the rear yard wall can be ten feet high? Mr. Curtis said no. Commissioner Soukup asked if the study on higher walls/decibellevels included the step down to the side wall diminishing the effectiveness of the wall? Mr. Curtis said no, at the time the noise study was performed there were no situations where this was allowed so it was not e . . Page 17 - City of Sealllcnch · I'I.,ming (;oll\n",o,on Minnl". of AI'"I 21, 1993 factored in. The Orange County Health Department performed the study, but they no longer perform this function. The City would have to hire an outside contractor now. The County indicated that noise which is coming from your line of site is cut down I decibel per foot above eye level. Mr. Curtis thought that would be applicable to noise coming to you from the side. Chairman Fife said he remained concerned about flatly prohibiting building to the property line where that property doesn't abut any other privately owned property. Commissioner Sharp had mentioned the five foot setback would most likely become trash/junk zones. Mr. Curtis said staff discussed this with other cities and read their codes. The minimum rear setback provided was five feet. Staff believed if building was al10wed right to the property line that could have aesthetic impacts on streets and vacant properties. With a five foot setback, the line of sight blocked by the wal1 would diminish the size and view of the structure. A five foot setback is more functional than a lesser setback. Commissioner Sharp said he agreed with Chairman Fife, stating cars on Pacific Coast Highway barely have enough time to look at what's built and building to the property line should be no problem. Commissioner Law said she didn't see a problem with building to the property line as long as there would never be anything built on the abutting street or vacant land. Commissioner Law asked about sunscreens, asking in any portion would be a solid roof'? Mr. Curtis said patio covers would al10w solid roofs. Chairman Fife said the City should retain the right to build up to five feet (setback) but allow building to the property line with a Conditional Use Permit, accounting for aesthetics and other issues. The Commission should not flatly rule this out or flatly make it possible. Commissioner Law agreed. Mr. Whittenberg suggested an alternative, allowing a structure to be built at the property line where it abuts a street at an eight foot height. Then allow, as the structure gets further back from the property line, that the height could increase one foot in height for every additional foot of distance from the property line. Chairman Fife said he felt the Planning Commission must review each proposal on a case-by-case basis because all the variations cannot be predicted. Public Hearing Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing, no one wished to speak in for or against ZTA 92-6 and the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp said he favored a plan whereby any building closer than five feet from the rear property line would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Whittenberg advised the Minor Plan Review process would also allow the Planning Commission to review such proposals. The Minor Plan Review process requires notification of . . e Pag~ 18 - City or Beal Deach. Plmming CommiN<ion ~linlll"N of April 21. 1993 all property owners within 100' feet of the site and is a non-Public Hearing item. The Minor Plan Review process is not Noticed in the newspaper. The CUP process requires the notification of all property owners within 300' of the site and a Public Hearing. The CUP process is more intensive for both staff and applicants. The Minor Plan Review process notification would most likely involve one or two homes on either side of the subject lot. Commissioners Sharp and Law felt the Minor Plan Review noticing would be sufficient. Chairman Fife said he felt the CUP process would be better, citing as an example, the width of Pacific Coast Highway might preclude notification of a property most affected by a proposal. Mr. Curtis said the people most affected by building right to the property line would be people living across major streets and people living in houses across large open spaces --- not necessarily the adjacent neighbors. Chairman Fife said he didn't anticipate many applications because these are non-habitable structures. But for those who do want to apply, it's worth doing so through the CUP process. Commissioner Dahlman asked if this would include the Gold Coast, where the backyards are on the beach? Mr. Curtis said staff did not intend to change those fence heights at all, but to leave them at six feet (6') as they are now. MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Law to recommend the adoption of Zoning Text Amendment #92-2 with the addition of a sub-paragraph l(a) to read: Pursuant to a Conditional Use Pennit to build within the nonnalfivefoot (5') setback proJ'ided that the applicant satisfies the conditions of paragraph 1 and such other cOlUlitions'as are imposed by the Conditional Use Pennit process. The non-habitable stmctul'es would be allowed between the property line and a five foot (5') setback only on those properties which abut major a11erial streets and properties that can never been developed as defined in municipal Code Section 28-2316.2(H). MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5 - () - '0 Fife, Law, Soulmp, Dahlman, Sharp Mr. Whittenberg said staff will come back to the Commission with final resolutions for consideration at a future meeting. ORAL COMMUNTCA TIONS There were no oral communications from the audience. . Page 19 - City ofSellllle.1ch *1'1:ulIIing Commi'Rion MinuteR of ^p1l121, 1993 STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Planning Commissioners were presented with updated, complete General Plans by the City Clerk's Office. Mr. Whittenberg indicated this meeting should be adjourned to May 3, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. for a scheduled workshop to discuss the issue of parking on Main Street. This was scheduled by the City Council. Ms. Fillmann asked if all the Commissioners had copies of the recent parking study. Staff will provide copies, prior to May 3rd, to any Commissioners not having a copy. COl\1MISSION CONCERNS Beach Curfew Commissioner Soukup said a 10:00 p.m. curfew has been imposed for the beach and asked if this included the strand and pier? Mr. Whittenberg said the City Council Ordinance says you can't be on the beach after 10:00 p.m. e Commissioner Dahlman said it's a sad thing that our personal freedoms have to be impinged this way because of the behavior of a few. This is a poor solution to a problem that goes much deeper than City rules. It will never end --- we will never quit limiting our freedoms because there will always be violence and crime. We need to address the issues of violence and crime more directly. Archaeological at DWP Commissioner Soukup, referencing the DWP property, asked what the City is doing with respect the archaeological aspects of this property? Will the shell midden be classified as a site? Mr. Whittenberg said staff is reviewing this matter with the UCLA Archaeological Information Center to see what process would need to be gone through to have this site recorded. No response has been received to date. Staff will report that information to the Archaeological Advisory committee Fly Over of the Bixby Site Commissioner Sharp asked for a status report on this fly over. Mr. Whittenberg said Council member Laszlo has indicated he would prefer to be responsible for the scheduling of those types of activities since the site is in his district. Council member Laszlo's intention is to have the fly over occur before any hearings take place. . Leaning Brick Wall at Seal Beach Blvd. Commissioner Sharp asked for a status report on this leaning brick wall. Mr. Whittenberg said a tremendous amount of discussion and review has taken place by the City Attorney's Office and the City's liability attorney, Ivan Stevenson. A survey needs to be done to determine if the wall is on City property. . . . Page 20 - City of Seal JJcach · Planning Conlllli'Rion I\lInnl"8 of ApI il 21, 1993 Stark Lawsuit Commissioner Sharp said he noticed this lawsuit did not include the Planning Commission over a decision that the Planning Commission made. Chairman Fife indicated he and Michael Cho have been through attempted disbarment proceedings at the State Supreme Court level. Mr. Fife received an Order from Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas saying motion to disbar attorneys denied. Trailer at Water Tower Commissioner Dahlman requested a status report on the trailer parked by the Water Tower. Mr. Curtis replied staff inspected the site and is sending a letter this week. