Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2009-08-10 #WDATE: TO: THRU: FROM: AGENDA STAFF REPORT August 10, 2009 (continued from 07/13/09) Honorable Mayor and City Council David Carmany, City Manager , Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING DE NOVO - HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 09 -4 -126 TENTH STREET SUMMARY OF REQUEST: After receiving all public testimony, the City Council has the following options: 1) Direct staff to draft a resolution denying Height Variation 09 -4 or 2) Direct staff to draft a resolution conditionally approving Height Variation 09 -4 with appropriate conditions. BACKGROUND: On May 20, 2009 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and determined to deny the subject request on a 4 -0 -1 vote (Commissioner Larson was absent). On June 3, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 09- 24 denying the subject application on a 4 -0 -1 vote (Commissioner Larson was absent). Please refer to Attachment 2 to review Planning Commission Resolution No. 09 -24 for the findings and determination of the Planning Commission regarding the height variation denial. Please refer to Attachment 3 to review the Planning Commission Minutes of May 20 and June 3, 2009 and to Attachment 4 to review the Planning Commission Staff Report of May 20, 2009. The Applicant timely appealed the Planning Commission's decision and the matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a de novo public hearing. FACTS: ❑ The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 20, 2009 to consider Height Variation 09 -4, a request to construct a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposed to construct a 4' -10" by 11' -10" elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 5' -6 "; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. Both Agenda Item W Page 2 written and oral evidence was submitted for the project. After receiving all public testimony the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and after discussion, the Commission determined to deny the request. The Commission adopted Resolution 09 -24 denying the subject application at the June 3, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. ❑ On June 12, 2009 an appeal was filed (See Attachment 1). The matter is now before the City Council for consideration at a de novo public hearing. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR HEIGHT VARIATION: In general the Code of the City of Seal Beach, (Code) states that no building or structure shall exceed the height limit for the district and zone in which it is located. However, Section 28- 2317(D) provides for height variations for non - habitable architectural features. Specifically, Section 28- 2317.D.1, Scope, states: "Scope: Non - habitable architectural features, such as spires, towers, cupolas, belfries, monuments, parapets (not required by Uniform Building Code), domes and covered stairwells to open roof decks may exceed the height limit established for the district in which such structure is located to a maximum of seven feet (7) if granted pursuant to the procedures contained in this section." Further, Section 28- 2317.D.2.c, Review, states: "Review. (1) The Planning Commission may at a scheduled public hearing approve or disapprove such application, subject to any conditions deemed appropriate. 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 stairwell. (b) Whether such variation is appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood. Page 3 (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. " The above findings direct the determinations of the City Council regarding consideration of either denial or approval of the subject Height Variation request. The City Council would need to make affirmative findings to support each of the above criteria if it determines to grant the subject request. APPELLANTS REASONS AS TO WHY THEY FEEL, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION WAS IN ERROR: Please refer to Attachment 1 to review the written "Appeal Application to City Council' and accompanying attachments. The appellant/applicant is requesting that the City Council approve the requested Height Variation. DISCUSSION RELATING TO THE "STANDARDS OF REVIEW" FOR HEIGHT VARIATION APPROVALS: The subject application is a discretionally allowable project, and the City Council is required to make the findings specified in Municipal Code Sections 28- 2317.D.2.c.(1)(a) in order to approve the application. Those findings are set forth above on page 2. In sum, the issue is whether, based upon the evidence presented tonight, the proposed project can be found consistent with the zoning ordinance provisions and the findings discussed above can be made in a positive manner. CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS re: APPEAL: After receiving all public testimony and the record of the public hearing, the City Council has the following options: 1) Direct staff to draft a resolution denying Height Variation 09 -4, or 2) Direct staff to draft a resolution conditionally approving Height Variation 09 -4 with appropriate conditions, as may be specified by the City Council upon receipt of all public testimony and completion of City Council deliberations. FISCAL IMPACT: Minor. SUBMITTED BY: e Whi enberg Director of Development Se 'ces Attachments: (5) Page 4 NOTED AND APPROVED: David Carmany City Manager Attachment 1: Appeal of Robert J. Tavasci, AIA, received June 12, 2009, and attachments Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolution 09 -24, adopted June 3, 2009 Attachment 3: Planning Commission Minutes: May 20 and June 3, 2009 Attachment 4: Height Variation 09 -4, Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 20, 2009 Attachment 5: Project Development Plans Page 5 ATTACHMENT APPEAL OF ROBERT J: TAVASCI, AIA, RECEIVED JUNE 12, 2009, AND ATTACHMENTS APPEAL APPLICATION TO CITY COUNCIL JUN 12 Planning Commission hearing Date: May 20, 2009 Property Address: Resolution No.: 126 10th Street 09 -24 Explanation of variation request appeal: The Planning Commission arbitrarily ignored the Height Variation Code in an attempt to appease a small group of misinformed Measure Z advocates, ignoring the City staffs' recommendation to approve the Application. The plans for the construction of a single family home at the address above comply with the building code for the City of Seal Beach and Measure Z. The project has been reviewed by City Planning Staff, who concur and support the design / plans as submitted. The City Attorney has opined that the plans submitted do not violate Measure Z. The City Attorney clearly assured the Commission and audience that the CRAS is in complete conformance with the acceptable Height Variation Code set forth and has nothing to do with the Measure Z height limit. The variation request for a cover over an elevator to the roof deck falls one and one half feet lower than the height limit setout in the Building Code. The purpose for the elevator, that stops at all accessible floors in the home, is to allow elderly, disabled, or challenged individuals to enjoy all of their property. The proposed building is architecturally appropriate and consistent with the character and integrity of the neighborhood. The proposed structure to protect the elevator shaft is minimally visible from the street and is aesthetically characteristic of the homes and buildings in Seal Beach. It should be noted that there is no habitable space involved in the structure and there are no windows. The denial of the covered elevator shaft does not prevent a roof deck — any claim of loss of privacy is matte when the structure is only as high as necessary to step out onto the roof deck. We believe that this variation will not adversely impact the view of any neighbors. The Planning Commission has been swayed by individuals that spoke negatively and presented misinformation at the hearing and have ignored the Staff, Attorney, and the Law (Code).. We are including copies of recent applications for similar variations that have been approved and constructed in the neighborhood. It appears that the decision rendered is incorrect. We plead that the City Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission and allow the plans as submitted to move forward in the plan check process. Furthermore, the Planning Commission offered unworkable architectural design suggestions in an attempt to solve a problem that was only created by the commissions denial of a legal CRAS conforming completely to the city code. We understand that all Seal Beach residents have their voice in their city, however, to let a few ill- informed residents cause a misguided denial of a legally conforming permit application is not in the best interest of all citizens of Seal Beach. Elements that are Stated on the Resolution of the Planning Commission: Section 5 (b) states that the CRAS Structure is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood which is misstatement. There are (2) Residences with CRAS that are approved and do not negatively affect the neighborhood; Section 5 (c) states that the CRAS will significantly impair view of properties located within 300 feet of property. This is also not true as you can see by our submittal of Elevation reflecting the Line of Site from across street looking at subject property. Enclosed Find: - Copy of Word for Word discourse / explanation of differences between the requested Height Variation Application and the Measure Z issue that the City Attorney; presented at Planning Commission Hearing; Copies of Letters from Neighbors in favor of CRAS on our project; Copies of previous CRAS Applications that have been approved in the area; (5) Copies of Pictures reflecting CRAS approved projects in the surrounding neighborhood; Cordially Submitted, f-J 0 l ( �, a Signature - Date Applicant: Robert J Tavasci, AIA Address: 320 Pine Avenue, Suite 400 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone (562) 590 -5222 Planning commission meeting Height variation Resolution 09 -24 Question presented to Attorney from City staff: "Whether or not Measure Z prohibited height variations in old town" City Attorney: "We reviewed the issue, we reviewed Measure Z, we reviewed the code, and it is the city attorney's offices position that Measure Z in effect establishes a standard maximum height in old town of 25 feet and in the context of the municipal code that applies to sections 28701 and 28801 which established the standard maximum height for residential structures in old town, that is the residential high density and residential medium 4ensity districts in old town. Now, we reviewed not only the text, we reviewed councils directions when they called for the election on this matter, we reviewed the city attorneys impartial analysis that was prepared in advance of the election. Also, we reviewed ballot arguments that were proffered on both sides and those ballot arguments basically pertained primarily to the elimination of third stories. That was the intent of Measure Z: the intent was to limit the standard maximum residential height to 25 feet. Now, the question is how does it interact with the height variation procedures? Height variation procedures have long been in the code and they exist in a different section from the maximum height limits for the old town area. They are found in section 28 -2317 where not only do we have the height variations procedures; we have a series of exception to the height limits that exist before Measure Z, and apply to all zones throughout the city regardless of use, commercial districts, industrial areas, everywhere. These exceptions to height variations procedures apply everywhere; they are not just for old town. And the height variation procedures do not allow for the addition of third stories; they do not get at what Measure Z was intended to prohibit which is third story construction in old town. What the height the variation procedures do instead allow for small variation from the standard maximum height which after Measure Z in old town is 25 feet. So, the height variation can allow for slight variations above the 25 foot limit in old town if the planning commission finds the requested variation is architectural appropriate, appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood, and does not significantly impair the view from any property located within 300 feet. And I just want to emphasize here; Measure Z was about two stories versus three stories, height variation process does not over turn that.... the height variation process does not allow for third story structures, it allows for non - habitable structures on roofs. And we also considered what it would mean if we were to interpret Measure Z to apply to eliminate the height variation process, well... logically we also have to eliminate the other exceptions down in the same section as the height variation process. Those exceptions apply to antennas, flag poles, chimneys, these sorts of structures that exceed 25 feet would be rendered non - conforming if we were to interpret Measure Z to eliminate height variations and that was clearly not the intent of Measure Z ... Measure Z was about prohibiting future third story construction in old town and consistent with that the height variation process still survives in the code." CITY COUNCIL Planning Commission hearing Date: May 20, 2009 Resolution Nos.: 09 -239 249 25, and 26 COPIES OF APPROVED HEIGHT VARIATION RESOLUTIONS THAT OCCURRED WITHIN THE LAST SIX `EARS: We have requested records from the City of Seal Beach of the Height Variation Applications that have been approved by the Planning Commission within the last six years. Enclosed are copies of original Resolutions of (5) Projects that have been approved with the proposed CRAS (Covered Roof Access Structures) of various sizes. There are (47) in total of CRAS Resolutions that have been approved within the last 5 years in the City of Seal Beach. We have copies if requested. I would like to point out that at our Planning Commission Hearing on May 20, 2009, the Chairman Commissioner stated that there have been very few submittals, and most were denied, which as you can see is clearly not the case. Please consider these findings and overturn the denials on these projects and let us move forward. Cordially Submitted, T; 7 a�. Applicant: Robert J Tavasci, AIA Address: 320 Pine Avenue, Suite 400 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone (562) 590 -5222 71 7 �c Date RESOLUTION NO. 07-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION 07 -2, PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF ' A, NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE TO HOUSE AN ELEVATOR AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 231 15`h STREET, SEAL BEACH THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. On April 4, 2007, Mr. George Brown submitted an application for Height Variation 07 -2. The proposed project would allow for the construction of a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 8 -ft. 4 -in. by 4 -fl. 4 -in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 5 feet; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. At the Planning Commission. meeting of May 9, 2007, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to revise the submitted plans to reduce the square footage of the elevator enclosure and eliminate portions of the exterior walls of the enclosure to reduce the visual impact of the structure. The revised plans reflect these changes, but after reviewing the house plans as originally drawn, the applicant determined that an additional lfoot would need to be added to the elevator enclosure to accommodate the elevator car and appurtenant mechanical equipment. As a result of this additional height increase, it became necessary to resend hearing notices to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property informing them of the modification to the original plan and delay the bearing until the regular meeting of June 20, 2007 Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs § 15025(a) and § 11A of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows The application for Height Variation No. 07 -2 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15303(a) (New Construction of. Small Structures), because the application is for the construction of three (3) or less single .family dwellings in an urbanized area; § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because the request is for a minor alteration in land use limitations in an area with an average slope of less than 20% and no changes in land use or density are involved; and, pursuant to §.l 5061 (b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 20, 2007 to consider Height Variation 07 -2. