The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC AG PKT 2009-08-10 #V-Y Communications~E SEA( 9 0 4 ~R , hPo F~~~NTY. ~P~\~ CITY OF SEAL BEACH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPTe MEMORANDUM AGENDA ITEMS V - Y To: Mayor and City Council Attention: David Carmany, City Manager Linda Devine, City Clerk Quinn Barrow, City Attorney From: Lee Whittenber Director of Develo ment Services ~'" g, P Date: July 30, 2009 SUBJECT: PROVISION 01= COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVE® Provided as attachments to this Memorandum are copies of communications received regarding the indicated agenda items since the completion of the Staff Reports for the initial consideration of these matters at the July 13, 2009 City Council Meeting. Supporting Appeal: . -Date ~..~•~ ~~ Sender of Communication ~ .Address of Sender No Date Theresa Miraglia 221 - 4th Street No Date Jeannin ----- 220 - 4th Street No Date Irina Soule 222 - 4th Street No Date Wendy Moulton Tate 214 - 4thStreet July 24, 2009 Harry & Eleanor Bochman 1035 Crestview Avenue July 31, 2009 Stanley G. Anderson Jr. 632 Balboa Dr. Opposing Appeal: Date. ~. ~ ~ - ~~'Sender.of Communication: ,~=Address of Sender July 29, 2009 Victor Zonni 130 -10th Street July 31, 2009 Sharman & Gary Snow 1625 Seal Way #1 Re: May 20~' Planning Commission Hearing Proposed Residences on 124, 126, 202, and 204 10~' Street City Council, Planning Commission and Seal Beach Residents: It is my understanding that the Planning Commission denied (4) Applications for Height Variation requesting a Roof Covered Access for the Elevator. The Projects conformed and met the Height Variation Code Limits and Reguirements and approval was recommended by the Planning Staff. The denial by the Planning Commision was based on (6) Residents that assumed that the Height Variation Elements were addressed in Measure "Z". As a resident of Seal Beach it is very clear, and after listening to the City Attorney explain the differences at the meeting, that these matters are two different issues. I recommend that this misunderstanding is corrected and Height Variation Elements (Roof Covered Access, Antennas, Fireplace Chimneys, etc.) that are allowed under our present code be approved on these projects and if any change of this Code is desired it will be addressed through the proper channels of government. In conclusion, I would like to see these denials overturned and the projects approved with the Height Variation Covered Roof Access as per our City of Seal Beach Code. Cordially, Resident of City of seal Beach ~ ~ l mss-- ~ l !~ ~ i~ ~ S~ . `' 22 ~ ~. -,~, Re: May 20`~ Planning Commission Hearing Proposed Residences on 124, 126, 202, and 204 10~' Street City Council, Planning Commission and Seal Beach Residents: It is my understanding that the Planning Commission denied (4) Applications for Height Variation requesting a Roof Covered Access for the Elevator. The Projects conformed and met the Height Variation Code Limits and Reguirements and approval was recommended by the Planning Staff. The denial by the Planning Commision was based on (6) Residents that assumed that the Height Variation Elements were addressed in Measure "Z". As a resident of Seal Beach it is very clear, and after listening to the City Attorney explain the differences at the meeting, that these matters are two different issues. I recommend that this misunderstanding is corrected and Height Variation Elements (Roof Covered Access, Antennas, Fireplace Chimneys, etc.) that are allowed under our present code be approved on these projects and if any change of this Code is desired it will be addressed through the proper channels of government. In conclusion, I would like to see these denials overturned and the projects approved with the Height Variation Covered Roof Access as per our City of Seal Beach Code. C~o diall ._ esi n ~2 o N~ Sf~ ~ SeR I ~~~ 9 ~ ~~ / ~ Re: May 20`~ Planning Commission Hearing Proposed Residences on 124, 126, 202, and 204 10~ Street City Council, Planning Commission and Seal Beach Residents: It is my understanding that the Planning Commission denied (4) Applications for Height Variation requesting a Roof Covered Access for the Elevator. The Projects conformed and met the Height Variation Code Limits and Requirements and approval was recommended by the Planning Staff. The denial by the Planning Commision was based on (6) Residents that assumed ,ghat the Height Variation Elements were addressed in Measure "Z". As a resident of Seal Beach it is very clear, and after listening to the City Attorney explain the differences at the meeting, that these matters are two different issues. I recommend that this misunderstanding is corrected and Height Variation Elements (Roof Covered Access, Antennas, Fireplace Chimneys, etc.) that are allowed under our present code be approved on these projects and if any change of this Code is desired it will be addressed through the proper channels of government. In conclusion, I would like to see these denials overturned and the projects approved with the Height Variation Covered Roof Access as per our City of Seal Beach Code. Cordially, Resident of City of seal Beach V~~w, N~~~ Tim. Z ~ ~ `~~' `~~ ~ ~ ~ a 7 Y~ 1 ~ JUL 31 2009 C9TV CLERK CITY OF SEAL BEACH ~~~1 ~ o ~r~®~, fro 832 Falb®a ®~:, Seal beach, CA. 90740 (562) 596-4534 ,~uiy 30, 2009 To Seal Beach City Council 219 8th Street, Seal Beach, CA. , Variance approval on prope~ies at 924,92~20~ and 204 90th Suet, Seal beach As a life Time long citizen of Seal Beach 1 would like thank our city council for it's community service and trying fo make our city a better place to live. You, as a cifr council have an opportunity to serve your community with good common sense. 1, do~ not always agree with this council's policies concerning property rights, but it is necessary to work w-th our citizens who invest in our city. Yes, when we look at this real estate proposals where property is improved by replacing an old building with a new home that will be an asset to our community. The council, has an opportunity to approve a variance on a structure to cover the elevator which is barely visible from the street or other houses. As a senior citizen of Seal Beach it is a safety issue to have the option of an elevator when the need arises. 