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at I 1:05 p. m. Respectfully Submitted, qD~~ Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary NOTE: These Minutes are tentative until approved. APPROVAL: The Planning Commission Minutes of April 21, 1993 were approved by the Planning Commission on May 5~ 1993. ~ . e . April?, 1993 City of Seal Be~ch Plar:ni:lg Commission - SU8l\11ITEO FOR RWlQ 1 1i31~ e RR.t Date 1993 Ander~~'" ~-~~-~ =:1 City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA Attn: Chainnan and Honorable Planning Commission Re: Height Variation 93-1, Variance 93-3 and Detennination of Amortization Period 1305 Sandpiper Drive I am writing this letter so that it can become a part of the pennanent record. I believe that the requests for Height Variation 93-1 and Variance 93-3 should be denied. I also believe that establishing an amortization period is inappropriate, and the observatory dome should be removed, with the work being completed within 90 days. The following briefly summarizes my concerns and the reasons I believe these proposals should be denied. The Seal Beach Municipal Code states: In reviewing an application, the Planning Commission shall consider the following criteria and make findings thereon: (a) Whether such variation is appropriate for the architectural style of the building. (i) Whether all roofing materials of a covered stairwell to an open roof deck are in substantial conformity with the roofing materials of the remainder of the structure. (ii) Whether a covered stairwell to an open roof deck is located along peripheral exterior walls of the structure. (iii) Whether a covered stairwell to an open roof deck is limited to the minimum area, both horizontally and vertically, necessary to cover the stain~'el/. (b) Whether such variation is appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood. (c) Whether such variation significantly impairs the primary view from any property located within 300 feet. (d) Detailed and complete plans for the proposed work. This request clearly does not meet the aforementioned findings in that: 1. An observatory dome is inappropriate on a residence. This is a functional dome and not an architectural feature.(a) The dome is metal and does not match the existing shingles.(a)(i) The CRAS is located at the nort west comer of the structure.(a)(ii) h 2. 3. /::. . e -. MR2,_ 4. 5. An observatory dome is not compatible in a residential neighborhood. (b) The observatory dome is not shown on the approved elevation drawings.(d) The Seal Beach Municipal Code states: To approve the requested Variance the Planning Commission must determine: (1) Such variance shall not adversely affect the general plan; (2) Because of the special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or su"oundings, the strict application of this chapter deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone; (3) The granting of such variance shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with other limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Once again the request does not meet the aforementioned findings in that: 1. The size and shape of the aforementioned property is consistent with other lots in the neighborhood.(2) 2. The granting of a variance would give a special privilege.(3) It is my understanding that nonconforming structures are generally amortized for a reasonable period. I believe that the amortization schedule has expired because during the initial phase of construction it was represented that the observatory dome was purchased in a used condition for approximately $2,000. The dome has been in place in excess of three years which I feel is more than enough time to recover the initial cost. I request that the Planning Commission direct the property owner to remove the observatory dome within 90 days of this date. It is incumbent upon the Planning Commission, as the appointed planning authority for the City of Seal Beach, to ensure that the objectives of the General Plan and laws established in the Zoning Code are upheld to the fullest extent possible. As is evident, the proposals before you this evening do not meet the minimum findings established in the code; therefore, the -Commission has not only a legal obligation but also a moral and ethical obligation to deny these proposals. I request that the Planning Commission state their reasons for any findings for either approval or denial so they also become a permanent part of this record. Sincerely, C\~ ().. ~..."-- ..~.._ , \ \ -.... Jerry Andersen 1301 Sandpiper Seal Beach, CA City of Seal Beach Planning Comrr.;:z;:n SUBMITTED FOR RECORD ~yb. (lR iF Date l\PR 2 t ~ -.- .. April 19, 1993 Planning Commission City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth st. Seal Beach, CA 90740 Re: Height variation 93-1, Mark and Elizabeth Thompson, 1305 Sandpiper Drive, Seal Beach. Dear Commissioners: It has come to my attention that on Wednesday, April 21, the above- referenced application will be heard at the Planning commission meeting. e I wish to state that, in my op1n1on, the application of Mr. and Mrs. Thompson should be granted as requested. It is unfortunate and unfair that they, along with over one-hundred homeowners, have been forced to apply for variances for Covered-Roof Accesses which were approved by the City in the first place. It is not right for the City to enforce an ordinance retroactively. Neither is it fair to penalize the homeowners by amortizing an approved use. I am also aware that in every instance up to now, the commission has granted approval for every application presented before you. The Thompsons are entitled to the same consideration because their CRA was permi tted under the old statute. It is a legal, non-conforming structure. Finally, I see nothing wrong with the dome. It blends appropriately with the rest of the Thompson's house. I don't see how it can be detrimental to anyone else in the neighborhood. It doesn't block anybody's primary view. Frankly, I don't see what all this fuss is about. Approve this application! fb:::r 203 7th st. Seal Beach, CA 90740 . . . . City of Seal Beach Planning Commission SUBMIITm FOR RINR~ 81h~ He.~~~ate 1 _ April 20, 1993 Planning Commission City of Seal Beach To Whom It May Concern, I live right around the corner from the Thompson's house at 1305 Sandpiper and happen to love their home, including the dome. It is visible from my address at 1235 Catalina Avenue and I find it to be a very attractive piece of architecture. In no way, shape or form do I find the architecture of the Thompson home, and in particular, their covered roof access structure, to be inappropriate. Since I have only moved to the neighborhood over the last year and a half I have no idea as to the history of their house, however, it is my understanding that the Thompsons had received all the necessary permits to build their home and went through all the normal channels of approval which were required at the time. It seems a little ridiculous that they would have to go through an application process allover again. As a member of the Seal Beach community it certainly would be my recommendation to approve the height variation as requested and allow the Thompson's dome to remain as is. s: ~ yours, Ira Hermann 1235 Catalina Avenue Seal Beach, Calif. 