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission received into all evidence and testimony provided on this matter 1 of 4 Planning Commission Resolution No 07 -27 Height Variation 07 -2 231 -15`x' Street June 20, 2007 Section 4. The record of the hearing indicates the following: (a) On April 4, 2007, Mr. George Brown submitted an application for Height Variation 07 -2. (b) The Applicant is, requesting to construct an 8 -1 4 -inn. by 4- ft. 41n. elevator enclosure to exceed the height lunit' by 5 feet at 231 15th Street; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. (c) The subject property is described as 231 151h Street, Seal Beach, California. Since this is a newly created lot as a result of a subdivision (Case No. TPM 2005 -237) an Assessor's Parcel Number has not yet been assigned to this lot. The subject property is located to the Residential High Density (RHD) zone, in an area generally referred to as "Old Town" (d) The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area of approximately 2,500 square feet. (e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, & WEST Single and multiple family dwellings located in the Residential High Density Zone (RHD). (f) The proposed elevator enclosure will have similar roof lines, roofing material, and siding that is architecturally compatible with the new home. (g) The proposed elevator enclosure comprises approximately 32 square feet and is located at the north side of the building, with the roofline being flush with the north building wall and the enclosure walls set back approximately 20feet 7 inches from the front (east) of the building, 10 feet 6 inches from the south building wall, and 56 feet 7inches from the rear (west) building wall. Section 5. Based upon the evidence to the record, including the facts stated in § 4 of this resolution and pursuant to § 28- 2317(D) of the City's Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) Height Variation 07 -2, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "High Density Residential" designation for the subject property and permits single and multiple family residential uses. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. 2 of 4 Plannuig Commission Resolution No 07 -27 Height Varratim 07 -2 231— l P Street June 20. 2007 (b) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned, is architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roof pitch, roofing materials and siding architecturally compatible with that of the remainder of the structure. (c) The proposed elevator enclosure, as conditioned, is appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood. (d) No habitable living space is provided within the structure. (e) The proposed architectural feature, as conditioned, is approximately 32 square feet in area and is located at the north side of the building, with the enclosure walls set back approximately 3 feet from the north building wall, 20 feet 7 inches from the front of the biulding, 10 feet 6 inches from the south building wall, and 56 feet 7 inches from the rear building wall. (f) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned, does not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet of the subject property. Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Height Variation 07 -2, subject to the following conditions: 1. Height Variation 07 -2 is approved for the construction of a non - habitable architectural feature for an approximately 32 square foot elevator enclosure up to 5 feet in excess of the 25 -foot height limit, with the roofline flush with the north building wall and enclosure walls set back approximately 3 feet from the north building wall at 231 15'' Street, Seal Beach. 2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through HV 07 -2. 3. There shall be no habitable space permitted within the architectural feature. 4. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed 5. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights 3 of 4 Planning Commission Resolution No 07 -27 Height Variation 07 -2 231 -1 Soh Street June 20, 2007 permitted by this Height Variation, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, mJury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, Judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 20th day of June 2007 by the following vote, AYES: Commissioners Deaton, Massa- Lavitt, and Roberts NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners Bello ABSTAIN: Commissioners None / Lee Whittenberg Secretary, Planning Co sion 4 of 4 Ellery Deaton Chairperson, Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. 07 -29 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION 07 -4, PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A, NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE TO HOUSE AN ELEVATOR AT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 235 15th Street THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. On April 4, 2007, Mr. George Brown submitted an application for Height Variation 07 -4. The proposed project would allow for the construction of a non- habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -fool height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 8 -ft. 4 -in. by 4 -ft 4 -ui. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 5 feet; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. At the Planning Commission meeting of May 9, 2007, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to revise the submitted plans to reduce the square footage of the elevator enclosure and eliminate portions of the exterior walls of the enclosure to reduce the visual impact of the structure. The revised plans reflect these changes, but after reviewing the house plans as originally drawn, the applicant determined that an additional lfoot would need to be added to the elevator enclosure to accommodate the elevator car and appurtenant mechanical equipment. As a result of this additional height increase, it became necessary to resend hearing notices to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property informing them of the modification to the original plan and delay the hearing until the regular meeting of June 20, 2007. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § RA of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Height Variation No. 07 -2 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15303(a) (New Construction of .Small Structures), because the application is for the construction of three (3) or less single family dwellings in an urbanized area; § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because the request is for a minor alteration in land use limitations in an area with an average slope of less than 20% and no changes in land use or density are involved, and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 20, 2007 to consider Height Variation 07 -4. At the public hearing the 1 of 4 Planning Connnussion Resolution No 07 -29 Height Variahon 07 -4 235 — 15`k Street June 20, 2007 Planning Commission received into the record all evidence and testimony provided on this matter Section 4. The record of the hearing indicates the following: (a) On April 4, 2007, Mr. George Brown submitted an application for Height Variation 07 -4. (b) The Applicant is requesting to construct an 8 -It. 4 -in. by 4- ft. 4-in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 5 feet at 235 151h Street, 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. (c) The subject property is described as 235 15th Street, Seal Beach, California. Since this is a newly created lot as a result of a subdivision (Case No. TPM 2005 -237), an Assessor's Parcel Number has not yet been assigned-to this lot. The subject property is located in the Residential High Density (RHD) Zone, in an area generally referred to as "Old Town" (d) The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area of approximately 2,500 square feet. (e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows NORTH, SOUTH, EAST & WEST Single and multiple family dwellings located in the Residential High Density Zone (RHD). (f) The proposed elevator enclosure will have similar roof lines, roofing material, and siding that is architecturally compatible with the new home. (g) The proposed elevator enclosure comprises approximately 32 square feet and is located at the north side of the building, with the roofline being !lush with the north building wall and the enclosure walls set back approximately 20 feet 7 inches from the front (east) of the building, 10 feet 6 inches from the south building wall, and 56 feet 7 inches from the rear (west) building wall Section 5. Based upon the evidence in the record, including the facts stated in § 4 of this resolution and pursuant to § 28- 2317(D) of the City's Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) Height Variation 07 -4, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "High Density Residential" designation for the subject property and permits single and multiple family residential uses. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General 2 of 4 Planning Commission Resohrtion No 07 -29 Height Variation 07 -4 235 —15`h Street Jane 20, 2007 Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. (b) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned, is architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roof pitch, roofing materials and siding architecturally compatible with that of the remainder of the structure (c) The proposed elevator enclosure, as cQnditioned, is appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood (d) No habitable living space is provided within the structure. (e) The proposed architectural feature, as conditioned, is approximately 32 square feet in area and is located at the north side of the building, with the enclosure walls set back approximately 3 feet from the north building wall, 20 feet 7 inches from the front of the building, 10 feet 6 inches from the south building wall, and 56 feet 7 inches from the rear building wall. (� The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned, does not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet of the subject property. Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Height Variation 07 -4, subject to the following conditions: Height Variation 07 -4 is approved for the construction of a non - habitable architectural feature for an approximately 32 square foot elevator enclosure up to 5 feet in excess of the 25 -foot height limit, with the rooiline flush with the north building wall and enclosure walls set back approximately 3 feet from the north building wall at 235 15`h Street, Seal Beach. 2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through HV 07-4. 3. There shall be no habitable space permitted within the architectural feature. 4. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. 5. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, f nns, or corporations furnishing 3 of 4 Planning Commission Resolution No 07-29 Height Vai ration 07 -4 135 — 15`h Street June 20, 2007 or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Height Variation, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 20th day of June 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Deaton, Massa - Lavitt, and Roberts NOES. Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners Bello ABSTAIN: Commissioners None lZgool Lee Whittenberg Secretary, Planning Comrru ion 4 of 4 Ellery Deaton Chairperson, Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. 07-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF* THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION 07 -6 PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COVERED ROOF ACCESS STRUCTURE ON A REMODEL /ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 409 OCEAN AVENUE, SEAL BEACH. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. On June 12, 2007, Mr. Felipe Velarde submitted an application for Height Variation 07 -6. The proposed project would allow for the construction of a Covered Roof Access Structure in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 9' -10" by 3' -10" staircase enclosure to exceed the height limit by approximately V-6"; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § H.A of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Height Variation No. 07 -6 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15301(e)(2)(A) (Existing Facilities), because the application is for the addition to an existing structure not resulting in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet, since the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B), The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on July 18, 2007 to consider Height Variation 07 -6. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission received into all evidence and testimony provided on this matter, and voted to continue this item to the regular meeting of August 8, 2007, so that additional information could be gathered regarding plan dimensions and building code requirements relating to ceiling heights. Section 4. The record of the hearings indicates the following: (a) On June 12, 2007, Mr. Felipe Velarde submitted an application for Height Variation 07 -6 to the Department of Development Services. 1 of 4 Planning Commusion No. 04 -42 He►ght Variation 07 -6— 409 Ocean Avenue August 8, 2007 (b) The Applicant is requesting to construct a 9 -foot 10 -inch by 3 -foot by 10 -inch Covered Roof Access Structure to exceed the height limit by 1 -foot 6 -inch at 409 Ocean Avenue; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. (c) The subject property is described as 409 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach, California, Assessor's Parcel Number: 199- 148 -11. The subject property is located in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone, in an area generally referred to as "Old Town' (d) The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area of approximately 2,750 square feet. (e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH, EAST, Single and multiple family dwellings located in the AND WEST: Residential High Density Zone (RHD). SOUTH: Single family dwellings located in the Residential High Density (RED) Zone, Beach, Pacific Ocean (f) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure will have similar roof lines, roofing material, and siding that is architecturally compatible with the remodeled home. (g) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure comprises approximately 38 square feet and is located at the south side of the building, with a setback of approximately 10' -5" from the west (front) side of the building. Section 5. Based upon the evidence in the record, including the facts stated in § 4 of this resolution and pursuant to § 28- 2317(D) of the City's Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) Height Variation 07 -6, as proposed, is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "High Density Residential" designation for the subject property and permits single and multiple family residential uses. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. (b) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure, as proposed, is architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roof pitch, roofing materials and siding architecturally compatible with that of the remainder of the structure. (c) The proposed Covered Roo f Access Structure, as proposed, is appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood. (d) No habitable living space is provided within the structure. 2 of 4 Planning Commission No. 04 -42 Height Variation 07 -6 -409 Ocean Avenue August 8, 2007 (e) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure is approximately 38 square feet in area and is located at the south side of the building, with a setback of approximately 10' -5" from the front (west) side of the building. (f) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure does not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet of the subject property. Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Conunission hereby approves Height Variation 07 -6, subject to the following conditions: 1. Height Variation 07 -6 is approved for the construction of a Covered Roof Access Structure for an approximately 38 square foot staircase enclosure up to V -6" in excess of the 25 -foot height limit and located at the south side of the building and set back approximately 10' -5" from the west (front) side of the building at 409 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach. 2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through HV 07 -6. 3. There shall be no habitable space permitted within the architectural feature. 4. The interior ceiling height of the Covered Roof Access Structure shall be no greater than the minimum ceiling height allowed by California Building Code for non - habitable structures, and the overall exterior height of the Covered Roof Access Structure shall be no more than V greater than the interior height. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Height Variation, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. 6. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. 3 of 4 Planning Commisswn No. 04 -42 Height dariation 07 -6— 409 Ocean Avenue August 8. 2007 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of August- 2007 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Roberts, Bello, DeLay, and Massa- Lavitt NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners Deaton ABSTAIN: Commissioners None Lee Whittenberg Secretary, Planning Comniss' 4 of 4 Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. 07-63 �C A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION 07 -7, PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A COVERED ROOF ACCESS STRUCTURE ON A REMODEL /ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLING AT 705, OCEAN AVENUE, SEAL BEACH. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. On October 18, 2007, Mr. Edward Gulian submitted an application for Height Variation 07 -7. The proposed project would allow for the construction of a Covered Roof Access Structure in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct an approximately 4' -6" by 5' -3" elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by approximately 2'-0 "; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § MA of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Height Variation No. 07 -7 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15301(e)(2)(A) (Existing Facilities), because the application is for the addition to an existing structure not resulting in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet, since the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B), The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on December 5, 2007 to consider Height Variation 07 -7. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission received into evidence all written and oral testimony provided on this matter. Section 4. The record of the hearing indicates the following: (a) On October 18, 2007, Mr. Edward Gulian submitted an application for Height Variation 07 -7 to the Department of Development Services. (b) The Applicant is requesting to construct an approximately 4 -6" by 5' -3" Covered Roof Access Structure to exceed the height limit by approximately 2' -0" at 705 Ocean Avenue; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. _ 1 of 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 07 -63 Height Variation 07 -7 705 Ocean Avenue December 5, 2007 (c) The subject property is described as 705 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach, California, Assessor's Parcel Number: 199 - 033 -15. The subject property is located in the Residential High Density (RRD) zone, in an area generally referred to as "Old Town" (d) The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area of approximately 2,750 square feet. (e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH, EAST, Single and multiple family dwellings located in the Residential AND WEST: High Density Zone (RHD). SOUTH: Single family dwellings located in the Residential Low. Density (RLD) Zone; Eisenhower Park; Beach; Pacific Ocean (f) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure will have compatible roof lines, roofing material, and siding that is architecturally compatible with the remodeled home. (g) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure comprises an approximately 24 square foot area and is located at the east side of the building, with a setback of approximately 34' -6" from the south (front) side of the building. Section 5. Based upon the evidence in the record, including the facts stated in § 4 of this resolution and pursuant to § 28- 2317(D) of the City's Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) Height Variation 07 -7, as proposed, is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "High Density Residential" designation for the subject property and permits single and multiple family residential uses. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. (b) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure, as proposed, is architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roof pitch, roofing materials and siding architecturally compatible with that of the remainder of the structure. (c) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure, as proposed, is appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood. (d) No habitable living space is provided within the structure. 2 of 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 07 -63 Height Variation 07 -7 705 Ocean Avenue December 5, 2007 (e) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure is approximately 24 square feet in area and is located at the east side of the building, with a setback of approximately 34' -6" from the front (south) side of the building. (f) The proposed Covered Roof Access Structure does not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet of the subject property. Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Height Variation 07 -7, subject to the following conditions: 1. Height Variation 07 -7 is approved for the construction of a Covered Roof Access Structure for an approximately 24 square foot elevator enclosure up to 2' -0" in excess of the 25 -foot height limit and located at the east side of the building and set back approximately 34' -6" from the south (front) side of the building at 705 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach. 2. All construction shall be hi substantial compliance with the plans approved through HV 07 -7. 3. There shall be no habitable space permitted within the architectural feature. 4. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. 5. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees -(collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Height Variation, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 5th day of December 2007 by the following vote: 3 of 4 Planning Commission Resolution No, 07 -63 Height Variation 07 -7 705 Ocean Avenue December 5, 2007 AYES: Commissioners Deaton, Bello, DeLay, and Massa- Lavitt NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners Roberts ABSTAIN: Commissioners None /, d, Lee Whittenberg Secretary, Planning Commissi 4 of 4 Q llery Deaton Chairperson, Planning Commission OR RESOLUTION N0.08 -28 L A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION 08 -1, PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE ON AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1709 ELECTRIC, AVENUE, SEAL BEACH. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. On July 14, 2008, Mr. Marty Mirand submitted an application for Height Variation 08 -1. The proposed project would allow for the construction of a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 9' -10" by 5' -1" elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by approximately 4' -9'; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § 11A of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Height Variation No. 08 -1 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15301(e)(2)(A) (Existing Facilities), because the application is for the addition to an existing structure not resulting in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet, since the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and (B), The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on October 8, 2008 to consider Height Variation 08 -1. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission received into evidence all written and oral testimony provided on this matter. Section 4. The record of the hearing indicates the following: (a) On July 14, 2008 Mr. Marty Mirand submitted an application for Height Variation 08 -1. (b) The Applicant is requesting to construct an approximately 9' -10" by 5' -1" elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 4' -9" at 1709 Electric Avenue; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. 1 of 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 08 -28 Height Variation 08 -1 1709 Electric Avenue October 8, 2008 (c) The subject property is described as 1709 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach, California, Assessor's Parcel Number: 199 - 062 -41. The subject property is located in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone, in an area generally referred to as `.`Old Town" (d) The subject property is rectangular in shape with a lot area of approximately 3,168 square feet. (e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST: Single- and multiple family dwellings located in the Residential High Density (RHD) and Residential -Medium Density (RMD) Zones. (f) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature will have similar roof lines, roofing material, and siding that is architecturally compatible with the new home. (g) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature comprises approximately 50 square feet and is located at the side wall of the building, with a setback of approximately 9' -6" from the front of the building. Section 5. Based upon the evidence in the record, including the facts stated in § 4 of this resolution and pursuant to § 28- 2317(D) of the City's Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) Height Variation 08 -1, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "High Density Residential" designation for the subject property and permits single and multiple family residential uses. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. (b) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned, is architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roof pitch, roofing materials and siding architecturally compatible with that of the remainder of the structure. (c) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned, is appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood. (d) No habitable living space is provided within the structure. 2 of 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 08 -28 Height Variation 08 -1 1709 Electric Avenue October 8, 2008 (e) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned, is approximately 50 square feet in area and is located. at the side wall of the building, with a setback of approximately 9' -6" from the front of the building. (f) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned, does not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet of the subject property. (g) The requested accommodation is requested =by or on the behalf of one or more individuals with a disability protected under the Fair Housing Laws because the applicant has been diagnosed with conditions, both chronic and progressive, that restrict his motility. (h) The requested accommodation is necessary to provide the applicant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling because an elevator will be the only way for the applicant to comfortably and safely access bedrooms and bathrooms on the second floor and the medically recommended hot tub located on the rooftop deck. - (i) The requested accommodation will not impose an undue financial or administrative burden or result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the City's zoning program because the proposed elevator structure is a type of amenity allowed pursuant to the Height Variation process provisions of the Zoning Code. (j) The requested accommodation will not, under the specific facts in the record, result in a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or substantial physical damage to the property of others because the proposed elevator structure is a type of amenity allowed pursuant to the Height Variation process provisions of the Zoning Code. Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Height Variation 08 -1, subject to the following conditions: 1. Height Variation 08 -1 is approved for the construction of a non - habitable architectural feature for an approximately 50 square foot elevator enclosure up to 4' -9" in excess of the 25 -foot height limit and set back approximately 9' -6" from the front of the building at 1709 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach. 2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through Height Variation 08 -1. 3. There shall be no habitable space permitted within the architectural feature. 4. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. 3 of 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 08 -28 Height Variation 08 -1 1709 Electric Avenue October 8, 2008 5. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the ,granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Height Variation, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. • Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 8th day of October 2008 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Deaton, DeLa , Massa - Lavitt, and Eager NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners Bello ABSTAIN: Commissioners None rLee hienberg PW Secretary, lg Commission 4 of 4 E ery Deaton Chairperson, Planning Commission ggmV ` "• it t o ;� :. F I '. 4 � 7..5 � - 5. _ �. -.. i ,� _ _ -{ '� _ ^.�. Lj _ � ��� t ,._ PROPOSED ELEVATOR ROOF ENCLOSURE LINE OF SITE s LINE OF SITE FROM SIDEWALK ACROSS 10TH STREET PROPOSED ELEVATOR ROOF ENCLOSURE oil i - .> "pi's •. o� '•� � t - .?`�. - �- r -�z,+: ..,, .�.f� ,..y'- ':•'�..:,..:"i. ' 7�,.- �_:,�,,:;. -.so-: -, --- - - - - -- :�:•�.-'.r,.r...' "v..... �...1+F?3.chS -._ �k'1.8�!...6R, j. a�� -,. .__��Y -... ..o;x. , <drP:• : -�.'k:i•N'•'�..P ?. °.�.. if4., s&°°•.•ii- ,•• -.•, -. ..�.. . -. .. _. .. „.. _ 0 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 09 -24, ADOPTED JUNE 3, 2009 RESOLUTION NUMBER 09 -24 011IG4� 44 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING HEIGHT VARIATION 09 -4, A REQUEST TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE TO HOUSE AN ELEVATOR AT A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 126 TENTH STREET. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. On April 15, 2009, Mr. Robert Tavasci submitted an application to the Department of Development Services for Height Variation 09 -4. The proposed project would allow for the construction of a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 4' -10" by 11' -10" elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 5' -6 "; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) staff has determined as follows: The application for Height Variation No. 09 -4 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15303(a) (New Construction of Small Structures), because the application is for the construction of three (3) or less single family dwellings in an urbanized area; § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because the request is for a minor alteration in land use limitations in an area with an average slope of less than 20% and no changes in land use or density are involved; and, pursuant to § 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on May 20, 2009 to consider Height Variation 09 -4. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission received into evidence all written and oral testimony presented on the subject application. Section 4. The record of the hearing indicates the following: (a) On April 15, 2009, Mr. Robert Tavasci submitted an application to the Department of Development Services for Height Variation 09 -4. (b) The proposed project would allow for the construction of a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 4' -10" by 11' -10" elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 5' -6 "; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted, at a new single family dwelling located at 126 Tenth Street. 1 of 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 09 -24 Height Variation 09 -4 126 Tenth Street June 3, 2009 (c) The subject property is described as 126 Tenth Street; since this lot will be created by a reversion to the original subdivision boundaries, an Assessor's Parcel Number has not yet been assigned to this particular lot. This lot is located in what is generally referred to as "Old Town. ". (d) The subject property will be rectangular in shape with a lot area of 2,938 square feet. The property will have 25, feet of street frontage and will be 117.50 feet in depth. (e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH, SOUTH, Single and Multiple family dwellings located in the EAST & WEST Residential High Density Zone (RHD). (f) The City received both written and oral responses in opposition to the proposed project as s result of its mailed notice regarding Height Variation 09 -4. Section 5. Based upon the evidence in the record, including the facts stated in § 4 of this resolution and pursuant to § 28- 2317(4) of the City's Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) Height Variation 09 -4 is one of two applications on immediately adjoining properties, and such a concentration of CRAS structures is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, therefore, the CRAS requested by Height Variation 09 -4 is not consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "high density residential" designation for the subject property and permits single family residential uses. The use is also not consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is not consistent with the General Plan. (b) The proposed non - habitable covered roof access structure is not compatible with the remainder of the neighborhood, as the project has become the subject of protest by the community. (c) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature would significantly impair the primary view of properties located within 300 feet of the subject property. Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies Height Variation 09 -4. 2of3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 09 -24 Height Variation 09 -4 126 Tenth Street June 3, 2009 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of June 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Deaton, Bello, Eagar, and Massa - Lavitt NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners Larson ABSTAIN: Commissioners None Lee Whittenberg Secretary, Planning Commission 3 of 3 dV -tj I A ,. _.... Ellery Deaton Chairperson, Planning Commission Page 7 ATTACHMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 20 AND JUNE 3, 2009 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2? 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 i City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009 Request: To allow an expansion of live entertainment hours and the provision of outdoor seating in conjunction with an existing restaurant, bar, and entertainment cafe. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 09 -21. Staff Report Mr. Olivera stated that the applicant has not submitted an adequate Site Plan, so this item is to be continued to June 3, 2009. Public Hearing Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton continued the public hearing to June 3, 2009. 11. Height Variation 09 -3 124 —10th Street Applicant/Owner: Robert Tavasci / Bullethill Development, LLC Request: To construct a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -ft. height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 4 -ft. 10 -in. by 11 -ft. 10 -in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 5 ft. 6 -in. The maximum height variation permitted is 7 feet. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 09 -23. Mr. Flower stated that Staff would like to present the Staff Reports with regard to Items 11, 12, 13, and 14 together, as these are all Height Variation (HV) requests presented by the same applicant and Staff anticipates that they will present many of the same issues. He requested that the presentation be for all four items at the same time. He recommended opening the public hearing concurrently to allow for comments for all items, but when it comes time to render a decision it would be appropriate to have a separate motion for each application. He counseled the Planning Commission (PC) that each application is separate and should be decided on its own merits. Chairperson Deaton asked if four separate public hearings would be conducted. Mr. Flower stated that if the PC wishes to do so, this could be done. Chairperson Deaton stated that she would prefer this. 4 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009 Staff Report 3 Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning 4 Department) He provided some background information on this item and noted that the 5 elevator would serve to allow access to the roof deck of a proposed new single - family 6 residence (SFR). He explained that the applicant proposes to subdivide a 50 -ft. lot into 7 two 25 -ft. lots and to construct a new SFR on one of the lots, with both stair and 8 elevator access to the roof deck. He noted that the stair access is to be uncovered and 9 the elevator access would require an enclosure for the elevator car. He stated that the 10 elevator enclosure meets all Code requirements for a Height Variation (HV), which 11 allows a structure to exceed the 25 -ft. height limit by 7 ft. He indicated that the 12 approximate footprint of the elevator structure is 57 sq. ft. and the City Council (CC) 13 Policy Directive of 1991 regarding Covered Roof Access Structures (CRAS) allows up 14 to a 65 -sq. ft. footprint for such structures. Mr. Olivera then deferred to Mr. Flower with 15 regard to questions as to whether the HV process is subject to Measure Z, which was 16 passed by the voters in November 2008. 17 18 Mr. Flower explained that after reviewing Measure Z and the City Zoning Code (ZC) it is 19 the position of the City Attorney's Office that Measure Z establishes a standard 20 maximum height in Old Town of 25 feet, and in the context of the Municipal Code (MC) 21 this applies to Sections 28 -701 and 28 -801, which establish the standard maximum 22 height for residential structures in Old Town. He indicated that after careful review of 2!a CC directives and all related discussion and documents, it was concluded that the intent of Measure Z was to eliminate third stories in Old Town and limit the standard 25 residential height to 25 feet. He then explained that HV procedures have long been in 26 the ZC and exist in Section 28 -2317 and are different from the maximum height limits 27 for the Old Town Area. He noted that this Section includes not only the HV procedures, 28 but various exceptions to the height limit that existed before Measure Z and apply to all 29 zones throughout the City regardless of use. He noted that the HV procedures do not 30 allow for third story structures, but allow for slight variations from the standard maximum 31 height, which is 25 feet in Old Town. He stated that the PC can find that the HV is 32 architecturally appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood and does 33 not significantly impair the view from any property within 300 feet. 34 35 Mr. Olivera stated that Staff has received 5 telephone calls and 11 written letters all in 36 opposition to the Height Variation (HV) projects. 37 38 Commissioner Questions 39 40 Commissioner Eager, confirmed that the enclosure is to exceed the 25 -ft. height limit by 41 5 ft. 6 in. Mr. Olivera confirmed that the HV process allows a structure to exceed the 42 25 -ft. height limit by up to 7 feet. He noted that all four of the HVs are requesting a 5 -ft. 43 6 -in. exception. 44 45 5of13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009 Public Hearin 3 Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing for HV 09 -3. 4 5 Robert Tavasci, architect for the project, briefly described the project stating that the 6 elevator shaft must be enclosed. Commissioner Massa -Lavitt clarified that 124 10th 7 Street would be part of the subdivided lot. Mr. Tavasci confirmed that it would be. 8 Commissioner Massa -Lavitt asked if the homes are to have a basement. Mr. Tavasci 9 stated that the basement would include a media room, a wine cellar, and would 10 essentially house the mechanical and electrical equipment. Commissioner Eagar asked 11 if the elevator goes down to the basement. Mr. Tavasci explained that it dues and the 12 elevator equipment is also to be housed in the basement. Chairperson Deaton noted 13 that the PC previously approved some elevators in new homes on 15th Street, but this 14 was because the equipment was to be at the top of the structure. She stated that if the 15 equipment is to be in the basement, she does not see the need for the CRAS. Mr. 16 Olivera stated that the projects on 15th Street elected to use an elevator that works on a 17 vacuum system with the equipment located at the top of the elevator, but even if there 18 were no equipment at the top, an enclosure would still be required to protect the 19 elevator shaft. 20 21 The following members of the public spoke in opposition to HV 09 -3: 22 2? Mike Bubbe — Stated he is certain voters of Measure Z did not intend to continue to allow CRAS, as they are eyesores, and an uncovered staircase would be best. 25 26 Barbara Barton — Voters stated their preference when they voted to pass Measure Z. 27 28 Joan Wolfelt — Neighboring home is a 3 -story home and she has no sunlight or 29 circulation of air on her property. 73 Percent of voters want the 25 -ft. limit and City 30 should follow what the residents want. 31 32 Larry Carey — asked why the elevator should exceed the height limit. Mr. Tavasci 33 stated it was to permit handicapped access. He recommended use of an uncovered 34 stairway and denial of this application. 35 36 Warren Morton — Eliminate CRAS and maintain the 25 -ft. height limit. 37 38 Jim Wolfelt — Residents do take the election very seriously, and 25 feet is the limit. 39 40 Mr. Tavasci explained that the owner intends to make the roof deck available to anyone 41 and this is why the elevator goes to that level. Chairperson Deaton stated that she has 42 been told that the ceiling heights could be lowered in order to stay within the 25 -ft. limit. 43 Mr. Tavasci stated that this might be possible. Commissioner Eagar stated that if the 44 elevator structure is denied, would occupants still have roof access. Mr. Tavasci stated 45 that they would have access via an uncovered stairway. 6of13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009 Commissioner Massa -Lavitt asked if a soils report was done prior to designing the basements. Mr. Tavasci stated that this was done. 3 4 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public 5 hearing for HV 09 -3. 6 7 Commissioner Comments 8 9 Chairperson Deaton stated that most of the Old Town homes with roof decks have 10 uncovered stairways for access, although some do have CRAS. She stated that the 11 members of the public who spoke tonight are opposed to allowing more of the CRAS. 12 She clarified that this application is for a Height Variation and not a Variance, which is 13 important because the legal findings that must be made for Variance do not apply in this 14 case. 15 16 Commissioner Massa -Lavitt stated that it is clear by their vote that the majority of the 17 community wants a 25 -ft. height limit; however, Measure Z did not address accessory 18 architectural features on the roof, such as chimneys, gazebos, or anything but roof 19 height. She noted that these homes are designed with the third floor in the basement, 20 and if this HV is permitted in the ZC, the applicant should be allowed to do this, and 21 arbitrarily ending the ability of people to request a HV is unreasonable. She stated that 22 she would vote for approval of HV 09 -3 and commented that changing the ZC to prohibit ?' CRAS would be another thing to consider. 25 Chairperson Deaton stated that since she has served on the PC, CRAS have been 26 denied whenever anyone has said -"It is not compatible with my neighborhood; I don't 27 want it." She said that when the same arguments have been made as those made 28 tonight these applications have been denied. With regard to the homes constructed on 29 12th Street and those built on 15th Street and she explained that it is a different issue 30 when rethinking the homes on 15th Street to consider retrofitting an existing structure 31 versus dealing with a new one. She stated that the proposed homes for HV 09 -3 are 32 new and can be constructed with 8 -ft. ceilings, with the elevators, and with the 33 basement while staying within the height limit. She stated that residents are tired of 34 repeatedly having to come out to speak against the same issue. She emphasized that 35 before Measure Z the PC had denied CRAS in many cases, particularly when there has 36 been opposition to them. She cited the homes on 12th Street and Seal Way among 37 others. Chairperson Deaton then added that she understands how citizens would feel 38 betrayed after voting to approve Measure Z and commented that perhaps the PC has 39 not adequately explained the differences between a Height Variation and a Variance. 40 41 Commissioner Bello stated that the history as stated by Chairperson Deaton matches 42 her recollection of how the PC has voted on these types of applications. She 43 emphasized that the PC has listened to the residents and when there was enough 44 concern, the PC has been sensitive to this. She stated that the PC does favor 45 elevators, but questioned whether the architects and builders should attempt to design t new homes in such a way as to not go against what the community wants. 7of13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009 Commissioner Massa -Lavitt stated that she had a question for the applicant. 3 Chairperson Deaton reopened the public hearing. 4 5 Commissioner Massa -Lavitt asked Mr. Tavasci whether he would be willing to take the 6 elevators out of the plans and leave the elevator shaft so that it could be retrofitted later, 7 and just have the open stairway to the roof deck. Mr. Tavasci confirmed that this would 8 mean simply constructing the shaft. Commissioner Massa -Lavitt stated that should a 9 disabled person buy the home, the shaft would- be ready for retrofitting of an elevator. 10 Mr. Tavasci stated that it could be done, but he would have to check with the property 11 owner. Chairperson Deaton added that the concept of creating a large storage closet 12 on each floor was considered for the homes on 15 Street, with this space available to 13 be changed into an elevator shaft, should a "real person" need a "real elevator," and 14 other owners might enjoy the extra storage space. She noted that this change would 15 eliminate the need for a Height Variation. 16 17 Chairperson Deaton closed the public hearing. 18 19 Mr. Flower indicated that should the applicant decide to change the plans and convert 20 the elevator shaft to storage space, there would be no need for a Height Variation and 21 they could simply apply for the building permits. Mr. Olivera added that an elevator 22 could still be installed in the home, but there would be no elevator access to the roof 21 deck. Chairperson Deaton stated she believes architects can design homes with ceilings in one part of the house where the elevator could be where the ceilings could 25 be 8 feet and ceilings could be taller in the rest of the house creating an interesting roof 26 line. She said if the PC does not ask architects to do this, then the PC is betraying the 27 voters. 28 29 MOTION by Bello; SECOND by Eagar to deny Height Variation 09 -3 and adopt 30 Resolution 09 -23 as amended. 31 32 MOTION CARRIED: 4-0-1 33 AYES: Deaton, Bello, Eagar, and Massa- Lavitt 34 NOES: None 35 ABSENT: Larson 36 37 Commissioner Massa -Lavitt stated that she changed her intent to approve HV 09 -3 38 based upon the distinct possibility of changing the plans to construct the storage area 39 only into which an elevator might later be installed. 40 41 Mr. Flower advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 09 -23 begins a 10 -day calendar 42 appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the 43 appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 44 45 12. Height Variation 09 -4 E 126— 1 oth Street 8of13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009 Applicant/Owner: Robert Tavasci / Bullethill Development, LLC Request: To construct a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -ft. height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 4 -ft. 10 -in. by 11 -ft. 10 -in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 5 ft. 6 -in. The maximum height variation permitted is 7 feet. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 09 -24. Staff Report Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He stated that this item would be very similar to HV 09 -3 and proceeded to provide the same commentary as previously stated. Commissioner Questions None. Public Hearinq Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing. Commissioner Massa -Lavitt asked Mr. Tavasci if he were willing to consider removing the elevator from the plans and leave the elevator shaft so that it could be retrofitted later, and just have the open stairway to the roof deck. Mr. Tavasci stated that he is not certain of what is to be done at present, but one way or another the plans will conform to the ZC. Commissioner Eagar asked the same question. Mr. Tavasci noted that the reason for the elevator going to the roof deck was to create access for anyone. Barbara Barton asked if the public would have to comment on each of the applications. Chairperson Deaton stated that this would not be necessary. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments None. MOTION by Bello; SECOND by Massa -Lavitt to deny Height Variation 09 -4 and adopt Resolution 09 -24 as amended. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0-1 9of13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009 AYES: Deaton, Bello, Eagar, and Massa- Lavitt NOES: None ABSENT: Larson Mr. Flower advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 09 -24 begins a 1.0 -day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 13. Height Variation 09 -5 202 —10th Street Applicant/Owner: Robert Tavasci / Bullethill Development, LLC Request: To construct a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -ft. height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 4 -ft. 10 -in. by 11 -ft. 10 -in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 5 ft. 6 -in. The maximum height variation permitted is 7 feet. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 09 -25. Staff Report Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He noted that the Staff Report is essentially the same as for HV 09 -3 and 09 -4. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Eagar confirmed that if the homes are built to conform to the ZC height standard the applicant would not have to come before the PC for approval of these projects. Chairperson Deaton confirmed that this was correct. Public Hearinq Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments None. MOTION by Eagar; SECOND by Bello to deny Height Variation 09 -5 and adopt Resolution 09 -25 as amended. 10 of 13 J City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009 MOTION CARRIED: 4-0-1 AYES: Deaton, Bello, Eagar, and Massa- Lavitt NOES: None ABSENT: Larson Mr. Flower advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 09 -25 begins a 10 -day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 14. Height Variation 09 -6 204 —10th Street Applicant/Owner: Robert Tavasci / Bullethill Development, LLC Request: To construct a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -ft. height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 4 -ft. 10 -in. by 11 -ft. 10 -in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 5 ft. 6 -in. The maximum height variation permitted is 7 feet. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 09 -26. Staff Report Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He noted that the Staff Report is essentially the same as for HV 09 -3, 09 -4, and 09 -5. Commissioner Questions None. Public Hearing Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments None. MOTION by Bello; SECOND by Eagar to deny Height Variation 09 -6 and adopt Resolution 09 -26 as amended. 11 of 13 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2? i 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 MOTION CARRIED: 4-0-1 AYES: Deaton, NOES: None ABSENT: Larson City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009 Bello, Eagar, and Massa - Lavitt Mr. Flower noted a point of order and stated that the Resolutions for denial of HV 09 -3, HV 09 -4, HV 09 -5, and HV 09 -6 have not been prepared and will be presented for adoption at the next scheduled meeting of June 3, 2009. He then advised that adoption of Resolution Nos. 09 -23, 09 -24, 09 -25, and 09 -26 will begin a 10 -day calendar appeal period to the City Council beginning the day after adoption. Chairperson Deaton asked if there would be a public hearing on these items. Mr. Flower stated that the resolutions would be presented as scheduled matters and there would be no public hearing. STAFF CONCERNS None. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Eagar asked if based upon the response to Items Nos. 11 through 14, a review of the Height Variation process should be scheduled. Chairperson Deaton stated that the PC should request direction from City Council on returning to the revision of the ZC. She asked Mr. Flower on how to proceed. Mr. Flower advised that this issue could be placed on a future agenda for discussion. Chairperson Deaton requested that this item be placed on the agenda for June 3, 2009, under Scheduled Matters. Commissioner Massa -Lavitt inquired about the Agenda Forecast application for Conditional Use Permit 09 -9 submitted by Target. Mr. Olivera stated that Target has submitted an application for an off-sale general alcohol license. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Deaton adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, �JIJ��l�Ml1 M �Y� 1 �i i�di Carmen Alvarez, Executive Assistant Planning Department 12 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 3, 2009 AYES: Deaton, Bello, Eagar, and Massa -Lavitt NOES: None 3 ABSENT: Larson ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Deaton opened oral communications. There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed oral communications. CONSENT CALENDAR ' No items. SCHEDULED MATTERS 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2009. To be continued to the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting of June 17, 2009. 2. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009. Chairperson Deaton noted a correction to Page 8, Line 23 and requested that the text be changed to read: "Chairperson Deaton stated she believes architects can design homes with ceilings in one part of the house where the elevator could be where the ceilings could be 8 feet and ceilings could be taller in the rest of the house creating an interesting roof line." MOTION by Eagar; SECOND by Bello to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2009, as amended. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0-1 AYES: Deaton, Bello, Eagar, and Massa - Lavitt NOES: None ABSENT: Larson Chairperson Deaton noted that the PC would be making one motion for Items 3, 4, 5, and 6. 3. Adopt Resolution 09 -23 denying Height Variation 09 -3 for 124 10th Street. 4. Adopt Resolution 09 -24 denying Height Variation 09 -4 for 126 10th Street. 5. Adopt Resolution 09 -25 denying Height Variation 09 -5 for 202 10th Street. 6. Adopt Resolution 09 -26 denying Height Variation 09 -6 for 204 10th Street. 2of10 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 3, 2009 MOTION by Bello; SECOND by Eagar to approve Resolution Nos. 09 -23, 09 -24, 09 -25, and 09 -26 as presented, denying Height Variation 09 -3, 09-4, 09 -5, and 09 -6. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0-1 AYES: Deaton, Bello, Eagar, and Massa- Lavitt NOES: None ABSENT: Larson Mr. Flower advised that the adoption of Resolution Nos. 09 -23, 09 -24, 09 -25, and 09 -26 begins a 10 -day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. Conditional Use Permit 09 -7 3001 Old Ranch Parkway (Kobe Japanese Steakhouse) (Continued to June 17, 2009) Applicant/Owner: BNP Enterprises, Inc. / Bixby Land Company Request: To allow an expansion of live entertainment hours and the provision of outdoor seating in conjunction with an existing restaurant, bar, and entertainment cafe. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 09 -21. Staff Report Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and noted that Staff has not yet received accurate site plans and floor plans for the proposed expansion, so this item is to be continued to the next scheduled meeting of June 17, 2009. Public Hearing Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton continued the public hearing to June 17, 2009. 8. Conditional Use Permit 09 -5 4000 Lampson Avenue (Chevron) (Continued From May 20, 2009) 3of10 440 i ji1 HEIGHT VARIATION COMMISSION STAFF MAY 20, 2009 09-4, PLANNING REPORT, DATED Page 8 May 20, 2009 STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Chairwoman and Planning Commission From: Department of Development Services Subject: Height Variation 09 -4 126 10th Street w1:4 kl I =1 a-il N *I **s] :4 1 ;a im'. Applicant: ROBERT TAVASCI Owners: BULLETHILL DEVELOPMENT, LLC Location: 126 10T" STREET Classification of Property: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY (RHD) Request: TO CONSTRUCT A NON- HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE IN EXCESS OF THE 25 -FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 4' -10" BY 11' -10" ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMIT BY 5' -6 "; 7 FEET IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT VARIATION PERMITTED. Environmental Review: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW. Code Sections: 28- 2317(D) OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH Recommendation: APPROVE HEIGHT VARIATION 09-4, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 09 -24. ZAHeight VariationsM 09-4 126 1 0th Street \HV 09-4 126 1 0th Street PC Staff Report.doc Heigm. Variation 09 -4 126 10th Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 20, 2009 ❑ On April 15, 2009, Mr. Robert Tavasci submitted an application to the Department of Development Services for Height Variation 09-4. ❑ The proposed project would allow for :the construction of a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 4' -10" by 11' -10" elevator enclosurQ to exceed the height limit by 5' -6 "; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. ❑ The subject property is described as 126 10th Street; since this lot will be created by a reversion to the original subdivision boundaries, an Assessor's Parcel Number has not yet been assigned to this particular lot. This lot is located in what is generally referred to as "Old Town." ❑ The subject property will be rectangular in shape with a lot area of 2,938 square feet. The property will have 25 feet of street frontage and will be 117.50 feet in depth. ❑ The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH, SOUTH, Single and Multiple family dwellings located in the EAST & WEST Residential High Density zone (RHD). ❑ The Planning Commission has approved Height Variances of a similar nature in 2007 at 231, 233, and 235 15th Street (HV 07 -2, HV 07 -3, HV 07 -4). ❑ As of May 13, 2009, staff has received no comments, written or otherwise, in response to the hearing notices that were mailed and published for the proposed project HV 09-4. On April 15, 2009, Mr. Robert Tavasci submitted an application for Height Variation 09- 4. The proposed project would allow for the construction of a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 4' -10" by 11' -10" elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 5' -6 "; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. The proposed non - habitable architectural feature complies with the provisions of §28- 2317(D) of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. HV 09-4 126 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 2 Heig►n Variation 09 -4 126 10"' Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 20, 2009 This request for Height Variation 09-4 is in conjunction with a redevelopment of the existing property and a reversion to the original subdivision lines, creating two individual lots from the existing lot. The proposed new single family dwelling. will comprise approximately 3,096 square feet with an attached 400 square foot 2 -car garage and consist of a basement, two above -grade levels, and a roof deck. The applicant is proposing to provide an elevator in the new residence and wishes to have elevator access to the roof deck. DISCUSSION In general the Code of the City of Seal Beach, (Code) states that no building or structure shall exceed the height limit for the district and zone in which it is located. However, Section 28- 2317(D) provides for height variations for non - habitable architectural features. Specifically, Section 28- 2317(D)(1) states: "Scope: Non - habitable architectural features, such as spires, towers, cupolas, belfries, monuments, parapets (not required by Uniform Building Code), domes and covered stairwells to open roof decks may exceed the height limit established for the district in which such structure is located to a maximum of seven feet (7) if granted pursuant to the procedures contained in this section." The height limit for structures on the subject property which is located in the Residential High Density zone, RHD, of Planning District 1 is 25 feet. The maximum height elevation of the proposed elevator enclosure is approximately 5' -6" feet beyond the 25 foot height limit, for a total building height of 30' -6" at the top of the elevator enclosure. The proposed height of the elevator enclosure is within the 7 -foot allowance provided for a non - habitable architectural feature under Section 28- 2317(D). In addition to the overall height requirement previously discussed, the Planning Commission, in reviewing an application for a Height Variation, shall consider criteria set forth in Section 28- 2317(D)(2) and make findings pursuant to said review. Said criteria is stated in Section 28- 2317(D)(2)(c) as follows: "(1). . . 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. HV 09-4 126 10th Street PC Staff Report 3 Heigin Variation 09 -4 126 10' Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 20, 2009 (iii) Whether a covered stairwell to an open roof deck is limited to the minimum area, both horizontally and vertically, necessary to cover the stairwell. (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." Architectural Style: Roofing, Location and Size In considering an application for a Height Variation, the Planning Commission may take into consideration the architectural style of the non - habitable architectural feature as it applies to the style of the overall structure. The materials used in this construction will be in substantial conformity with the materials used in the construction of the rest of the house. This proposal will be in substantial compliance with the character of the new construction of this particular house. The proposed elevator enclosure will have similar treatments and roofing materials as the new home and is proposed to be partially exposed on three sides, so as to soften the impact of the structure, yet provide weather protection for the elevator car doors and elevator shaft. The Height Variation approval process is generally seen in the Old Town and Surfside areas of the City. The Code permits what the applicant is proposing, subject to the finding that the proposal is consistent with the integrity of the neighborhood. If the Planning Commission were to find that this proposal was not significantly in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, this application could be denied. The third factor of architectural review is whether or not the proposed projection will in any way impair the primary view of any neighboring resident. The application is within the City Council adopted Policy Statement of 1991 (Attached for review). The maximum allowable square footages under that Policy Statement are between 38 and 62.25 square feet for a covered roof access stairway. The proposed elevator enclosure does not need to comply with the requirements for a covered roof access stairway. The proposed elevator enclosure comprises approximately 57 square feet (total footprint including roof structure) and is located towards the center of the structure, with the roofline being flush with the north building wall and the walls of the elevator enclosure approximately 32' set back from the front of the building, 7' -3" from the south building wall, and approximately 65' from the rear building wall. Staff believes that the elevator enclosure, as proposed, meets the intent of the Code and provides the minimum square footage necessary to enclose the elevator car and shaft, while the roof overhang, because of the type of elevator, provides necessary protection from the elements for the elevator shaft and door opening. HV 09-4 126 1 0th Street PC Staff Report J 4 Height Variation 09 -4 126 le Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 20, 2009 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, after considering all written and oral testimony presented during the public hearing on Height Variation 09 -4, conditionally approve this request. Staffs recommendation is based on the following: ❑ Height Variation 09 -4, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "High Density Residential" designation for the subject property and permits single and multiple family residential uses. The use, as conditioned, is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use, as conditioned, is consistent with the General Plan. ❑ The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned, is architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roof pitch, roofing materials and siding architecturally compatible with that of the remainder of the structure. ❑ The proposed elevator enclosure, as conditioned, is appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood and permissible by code. ❑ No habitable living space is provided within the structure. ❑ The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned, does not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet of the subject property. Staff recommends the following conditions of approval for Height Variation 09-4: Height Variation 09 -4 is approved for the construction of a non - habitable architectural feature for an approximately 57 square foot elevator enclosure (total footprint including roof structure) up to 5' -6" feet in excess of the 25 -foot height limit at 126 10th Street, Seal Beach. 