Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Res 93-31 - 1993-05-19 " RESOLUTION NUMBER 93-31 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH CONDITIONALLY APPROVING MINOR HEIGHT VARIATION 93-1 TO ALLOW A COVERED ROOF ACCESS STAIR, DENYING VARIANCE 93-3, AND ESTABliSHING AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR A NON-CONFORMING OBSERVATORY DOME ON THE PROPERTY GENERALLY KNOWN AS 1305 SANDPIPER DRIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. On February 4, 1993, Mark and Elizabeth Thompson ("the applicants") submitted an application with respect to the property generally known as 1305 Sandpiper Drive ("the subject property" or "the site") for approvals to allow an existing, non- conforming covered roof access stair ("CRAS") which exceeds the 25-foot height limit for the Residential Low Density zone. The applicants seek approval of a minor height variation pursuant to Section 28-2317(4) of the Code of the City of Seal Beach ("the Code") or, alternatively, of a variance pursuant to Section 28-2501 of the Code, to permit the eXIsting, non- conforming structure to remain. Section 2. A duly noticed public hearing to consider the application was held before the Planning Commission on April 7, 1993 and continued to April 21, 1993. In order to allow complete consideration of this matter, staff also noticed a public hearing pursuant to Section 28-2405(a) of the Code to determine an appropriate time limit for the abatement of the nonconfofming structure if it were not unconditionally approved. Written evidence was submitted fOf and against the application. At the pubhc hearing, the applicant and 5 persons spoke in favor of the request and 6 persons spoke in opposition. Three letters in support of the apphcation were received into eVIdence, as were 9 letters in opposition to it. Mark Thompson spoke on behalf of himself and his WIfe and is referred to in this Resolution as "the applicant. " Section 3. The record of the hearings on April 7, and April 21, 1993 indicates the following: C IWP51\RESOIHV93-1 PCRIJ.W\OS-17-93 ; P/anfIJng ComnusslOn &so/anon No. 93-31 Minor HeIght VanlUlon 93-1 and Vanance 93-3 (a) The subject property is located in the ReSidential Low Density Zone and is surrounded by residentially zoned and occupied properties. The property is similar in size and shape to its neighbors and to other uses in the zone and is of roughly the same, small degree of slope as other properties in the zone. (b) On June 6, 1989 the Planning Commission approved Minor Plan Review 13-89 for a remodel of the subject property. The conceptual plans submitted to the Commission indicated a roof deck with a CRAS topped by a dome. The CRAS and dome protruded above the 25-foot height limit by approximately seven feet, as permitted for nonhabitable architectural projections, including CRAS's. Subsequent to the Commission's action, the applicant provided construction drawings which indicated that the dome was not merely spherical as the conceptual drawings had indicated, but Included a protruding door and a functional mechanism to open and close the dome. These plans were not submitted to, or approved by, the Planning Commission. Moreover, the dome's utility as an observatory is not consistent with the intent of Section 28- 2317(4) of the Code, which permits architectural proJections, including CRAS's, to exceed the height limit only if they are not habitable. (c) When the applicants installed the dome structure atop the CRAS, the owner of an adjacent property contended that the mechanical dome with its protruding door violated the City's zoning ordinance. The applicants removed the dome structure for a time but ultimately reinstalled it in early 1990. The City's final inspection of the remodeled structure occurred on June 14, 1990. (d) The applicant testified that he uses the dome structure as an observatory. To do so, he climbs into the structure using a pull-down stair, is seated upon a bench, and utilizes a portable telescope, which he also uses outside the dome. (e) The dome structure is comprised of metal and does not conform to the pitched, composition roof of the remainder of the house. (f) The CRAS is located on an exterior wall of the house. (g) The applicant testified that the dome structure is placed entirely above the remainder of the CRAS and that the area below the dome, if covered With another roof, would be consistent with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code for headroom. (h) The dome is unlike any other structure in the residential zones of the City and its mechanical appearance is more characteristic of commercial and industrial uses in the City. C IWPSIIRBS01HV93-1 PCRILWl05-17-93 2 : PlalUllng CommissIOn ResolUhon No. 93-31 Minor HeIght Variation 93-1 and Vanance 93-3 (i) A smaller roof for the CRAS would have lesser impacts on views from neighboring parcels, espec1al.ly those to the