90740 (~\~\""~\ -'Pt~) e City of Seal Beach Planning Commission SUBMITTED FO~ ;iECORD Byl<()~('J"i,,~ Date APR 2 1 1993 1220 Catalina Ave. Seal Beach, CA 90740 Apr i I 20, 1993 Planning Commission City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Planning Commission, I am writing this in response to the public hearing notice I received regarding the height variation requests for the covered roof access structures (CRAS) constructed atop the residences at 705 South Shore Drive and 1305 Sandpiper Drive. e Although I was at your meeting of 7 April 93 expecting to be able to verbally express my concerns, I am unable to attend your 21 April meeting to which this issue was postponed. My family and I reside at 1220 Catalina Avenue from which both of these structures cited above are visible. The fact that both of these residences exceed normal height limitations with so called CRAS is of concern to us. Allowing this type of construction greatly adds to the visual clutter of the horizon which we find to be objectionable. The Old Town area of Seal Beach has proliferated with CRAS construction which I would not want to see in my neighborhood. I would urge you to do whatever is necessary to eliminate the construction of CRAS not only in my immediate neighborhood but throughout all of Seal Beach as a means of enhancing the architectural appearance and style of residential construction in our city. Allowing the construction of CRAS invites and encourages poor architectural design at the expense of the surrounding residents who must then look at this every day. Just the fact that these CRAS are referred to by the public and media as "dog house additions" is a clear indication that they do not enhance the appearance of Seal Beach but rather satisfy ~ the narrow Interests of the owner. ~ Hal KURKJIAN Planning Commission City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 April 5, 1993 Dear Commissioners: - 'af hI Beach Planning CommissIon A -;~0 'P0R 1~.ffIGRD _~ f'tlte:-'-~O~_ AM 2 1 1993 . I would like to add my views to those of my neighbors on the structure located at 1305 Sandpiper Drive, which is located directly behind my home at 1310 Catalina Avenue. I am particularly interested in the dome presently atop the doghouse. 1. I do not recall any notification of the plans to build either the doghouse or, more specifically, the dome that sits on it. I have recently seen a drawing that may have been meant to represent the proposed addition to the building. Because the drawing is not to scale, it very deceptively represents a small doghouse surmounted by a comparatively flat dome, something that in no way suggests an observatory dome. The actual silhouette is very different from what is shown in the drawing. 2. I have also recently seen the Minor Plan Review Application, filed in May 1989, which describes the improvements proposed as a "2nd story room addition, 1 bedroom, full bath, den," with no reference to a deck, a doghouse, or an observatory dome containing a telescope. Although the "yes" response to the question if "the proposed improvements [are] appropriate for the character of the surrounding neighborhood" is correct for the improvements specified in the application, it requires a leap of faith to see how the dome is appropriate for the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Again, although the "no" response to the question whether approval would "be in any way detrimental to other property in the vicinity" is accurate for the improvements specified in the application, I believe that the doghouse with its prominent dome is definitely detrimental to the other property in the vicinity. Besides being obviously unlike anything else in the area, it is intrinsically unattractive. 3. The wording in the Notice of Public Hearing continues to obscure the true appearance of the structure. The "existing 31 foot high covered roof access structure" is a tall doghouse surmounted by an observatory dome containing a telescope. The dome is obviously not necessary for access to the roof. e 4. Because I live immediately behind the residence at 1305 Sandpiper Drive, I believe that I am at least as much affected by this structure as are any of my neighbors. Although several photographs of the doghouse and the dome have appeared in the newspapers, the best view of all is from Crest Drive, from which one can see my one-story home with the minaret-like structure looming above it. Although I do not expect my neighbors to attempt to increase my property value, I do expect them not to build in such a way as to lower my property value. The angle of sight may prevent someone's peering into my bedroom windows, but the view from my rooms, which used to be of open sky, is now dominated by this new structure. Furthermore, use of my back yard, dominated as it is now by the dome containing a telescope, is very uncomfortable as I can no longer feel assured of some measure of privacy. Although I would strongly argue that everyone should be entitled to free and unrestricted use of personal property, I also believe that I should not effectively lose free and unrestricted use of my property so that my neighbors can enjoy their rights. 5. I cannot imagine that the residents at 1305 Sandpiper Drive were not aware as they planned the doghouse/dome that it would become a subject of heated controversy. I therefore cannot understand why they did not, in advance of construction, talk to their neighbors and receive all required city clearance. Responsible individuals voluntarily restrain themselves from actions that are detrimental to the welfare of other people in the community. Thank you for your attention. I regret that word of the hearing reached me only this afternoon, so I have not been able to arrange to attend. Sincerely, ~ .- Arthur M. Axelrad, Ph.D. 1310 Catalina Avenue Seal Beach, California 90740 /!~~~~~ C~ ~-vu~. /# ^~ WORLD SAVINGS "<::s~ AND lOAr~ ASSOCIATION City of Seal Beach I"'lanning Commission SUBMITTED FOR RECORD2 . ~.Y SHIEL.DS Date APR 1_ . PLANNING COMMISSION City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 April 2, 1993 Dear Commissioners: . I believe the Observatory Dome located at 1305 Sandpiper should be kept as a "conform, or remove" decision. Of all of the (99) pre-existing roof access structures that did not meet the new code passed over 2 years ago -- this one does not meet any of the criteria for a variance. It does not conform to the surrounding neighborhood, it significantly impairs the view of all adjoining neighbors, it's roofing material does not conform with the rest of the roof, it is built along a ~eripheral wall (therefore more obtrusive), and finally it 1S not limited to the minimum area, both horizontally, or vertically necessary to cover the structure. Regarding the Covered Access Roof Structure located at 705 Southshore - as a resident within 300 feet - I do not consider this in the same "league" as the Dome Problem. While it's size .is way out of compliance, this seems to be offset by the fact. .tha,t it is' co.nforming in every other respect, including being loca~ed.in the center of the roof deck which minimizes.the impa~t on view. Sincerely, a~ Alan Shields 1300 Catalina Ave. '. . . ~".: . .... .~ J_ .: ~ ,'1 ~ I ~ I . . .~ . i.' 1., ....' \' . ,,~ t.. . " " -,~", : " . '.' ~. . .' , I ~..~ .. "W Fi(l P,lIIlarlllO SUl!t' r 2 CO,l:l \11:,:1. CaJiforlua 92626 -Ii 6{,2 (li(l!J fSL\ ~Iember uf Gulden \le'l fmanClal CorporatIOn .,.. i July I I. 1991 BUSINESS &. REAL Es'J . Seal Beach survey puts 99 ~ residences in the 'doghouse' The Seal Beach City Council 13th, 216 13th, 211 14th,242 approved new standards for cov- 14th. 209 15th, 252 16th, 254 ered roof access structures 16th, 307 16th, 325 161h, 340 (CRAS) also known as "doghous- Coastline. es" last January. 1407 Electric, 170 I Electric, The provisions require some- 1703 Electric, 1705 Electric, 1707 one wishing to construct a CRAS Electric, 1709 Electric, 1711 Elec- to first obtain a height variation tric, 1713 Electric, 1715 Electric, from the planning commission. 101 Ocean, 103 Ocean. 105 The planning commission must Ocean. 107 Ocean, 301 Ocean, consider whether the proposed 311 Ocean, 404 Ocean, 1514 CRAS ~s ap.propriate for the Ocean, 1605 Ocean, 1607 Ocean. ~chitechtural style of the build- 1637 Ocean, 1305 Sandpiper, .i.!!B.: The Commission takes into 1215 Seal Way, 1601 Seal Way, account whether a proposed 228 Seventh, 232 Seventh. 705 eRAS has similar roofing materi- Southshore. als to thCbUilding, is located The following are Surfside ilorig an exterior side wall and is houses not in standard compli- limIted in size to the minimum ance: area necessary to house the stair- A-6, A-7, A-19, A-25, A-52, well. . A-62, A-63. A-73. A-83, A-84, A- ---y{ecently, the Commission con- 86, A-87, A-88, A-95, A-96, A- ducted a survey of existing 109, CRAS's within Seal Beach. Own- B-7, B-17, B-26, B-27, B-28, ers whose doghouses do notean: B42, B-44, B49, B-73, B-76, B- fOiiTlto new regulations must SO, B-Sl, B-S3, B.90, B-91, B-97, either: B-99, B-IOO, B-IOI. B-102, B- ---;applt-for a height variation 113, . bring the CRAS into confor- C-3, C-7, C-8, C-9, C-14, C- !"ity with new provisions IS, C-23, C-24 , C-27 · remove the CRAS within one Covered Roof-Access Structures year of standard adoption, which ill Standard Compliance was Jan. 28. (listed by address) The survey located 134 exist- 239 5th, 123 6th, 226 8th, 331 ingCRAS's,350fwhichmeetthe 10th, 333 10th, 114 13th, 214 new criteria. 