2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through HV 09 -4, with partial openings of the exterior walls of the elevator enclosure. 3. There shall be no habitable space permitted within the architectural feature HV 09-4 126 10th Street PC Staff Report Heigin Variation 09 -4 126 10th Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 20, 2009 4. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. 5. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or Supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Height Variation, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. r Olivera, AICP S io Planner epartment of Development Services Attachments: (4) Attachment 1: Resolution No. 09 -24, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Approving Height Variation 09 -4, Permitting the Construction of a Non - Habitable Architectural Feature for an Elevator Enclosure at a proposed Single Family Dwelling at 126 10th Street, Seal Beach. Attachment 2: Application Attachment 3: Code Sections Attachment 4: Plans HV 09-4 126 1 0th Street PC Staff Report Heigut Variation 09 -4 126 l dh Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 20, 2009 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 09 -24, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION 09-4, PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NON- HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE FOR AN ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE AT A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 126 1 OT" STREET, SEAL BEACH HV 09-4 126 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 8 Heigru Variation 09 -4 126 le Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 20, 2009 RESOLUTION NO. 09 -24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING HEIGHT VARIATION 09 -41 , PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE FOR AN ELEVATOR ENCLOSURE AT A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 126 10TH STREET, SEAL BEACH. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. On April 15, 2009, Mr. Robert Tavasci submitted an application for Height Variation 09 -4. The proposed project would allow for the construction of a non - habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25 -foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 4' -10" by 11' -10" elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 5' -6 "; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15025(a) and § II.A of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Height Variation No. 09-4 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15303(e) (New Construction of Small Structures), because the application is for the construction of.an accessory structure in conjunction with a new single family dwelling in an urbanized area; § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations) because the request is for a minor alteration in land use limitations in an area with an average slope of less than 20% and no changes in land use or density are involved. Section 3. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on May 20, 2009 to consider Height Variation 09 -4. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission received into the record all evidence and testimony provided on this matter. Section 4. The record of the hearing indicates the following: HV 09-4 126 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 9 Height Variation 09 -4 126 10th Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 20, 2009 (a) On April 15, 2009, Mr. Robert Tavasci submitted an application for Height Variation 09 -4. (b) The Applicant is requesting to construct a 4' -10" by 11' -10" elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by F -6" at 126 10th Street; 7 feet is the maximum height variation permitted. (c) The subject property is described as 126 10th Street, Seal Beach, California. Since this lot will be created by a reversion to the original subdivision boundaries, an Assessor's Parcel Number has not yet been assigned to this particular lot. The subject property is located in the Residential High Density (RHD) zone, in an area generally referred to as "Old Town" (d) The subject property will be rectangular in shape with a lot area of 2,938 square feet. The property will have 25 feet of street frontage and will be 117.50 feet in depth. (e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: NORTH, SOUTH, Single and multiple family dwellings located in the EAST, & WEST Residential High Density zone (RHD). (f) The proposed elevator enclosure will have similar roof lines, roofing material, and siding that is architecturally compatible with the new home. (g) The proposed elevator enclosure comprises approximately 57 square feet (total footprint including roof structure) and is located towards the center of the structure, with the roofline being flush with the south building wall and the walls of the elevator enclosure approximately 32' set back from the front of the building, T -3" from the north building wall, and approximately 65' from the rear building wall. Section 5. Based upon the evidence in the record, including the facts stated in §4 of this resolution and pursuant to §28- 2317(D) of the City's Code, the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) Height Variation 09 -4, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan, which provides a "High Density Residential" designation for the subject property and permits single and multiple family residential uses. The use is also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan as the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the Land Use Element. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. (b) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned, is architecturally in keeping with the remainder of the structure, with the roof pitch, HV 09-4 126 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 10 HeignL Variation 09 -4 12610' Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 20, 2009 roofing materials and siding architecturally compatible with that of the remainder of the structure. (c) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned, is appropriate for the character and integrity of the surrounding neighborhood. (d) No habitable living space is provided within the structure. (e) The proposed non - habitable architectural feature, as conditioned, does not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet of the subject properly. Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Height Variation 09 -4, subject to the following conditions: Height Variation 094 is approved for the construction of a non - habitable architectural feature for an approximately 57 square foot elevator enclosure (total footprint including roof structure) up to 5-6" feet in excess of the 25 -foot height limit at 126 10th Street, Seal Beach. 2. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through HV 09 -4, with partial openings of the exterior walls of the structure. 3. There shall be no habitable space permitted within the architectural feature. 4. This Height Variation shall not become effective for any purpose unless an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been signed by the applicant in the presence of the Director of Development Services, or notarized and returned to the Planning Department; and until the ten (10) day appeal period has elapsed. 5. The applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its officers, agents and employees (collectively "the City" hereinafter) from any and all claims and losses whatsoever occurring or resulting to any and all persons, firms, or corporations furnishing or supplying work, services, materials, or supplies in connection with the performance of the use permitted hereby or the exercise of the rights granted herein, and any and all claims, lawsuits or actions arising from the granting of or the exercise of the rights permitted by this Height Variation, and from any and all claims and losses occurring or resulting to any person, firm, corporation or property for damage, injury or death arising out of or connected with the performance of the use permitted hereby. Applicant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City as stated herein shall include, but not be limited to, paying all fees and costs incurred by legal counsel of the City's choice in representing the City in connection with any such claims, losses, lawsuits or actions, expert witness fees, and any award of damages, judgments, verdicts, court costs or attorneys' fees in any such lawsuit or action. HV 09-4 126 10th Street PC Staff Report 11 Heignt Variation 09 -4 126 10th Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 20, 2009 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of 2009 by the following vote: ' AYES: Commissioners NOES: Commissioners ABSENT: Commissioners ABSTAIN: Commissioners Ellery Deaton, Chairwoman Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg, Secretary Planning Commission HV 09 -4 126 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 12 Heigm Variation 09 -4 126 10"' Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 20, 2009 ATTACHMENT 2 APPLICATION HV 09 -4 126 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 13 CITY OF SEAL BEACH PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION O1-31 v. R., 8 p licatta, n No ? kw �o i k- plicat 1. Property Address: 12�0 10�4A S P- 1 0299 "2. County Assessor Parcel No: -1 go 3. 4. it Applicant Name: 12SV-�G Address: S20 V1 t-AC—_5 44VG7 44=rt Phone: Work � '90112- X22 Home: FAX: Mobile: E-Mail Address: 4;qr_7n&,i7,eAAz7 40 M Property Owner Name: _0ULLFrAJL4, VeVoo ?R%� U�C Address: Telephon 5. General Plan and Zoning Designation: 6. Present Use of Property: 7. Proposed Use of Property: I 8. Request For: 9. Describe Proposed Use: 10. Describe how the proposed improvements re appropriate for the character of the surrounding neighborhood: 00&4^AC7^1 ["V114A jL,4%?,, 7 of 35 Rev. 1108 11. Describe how the approval of this Permit would be detrimental in -any way to other property in the vicinity: -1tAP�, At 1. ON dip CoVrG�� 12. Proof of Ownership Please attach a photocopy of a picture I.D. and a photocopy of the Grant Deed provided by the applicant. or Signed and notarized Property Owners Affidavit to be completed and attached to the application. 13. Legal Description (or attach description from Title or Grant Deed): =ted the foregoing •app[icafia ach goveming,the'filing ofan a (Signature of Applicant) (Pint Name) (Date) •'- "O+:_ -_•�, _�_ -iii' - - .' •_�` - =i Fund it to be •thoivugh "and complete•: ; It.corffdrm; on for an Unclassified Use:Permiti Application _' '_ '.}4.k F. - Via: __' =J'V, _ i.• P _ .i +•' _ .u.'9i: -u:�_- _ �T 8 of 35 Rev. 1108 Environmental Information and Checklist Form General Information 1. Name and address of Developer or Project Sponsor. 2. KI Name: Address: 2°�) i✓r�,�k dj, G� 2 City: 4.Ae; . State: Ci4N. Zip: Telephone: 5(dZ . 5 . ug ig- FAX: E -mail Address: Address of Project: V Assessor Parcel Number: Name, address, and contact information of Project Contact Person: Name: _•�a6cf� Address: V710 ey'A e'= AqE✓ , � City: _ lXZ�467 State: 610 Zip: 080'2_ Telephone: GJCQ2 - 456�0'-! 22Z FAX: E -mail Address: 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: 5 A Existing zoning:" Existing General Plan: Proposed use of site: ."201 N61 L Gr_ EMI C-.- F.— l 11 of 35 Rev. 1108 Project Description 7. Site size (square footage): 2 0)1 �✓ 8. Square footage of proposed Project: j, 006 9. Number of floors of construction: tlVlE7-�—. 10. Amount of off - street parking provided: C7 11. Existing and proposed impervious surface coverage (Impervious surface coverage includes all paved areas and building andfor structure footprints): Existing impervious coverage: Q� oho Proposed impervious coverage: 12. Attach plans including preliminary grading plans, drainage plans, Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) for large -scale developments, construction site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Plans. 13. Proposed scheduling of Project: (� 14. Associated Projects: 24 15. Anticipated incremental development: 16. For residential projects, indicate the: s Number of units: l Schedule of Unit sizes: izqg�-� --V-o Range of sale prices or rents: 2- - Z. Z - wit Household sizes) expected: T;bu ?- . 17. For commercial projects, indicate the: A. Type of project: B. Whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented: C. D. E. 18. Square footage of sales areas: Gross building area: Size of loading facilities: For industrial projects, indicate the: 12 of 35 Rev. 1/08 A. Type of project: B. Estimated employment per shift: C. Size of loading facilities: 19. For institutional projects, indicate the: A. Major function: B. Estimated employment per shift: C. Estimated occupancy: D. Size of loading facilities: E. Community benefits derived from the project: 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permittunclassified use permit, height variation or zone change application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: Variance: CUP: Height Variation: Zone Change: Briefly explain: Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES N 21. Change in existing features, of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours? 22. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water 13 of 35 Rev. 1108 quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. i 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. 29. Use or disposal of P otentiall y hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. . 30. Substantial change in demand errand for municipal service (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas., etc.). 32. Relationship to larger project or series of projects. Environmental Setting 33. On a separate page, describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. 34. On a separate page, describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one - family, apartment homes, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. 14 of 35 Rev. 1108 Environmental Impacts (Please explain all "Potentially Significant Impact ", "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers on separate sheets.) I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California. Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact 0 If. A N ■] X ■; ■! No Impact c, I�1 15 of 35- Rev. 1109 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? O 0 13 13 13 0 13 1W 16 of 35 Rev. 1 /08 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact O 0 13 13 13 0 13 1W 16 of 35 Rev. 1 /08 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? U N 71 ■ 0 1 u ■; U 17 of 35 Rev. 1/08 Less Than Potentially * Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact U N 71 ■ 0 1 u ■; U 17 of 35 Rev. 1/08 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? (iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Less Than - Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 13 13 13 0 13 C3 C3 18 of 35 Rev. 1108 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport eland use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,'would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact X ■ ■1 0 C 0 ■ N N i *1 MI-14 19 of 35 Rev. 1108 h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death -- -invoh4rig- -vvi)d and -fires- including- where - -.: * - -ad0=4 - -V --j-4rb. i d a _-.car __vuhw;e --- Fesidences - --are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or -- -wastedschar-ge Feq iren- parets? b) -Substantial - Ily rieplete _groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 20 of 35 Less—Than Potentially Significant with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 0 ■I ■` LOCI *11 AI ■ ,i Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ff Aj Dl 1 MR Rev. 1108 g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post - construction activities? m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Potentially Significant Impact ■ K Elf -11 Than Significant with Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact i 21 of 35 Rev. 1108 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat Less Than Potentially Significant with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 0 13 C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? RESOURCES X. MINEKAL — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For purposes of this analysis, a substantial temporary or periodic increase is defined as a continuous noise of more than 70 db(A) Less Than Significant No Impact Impact ME] ■ * ■i �i Ii.' F; FA411 22 of 35 Rev. 1108 for 15 minutes or more or an intermittent noise of more than 75 db(A) for between 5 and 14 minutes resulting from construction that occurs between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working -in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,' necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the Potentially Significant Impact C K_ ■E '6! Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated 0 ■ 011 ■' Less Than Significant Impact ■' ■I No Impact r L. r, 101 Gil 23 of 35 Rev. 1108 public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. which might have an adverse physical effect on -the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including" either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 24 of 35 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant- Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact � O � � O � 0 67 10711 9 o X C! N ,I1 Rev. 1108 d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 [a] ■ N 9 X 41 ■ 701 0 ■ 0 �l I M.41 0-` 25 of 35 Rev. 1/08 f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and _ egulations .related .to _solid waste? h) Would the project include a new or retrofitted stone water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP), (e.g. water quality treatment basin, -constructed -treatment -wetlands), the oper -tiDn cif which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 26 of 35 ■ All *1 1i,J Fall Less Than Significant No Impact Impact *' M Rev. 1108 Less Than "Potentially -- Significant with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 26 of 35 ■ All *1 1i,J Fall Less Than Significant No Impact Impact *' M Rev. 1108 1 IVOTE��= Before arLead Age cjr sari 'accept -this *appfca Mas co lete;._ttie' applicant °must.consult -the tis re.. pursuant,to-Section 65962.5 of e�nnientP,Code 9rid=�su�i if aasigned 5ta %meet= 'indicatiri :ate,•, = —�,� _:_ '•:• • _ rs irtrf'd :'erthe project.and,•any alteriiafiies ` =are'located.on "a!sit&i*hidhJs incloded on .any such'lisi,iarid =shall P . J _. �0 Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement The development project and any alternatives proposed in this application are contained on the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Accordingly, the project applicant is required to submit a signed statement which contains the following information: 1. Name of applicant: 2. Street: 3. City: 4. Zip Code: 5. Phone Number: 6. Address of site (street and zip): 7. Local Agency (city /county): 8. Assessor's Parcel Number: 9. Specify any list pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code: 10. Regulatory identification number: 11. Date of list: Date: Signature: Applicant: 27 of 35 Rev. 1108 NOTE: In the event that the project site and any alternatives are not listed on any list complied_ pursuant to Section! 65962.5 of the Government Code, then the applicant must certify that fact as provided below. I have consulted the lists complied pursuant to Section 65962.2 of the Government Code and hereby certify that the development project 'and any alternatives proposed in this application are not contained on these lists. _ Date: 4 1 • - - !�� _ /.ICI, /� I l►� 28 of 35 Rev. 1/08 REC019MI',13 RECAJEST"^ 1Y MYCERS -,, ffLE RECORDING REQLT. -STED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Rocky W. Gentner Deborah F. Gentner 1105 Crestview Avenue Seal Beach, CA 90740 A. P. N .: 199 - 042 -23 This Document, S electronically recorded by Lawye.., Title Company B Recorded in Official Records, Orange County Tom Daly, Clerk- Recorder 9.00 2008000204731 04:15pm 04/30108 117 73 G02 2 605.00 605.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Order No.: 5360451 -25 Above This Line for Recorder's Use Only Escrow No.: 1350 -D GRANT DEED TAUNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(s) DECLARE(s) THAT DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAXIS: COUNTY $1,210-00 computed on full value of property conveyed, or [ ] computed on full value le s value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale, t [ ] unincorporated area; [ !? City of Seal Beach , and FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, John A. Modaffari, Executor for the Estate of Ilene B. Eddy hereby GRANT(S) to Rocky W. Gentner and Deborah F. Gentner, Husband and Wife as community property with rights of survivorship the following described property in the City of Seal Beach, County of Orange State of California; to Lot 24 and 21 in Block 10 of Bay City Tract, in the City of Seal Beach, County of Orange, California as per map recorded in Book 3, Page(s) 19, of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. v ` John A. Modaffari, Executor for the Estate o ' Ilene B. E ' / v Jo A. Modaffari, Exec:: Document Date: February 20, 2008 STATE OF CALIFORN )SS C01.i vTY or J M 4? ) On .�' ' '-`�� before iue, a [rotary public itt and for said state, personally appeared —jo�v, / n . Mel do o 44a r 4e L V lAe-4— who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose nante(s) 4&are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to the that 6/she/they executed the same in&i /her /their authorized capaciry(ies), and that by &,i /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon be of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS m 1 y an ttictal seal. � Signature - ---------- M. MAXIM Commission # 1766847 Notary Public - California Orange County ' MyCiortBn.6�lreaSsp 1Q X11 Mail Tax Statements to: SAME AS ABOVE or Address Noted Below Heigin Variation 09 -4 126 Id' Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 20, 2009 ATTACHMENT 3 CODE SECTIONS HV 09-4 126 10th Street PC Staff Report 14 Heigr,L Variation 09 -4 126 10tft Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 20, 2009 CODE SECTIONS Sec. 28 -2317. Building Height Limits. ... (4) Height Variation For Non - Habitable Architectural Features. A. Scope: Non - habitable architectural features, such as spires, towers, cupolas, belfries, monuments, parapets (not required by Uniform Building Code), domes and covered stairwells to open roof decks may exceed the height limit established for the dislrict in which such structure is located to a maximum of 7 feet if granted pursuant to the procedures contained in this section. B. Procedure: (1) Any person desiring to apply for a Minor Height Variation Permit shall complete and fill out and submit an application, required plans and property owners list to the Director of Planning together with payment of the minor plan review fee 14 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. (2) Notice of the application for a minor height variation shall be given to all property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property. C. Review: (1) The Planning Commission may at a scheduled public hearing approve or disapprove such application, subject to any conditions deemed appropriate. 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 stairwell. (b) Whether such variation is appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood. HV 09 -4 126 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 15 Heignt Variation 09 -4 126 10" Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 20, 2009 (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. (2) The decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council, which in order to grant a permit, must determine that the findings set forth in this section have been met by the applicant. (3) Any one appealing a decision of the Planning Commission must file a written request, together with the appeal fee within 10 calendar days after the decision is made. HV 09-4 126 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 16 CITY OF SEAL BEACH COUNCIL POLICY SUBJECT COVERED ROOF ACCESS STRUCTURES SECTION INDEX NO. ISSUE DATE REVISION DATE COUNCIL CM APPROVAL APPROVAL 600 3 6/25/01 6/25/01 A. SCOPE Citywide B. PURPOSE. To establish a policy setting forth standards for review of covered roof access structures under Section 28 -2317 of the.Seal Beach Municipal Code. C. POLICY: The City Council hereby approves the attached schematics as maximum dimensions for Covered Roof Access Structures. The Planning Commission has routinely approved - applications under Section 28 -2317, subject to the minimum amount of impacted area of the structure. The Planning Commission adopted a similar policy in 1991, and has consistently held that applications for height variations which fit within the scope of that policy statement are acceptable in their. minds under Section 2812317 of the Municipal Code. The City Council therefore adopts this policy statement to set future direction for the Planning Commission with regard to processing applications for height variations for covered roof access structures. D. PROCEDURES Applications for Covered Roof Access Structures will be applied for through the Department of Development Services, subject to Height Variation under Section 28 -2317 of the City's Municipal Code. Attachments (1): 1. Skematics of Maximum dimensions for Covered Roof Access Structures ftlicies/Covered Roof.Access Structures) �1 �— 4!'- Of? --i L-Shaped Staircase Enclosed Area - 46. sq. ft. I 0 Landing Landing 1 1 (V Nf L-Shaped Staircase Enclosed Area - 46. sq. ft. I WAR IT .......... � �§ � / � F* 0 RectanLsular . Staircase Enclosed Area - 62.25 sq. ft. 0 8 Ca r i r s i r� a i i a L.'ireialar Staircase Enclosed Area - 42.25 sq. ft. �!. r• r t. � __ ^i _ � _ _ _•.jet - •ti -'—r; . I Q i O Circular Staircase Enclosed Area = 60 sq. ft. Heig►,' Variation 09 -4 126 10M Street Planning Commission Staff Report May 20, 2009 ATTACHMENT 4 PLANS HV 09-4 126 1 0th Street PC Staff Report 17 ;�soox o:a: M SINGLE FAMILY 12WO I IIV� 72B 70th. STREET fL•Ai. H9 H. Ca. 80740 nYrt•en� BULLLET HILL DEVELOPMENT. LLD eNeaY Ttnar TITLE SHEET PROJECT DATA attar Na wp. tnuvrN un trta. FlLG Yr W- TM1MtINY lNeYT Na. TS -1 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 126 10TH STEET SEAL BEACH, CA. 90740 i E e 6 RBBREVIRTIONS PROJECT DRTR SPECIRL NOTES SHEET INDEX u1•u�t R W. Ittux — — NQ •eo.A•• r 1Q6QAM • ilElwoaTarumdarwmJneYmimCO .coCNaemi� MOM�imll NflF.TNS1fifi11B1+Yf11'dEYWfB 11 NniNYlelmr/m lNlIOaN! e® Yallxi WY ITR'yn I1f�np}6RQQ0�l�N •QNM 1RlifN90�R • Rl mu.m /a110.T MTA IKlOflx!@II ONRIY fY IurtJtrn Nlr wNtaeYOe n Tlo[ K mY.iYL nRNteel• nWY . miBEDSamuamRKVeWmnROE lewonaTmf•4®+ M♦t @if4ialm ypp� •®£ mT Ft IY� ita nml NIR TJ iNH.fef Nulcx Td TQ69R M.Pre�t tNte• tar. tan. • VI®CNOm11I®ROImaOMTM.NIIUWRIEK NW0 /012E191NEe81Y®IMD�lIIOAYIIEFT eA+ aRJtM 4C MIONYILeb Rl RBI NIY IDIIII IW. 1�6WAtL MINm+1YtG IYR IYPNI r-—M Ci%Y. ®a�ii% °i�jitrenrwww.ratM 41 Rmltrm /stmBattAx aC JJAYL1CarLklE A6 YFAa1W W11. RIME ��� JN ILA NMRA /neJil Y!C Ireawaaaw� eruee nesvrerrrmmm• Ao �NNm1 1@®tIUN / •me Jmetrx � kT� I'�6�IeN1�Wf xia wrmmuc tmx tN®aonoMSlNlm -� I,B M1 T' RR ;, Y�lR' YBIfTR1LtR0 .R..e.. {� Wlltt/n91BAMrON 3 W" -: n amt °v° wiaa�T �sr Aa coMVfrtfYnYU. _ eo pw��axWa/�p pgk�wwQgwmp�uE .nn. 0pG afflYL NaNIIQN/yClal nt6a ff@f6'Ip!� •e aN®•® Ga1M1 dNINYYAN J 6ia 6�1x•�RAY P. EiRrrm Ntp ri.iCtlf.' Af xROlekWtQA 9 _ b __ rerr rAecn.•t•NSwttva1 LLt ReIlltLltl®IN:YUwe LL ��� 0• � �++ fl�i fIJ� R0 pa��g� I�OWW w t®owminalmauwf Bt AtLNLLTaYLDETY! I mAU mLF.TEAtIfalfitM — ILV. '�u®� Tau TIIIlwfearYEU m0 WA {.wry IfLON �N. � � lEae mRNa6aI0E0 m�fiY IEI¢ [YrBia mb 1�a B�® IE��ifµr/l�FyYY��YY @Mil maJMY.'M 11VA9 �! E H•1111 I ffr. lE® 19fO8LR.l 49BR� 1Z911K6QIIE1@A96TMJIL /Y13iEN'K rIx o�sLJr 16 : m f°r• a ux °®,.J®• n6 rmisalvAlmmw .taa.wAmlJm..nrEmauwom••tdNfA_ t f1 aiww.Nno i x ttuseir wy� Mtrcl +L .oxr fatfi'a °a °F uw f�w• r. a+ enNUawaamaaArROEOimfK .�fEaENNOUrr NomxAirwnYNn /rtvalotxAn ac amnxml /Imfw.Earux vt IYEtNaI Tw � �� w MaAe °�"� t!® mR. �mllmlmillYIFAMIaala •RWIMIMaeIMmAtN wNaallum. nLAlalatllT Yt era.+.... �y,y ,IKIwL.TnammeKnu.ItolRN.urnt a�la•EV,mI•numwnfoaocATlfxsauLa w amrnwnmAU 1 a®ru v � L 9i ' RAMSN C W! MY ff iyn� INOfemT �rYl! mNfn+ @Im ®aRL'MWECPEORR.MN•aa1nR.10 ®C w YIRCNfLJET•Y lC pa�r�M1IYY�11y1.[ ®!f .AM cI�IX W CIRNCIYLaAYY ■■ nS L 1•F� ^ K CB iIRICNYY.�T111D rr. fl6MILYMB a aRLT1•IILMfW f UST OF BEST MRNRGEMW PRRCfICES BUILDING CODE VIONiiY MRP DIRECTORY MMABNmf{f lrmC. lllNE el H. Tnl A1WLMRYA/ VWOH. TIALYMNP.@ Illi lMiIYEMMWB6nBRWC19mY8WL01IL 'IMaE n@ RIYR •!Ox!YY@HMfYWYWLmalYYY1111MIRMM �' Q161oMWm1Y1W lIKMPIN6fOAfHIAMmIIMGIOINEAWIIE IIETaiSI ®a1RYlE11l NlNIHLIWIa ®IMNWaIIDm � al1ETNLLLKIOIWI.xC aE1OYflG i aeLEmm�Ia.TAOata llEf/ UNT® YY® Imwn6V11. 1WNeEaIOWIa11ID .ID11(QMW'YEmMR1a�mBRLTRI n MNIYYYILMIanLN�P®®IW tliYN9aN191LE1® lfiJmrlO'AYMI!!R 6LLiblM Wir•aARAaG lR6Y 1 6WaeeYtlOwYpe eiaY®.OmeR10MWna MWIafYaaON�RMJmCL9 MWIOmN1lRN�i®1mIW �� ! •• y ♦ • RtCYlNli 16 ATMaE11mIi F �1 W �a�netmrra �,�ne nut p m�wrnx �rrnwt�NtaR�e�rarun.mua nEWmMAm1W'K®E� +mJW wtv+x.WnJfi+.�F87 � +mIW ! ♦ / J �rti•• MlM00000a1 4aY Nl MB•In AW eW� u IWYYaY�mNxMV. nEGWYMniLniJ101B�ax nuW Iu�L� •x •oYTA�fuxHWC� ma rW NYNnme aYrrPaave :Mw.Y�aonxO ap�WW fpwwnoNUNVYYifavnWaM MEm �p nerumwReaa:�@1Wemx neGYlaNllfLaVm4l9BOlPmi ElaM � ♦ ^ i aOME•tEa•a Bl t.Ali nwl�AlfRt uiYEaO{aaNlO OiY e u�el f11�Na0pIN�e1e� 6 TIC® YE ML® NMa1Y61aN @•Aa1M! /OPAIOIENCf®WI6[ G • •4�• ATM a•TAYA® ATRl AIW AMm YMea wo tLm�laM � �MYY�Yr��61YW�ev M YIONYBYlBM11ta1Mx1Y1Y661BOY �. MC08•YY mN 1LTYM1111ERC.®ixniR41a1NmGnW{M ALi1En1LT1ExV1�19111LOAARI • Y 4 N.NaY0L9 iINOYYNi61 l ■te Wes— ' Y♦W w�W ii E�le XM�uaw�flWf�T�Nx "wo�mwmru°w e.mocuov. • m1IXTiilaaTBWL milY1a111MNmiR81AYMRN/@LtanE N. ncxanmxaaKUlw .crNaMCUmNAxNJmmnfamiaL ; I ♦ v°'di°Piid® 1 to �teiu�w wwWamw A® naL• malNlumlw .tsMnY•mwl•lmalms>o/mlLl i � • ®w tLNMLLIAO1KYNaHYLQiU 6 ® ® ���Oa aYOYNe•KO.tWaem MpirnpoLrtusR .Y1mmM1LIelEIItEMTmAYAro OmfI WN. Y. JIO .Y.INIWNaWLaiRWYmOl1®fML1ON•K r ' N eHWit'tNMt�iL K ® to Wa'�'"wa.:vwmuo♦mo.+.omo. eamnvw.eNrva AMIIE1MpfNmKl lalMMmN11CIL laMHa®rstYLtt1.KY4mM .ul•mctaaaErwxumortwtMJngfMmm + nvalwa atrNxurx �r S ' \V c �w.eMOwuv untl.NnMUOa rwmv.neovw �e�m6de°`.omIDHe'aotemweuMnottOl :o �iom.°wv� wet wrv�°annwM•rawomw.x YoffYRStAamntYwlFNwCW WIIIMnER6NIIIN•WfxMLnE Rm. TamnmoNU .mplmmnenucnvlaxn¢ImnnEan • • E♦ . ! f Ie a®t mtwNYNwoe L I� WMw wtsvoem�ma n ` f �+•, •l r iJ. um amYMIrB •IaeaarayyMM,ersfYteWINBrLL ;�soox o:a: M SINGLE FAMILY 12WO I IIV� 72B 70th. STREET fL•Ai. H9 H. Ca. 80740 nYrt•en� BULLLET HILL DEVELOPMENT. LLD eNeaY Ttnar TITLE SHEET PROJECT DATA attar Na wp. tnuvrN un trta. FlLG Yr W- TM1MtINY lNeYT Na. TS -1 RDYAM PROPERTY I I I 117.5' SOUm PROPERTY UNE MIN A MITI 1 -_ - -- --'--- -- q I -- SI -r• . �.���■�Ia IMwo 11M, oil SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IL --_ V Oki oil .���ry �.. Q1 Ell �yl - m �� RMOWPROPM SITE PLAN KEY NOTES SOME IN•1' r - - -i wamr ruoiur Il � �p�qw WQ/rwaav srw[gMl a awa • ®• awq ws.r r+�a a.nssns.wnr.r i 1 Nme nw114N�r R) O11i�• ra..°we.ww w.wr ullaiYyMM4s4[MO gvam11Y11NtARM vs �e �"ais ~Wa�iW Yaaewa�vessr Oaglq Iaalrl qqq • ru rwm wa w.r... r.a wray..ww. .r rNCi na LE N ui-N Uqw[ /w n rrem uwwwmgq Jwe Mo exrwrr•r a M n.ernar AIO YWL Nvr m uam °N JJ•r ena wawN °grJrr w JWNSZL7v r•xN M �wew•eer. rsor�a eu -rlwr rwNe nmeme�ea eea ew,m euealws .ve nwi m vewsus rya .�aan.e. w�.r omewrwcio q�waa m ewwwn » naa wxe e' rro wgcw+er n x 5° i (p x 0 07 m Z v 995 7] r7 � B "� C ON F mm � x E; ;a CIA aw MITI rr V m -i R IN ..I 410• ALLOWABLE 2d. PLT RTfRCHED 400 SQ. Fr. Q -CRR GARAGE I I ®� r - - -i wamr ruoiur Il � �p�qw WQ/rwaav srw[gMl a awa • ®• awq ws.r r+�a a.nssns.wnr.r i 1 Nme nw114N�r R) O11i�• ra..°we.ww w.wr ullaiYyMM4s4[MO gvam11Y11NtARM vs �e �"ais ~Wa�iW Yaaewa�vessr Oaglq Iaalrl qqq • ru rwm wa w.r... r.a wray..ww. .r rNCi na LE N ui-N Uqw[ /w n rrem uwwwmgq Jwe Mo exrwrr•r a M n.ernar AIO YWL Nvr m uam °N JJ•r ena wawN °grJrr w JWNSZL7v r•xN M �wew•eer. rsor�a eu -rlwr rwNe nmeme�ea eea ew,m euealws .ve nwi m vewsus rya .�aan.e. w�.r omewrwcio q�waa m ewwwn » naa wxe e' rro wgcw+er n x 5° i (p x 0 07 m Z v 995 7] r7 � B "� C ON F mm � x E; ;a CIA aw MITI rr V m -i R IN W m N�BRSEMENT FIOOR PLFlNPLFlN STLE IM•:1 / 1•oOMs t V sR vl.M .MF Y�1.n WsL ve.r.x e.a w am. R.nI M. Im NOR[ N • Rf.®n At .sY 6® 0 �L------ - - - - -J N � FIRST FLOOR PLAN �T IM•: 1' m_L'Nt ®C jmL_ _ iasl nlmn.eR mlmt n:e[ n a n.rt nel naR R wls mwtmt slwon Iwr.n maaBxc .x NNRT WL .wr na.s r• .n. m a Pu ee.l uoml M. sm m RNCm mw wM mw arw sm n m em6 nos[ [Va IS i'YL @b af9 �n1P.n. AL tN o0�6 M'i nms I n. nx -mnewR mewemi n.rw. a .R.. a nm R�ml oeP. v� B �nw .Mi.. R>O R.NC B6 w,et KNffi 1•�W�..�'xa :O.00 f.�mro �- ] PINE AVENUE SURE �R LONO BEACH. CA. SOBO's PHONE: B32.30 0.322s PAX: 662.6D0.621 O AyS� i o g E PROJECT NAME: y� O NEW RESIDENCE gSEAL BEAGIi. CA. 8074E OWNER: BULLET HILL ■ Q e: G© 1 r a m m eD�l� m m o � _L�J� ■ �: a f 1 ' fl ° y mogD '- 1 �L------ - - - - -J N � FIRST FLOOR PLAN �T IM•: 1' m_L'Nt ®C jmL_ _ iasl nlmn.eR mlmt n:e[ n a n.rt nel naR R wls mwtmt slwon Iwr.n maaBxc .x NNRT WL .wr na.s r• .n. m a Pu ee.l uoml M. sm m RNCm mw wM mw arw sm n m em6 nos[ [Va IS i'YL @b af9 �n1P.n. AL tN o0�6 M'i nms I n. nx -mnewR mewemi n.rw. a .R.. a nm R�ml oeP. v� B �nw .Mi.. R>O R.NC B6 w,et KNffi 1•�W�..�'xa :O.00 f.