north which are situated at higher elevations and take views over the site toward the ocean. (j) The applicant testified that he purchased the dome from a previous user for $7000 and that he spent $2100 to install the device. City building and plannmg staff estimate the salvage value of the dome, if removed from the house, at one half its purchase pnce, or $3500. No reason appears why the dome could not be reinstalled on a structure located in a more appropriate setting. The applicant offered to submit a contractor's estimate of $13,000 for the cost of removing the dome and replacing it with a new roof of some 42.25 square feet similar to that which covers the remainder of the structure. Other participants in the hearing noted that this figure seemed quite high, as entire houses have been re-roofed recently in the City for less than $10,000. The applicant was afforded opportunity at the public hearing to provide additional data regarding the value of his investment in the dome, but did not do so. (k) Staff suggested that the value of the dome be calculated as the sum of acquisition cost, installation cost, and re-roofing cost, less the salvage value of the dome. The applicant was afforded an opportunity at the public hearing to offer another basis upon which to value his investment in the dome but he did not do so. Section 4. The Planning Commission hereby affirms staff's conclusion that the subject application is categoncally exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., by virtue of 2 Calif. Code of Regs. Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Section 5. Section 28-2317(4) of the Code authorizes the Commission to approve CRAS's in excess of the 25-foot height limit for the Residential Low Density Zone only if the Commission finds that the CRAS is appropriate for the architectural style of the building, appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood, and does not significantly impair the primary view of nearby properties. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in Section 3 of this Resolution, and pursuant to Section 28-2713(4) of the Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The dome structure is not a "non-habitable architectural feature" which can be permitted above the 25-foot height limit pursuant to Section 28-2713(4) of the Code because it is designed and used as useful space. If the dome is removed, however, the CRAS would constitute a non-habitable structure within the scope of Section 28-2713(4). C IWPSIIRESOIHV93-1I'CRILWI05-17-93 3 . . Planmng ComnusSlon Resolunon No. 93-31 Minor Helghl Vanlllion 93-1 and Vanance 93-3 (b) building because: The mechanical dome is not appropriate for the architectural style of the 1. its metal surface and Industrial or commercial appearance are inconsistent and discordant with the pitched, composite roof on the remainder of the house; 2. the CRAS is located on the peripheral wall of the structure, thus enhancing the aesthetic impact of the mechanical dome on neighboring properties and views from those properties; 3. the CRAS, as covered by the mechanical dome, is not limited to the minimum vertical area necessary to cover the stairwell, as the dome structure is admittedly in excess of the area necessary to provide headroom for the stair consistent with the uniform building code. (c) If re-roofed with a roof of a size consistent with the City's standards and constructed of materials substantially similar to those used on the remainder of the roof, the CRAS would be appropriate to the architectural style of the building because the only deviation from the City's standards, the peripheral location of the CRAS, would not alone cause significant aesthetic impacts which would justify the cost of relocating the structure. (d) The mechanical dome is not appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood because its mechanical and metallic appearance is inconsistent with the remainder of the house, and is more appropriate to the commercial and industrial zones of the City. If the CRAS is re-roofed as described in paragraph (c) of this section, however, it would be appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood because it would be part of a coherently designed structure with a residential design and appearance. (e) If re-roofed as described in paragraph (c) of this section, the CRAS would not significantly impair the primary view from any property located within 300 feet because the stair would be of a size conSIstent with the City's standards and would be similar to other existing uses. Section 6. The Commission may not grant a variance from the requirements of the City's zoning ordinance unless it finds that special circumstances applicable to the property would deprive the property of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone unless the variance were granted and that the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in