13th. 228 13th, 320 14th, 234 The following list renects the 16th, 720 Carmel, 940 Catalina, 134 CRAS's identified in the city 400 Central, 707 Central, 1514 survey. Questions regarding the Marine, 1530 Marine, new provisions should be 300 Ocean, 1207 Ocean, 130S addressed to Barry Curtis in the Ocean. 1(4) Ocean, 1501 Seal Department of Development Ser- Way. 1507 Seal Way, 1613 Seal ,vicvt431-2S27. Way. /Cm'ered Roof-Access Structurl!S') The following ale Surfside ~ ~ in Smndard Compliance ../ houses in standard compliance: (ifsied-byacItlresS) -.- A-19, A-48, A-55, A-76, A-80, 120 1st, 206 3rd, 117 4th, 240 A-85, A-117, B-72, B-82, B-118, 5th, 242 5th, 242 6th, 244 6th, 253 C-28, C-29. 6th, 255 6th, 124 Sth, 126 8th, 308 This report was supplied by 8th, 31S.lOth, 320 10th, 112 11th, the Seal Beach Department of 114 11th, 206 11th, 112 12th, 116 Development Services. . e '1;144 Sequoia. Cypress t. . '''''628.91501c1l0l$314,500 Listing Agent: r ..I!"y I)cl:.nm. ERA ~nc.., & l115lXrales Selling Agent: " >thy Dckln5on. ERA ~nc.., & 1115lXlales ~ Bedroom. 2 5 ballls. limly room 4Z7Z Candleberry, I ElClllW Cb!ed 627 91 CIoIed rod Listing Ager I!enI1a TIfIZ. CoIlegI Selling Ager Datil! Black. Wf!5l!< 3 bedltlll\ 2 balh charrT'fll ! 616 Seabreeze.' bedroom, . 1.75 bath. atrium, model. Priced to 8elll 1629 Ocean. Steps to the Beach $389.000 r~~~>>, .', · ..,... _-..:&. .... ,. . . . , I[J :" ::'~!.l: :j:" .;1 ",..: ".:~ CC;i1mh.;siol' SUBMITTED FOR RffROR2 1 _ 1By. HIiIeJ<. Date 7W"bMPSo~ ~ . REOUEST FOR APPROVAL Heiaht Variation 93-1 Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Mark Thompson and my wife Betsy and I are the applicants for the property at 1305 Sandpiper Drive. Last week I spent several hours reviewing the videotapes of past Planning Commission meetings... I just want you to know that I think the Staff and Planning Commission have done a commendable job in reviewing and approving these applications. We are applying for a height variation, primarily because we received a letter in January from the City Attorney, in which we were threatened with a penalty of one thousand dollars a day or up to six months in jail, or both, if we did not apply. We should not have been compelled to apply for something that was already approved. I know this commission has heard that argument from many who have preceeded us. Some of YOU questioned the legitimacy of this policy. We've reviewed the staff report. It is clear that Staff does not have any negative feelings about our application. It says right here on page 7 in big, bold type: RECOMMENDATION "Pleasure of the Commission." Staff has no recommendations. So, here's my recommendation. Let us keep this. We're keeping this because we agree with your option #3. Your option #3 is-- to approve our application with no changes. That is the option you chose for the 98 other property owners in Seal Beach. We think it's a great option and here's why we think it is: The City approved this three years ago and we've got a permit for it. Then, the City changed the statute. So now what we have-- is a legal, non-conforming use. But I can't think of a stronger reason to approve our application than this: We are the last of 99 property owners in town who have been forced to apply for a height variation. Of the 98 applicants who have preceeded us, and have appeared before you, everyone, every CRAS was approved as built, without exception. Why shouldn't we be granted the same privilege as all the others? If the members of this commission choose to deny our application after approving everyone else in toWD, is there any doubt, that you would be selectively enforcing this newly revised code and therefore discriminating against us? So, we request you approve this application and allow our home to remain as is. It is a fact that our addition has enhanced the value of our home. We've spent a lot of money improving our home. We're real proud of it. Anyone who owns a home and has invested a lot of time, money and love in it should understand exactly how we feel. . . . Amortization and Other ODtions Now let's take a few minutes to study this amortization option, discussed on page 6 and in attachment 3. I know amortization is used to abate commercial signs. The case that the city attorney refers to in his memorandum discusses this. But all of us need to think long and hard before we decide to start practicing amortization as a policy that should be applied to Seal Beach homeowners. with all due respect, we believe this is a terrible option. It's totally unfair to us. It doesn't solve the problem-- it complicates it. Here's why: Staff recommends the consideration of several factors in setting an amortization period. Since staff did not consult with us ahead of time as to the estimates of the costs and values, let me provide some accurate figures for you. #1, the original cost of the observadome was $7,000. #2, the cost to install it on the structure was $2,100. #3, I have no idea what the current salvage value is or even what that means, and #4, the cost to construct a new CRAS according to our building contractor (and I have a written bid here) is $13,000. The total value then, would exceed $22,000! If the commission were to accept the recommended amortization period, we would not comply with this option. It's not only unreasonable, it's downright punitive. Even if we could afford to, why would we want to diminish the value of our house and lose our investment? Why would anyone agree to do that at their own expense? You haven't recommended amortization to any of the other applicants. Why us? Please consider for a moment what a dangerous precedent this would set, if the City began using amortization as a policy of code enforcement. The door would be wide open for this commission to revise any building code and put other property owners in jeopardy of having to make expensive changes after their plans had already been approved. One could reasonably argue: Then what is the point of obtaining a building permit in the first place? We've read the other options, too. Options #1 and #2 are both unfair. We shouldn't have to reroof, because you've already approved it... and it would still cost us $13,000 to replace the roof. Finally, we think Variance 93-3 is just unnecessary. . . . Plan conformity Now, before I sit down I do want to resolve one outstanding issue. There seems to be some doubt about whether we conformed to our plans. Here, again, there should be no question. Our plans were submitted to the Planning Department in May of 1989. As it states in the report, we were required to apply for a minor plan review because the "property's garage was of inadequate size, etc." Everyone within 100 feet of our property was properly notified in advance of construction. Under the old code, it was not necessary to obtain a height variation for a covered roof access, just as long as the structure remained within the maximum seven feet allowed to cover the stairwell to the roof deck. Which ours was, and is. Also, and I'm quoting from the staff report on page 4, "the existing CRAS has an area of approximately 30 square feet. "Habitable" space has been defined as a room having a minimum area of 70 square feet, and a minimum head clearance of 7.5 feet." No one could live in our CRAS, much less stand up in there. I know some people have pointed out-- that in the memorandum no mention was made specifically of the Covered Roof Access, but the plans clearly illustrate a covered roof access to the deck and these plans were passed by the Commission on June 6, 1989. Now let's talk about those plans for a moment. I contend that we have a very qualified planning department. They understand what they're looking at. They know the codes and they did not have any problem with the plan. We went through all of the proper channels. It was done in good faith and was in accordance with the statute in force at that time. On October 31, 1989, the building department requested that the "spiral stair shop drawings and dome drawings be submitted to the city for approval prior to installation." When these detailed plans were submitted they were approved. The proof is the fact that we have the permit, dated December 15, 1989. This entire process is clearly documented in attachment 5B of the staff report. Now, about halfway into the construction of the tower and the dome, our next-door neighbor, Mr. Anderson, began complaining to me that he didn't like it. Then he complained to the planning department. Finally, when he complained to the City Council and accused us of misrepresentation, the City Attorney stated that there was no evidence of misrepresentation on our part. So, the project was allowed to continue through construction, inspection and ultimately it was signed-off on June 14, 1990. , . . . Proposed Solution- A ComDromise In conclusion, I want to point out here that after all, what we are talking about is a roof-- a silver-domed roof which is just six feet in diameter. It provides shelter in bad weather, and it never leaks. I wish I could say the same thing for other areas of our house. I do understand that a few people may not like the dome. On the other hand, many of our friends and neighbors think it's great. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but people should know-- it was not our intention to offend or upset anvone when we installed the dome. How someone could believe that we would deliberately do such a thing is beyond our comprehension. Now, I realize that in keeping with the new ordinance, it is the City's goal to have the roofing material of a CRA match that of the rest of the house. Please remember that at the time of our remodel this requirement was not in the code. But now it is-- and we do appreciate the intent of this new provision. And as much as we personally like the dome, just the way it is-- and we feel that it does fit architecturally with the rest of our home, we have learned that it is, apparently, a matter of aesthetics-- and in this case, I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I am not so stubborn that I wouldn't consider some kind of compromise if it would bring peace back among neighbors. If the issue here is the color of the dome, if my neighbor doesn't like shiny aluminum, for example, we would be willing to paint it, or perhaps we could put some kind of material on its surface so that it more closely conforms to the rest of the roofing on our house. This would be a practical and affordable solution to the problem. Let's try to work together and find a way to settle our differences equitably. Maybe this way, we can ALL end up winning. Thank you. Mark A. Thompson 1305 Sandpiper Drive Seal Beach, CA 90740 4/21/93: Text of speech/ Planning Commission meeting . .. \ Git, !)f Seal Beal.h tlarhlin~ r.f\mrn:sS;\ifl su~n"IT: ~.I.. rol( HlT~2 1 .. ~~...4IJfAJ SJ,ieIJ"Date \1' P B TIT ION' WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS. OF SEAL. BEACH, ARE. OPPOSED., 'it." PORTION OF.. A STRUCTURE EXCEEDING.., THE" STA'l'BD!'HEIGH'l'" LIM:E~ RESIDENTIAL:.. DiSTRICTS... SUCH STRUCTURAi:._ APPENDAGES"".. ~CREA'J.!Ei~. ..., IMPACTS OF AN... UNAESTHETIC' NATURE WHICH REDUCE. . LIVING. ENJO QUALITY OF 'NEIGHBORHOOD APPEARANCE, AND MAY' HAVE.' A ~~~.. IMPACT 'ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VAWES.- WE ADVOCATE:' . 'r.. APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND POLICY DIRECTION BE ENACTED'l;:"".. . f"": ELIMINATE THE POTENTIAL FOR ANY FUTURE REOCCURRENCE OF SUdil!r!-i.{~ :' ". NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. . '. '. ....... .'tt.:-, . . .' -, 0:~;:~~.:.:;...,v':~ ..:....:.". ~..~. . r __ ._... . ~. i'~~~~,,_... .._ ':~';.:;~~\'~~r( .. ..~\( .' -, ". ." . . 0' .....- .. . . ). \ ~\ ::: . P..B~~-I ~. 1.0.' , . ,.... - . WE, THE UNDERSIGNED,' RESIDENTS' OF.:: SEAL. BEACH';~ . ARJr... OPPOSED ~'I{ PORT ION- OP.<: ~~.~~P~\":'BX~DII(Gf.~;,TBB!ir:':'ST~~IJJ'~~.': LIHIT~ RESIDENTIAL,..... DI:STlUCTS"'"".;. SUCJI.i';-. STRU~'APPBHJ)AGBSjji~l CREA~ IMPACTS OF'~AH~' :. 'UNAESTSETIC: NATURE:;: " WJaCB"" REooea'l" 'UVING ENJO.' QUALITY OF:.. ~I(,;HBoRHQ9g~. APP~qB;'~. AND';"~_Yfr:- ~VB\". A'" IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAII. .PROPERTY VALUES,;'. . WE':.' ADVOCATE- . APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND POLICY' DIRECTION BE ENACTEIi.'~" - ."',. :--7::' ELIMINATE THE' POTENTIAL FOR ANY ,FUTURE REOCCURRENCE OF SUca~ft~~~ t~~:. NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. .' '" .....:.7.: . ..' 'NAKB SIGDTURB: ADDRBSS~ '. . . ,~('~.. ~. 1''-' . ---- . .' ....'t. ',.:s:i.:~\...~ - ;:';'..'i~""t.. t..... "'.i., _ . (~;~~U?~. ~,~.:~ ~i:'.i9'j.:S.~.~l.\':" . .... ~ ..""... """~".;!;' -......,._~ ", l~;,.r11'li"'''oJ: :I:\~f,j. .~t,t "'..~:.:'..i~-:: ., '~;~~~"".:' '',< ._.; '7~?,~"':;:~"5".~~~:. '''.' .._. " ..... \ ..\ \ \ , . . , . . "":~~'~ ~. .;'-:f:~;' ~ '. \:.:.. ';:":' ~.~ - P 'B, T.' I T. I 0 II 1lARCJRi".'..;:':;'"itt t;,~~? .:. . ...~".~"..:4i.~::1 . .... " . ''''~ffl'~l . . . ~~~-t'N ~ ;" . . . ,-e ....,.:..., ....., '.; I WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RES;IDE~S'i:-; OF.~:SEAL~BEACH,... ARE:.,OPPOSED:.. TO.'.:) ........:.:'..:, .~f~. PORTION': OF ':',-A S~~~~E' E~~~'pI~~t ~1~ S'l'~~p~~pI~~;...~ LIHI~.. '. ':r~: RESIDENTIAL"i..DISTRI:CTS~;;;,.~;. S~~~~,S~~'A~~~'~~~~ ( ,.,. ;.~ IMPACTS., OF' AN" UNAE$~IC;"NA~~~:.~CH"';'.REDU~aibLIVIHG.;,ENJO QUALITY OF. NEIGHBORHqo~~;,~~~f,'~~':, ANQ;~'\'; MAl~~~",~,A.._:; ~~~ IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL. PROPERT,x;,:" VAWES. . WE~,. ADVOCATE, :', ',~ APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND', POLICY. DIRECTION BE': ENAcTEf)!. '., ELIMINATE THE' POTENTIAL FOR ANY.. FUTURE REOCCURRENCE" OF:: sa .~t-;.:..;.., NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. ~~~l_.:. \ ~~t~: . "';~'" ADDRB88'{ " . ~ : ",~",",;,.J : .. ,:;,,', , " ;....~.. . .~~;'.~~'(..~I!c< 1\": . ,'.:' . '..,;./:..; . S~'- ""'PJLJ~A:"'" '-r";:Y"~'i:. '*.J' . "'/1;) ,.,#V.D 'rc;,Ai..,r.... .J:.~-..{.~...f lo :",;:":.: . p ., ";~'lI"J~":'. ~ ...:. ~H.:!.7~i1'~~: ....,,'. .' . .- .....".: .:. . -'. '-'.:!.~~ '~r<:~ ." . . . ~:\~. ::'. ..:. . e Wt/.5. .' ..:.'.:--....... . ..... - . . . I .;.~~ ..;~:t( '. " ':'::.:;:~;~..~~':} .r'~":1;: ~?:." ..;~~ ~:::;. :.... ',-,~ ::., 7 t".:\,. ~::'-'.~.:;' .... P B TIT' I 0 H: . '. "'2'i~~~:. _~;~~~~j;?:;~~A~~~;~~~";;"";'5:~~"'~.:;f\_~ .. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF, SEAL. BEACH, ARE OPPOSED!:. PORTION OF A STRUCTURE EXCEEDING~, THE~ STATED.: HEIGHT' LI ~"'. RESIDENTIAL - DISTRICTS. SUCH STRUCTURAL:' APPENDAGES~~' CREA'1'.. IMPACTS OF AN- UNAESTHETIC NATURE WHICH REDUCE' LIVING ENJO ' ,QUALITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD APPEARANCE', AND MAY:, HAVE:. A. NE'" IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VAWES'. WE' ADVOCATE5.;"~'::,!' , APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND POLICY DIRECTION BE ENACTE ':,~ '6~~~' ELIMINATE THE POTENTIAL FOR ANY FUTURE REOCCURRENCE OF' ~ SU~ to ~ ~:-;.~' NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. -':~'~f-~~::i*;'~t~:~,,- ,: t~:~..; ~~:. . ~. I.;' ~ NAJIB _ _, SIGOT ~:')V ~.4 tV ,.,,; ~ '-/' \/1) R.c ".. .....).1~ (;', ,'- '. " . _, ''I ~DRBS~, , ..:~ .. ,~.:-- ~. ,; /.. -- /3' =Il-: , .' "U . "'.'. ... -"-.< '. - ~O" .~... ...,..., . - , I' . "'" ,or: ..... cZ .i <A.... ("i ' e . ~.~:. ~~. P B '1' I., !e.,~ I ~. '.'!:~. ''-'''- : .-.....:'''.-: e . ! . .. ";. . -~. 4:_.._....,...~ - . ..~...--:..<It: "I";' .; - WE, THE UNDERSIGNED.i.RESIDENTS OF- SEAL, BEACH~.. . ARE'-OPPOSED.:f'~; P.ORTION.~.. .OE:';::..A:'STRU~..Ei.CEEDINGii,', T!I&";1~,-J S.'1'AfiQ:eBB~GHT LId RESIDENTIAL", DISTRICTiJ.~:~~~Sit:eH~;':S&fi~AP.~..:. CRQ": '''~- . .-....... !o ............~t.ll... ..~,. ., _"!....~..r_...."'.,.. ~ '......&.;;.0...._ '. I '.' '. ."'...... ~_ .. IMPACTS" . OF.:. Alf::' UNAESTBBTIC; NATUREt: WBICI{",REDUC."i;l:' LIVING ENJQ QUALITY' OF. ':NEIGHBORil~r>~~;APP~CE:,:.'. ?df~~::;;MY<<,~k.~VB . ~ .......... IMPACT ON~:"'RBSIDENTrAtt.:~-""PROPEltT~,'" "VALm:S".'. '-~':;:'''WB:: ADVOCATE APPROPRIATE -ORDINANCE" AMENDMENTS:"'AND POLICY: 'DlRECTloN BE ENACT' ELIMINATE THE, POTENTIAL" FOR ANY FUTURE, REOCCURRENCE OF.!!::''' NEGATIVE' IMP,ACTS ON OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. '::':1;!{, '- . . "'r:";,':':=;:..r ~ ~:.,: .-'.. :;.:''';''~~~~~''';~~:'.~:~:';;:~.::-.'. , ~ ....... . .J, -10" ,",~, .... .',' .: .~.:~ ,::.:~:, .':-.... .... :f5'::~~~~:~h' -. .-" " . . :::~'~~:~~::''':~~-?:~:.7.:7::;;~!~:C~r:~~:::-?:,~E:' , WE, THE UNDERsIGNED' RESJ;P~$.~... OF. ,SEAL, .BEACHi:i;,or..,ARE,..OPPOSED .- '1.\.1 PORTION OF .":A":STRU~;.: 'EX~EI;)I~~;:~~~~~:7:~~A~QiRBIGBT:' LDa~ RESIDENTIAL~:' DISTRIC'ts:;:~:... SUCJr-". 