1, would urge you to approve this application and help improve our community w~h good common sense. City of Seal Beach ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~a .•~ ~. :f City Council Meeting Monday, August 10, 2009 Support for Height Variance Resolution of covered elevator shaft and related roof structure Located at 124, 126, 202, and 204 10th Street Applications were: 09-3, 09-4, 09-5, and 09-6 Resolutions Appealed: 09-23, 09-24, 09-25, and 09-26 Applicant: Robert Tavasci Owner: Bullet Hill Developement, LLC Submitted by: Harry L. Bochman Jr.----Letter sheet 2 Submitted to: City Manager: David Carmany Planning Director: Lee Whittenberg Mayor: Gordon Shanks CoLUlcilman: Charles Antos Councilman: David Sloan Councilman: Gary Miller Councilman: Michael Levitt Ctt;r;,: S~ ~~ ~.,....;~s July 24, 2009 JUL 2 8 2009 ~ 2 of 2 Dear Sirs .. _ .., Several weeks ago, my wife and I had the opportunity to review building plans of the new home proposed at 124 10Th street in Seal Beach. One feature that got our close attention was the inclusion of an elevator that will provide full access to every floor level in the home. Stairs are the usual method for accessing different levels a home. Most people never give a thought about climbing or descending a flight of stairs. We've done it all our lives. However, if you belong to the elderly age group or are physicaly impaired, by that I mean, wheel chair bound, must use a walker, have severe arthritis, have cardiac problems, then you are out of luck when stairs are encountered. ACCESS DENIED! My wife and I are in our 80's and have undergone many major surgerys. We both have hip replacements and have learned how to walk again. Climbing stairs is not an easy task It's difficult, fatigueing, and sometimes dangerous. The elevator system in the proposed new home will provide safe and "equal access" to all floor levels for the young and able and for the elderly not so able. We feel that the "equal access" provided by the elevator system and its roof cover structure should be good cause to allow a variance above the 25 foot height limitation of the building code.This will not violate Measure Z because this is a two story structure. The intrusion above the code limit is minor and is complimentary to the architecture of the home. We are supportive of the elevator roof access cover structure. We are also supportive of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 Yours very truly, Harry L. Bochman Jr. Eleanor L. Bochman ~ ~ ~~~~,~ 103 5 Crestview Ave. Seal Beach, CA. 90740 Copy: David Carmany, Lee Whittenberg, Gordon Shanks, Charles Antos, David Sloan, Garry Miller, Michael Levitt ~~~~'® JUL 3 0 2009 cirv ~~ ~,'~~.~~~ o~ ~:r~~, eeacH Linda Devine, City Clerk City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth St. Seal Beach, CA 90740 Please distribute to all City Councilmen RE: Appeal of Height Variation 09-5 and 09-6. Locations at Tenth and Central, Old Town. Honorable Mayor Shanks; Mayor Pro Tem Sloan and Councilmen Antos, Miller and Levitt: I oppose the request for variance at the properties cited above. I oppose any project that would violate the 25 foot height limit in Old Town. In the November 2008 General Election the residents of Seal Beach voted overwhelmingly to maintain a 25 foot height limit on any new construction. I ask the City Council to uphold the desire of the voters as well as the decision of the Planning Commission to deny this and any future variance to the 25 foot height limit. Further, I request the City Council close any "loopholes" in the current code that would allow ANY structure to be built that exceeds the 25 foot height limitation. Sincerely, ~~~~~ Sharman Kay Sno 1625 Seal Way #1 Seal Beach, CA 90740 ~~~~~~~® Linda Devine, City Clerk City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth St. Seal Beach, Ca 90740 JUL 3 0 2009 CITY CLERK CITY OF SEAL BEACH Please distribute to all City Councilpersons City of Seal Beach Council 211 Eighth St. Seal Beach, CA 90740 RE: Appeal of Height Variation 09-5 and 09-6. Locations at Tenth and Central, Old Town. Honorable Mayor Shanks; Mayor Pro Tem Sloan and Councilmen Antos, Miller and Levitt: I oppose the request for variance at the properties cited above. I oppose~any project that would violate the 25 foot height limit in Seal Beach. In the November 2008 General Election the residents of Seal Beach voted overwhelmingly to maintain a 25 foot height limit. I ask the City Council to uphold the desire of the voters as well as the decision of the Planning Commission to deny this variance. I request the City Council to close any "loopholes" in the current code that would allow ANY structure to be built that exceeds the 25 foot height limit. Sincerely, G~ Gary Snow 1625 Seal Way #1 Seal Beach, CA 90740 ~~ J U L 2 9 2009 ~ July 29, 2009 ~ ~''=~' ' ~ ~ ~ ' "'i r_. City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 ' RE: Appeal of Height Variation 124, 126, 202, 204 Tenth Street. To Whom It May Concern: I am the owner of the home at 130 10th St. and I would like to state my opposition to the Height Variation exceeding the 25 foot Maximum. I believe the planning commission was correct in denying the initial request. I currently have a partial ocean and pier view from my rooftop deck of my home which was designed and built one year ago. I am sure all residents want to protect whatever view they have. I believe it is possible for the applicant to make simple design changes to still have a rooftop deck and stay within the height maximum. I was able to complete my project with a rooftop deck simply by having an exterior staircase. I believe that variations should not be granted simply because of a design characteristic feature but because there is no other option in certain hardship cases. This particular case still in the design stage can easily be resolved without granting the height variation. Th ou, ., Victor o Resident Owner