Section 3 of this C IWPS11RBS01HV93-1 PCRILWl05-17-93 4 Planmng ComnusslOn Resolullon No. 93-31 Minor Height Vanallon 93-1 and Variance 93-3 Resolution, and pursuant to Section 28-2501 of the Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) No special circumstances apply to the site which would cause strict application of the 25-foot height limit to deprive the site of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone because the site is similar in size, shape, and topography to Its neighbors, and its locations and surroundings are typical of the zone. (b) The granting of a variance in this case would constitute a grant of special privilege inconSistent with the application of the 25-foot height limit to other properties in the same vicinity and zone because no other property in the zone is permitted to exceed the 25-foot limit except for the construction of non-habitable architectural features which are compatible with the architectural style of the building and the character and integrity of the neighborhood. As found in Section 5 of this Resolution above, the mechanical dome structure is not such a feature. Section 7. Section 28-2405(a) of the Code authorizes the Commission to determine when a non-conforming use was established and to determine conditions and time limits for the abatement of the non-conformity. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in Section 3 of this Resolution, and pursuant to Section 28-2405(a) of the Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The non-conforming use was established by the applicants no later than the date of the City's final inspection of the remodel of the house on June 14, 1990 and became nonconforming no later than February 27, 1991, the effective date of Ordinance 1322, adopted by the City Council on January 28, 1991. (b) Construing the evidence most favorably to the applicants, the applicants' investment in the mechanical dome structure is no more than $18,600 calculated as follows: applicants' acquisition cost ($7,000) + installation cost ($2100) + re-roofing cost ($13,000)- salvage value of the dome ($3500). There is no record evidence that the present value of the dome exceeds this figure or that the remaining useful life of the structure is such that a salvage value of $3500 is inappropriate. (c) The applicants have enjoyed the use of the dome since at least June 14, 1990, a period of almost three years and that time is sufficient to amortize the applicant's $18,600 Investment in the structure. Even the shorter, 27-month penod since the February 27, 1991 effective date of Ordinance No. 1322 is adequate to amortize the applicants' investment. However, the Commission determines that an appropriate time limit for the abatement of the C IWPSIIRP.'Kl\HV93-1 PCRILWIOS-17-93 5 ,; Planning CommlsSlon Resolution No. 93-31 Minor Height Vanallon 93-1 and Vanance 93.3 non-conforming structure is 60 days from the date the Commission's decision becomes final, as this additional time will allow the applicant a reasonable time to adhere to the City's Code. (d) This amortization period is appropriate in light of the burden this unaesthetic structure imposes on immediately adjacent properties, and on properties to the north which take a view toward the ocean across the site, and the harm to the public. (e) The applicants have had notice of the aesthetic concerns regarding this structure and its potential inconsistency with the Code since before it was finally installed and have had actual notice of the requirements of Ordinance No. 1322 since its adoption, as Mr. Thompson attended hearings before the City Council on January 14, and 28, 1991 at which that ordinance was considered and he addressed the City Council with respect to the ordinance at those hearings. Section 8. Based upon the foregoing, the Plarming Commission hereby: (a) Approves Minor Height Variation No. 93-1 upon the condition that the applicants remove the existing mechanical dome and install a pitched roof which is similar in type and material to the remainder of the structure's roof and of size and dimension commensurate with City standards; (b) Denies Variance No. 93-3; and, (c) Establishes a time limit for the abatement of the non-conforming mechanical dome of 60 days following the ten-day period in which this Resolution may be appealed to the City Council. Accordingly, in the absence of a timely appeal to the City Council, the non-conforming dome shall be abated on or before July 28, 1993. . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 19th day of May 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, Law, Soukup NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners C IWPSI\RESO\HV93-1 PCRILWlllS-17-93 6 .' , Whittenberg, Secretary Planning Commission C IWPSlIRP.80IHV93-1 PCR\LW\O~-17-93 7 Planmng ComnusslOn Re.olutlOn No. 93-31 Minor Height Vanallon 93-1 and Vananee 93-3