'STRU~1 ~GE~': CREATe ", IMPACTS. OF - AlL', UHAESTBE'l'IC~~'NATURlt' . WHICH' REDUcz::.... LIVING~ ENJO ''-- QUALITY OF:' NE:IGHBORHOOD~:. APPEARANCE';. --AND+ .-MA~~",' HAVEL A,- REa' IMPACT ON. RESIDENTIAIi 'PROPERTY' VALUES. WE. ADVOCATE TIll _ . APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND POLICY- DIRECTION BE ENACTEDi: .. >:t;z~~L' ELIMINATE . THE POTENTIAL FOR ANY FUTURE REOCCURRENCE OF stJCH~::,~.'~t:~::z.; ~ NEGATIVE IMPACT~ .ON' OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. " ""'::'.. ' NAME . , .. p 'iI"; If I If' 1- 0', B'.- ~,:_,~,'.-.'.,_i:,~:: ~.~~.: ~;.l';~~;:~~#~.' :?:;~~!:f' ~ ; -:...~ ~." . . " 'j.. qADE . . .,'" , ~ .:' .. . ~:~<"'. .~I. . .~. ..:~: ~..'t :t:: . ... DRCID!~..i:_": ':?11.'",: . '1" f. I" .'t, o. ....... ".to ..... I~ . . . "1'" t....i1~.. '~',I.. : :.".~ :~:.;~~:.; ~~;,., WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS:, OF.: SEAL. BEACH',., AR&. OPPOSED.;'.. T~ ."';':;' ,:.\, PORTION, OF, A, STRUC'1'tJRB:~~': EXCBBDIllQ.r.;. ,Ta#~, STU'Br;g:BBIGHT~ LDG~'" .;.l;. RES.IDENTIAII... . DIST1UCTS;:"~i: suaS:.:.;STRUCTURAn:t:~G"B" cRBA~~.n . IMPACTS OF, AN: . UNABSTBB'l'IC' NATURB~l.. WBJ:CHI.(RBoucz:.~~ LIVING. ENJQ' '. QUALITY OF. NEIGHBORHOOD~. APPEARANCE,_ "'AHD~:' KIlY~.:RAVB'~' A' . .~,..,:., IMPACT ON USIDENTIAL. PROPERTY~ VAWES. - WE'" ADVOCATESf'.r{ .'- APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE' AMENDMENTS AND POLICY DIRECTION BE ENA~P: ;,~' ", " ELIMINATE THE POTENTIAL FOR ANY FUTURE REOCCURRENCE OF. SU.~l- :;=.. NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. . . ..'. .. .... P B:T I T 10. .~~ ':, ,";", . ._~ J \ .- ~t.:..7;~ ":.- _ ..t:'- .:.:~::~~[;'.;' .'J.,;.;.....r,.. ..:.....0.:"':::-. .~ '"1.. , , ; ::~;}r3;~:?:~~'~:' ~~::- "- . ~ . .. '. . .': ' : .jf~~~~f{~~:; '.~' ..,. .,:' ;~'..: \':: '';:~.:i' ", ':.-. . . HAHB SIGDTUlUt. ADDU883 ",.. '.. t.s:~';.:.,,:.. :"''''.. . . 'l&:..~~... e . '~',:" .~;~ .~~...i.;:f.~~:~,' .., '. ::.....~~~.::.: '.... '. ....:~~~?~' .". r" ; '~~'~.. ~:~ ....'~ .6" ". 's" :.::~ .', f"};.'~::...'- .... ..,0'" :":::';" . ~~'. ' J'. '.. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENT&..,. OF SEAL.:. BEACH',:', , ARB' OPPOSED",~' PORTION OF.. ,. ~'-' STRUC'l'ORE ,;: EXCEEDING:~\:'~' TRE.!~,: STAU"BBIGIl'J!:;/' _ RESIDENTIAL.. _ ," DIS.TRICTS; .'. SUCH':~' STRUCTURA:IIt'APPER'DAGBS..~?-~'c::atm'- IMPACTS OF-.AR".. UNAEsTHETIC' NATURE', WHICU::-RBOUCB'" LIVDlG::g . '..., QUALITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD' APPEARANCE~ '.. ' AND,~:~. HA~,L HAVBZ:~ .i~'~!:l! .', IMPACT" ON', '''RESIDEH'tIAL PROPERTY' VALUES'. wE!,~" ADV~ APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND POLICY DIRECTION BE ERA' f.TO,o ELIMINATE THE>, POTENTIAL FOR, ANY FUTURE REOCCURRENCE OFr'I::SijCH~', NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. ' ,'., ~)'..~., . P B '!.1 '! I 0..... ., ::,,:, :....:.::::;~igf~it:." ... ., . .... .....,. ~.':l" ...... . ':""~'. ..~r.*..~.~:.:_.:- _ . :7'~,.:.. e DJIB . . .,.... . 'h'..~:;...... ~ ":"':..;::o:;...~:;.:.-.?.:, f' . tt~~~~'. ,..~ti.1!.:J~i . . . 'iL ' Jtll-liq, r J~ fJ.!J- . . ,. .,. J'"... ~ ~~ .. . :."]\ r .. ,':- 'j .' . I "T" . '.. .::,~'~~'.j:.-,:~::. : ~.:; ~::;;.!~:;r1';-:'.; :~;::;:::,:~~:.r~t~ ~1~~~"'.~. .. . . ~. . .- ." .:...t.....r -.~..,' .., -:..... . :> I , ,~... . .. 0" :';;' ~ ." "'~.'. i, ...- ..t. I "~'~.. ~ . # . ""-.-.- <-~~_. p ," 1"\'';' .~ . ...t. ~- .". ~. ,. . " . ,', e e ...... . -. :.,-,.~:'.~-;:: :;:;r;';..:: '.. '~-. .<..::.:';: "~:"""~!.1':"""; ... ' ,.- :..:.. ~L.:.!..~.H.J:":""'_4""':. ..... "=--:: ...--". -:?:-:-""r"-otr j -- ,-. 'r",-=: I .....:. ...--,.. .. - ,.. L_. '.' _ _...~ . r /~ ~- . PET I T ION KARCH 1990 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF SEAL BEACH, ARE OPPOSED TO ANY PORTION OF A STRUCTURE EXCEEDING THE STATED HEIGHT LIMITS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. SUCH STRUCTURAL APPENDAGES CREATE VISUAL IMPACTS OF AN UNAESTHETIC NATURE WHICH REDUCE LIVING ENJOYMENT, QUALITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD APPEARANCE, AND MAY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES. WE ADVOCATE THAT APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND POLICY DIRECTION BE ENACTED TO ELIMINATE THE POTENTIAL FOR ANY FUTURE REOCCURRENCE OF SUCH NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. . . \ . . PET I T ION MARCH 1990 ;.sl ;:/ WE, THE UNDERSIGNED RESIDENTS OF SEAL BEACH, ARE OPPOSED TO ANY PORTION OF A STRUCTURE EXCEEDING THE STATED HEIGHT LIMITS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. SUCH STRUCTURAL APPENDAGES CREATE VISUAL IMPACTS OF ~ UNAESTHETIC NATURE WHICH REDUCE LIVING ENJOYMENT, QUALITX OF NEIGHBORHOOD APPEARANCE, AND MAY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES. WE ADVOCATE - THAT APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND POLICY DIRECTION BE ENACTED TO ELIMINATE THE POTENTIAL FOR ANY FUTURE REOCCURRENCE OF SUCH NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. NAMB ..., 1'" It 1r<:..' ~ SIGNATURE ADDRESS JCl/~1/'("~ C" ,,-:," 0 ..,.." D 5~ e .. II' 11 r:Jt' LE8 A?t;I TtJ 5 ~7 ~.h-, a..2:;- /0 ^ ,- C; 'C'5 ./(j'U /7 _')~) ~- (7 ~TVI tl u kv[ /S3S- U~7-'ew,4"-Q, 2iO g:I!!<;r tt-R. ~FA<., B~'/t!A ,/ '"'l . e e ... . ..I. . .' . ',)+ ~~~~~Ji:iI~~:-:':,. .,' ....,." 'N'..' . ...., ......?..I\~:.{,~..:~:::~:.:.!:.\.-:.:.;' ~~'.~J~ .~-~~.: ::~:..e~!" ,1tr..I.J .~h~!:.:\~~ ,'.. . . ~. . '''\1 ".~nt~~~.",*:~~~' f:J...'!/ ~~. " J: ".... :~.:'~~\':~}\~1~~~~j:',:",:: '.... ", r~ ': . . .l.~,l(~lllo"....... ~ .'..... "I.,.... .-. \"'.]'. "'r!' ....'. I" .:.~...,~: ..t:'.!Jt..!u;.......l.~J;t.._~.:;,.,..... '.l....n.'tt .l4{;.....:,.. \ .1:'1.1 ;,.-' ~."'rlJ.ti.~~ ;r:~.q""';"'::-'I'C'.~"'}l"~"~"'Ir~ ':'-:t.-,:.~t Ji'f.'!::~~':~ .,"("\'S~..:,;;~:'1~':-"" n""';.. 1~~."" n;p!.,~1; 3:-;, . ';s".,' :... . I I ..::..... \ ...." -.. ... :'. "',~.~ "~:':~."" 0.' . .1. .~ "i\" \.7 .~~~":I....... '. ..".... '. ';$:l\~;;j~.:. . ~., -':;-:'3>-'," ,"!_ ." ," ..:~. _.t:-:~~1..~' ..'~'':..if'",,!; .,. '." '~'.~~,(f::~~<""- . '-;-;.:l;t~r''''': . " ..,. ~':'~~'~f.'.I~;:i \"_ .. ,............'t:.:liI.t:"'I:;,: ..::-:~~iE~(.'. ... ':,' :t:~~ ':'. \......:.;..:.., r. '.' .,:I~~::\~~. '.' ...: .. r.:.':" ..:. -. . ~... ;'., I.' :-~i;?~~:~~~ \ I .. ~ .. ...... " . ,..:." . , ~ <r~!l~';o.\',:" .:,,,.l.":'..ll,"1 .~ ., :. '" ... ~:. .... .... " . .::fll WE, THE UNDERSIGNED J RES~DENTS~' OF, SEAL BEACH;. ARE. OPPOSED TO'.. PORTION OF,. A,; STRUCTURE:5.... EXCEEDING~ THE::- STATEb:~'HEIGHT.. LIMIT~. RESIDENTIAL__ ~ QI:$TJU'C1'S";'.. Sl1.CIJ~.... STRUCTURAL I APPBNDAGE&,:~ CREATE", vi.....-- IMPACTS OF AN'~ UNAESTHE?:IC' NATURE,~' WHICH'. REDUCE.: 'LIVING ENJO . . _.. ~~~kgY g~ :~~g=~~., :g=~E~~~. ~~~~:~o~Tr:~.;1 .j;":' APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND POLICY DIRECTION BE ENACTED.~ Td~r' :~.. "";rl. ELIMINATE THE' POTENTIAL. FOR ANY FUTURE REOCCURRENCE OF SUcH~:";;", ':;;}:. . NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. ~., .. r :,.-. ~"_.,. .. P;..B~~ T., I. ~:::t: 0, .... f' .' . . I ..~.. Jr.-:;:~-::':~.~ .:::::....:~'.~.1;;...~~~~lf :~li.l"~ -, lil""...~..,.""",~!i.I,t.o.:.l..,,,, ."., ..........,~~tt~.~\"f, 1~':1'~tli'J. ;.:r.:.'t.:' ~'.'::~ :'-'~~~rF~!~i~~;.: _~~~~: -J:~ . . .. . -,-... -.....~..t1 . .' .:~ ;-. " .., . e ti~ , l~.;f'( \ t H. It(;In. ..(Jf:~ ) ... . .-' . ~~~I ~i~-:::.~ ::_' . ,~J :.0' . ~~.:~... .. '-':'; ". ':':'I:~~~::~j~~;;;' .: : "',' -;~ ...f~.:1\~~-::l ..~"(~\.;. J~';'.~1f"! -, . ......'1.. ,', t~I'-.!":.,,t,"). .. ':.::~.~:?B. ~Pr! ~ . ... ~ .~" . ":::!~~:~:~~:!.i~:,...~:' . .' . " ""',,"", ..... '".''' ,": ........'.../., '1\ u ~":.....,;..'~.:r~'..",_ ..;;.,.... _'" __ ..........""'l".. . _..... . ............._.... .......~-7..;~.~-...,~" . ...:.... :.....-p' "~"?I-' ':;'t~"':"~__'r:'.." " . -," ...... ... . .~. ....~.. . ': . If n' .. ___ _ ':II .... .' t..C .t.,. .. 'too .: ~'..". . , '. . , ~ , ., .. -.- -....... ..... .. -'" -. . ....... .....~..~ :,~':...~\'...,~ i'~f.."4~~9~~:.: :.'/.: '. '-. -. ;" .... ..J .::'" ',:. . .( : ~ .. . ... . '''~'~9:':.:r). . 'i;~~;i~:i;~ ~ -, I '.'" :..:.. .::"".~, ~.:... .& ':' '. ':-:~t~-: -W,,;~i;.' . It P';'B:1'T~Ii'1'I1'I' O'~. e WE, THE UNDERStGHED~'IU;S,~~~~~;~::~9.l~;SW:. ~EA~ir~< ~~~QPPqSED~l~; PORTION' OF.~;'; .A~ S~U~~~,~~~Q~~~i.... '~~W~Q1.~t?~;;~ gJq' RESIDENTI~}'~i'DISTRI~,:,:: ':SU~t.,~Tlftfe ,.:DPamtG_.~..~~ IMPACTS OFfAN,t, UNAESTBETIeeNATtJRa-t~.WlUCB.~REDu~:;LIyDlG;.:EifiI~. QUALITY OFp ~:NBiGHBORHOOD;ttAPPIWWieB~~t:.{'AND'~ll MA~~'iiAVB~';~~k<l.t:Nfi IMPACT ON: RESIDENTIAL' PROPERTY"' VAlDES"; WE~' ., ADVOCATE~:{':'~, . APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS" AND POLICY DIRECTION BE ENACT~ ELIMINATE THE POTENTIAL FOR ANY FUTURE REOCCURRENCE' OF .:~ ," 1000-"';'.' NEGATIVE IMPACTS' ON OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. ''';\1i;'~:'n;~;.:'''. ",' -",';'{:.~I:.-:fc-~~I:r::ll .... I~~ .(fi:f - 4g ..t~~::1~ .,. I :.~l . " ~~~t:: ;:" ~"'.~,~ . ,"" .~'..j: ;f';'4' i~~~,~~~.::r.' ...."* I. (..,.'.' . 8IGD~~: . J';~.:,-.__:':", .:"!" :' "':.'~!c'~~::~~~.j'." ", ~ _I. . '._ '.. .0..... . -: t,",:, ," . i 'r ," ~:-~J::~:\":;. ::;. . -, .: ......~T.:~.'\' 1 '~,~. .:-' .:.. , - "," .; ~> . ~~~ j/j.fjV':: ~~~:~~:):- .: . g' - .. . .;~;..:Ji';~~\.~:-;i;".jlt'i,: &-lrr-t-v.- '1.. -.. '-.~;!}If,~.... ',. E)f1 v<- -: .;, !~~~~l~i:-f,Fr ,. ...~~\,,:.:.,~.;iiJ';';,.-: I . .,..... .:. J, "'-:,..:.:.. .',',,' ~,,';:i:'f'~"t":j; ~::;,~' J :' :'..,j ::" . "':::~;~}:"'';'.. ':~LY,:~. . .' ),.Cb:/ ~:'-;~~.:~.:!i.~:.~.~.~.:..f~:' ~ ~..!.:.::.cc::,,;\~~.,,,: ;;:.....;.;;:.t#".":!~.;~...~;:::-~.:.::..;;:{0~:.~.4l-~~!f.tI:~~~~C~-:i!-..~i':'::'.;~' :,~1'~~'~':-~"~'~;'~ :"~':""'. -;,. ,( ':;',:;: : " ~~: l'~~;'" ...~~~.~.~~~~t;..,:...: .'1 ~:~:'~';'?:".7~\:~l';~'l;:'~~{,':~~?, '~1-j:~~~:. :.: '.; ':;:""':':::';~::~~;: ~"';:<i.:.;. d'~:-.f~ ,"if:: ':{t~:~~':'~'''' ':.1::: 'i:; e .. . :" ';~: . ," ~ity. ~f Seal Beach Planning Commission "" ,; :; J ~: :', 'SUBMIlTED FOR' RECORD: , , rt'~L):j.:~ =---->>a18 APR2" 1 1H@ , ;' ..'IIlt:LDS . I : FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: 'LAN REVIEW 110. E.I.R. 110. DATE rILED .(, ,~\e'1 'LANNING COMMISSION MINOR PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION , " ' ,~ .. ~ ," .:1- '.. .,; ~ DATE (. -1-!Si' '. t. .,1 I . f . City of Seal Beach IIOTE: 'LEASE READ -HOW TO APPLY rOR A MINOR PLAN REVIEW" BErORE COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION. 1. 2. 3. 4. . 5. 6. 7. . Name of Address Applicant ~~~ Telephone' of Applicant _~/geA~. Property Owner ~ ~ ~~&411l{),.,~ of Property Owner ~& c;..A1Jl)f2lFi2., ~A~'tV'A:I of Property -'~t::I; ~ANt::>DfClQ/2.. and ~ streets Name of Address Address Between Zoning an~ General plan Designation of Property Present Use ~f Property ~~A~I~ proposed Use of Property ~~,~ Check one of the following: Request for: ~ Structural Alterations to lIonconforming Use Hinor Height Variation Architectural Review ~ 8. 9. Are the proposed improvements appropriate for the character of the surrounding neighborhoo~? ~ : 11. Woul~ the approval of this Plan Review. be in any way ~ detrimental to other property in the vicinityr- ~C' Sianature) 2 , \ ) ~ ^ff'UfJ1.1,iJ-C. I (J n? cfVllY ~/tt l ' NO & /.JtU4, k/tJtJeJl. ~J ,. ~ I' ])~;I!.rM~l.-iD_~~ X'\~ I.~" ..,~)1/)i:;-~~Ptuf~!!( -r- -\ I D{l-"" ~N I C~., . . . ~ r(U' ;- J,J , I. .,' .l 1''' V . 4' fJ IJ tfJ"f\ (,'/l-1 ('l / <:v~' .a9O' }/~.ICB'J' VARIA'J'IO. APPLICA'J'IO. - City of ... // _--...-. '--'--ci~:{- OF SEA / //--- HEIGHT VARIAT~N ~OR OFFICE USE ONLY Height variatilnJ^~ Date Filed: 2.. tL!:fJ. Planning Commi ion Date: . . 4. 6. (!) 10. . am! 2 1 1993 8. DESCRIBE HOW and IF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD: "The structure is appropriate for the character of the surrounding neighborhood as it fits with the overall architectural design of the house." (II) 9. DESCRIBE HOW and IF THE APPROVAL OF THIS HEIGHT VARIATION ~LD BE DETRIMENTAL IN ANY WAY TO OTHER PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY: "I am not aware how the present structure may be in any way detrimental to other property in the neighbor- hood." (III) / ] ] ] ..************************************************************** 1. PROPERTY ADDRESS: /305 5t71:d,iJ:I)~,.. /)//r/e., .x,cul RC.tJ,.i1 I I Ii" {:" ..jJ E / - '. t A- ./ -/" CO t.. "5 t::: 1 'I , 2. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: HOME PHONE: MAILING ADDRESS: J_ r- WORK S n ,.~t..I- .I'l c: n It>~~_ 3. PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME: 1i1trJ'k. /tJ /ZI,'-zn ~~~\.. ~ht?'.rf(.',"'- ADDRESS: ~-4k.l_ HOME PHONE: ( ) I' WORK PHONE: (" ) 'I ZONING and GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: 7o'Jl.. /1:1 ,lJi~i",'"i- ~- , / PRE~ENT USE' OF PROPERTY: 5i 1"0 .A':1'~ a1v.d 1-1:5 ' . PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY: -G, <I..U__ PROPOSED'IMPROVEMENTS: .' if 5. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP (STAFF IS TO ATTACH HERE A PHOTOCOPY OF A PICTURE I.D. and a PHOTOCOPY OF THE GRANT DEED PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT) - OR - SIGNED AND NOTARIZED OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT TO BE COMPLETED AND ~~\ '19'& . ~.. @ / ~ ~ /. .~.Q'~' radius '.' . I.' . ~, ." FILE COpy 4~.. '.6 '~ , , fl."" 4"" 4. . ~. . ., J. . .. . . -I. -.' ..' - . ... .". TRA -r 0 0 G) ~ @ ~ 0 0 0 , , @ @ @) ':' ~ .. . CR!STV:Etf' . .... ... 1I . ,.. .. co .. '. ~ .0 ~0 CD tV 0 (!) ct . ,.,., Q J~' J~)/ JIS:' JI' Jll JIJ J.4 .... ,~ ",r, J.' ,- J.' M J.~ '" I ~ I 0 ~@ ~ :@ @ @ @ @ @ I..l .. . I ~. ~ I WI ~ 3 . .... ,,- .. 0 0 CD (!) (!) @ . i .~ .... ~ , s ,,' 12 Norf . ASSfSSOI'S ILoa . ,AlCfL NUMl(IS \ !\ ~ SHOWN ., CllCLIS TRACT NtJ 2590 M ItI 82- J2 TO 38 INe , . r nUlnArc.hin Man 1 Thomps\Jh, 29L . _305' Sa~d Piper Dr ;' ~ea1 Beach CA 90740 '9-197-26 ..1,)0' Listing April 25, 1989 Alexander Popp 1230 Catalina Ave Seal Beach CA 90740 199-194-01 Robert Johnson 733 South Shore Dr Seal Beach CA 90740 199-194-02 Paul Moser 713 Taper Dr Seal Beach CA 90740 .199-195-02 Herman Harvill 709 Taper Dr Seal Beach CA 90740 199-195-03 Ben Cunningham 712 Taper Dr Seal Beach CA 90740 199-196-01 Arlin Skarsten 713 Sand Piper Dr Seal Beach CA 90740 199-196-02 Lawrence Moore 709 Sand Piper Dr Seal Beach CA 90740 199-196-03 - reston Howell 108 Taper Dr Seal Beach CA 90740 199-196-04 '~'.. . .. . ., ". ,~.., ~: :,': ";, '. , '.",~... " t. r . .:. ~ ," , {$l.2\'~ ",' F!Lf Copr SUSAN W. CASE OWNERSHIP LISTING SERVICE 1461 Glenneyre Street Suite F Laguna Beach, California 92651 714/494-6105 FAX: 7141497-9280 ( '\ i I / Alan Shields , 1300 Catalina Ave,' Seal Beach CA 90740 199-197-01 .. ", '., ..............:: ~. . ; Arthur Axelrad I 1310 Catalina Ave: Seal Beach CA 90740 199-197-02 ( ...- ~I Billy Rutledge 329ls 10th ST Seal Beach CA 90740 199-197-03 Melvin Ravin 1410 Catalina Ave Seal Beach CA 90740 199-197-04 Susan Wood 708 Sand Piper Dr Seal Beach CA 90740 199-197-20 Howard Smith 712 Sand Piper Dr Seal Beach CA 90740 199-197-21 ..... , ,/ Paul Rlahr ./ 716 Sand Piper Dr Seal Beach CA 90740 199-197-22 .'.' t,1 ", , t't.. ~ ~.,~ '''''to<;, " ", W R Greaves 1405 Sand Piper Dr Seal Beach CA 90740 199-197-24 ,........ '.. '/.,..... , ...\ ~urand Hines ) ( 1401 Sand Piper Dr ~ Seal Beach ~.90740 \ 199-197-25 ..' ',,- -,. ...' . ~.' ~ Mark Thompson 1305 Sand Piper Dr Seal Beach CA 90740 199-197-26 '- .. .... " '" #/Jerry Andersen .~ 1402 Sand Piper Dr ! Seal Beach CA!90740 \;, 199-197-27 ,: \~:!''-.." J ~ ... ,,r ~.I""""- ...___~_.. '"17fc 1'1 tY ..r, A r-,<I!a.re t:' (A P ifAewr) . f {L, P iIlr; ()lAMIln-~ - 1-:kJ ~ 1!::..(, n,/t-1"-J4 it 7 ~P'-A,;'l.o ) AIr :Pv (J L, c i4t4n.."J 6 J , I' I ", ,'I. i I! I, .:1 , .1;j'''l\K:'(;~~''''.'''' . . , . !'tl\,\l"\\r;:i\,,.,..d T...., .'1,'. ~iJr:.~J"S.ll"'::~~""~JI,.)",,~,,,"I':'-" ,,' ". ,. ' .. . L '.Y'" ~ .1I.....~. "I,','... Ii. ;'" I 'i; . I .~ '. ." . I" . '"q; I : ~I. .': .': ~I~.::~i! '.:' . '", 1 J"~;~ " ,',.. . 'p I' i" .",.., . ,; ! · '':~; ~ :~i i:I,. ',~i,: . ' ~:. .. ~Y' , , 1 :,,~ I'U ',ili.j(~ ~ i : '1 ' ' .' " .. . ""1'" J ,,'": ',' .. ::. (~~o!~t~;:~j;l! ',!p" "," . I' it.' .! t' ~I'~'~: i,',.,Yf. " r' I ~ .I','I":!:"".:~ ,". . , . , ,l~ - ,_ (' ;"'1-' ;_~ . '_ __ --,.. , 1". fil_? j~,r~tl'~3W;11;"&:I-.;i,t<\ _. ; .! t~ :t.,.l"':~"\"'I'~!'i,f"'I"';;i" .t:'! ' ~ .... ,"" . " .' _' __ _ r=--1 /,,-'" I ;1~ " : 'f' '~'r'1(, 'j' JIll I , . . ,. ,,' I' . ^ . 1 r; i I . . " I: . ,\""', ~I" .:.'_ 'f' ,,;,.' ,'. :L' ,_ - ',f ' ,,'" ," ,I .\ '. \ .: ",<<"" .'",q" _. . ,_. _, .' "l~ . . ('/ I \ I "'~' .... ,Ir;: -"l !,'. . '_ _ .' - "", ~~.J-_ l__..~ ".::Jl"'-' (1'!1: ~:a' 'V'I,!I !~:,." ". .,l...i J.' . . . -" ". ';'. -. .. -- - .'.,- -.-.- - -- . 11';'..,: _ ..' .. _ - .-:' I.i..:::'~.~_.-_=-.-_- -:...-....:-.~- -:1 ! '..~ill "'. ":1 r . r I 1!' .' , . ;0... .i:'f ,,!:,,'r,i,. ./, I;j. II'I~ ,. ..,'.:'-'J'.' 'j Ijl,' '1' . '.' """.,;,), ~ :-..'" i' -'- . __. .--.....~-f.. .. .: ~. ~~:" ~ ~,_..o..... '. U I U ; ~: ,.. -::..:...:.~--:.- -.~ I 'IUn;/,ii _....:L,; \:." .~~.. ':?I~~"'-" --- I ----- · II ~ b ' , r" ,.. .--.. . L ' . -.... . - -- ::'7.:::'.__ .:;::11-- ..:::..-.~, . ~ ''ii '::_:::: ,,-, :';': . : . -. : '~: - -.. - --.~':':'-"::' C" - · '::--:, ~ -:~-~- - -2'1- ~1'J." · ,-;-; ~- -' .,-,'0'''' '.;-' . -- - ~- . - ," ,_"_,,,.l"'J'_-".l..,~..,.. ' , L' _ . ..' _ _ ", ."..,_ - -"r--" .. .- .',.. :..~-,-h-=--= , ~. i ,-c-- - -.-- -.... ". - , . :~ ..;.:_:...:><,,', ~ ____,.. ___;-:----1 - _:.:=:- -.. :. 'i ' r-~" ---- ---. ---- - ,-----\.------- ~-'- -\ .. ;~. 7.. .... __ _ _ -.. ----:-:-.:: ---:.::.: -- - 1'.- -----. ~ '7'- --.. --.:::-.::: ---- - ---l. ,". Ii '. .~: " . ,..' 'iI-: . _~~'=n=~l!\. -::~.-~'lL~j~:=:n. :: ~ . -.. .' 'i'l:.:'.!'::":'.""! ~ _~.j ;,..;. :=:::,..-: - : - ~ ' -::.:..:. - --==: i~ ;.1. ,--i . -:-- " .~. __;'p :::...-- --- -'.- -- ..-~=--- -. -:....=- ,-. -' - . --- - - -I' , ~,f.'I-i .' ':.. ~.., 'o{~. ~ -----.-. -' . .' . ..:..:... -.--.\' ,.----...-..- ~. -. .. ., ~ . .. -- -. I'J-t-- _ -.- ,\ .-------- ,. ------- \ !:.__u;7\.'1':': - ._ - . ______'___ - -------- ---- ---- ;~--------. 1'- >.'t-- "'._ +-,'- ,..- _. ------- -' -- - .----11. ~;....--r,;:;----jj;.o -r----n---- - ---- - . -..-- - :::-::.:-~:. ,- ; /:--. ... ''''''tafH1-l' · , - . - - - -- - - -- --- - ----- - --- -- ,----- ~:: -::-.:::---- ---: II' _, .___ 1.-11'1. -'to - -- -- '-- - -~-' - -- - - , -;".__,_ I. '. ." '1~t:i--',- .!~_&. m' . - . "~...::' ...~. -_d' .. -'-"- :~-.'-'-' ., " " . -- ,., . - ,-,-- - --- -. ,------ -- -- . - - - - - . - ,,-, -:--<0" -' -..- - - - - - --- . -- -.. ' -' '';t- "., - -- ..---- - -..----- -- ----- ' :., J~I,'''lrl .' ~'. "!TOO}' ._....."'-___...;___......,_:.-..:..t.' , I il.~' 4' . ,..t--'" .....-i!;l ~~, I" ... .r:""7"-;~ ;..-. -1' .-..~.. It-.. . . .., - . .. .. 'I I ..11 u~.... . ... .' . . . , ,.' I .., . 1.:.:....... .... - jl ' , IJr-- " .' -l.~t ;.," ~.:.. ,." .' ., -.. -.':: . ,_ ..___ -i ". .._~_'__ ~_ ., I' ,-- ' -. .,-,. 'I:--"""~II~';IU' '.' /~_.:.'" ,'.....~~I'. -. --:,'~-- .~: ~.~-:,: - - ~ -1- !, ,....7"". ~ . ~. .. - -' 11. Ii J-j t.-.--' . . f'''::::f'~'; I' _ I; "__ ,"'-. - :. --. -,. ;1-__ c-" -;-- -:------~-----..- -- · 1,.;:r':I\'!~I~P[- ~,..-II'-..,r " .(.\..';,,1'.. --..............--1 . ,,: .. '.. - ..' __ ~~~-l _'; I r - ' '... .~ I ! 'I I: . J I '1, ,J' ' . '1" . \ l'i~ I': . i i:; . h\r:.-', 'II '. ',.:. -", ,'. . .l,h: 'I',i~ ~:,~ ;:....;:.:. j'.1 ib1t "H I.',' l. .- 1"''" . I , kl:tlll".. :.:r ...; - I"';..t.. . .,r-r--~' .., : 1)1 ~,=::', '.. i'1i"'j I~.. .-..:... '-l'r'- ...-. I' '~f,!r.,h...II.;~_.: l ~~ -.O!'li- _.__.:' I' I' lL. . , .._.._-~,., ' , . .. __.__ r-----.' l ., ... .--.... .., . filii," "'.f' I ..4,1 ,'., '--' ~!~I/I':"" ~,J!""l' &.: ::. :::'.1' ....... ,- , iI I". I" ,i ~ r ". ' ' 1 ~ "iJ~' .' I,! .~ I "~;'T:'r.1I't.l~ " '., ",.:!. . I "1' .~ ,,:,,: I'," 1 . .' ,,' 1 . ~ . II" " ", . . ~!1i.l J'.,J': "i ....-..i . , ' 'r' . :' ~2.1;._ ,',: I.' ';1; . ': .,j .:1 ~ i!. " r' ., , , i',I' .~:'! : I' " , ," , I' ..' .'Io..t......... ...... ., __ _ .-.-....t II .' '. ~ '~ : . (. . Goo I, I . c:.~ 1 ..: '.. . ~, i : ' . , , !. " i .- [q~ I ". I I,. I ~ 1,.--" 1. - -. . j . -' -~......_......-"'-""'&.,--= ~ , : '. :. .... . _ . .. 1__ , "., c;. , ......., 1:: ......r...;.\ ~ ,.. _....4 I.._~.\.A..- , :i: . .1:. 1.....~ 1 A ::::n?~:- ,J ~ ;' - - ib r;:z~ .:"',1' , ~....,' e: ,I', : ~j:.'1 _ i ~ II !I . . '" .~ .L... ......._. Thl~f/f",.f"" OF VJ..fIlIJt.~ S'TfLvC-'iVfZ.L- - -U~60 JZ' 11e. 51.:..:(. ~TE A-~L ~~ \ ,,- ~2 \.. \ \ \ ! j ~ 1 J ~ / I I 1 ; I i ! I , . City (ir S~Clj Cit)l ?:~~miilg Commission SUBMIITED FOR RECORD By M, VOc.e Date tft 2 1 'S93 City Hall to Whom it May concern: The Planning Commission should not approve any variance that would allow The Structure at 1305 SandPiper to remain. It is a mot:l5trosity. And belongs on a mountain, not in a neighborhood. It should not have been dragged out this long. Turn down whatever loophole they're trying to squeeze . through now. 01 9J~~ . 73C) ~ ~ ~ ~ CA 9tJ7~o C 3/c) f3/ - -1760 . ; . 11-,.,.,;1 6 ~ /?9.3 Planning Commission Seal Beach City of Seal Bc~ci1 Plannir.~ r- ,nmission SUBMITTED FOR Rl-.CORD By MeUe: ~ Date APR 2 1 - Dear Commissioners: There should be a strict height limit of 25 feet (two stories). Two r~cent remodels,one on Catalina, and another O~__~!~s.!:.vi~~.A.y~ .Jlay~__ _._ __ ______. --- - ----.-... _u._ both-gonefrom-- sin-g-fe-story to large, two story houses. They both have roof decks, and neither has a DogHouse they are-not necessary. Regarding. the "Observadome" --DO NOT ALLOW IT TO STAY! It is not appropriate, it's illegal, and should never have bee~ built in the first place. . Ii ~/ ~...(,..... Ji."". S e.ec.1 Be Q. c.l, . I . . . ~ /,1913 City of Seal Besch Planning Commission SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By W ~T~0t4 's Date APR 2 1 1993 SEAL BEACH CITY HALL -- -------- --- ----- --------. - - - ---..--..-----.- -- - ----- ----.- --- - --------.- -- --.-. -- --- Planning Commissioners-- Remove the Observation Dome! It not only looks completely out of place, but it affects our prope~y values. This is another example of an individual taking advantage of others, in their own self interest. The Planning Commission needs to protect citizens in Seal Beach, from this kind of thing. tl Ltk ~ ~7 !lJt1z/2~ /63~ ~4'J& ;L;J tftJ lC/() ;;].10 - 5'} r~ 7~ ry .. , .. . Commi$sion City of se~~::I~~O rF~:~'~lo~~ 2 , '\993 A'"lIcJrll --=o~te~ B~~ 4/2/93 Re: Variance Request for 1305 Sandpiper I urge you all to finally put this Problem Structure to rest. 1. It doesn't meet the Code for these type buildings. 2. It negatively affects the View of surrounding neighbors. 3. It is an Eyesore in an established residential area. . 4. It raises invasion of Privacy Issues (it is an observatory! ) 01 3. It can hurt home prices. 6. It's been 2~ years since it should have been removec. ~~. '7/ ~ {?ae ~~~_ /3~~ ~?~.. ~ C//- ~~/Yt? :5/~ .:?76-~Jj?'? . , . . . City of Seal Beach Planning Commission SUBMITTED FOR RECOR~ By L. HAcJTtf Date APR 1 - : To the Planning Co~~ission In your upcom~ng hearing on the Roof Deck Structure at 1305 SandPiper--Turn it down !! (No, tear it down) It is ugly, i~ affects privacy, it ruins the view, and it doesn't belong on ~he Hill or anywhere in Seal Beach. wi City of S€~! la.lci: ;';_.1..;:1~ C0:nnllssion SUBMIllED FOR RECORD By l4',i3S o,v . Date AM 2 ,1 ~ . RABB] HOW AIDOJ O. JLARijSOJM. 4364 mfO)]~.lcr<<llOB A nilffiE SJEAJ[. ImIAClBI CAlLHJFOJiNHA 4llllD74Q]) (3 n lID) 43 R - n 41166 April 21. 1993 Planning Com mission City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Friends, It has come to my awareness that you are considering the issue of a variance for Mark Thompson, who has built a private observatory and attached it to his home. I am also aware that there is some concern that Mark might use his telescope to peer into neighbors' homes and, thus, intrude on their privacy. While the right to privacy is worthy of safeguarding, those of us who know Mark know that he would never consider doing such a thing. -- I have known Mark for many years, and have always found him to be a principled and moral person. As his rabbi, I can attest to his commitment to ethics and human rights. As his friend, I know personal1y that his respect for people's privacy is of paramount concern to him. He is a believer in the Biblical teaching "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18). Just as he wouldn't want others to invade hAs privacy, or that of his family, neither would he do so to his neighbors. I can assure you that Mark would never abuse the privilege of star gazing from his observatory. Mark has always had a great love for the field of astronomy. He is actually quite knowledgeable in the field, and derives a great deal of satisfaction exploring the heavens. He especial1y hopes to transmit the joy he derives from being an amateur astronomer to his two young children. I only wish that more of our adults, and their children, would embrace such wholesome hobbies! . I hope you will take this perspective in consideration, and share it publicly at your meeting this evening, as you consider Mark's request for a variance. I urge you to grant it to him. Sincerely, ~cwd. D. W~~ Rabbi Howard O. Laibson -~ . r Copy OF NK :ftOrYl?SoN'.s L -e;,e ~r PRovIDeD TO 12.EC062..D"t\JG ScCf2E TAR'! J . ~ e.