�mro �- ] PINE AVENUE SURE �R LONO BEACH. CA. SOBO's PHONE: B32.30 0.322s PAX: 662.6D0.621 O AyS� i o g E PROJECT NAME: y� O NEW RESIDENCE gSEAL BEAGIi. CA. 8074E OWNER: BULLET HILL DEVELOPMENT. LLC. R Sxms SHEET TRLE: BASEMENT / 1 ST. FL FLOOR PLAN PROJECT NO. DATE: APR. IB. boa• DRAWN BY: VM. SCALE: TB Nv:S FILE: SHEET NO. A -1 r =t %in I/ rwun mnn SOEE 1M :1 CCU ______________ ___ _ _ _ __ ,' 1 1; 1 I 1; I I, I, 'I I I, 1 �• `- -___ -7 ri7 C - -1j I ED s ® I' FI Jr - - -7 C_� I II J ;I I I j 'ti I� I 1 I, I, 1, 'I I I 1� jr I 1, II I, II - - - --- _ __ - - -- - - -JJ 11 11 11 11 Y� r•1 ROOF DECK PLAN SOME 1R•: 1' W-q D;r. 1 Doom Cx WISH Ir — r.+R — o1 11. n.°..� ® °_ ....,• .. �. ,•...: ,:L� �l.y""" i_ 1� LniweE l lw nr�eRm.r °sl.eaw sr mw � LRmr N wo lrm sane A (, ENV , PROJECT NAME: NEW RESIDENCE 8EAL BEACIi, C/L 80740 OWNER: BULLET HILL DEVELOPMENT, LLC. REVISIONS SHEET TrMS. SECOND FLOOR/ ROOF DECK FLOOR PLAN PROJECT NO I�e_QA OATS AFII 10. 200 DRAWN SY: V ?L SCALE �,O Nert9 FILE SNEEr NO. A-2 w+r° i�.w� 11E w •1118 a IYIL lOrr RR wlw Ar. Msr.AarR aMV .r.r wwc Psl Iml ,a / �. larr.A wa r a1..r los mwlml miF1A1c leer .M1 aesavxe YR.fAL YaFr RCl �R d MR rM11R ML llwl aYr/e:V / eoaMS KR M �L V ®1.0R Ai TiY r°R a� .1,v Km a w. ee.1 umo Iw,a w • Alsm •r w..1o1u1 omr.nn. esrrw ass oaA. Ime1 A .mmm mwo R.e _°tea glom :.,a_R asos :Y10 lip WI.L m.. QALIVAAlo16,V mIOKVL if ���= IV.vA °11O ��jy Wry d Wupl/L rIBWB 6A1 A .� M111161M06 ®M1l CV. li w�°ilx- o�lm{�j V'L arY a:lb �® ar RI6 rmC AwQ Orl 1� LniweE l lw nr�eRm.r °sl.eaw sr mw � LRmr N wo lrm sane A (, ENV , PROJECT NAME: NEW RESIDENCE 8EAL BEACIi, C/L 80740 OWNER: BULLET HILL DEVELOPMENT, LLC. REVISIONS SHEET TrMS. SECOND FLOOR/ ROOF DECK FLOOR PLAN PROJECT NO I�e_QA OATS AFII 10. 200 DRAWN SY: V ?L SCALE �,O Nert9 FILE SNEEr NO. A-2 _______ -------- — ~ -___—_—___----------�----------------------------------------- -------- � ----------" NORTH ELEVIRTION '------ � WEST ELEVATION III R.J. TAVRSCI AIR PROJECT ="" NEW RESIDENCE '^ a BEACH. CA. 90740 BULLET HILL DEVELOPMENT, LLC. BHOETTITLE: EFEVATIONS ���^—'� �� Ma wmm- Ell III R.J. TAVRSCI AIR PROJECT ="" NEW RESIDENCE '^ a BEACH. CA. 90740 BULLET HILL DEVELOPMENT, LLC. BHOETTITLE: EFEVATIONS ���^—'� �� �micool ------------- L���. �.�������.�. �. J-___________ ______________________________� Bo:IrmN:a:NOI SOUTH ELEVATION IN•.TSORE Y EXTERIOR MATERIALS DEI. I Cswvnm 0 920 PINE AVBNUfi SUITE •ro LO NO B A BOBOII m. me.r rs ml-:au O • E NEW RESIDENCE + , 120 1 SEAL BEACH, CA. 00740 OWNER: GD❑B nor. P[ nrJ DEVELOPMENT, LLC. SNBETTME: SOUTH /EAST ELEVATIONS PROJECT NO. IOO._vt DATE: ,w•R IB, aoo•1 DRAWN BY: YInL BCALE: b NOIBO FILE: A.J. TAVRSCI AIR 920 PINE AVBNUfi SUITE •ro LO NO B A BOBOII PAX 6AGM 60 aa 0BIi 2 • PROJECT NAME: NEW RESIDENCE + , 120 1 SEAL BEACH, CA. 00740 OWNER: BULLET HILL DEVELOPMENT, LLC. SNBETTME: SOUTH /EAST ELEVATIONS PROJECT NO. IOO._vt DATE: ,w•R IB, aoo•1 DRAWN BY: YInL BCALE: b NOIBO FILE: BIIEET NO. A-5 l L y-� To: Honorable Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission From: Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner Date: May 20, 2009 Re: Height Variation 09 -3, Height Variation 09 -4, Height Variation 09 -5, Height Variation 09 -6 J. Lyon and D. Schumacher of Bridgeport left a phone message stating that they are "strongly opposed" to the approval of any residential structure exceeding the 25 -foot height limit. Lee Wittenberg, Director of Planning City of Seal Beach 211 Eight Street Seal Beach Ca 9074 The four new replacements of residences on l Od' Street 124, 126, 202 & 204. The attempt to By Pass the 25' height limit 'requirement. The lay out of these 4 proposed homes are nice but keep the stairs to the 2nd floor only. Access the roof in anther fashion. Eliminate the 100 square foot plus, 3rd story structure that covers the stairs and the elevator shaft. Do not try to by pass the voter approved 25' foot height limit. Deep to the 25' height limit as requested and voted on by over 70% of the people here in old town Seal Beach. Do not allow this height variation Warren & Mitzi Morton Seal Beach To: Planning Commission From: Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner Date: May 20, 2009 Re: Letters in Opposition to HV 09 -3; HV 09 -4; HV 09 -5; HV 09 -6 Attached are letters received by the Department of Developmental Services regarding the four Height Variation requests on tonight's agenda. Since agenda packets were distributed to Planning Commissioners, Staff has received 5 phone calls and 12 written letters, all in opposition to the proposed projects. CILY of Seat Beads Roger & Geraldine West MAY 2 0 XM 1301 -B Electric Ave. Seal Beach, CA 90740 -6422 Department of Development Services 562 - 430 -3564 562 - 212 -3675 cell lg May 2009 Mr. Lee Wittenberg Director of Development Services City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Re: Request to Exceed the 25 foot Height Limit on Tenth Street Planning Committee Meeting of May 20, 2009 . Dear Mr. Wittenberg: We have been advised that there are requests to exceed the 25 foot height limit as respects four properties on 10th Street in Seal Beach. We object to this proposal. We wish to point out that Measure Z was passed with 73% as respects height limits here in Old Town. We wish to remind the Planning Commission of this fact and ask them to follow the overwhelming wishes of the citizens of Seal Beach. We are going to be in a hotel at LAX because Jerri is leaving for New Orleans at 8:00 AM on the 21st and she is a night person and would not make her flight otherwise we would attend attend the meeting to protest in person. While she is there she plans to count the number of sites with liquor licenses on Bourbon Street to see if her assumption that the licenses in Seal Beach exceed in number those on Bourbon Street. She will report her findings. Sincerely, CJ Roger West Geraldine West 5 / J Leo� i 7e-A� w Lee Wittenberg, Director of Planning City of Seal Beach 211 Eight Street _ Seal Beach Ca 9074 City. of Seal Beach M 9f 1 9 2009 T Department of Development Services The four new replacements of residences on 10th Street 124,126, 202 & 204. The attempt to By Pass the 25' height limit requirement. The lay out of these 4 proposed homes are nice but keep the stairs to the Ind floor only. Access the roof in anther fashion. Eliminate the 100 square. foot plus, 3rd story structure that covers the stairs and the elevator shaft. Do not try to by pass the voter approved 25' foot height limit. Keep to the 25' height limit as requested and voted on by over 70% of the people here in old town Seal Beach. Do not allow this height variation Warren & Mitzi Morton Seal Beach City of Seal Beach MAY 19 2009 Department of Development Services City of Seal Beach 2118' Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 ATTN: Jerome Olivera, AICP Senior Planner, Department of Development Services This letter is to express opposition to the Height Variation 09 -3 at 124 1 e Street and to all subsequent requests. Seal Beach's Measure Z passed with a 73% majority vote citywide expressing the desire of this city and its residents to keep buildings in Old Town to a height of 25 feet. The covered roof access structures and other variances known as "doghouses" not only exceed this limit but also block views and light of nearby residents. They needlessly cause hard feelings between neighbors and are unnecessary. I am particularly concerned about this project as I have lived in Old Town for forty years and own a six -unit apartment building at 130 11"' Street which is within the codes. Thank you for upholding the desires of the Seal Beach community. Sincerely, Pk\ a'A� Jack Bettenhausen MAY 1 9 2009 ' _ f - - 432 Corsair Way Seal Beach, CA 90740 -5966 18 May 2009 Lee Whittenberg, Director of Planning City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Sir: It has come to our attention that there is a request before the Planning Commission for a "height variation" to allow four properties on 10th street to exceed the 25 foot height limit specified by the recently passed Measure Z. We wish to express our opposition to this request and urge that the Planning Commission deny it. With nearly 75% of the vote in the recent city -wide balloting supporting a height limitation, we see no justification for an exception to that ordinance. Sincerely, William J. McNally Beverlee G. McNally S ' MAY 1 9 2009 Dear Mr. Whittenberg, I am a home owner in Old Town Seal Beach. I voted to enforce the 25 foot residential height limit, which did pass. I would like you to deny therecent request made by the builder on 10th Street and uphold what the voters have put into place. My two -story residence is no taller than 25 feet and I expect and demand that no new structures should be allowed to exceed this height limit. Sincerely, Grant Fry 245 17" Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 William L. McGrann 12200 Montecito Rd. #D324 Seal Beach, Ca. 90740 Email: wlmcgrann(cr�,yahoo.com f Phone: +1(562) 594 -5752 Fax: NO FAX RAY 18 2009 n Sent via U.S. Mail 5/14/2009 Lee Whittenberg, Director of Planning City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach CA 90740 Re: Seal Beach's Measure Z, 25 -foot height limit. Dear Mr. Whittenberg, I am a long time resident of Seal Beach. We the people approved Measure Z for good cause. Therefore, I ask you to please respect the 25 -foot height limit. Please do not allow anyone a variance. Thank you, William L. McGrann r i i l f Lee Whittenberg, Director of Planning City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth St Seal Beach, CA 90740 May 14, 2009 RE: Request for Height Variance at 202 and 204 Tenth St.. Mr. Whittenberg: f #4Y f'. 8 2009 1' :rr� f F f. I am an owner of a building at 217 Tenth St. In Seal Beach. 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 Old Town voted overwhelmingly to maintain a 25 foot height limit on any new buildings. Old Town residents were supported overwhelmingly by all of their Seal Beach neighbors in this endeavor. As a resident of Old Town and a property owner on Tenth St. my property would be directly impacted by this variance. I am hoping the Planning Commission will uphold the desire of the voters and deny this and any variance to the 25 foot height limit. Sincerely, arman ay w 0 1625 Seal Way #1 Seal Beach, CA 90740 CC: Mike Buhbe 234 14th Street Seal Beach, Ca. May 16, 2009 k� e S Dear Planning Commission, k MAY 1$ 2009 We have been residents of Seal Beach for 28 yearsan have seen a lot of growth, both good and bad. We are specifically appealing to you NOT to grant a variance for yet another 'doghouse'. We are greatly concerned because it is up to you to preserve our coastline here in Seal Beach. Codes are written for a reason and ESPECIALLY for maintaining our view of the coast. Once you let one person build something out of code the coast is ruined for every other person and all future generations in Seal Beach. Measure Z let the people of Seal Beach speak. The people's choice is clear, NO structures over the 25 foot limit. Please save our city and do not permit one person the ability to ruin our coast for all others. Sincerely, l Marcha and Allan atz a May 15, 2009 Lee Whittenberg, Director of Planning City of Seal Beach 211 8h Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Mr. Vi7hittenberg: It is my understanding that another request for "height variation" for four properties on Tenth Street will come before the Planning Commission on May 20, 2009. Although I may be unable to be present at the above meeting, I would like to advise you of my opposition to allowing any new buildings over 25 feet in height. The vast majority of Seal Beach residents are obviously in agreement, as they voted for Measure Z in November. I urge the Commission to reject these latest height variation requests. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, Louis ouis C. Bellanca 251 Oh Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 562-598-0625 #4 18 2009 Lee Whittenberg, Director of Planning City of Seal Beach 211 Eighth St Seal Beach, CA 90740 May 14, 2009 RE: Request for Height Variance at 202 and 204 Tenth St.. Mr. Whittenberg: I am an owner of a building at 217 Tenth St. In Seal Beach. 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 Old Town voted overwhelmingly to maintain a 25 foot height limit on any new buildings. Old Town residents were supported overwhelmingly by all of their Seal Beach neighbors in this endeavor. As a resident of Old Town and a property owner on Tenth St. my property would be directly impacted by this variance. I am hoping the Planning Commission will uphold the desire of the voters and deny this and any variance to the 25 foot height limit. Sincerely, Sharman Kay Snow 1625 Seal Way #1 Seal Beach, CA 90740 CC: Mike Buhbe Page 9 ATTACHMENT 5 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAINS SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING 126 10TH STEET SEAL BEACH, CA. 90740 RBBREVIRRONS LIST OF BEST MRNRGEMENT PRACTICES Nl1elWID:t611BrB.1 W1ni®H.'IW M•tCINIEBMB W AiDeLLYlfe.�IKr✓�IAENPILIY V TMRBeCDIQ8lNL1Q1ICIMlei w fnlFlewumtewnr.,Ieno�rtrauf wutltewDlBaeBwN nwrleat ®aw nam D Nelxlm rwn+m wowNlaam usae, ImIADIenWglleelsalulfBB .tDIaINI,DeNGANtunlfeleUWlDfmm WYNALBEmmwo®laemr.'m+ I� fn.l.rn.eN PROJECT DITTR N�o..m 9��4�{4,IBdFf>ti.� uld.�..dw VNeO IptB� . �T� yr �WYn.W�slm�mwWl eFl.! feepRFl.G®.M@>991eB IF RAHi@AnfLliGl. Im1In,X im0B1VAlW ® 1 }QR.IOMIDIIfiL.NtlIm1NYDDew�I1FA ty1DRFl.FlBIRmI WDINOI ®INW 10�lNtIfH11R.f.BMam16uR, BIIM'Wa,miBlm.111Mp10! %SAM ®IDffirt f111l�IXIf101f ®4nI Iwomxlrtlttrtrau t a7 n rt. affim nml mmtw a • INBBI lelle ntlx a W ID GD ao Wa{NDBELeBe1DiB1IF[ WLLWaLMn BL@.i W111�.YDML.LLGM DHI iDIQne111 mTM[D GAl IM ®I ar IFM 6 e111IDII ILlnm 1@ I ®finecnme[D se In rt. wo I Ia In rt. wa tmc BUILDING CODE tlBx nlraaorawDwme.'mx nugmwarwlmml.Awtwf IfNWrBJDIP. TIE mnw,talgleftvufsglelm fIDaq ne N4 GINfY Beets tfa pam ®nca 11E1 WUM flli�l�! D]IDj nE Iwowumwr.Kaa letm Htt� nErwDUiae:lfa'.KmEPU7Prm iBlvJt Tlerreuruegtlrxt>aDtm fBeQlt AE GI W PM Fl! lig te0r DnG1 A[ DIBB W fN3C m.Yt�11fR! mlQq nE9i. ®ae I\9� N M an 61aL RI DIWaw. � N G®Mf EI[ nE®SALY@/14 WIIM 11EN0.@HNnBnRYIDBl�1D611E Nbl1IXn® P16H.' IYMLL(f)/LYIMIIITFImrltllgT£Nplei V TE WIIIImWI ®arMDn! WMrMralt®BAMLDBB® I ®Ima•me ucw mDw ff ne aeww lursn mD rm rmw fvamelwlcD,lrl�efet. ff feel ®mnelfaee aBN�I Tmwao efml ffaID•r•Iltalrnnwr 91eLBiPDM1lfnMnyBnLItDBIre MINK W,CatA6YW WmIM0N11CIQ1aMNOCI W1Lm.1M1Y WeM NL NN W e ®r Y1 W UiABIr ppM:N$ >.�t ID IiMMI f N PIlWII NT Bf4 0 ®W� W BIrY W�IrRIRNfl11 \IIINl1ElIVBTfOl1111M KRi1Ll1E IrpIIIeITM,uDUnlmsen W 11Erf1eC WDgNgB.'IDIIFfIeaN SPEGRL NOTES • nwNB¢ rauBlawarNtmneamr�onclsc•Inemr� wn nc ®r,111E ¢• eKF.Y f ranLHAB IIIO D1V aonva • ifAO ®BOY1WBWfi�eINBSfNODB.TOIB�1 vl�mwomm ®mrn m Bw.m.��lltw nxw. VIGNTIY MRP t 1 I SHEETINDEX R, n1 .M/ Pe6 -T8 ml tasrKrtra wl ml,a wt wBrHml /eae.8trltal M ®LnfLl /IfQ ®{FILM N I�MJe M lOnM /NffiBeN1rf)® M ffvm /earfBw,ftle M fenln0e ®Di wT aemaegtw M fDme® M MDIDIlfEY1fW of Ncrpmleealr uwrt W fTinlDnmiBg'IT.K4YM /D, MCIBd1BIKDrMe teat mDUeemrGlla iau muuweorGlfe et lHlVYLIUI® N elliB.B1! /ffeeel•iW HMI � �ia�l�w r ne mBDIlMLDTae w elnemelll.mTUe T8 1DDDWi m�ilDare�� {YlIOG11uWFR WnM_ m. fWBrOI �m BB wNlm°T� Nex,BB+va T n nK , wiwnalm.F nffs IurmneravNtnln w+BDwrwn NSee ntlfeate.eYte iB1 Weet1TW n� ML lf� MII1fN i1 Ti. T8 11e16e.®r IIP6MIDKf "696wnfL N � @d10AL pi 8 N Ilje �N�IIIeCr M ITDDtDX� wC "�° aPWLL1C@tlEi! CR. ii !II IxIIrar a Ito Nan 1°�cK. awe WlnlnfLl � W nlp�e o�ri �lmB°�0i�¢I°m® Ott aDeI9.nBILn y �e ``Fl�K 6L�IIpmIIY n � Df fyMTq� TWf�n WII� Btuc°6 _ B°re°mc`° e�ih R�1 /_RID �mi4n"fT 06 B9ACiN DUN � "�a �O�T eMH NYIINNNO M M�DP. ppg91H PgBrf�Ye¢e � IeF WWy/��Hpp ��IW1D �1 GDreKYV�M ®N�� KYNY RAnan WPd WWF lsPAn.Wr YAW ®NSW Nii DGe�1V�iT1. ���K q P D�DIfH11W L'Hw d f81Yn OLG ¢_ PT. RCH!!fl( AD p�BISGD�/Y,ILD'M/ Ii11S DL Bwmne CHIilm1 i ®® Est pR p♦M 1N-1fme IM ® 1e n iln l'.Mll mlbLtFMa4eM Wr IOA4 IftIBNlle IN �� B� BDIIB �I�aB w matn ms�iaw iin �'Pie �Ya W�artvuw vnif m � � �e y YL "aw11D1' R mm r ID! N�IH11 BlWNIW mm pN1•W M Wr DA Jr. .NR mm Blm p��T BFA11M m DBAyEI�lOflnfpl/ rt v uW�1tNYT® g�81� am p4YAA w f1O01enlOM 8 L BIMDINII tmum9l� e ear I,yf y n rRYo i4C egos IeEmrtll l tn.TBgMC11eB1 �m T BaR •• BI�IYD en gwe.BNr BtnIT.KPA18 eNiMK L LIST OF BEST MRNRGEMENT PRACTICES Nl1elWID:t611BrB.1 W1ni®H.'IW M•tCINIEBMB W AiDeLLYlfe.�IKr✓�IAENPILIY V TMRBeCDIQ8lNL1Q1ICIMlei w fnlFlewumtewnr.,Ieno�rtrauf wutltewDlBaeBwN nwrleat ®aw nam D Nelxlm rwn+m wowNlaam usae, ImIADIenWglleelsalulfBB .tDIaINI,DeNGANtunlfeleUWlDfmm WYNALBEmmwo®laemr.'m+ I� fn.l.rn.eN PROJECT DITTR N�o..m 9��4�{4,IBdFf>ti.� uld.�..dw VNeO IptB� . �T� yr �WYn.W�slm�mwWl eFl.! feepRFl.G®.M@>991eB IF RAHi@AnfLliGl. Im1In,X im0B1VAlW ® 1 }QR.IOMIDIIfiL.NtlIm1NYDDew�I1FA ty1DRFl.FlBIRmI WDINOI ®INW 10�lNtIfH11R.f.BMam16uR, BIIM'Wa,miBlm.111Mp10! %SAM ®IDffirt f111l�IXIf101f ®4nI Iwomxlrtlttrtrau t a7 n rt. affim nml mmtw a • INBBI lelle ntlx a W ID GD ao Wa{NDBELeBe1DiB1IF[ WLLWaLMn BL@.i W111�.YDML.LLGM DHI iDIQne111 mTM[D GAl IM ®I ar IFM 6 e111IDII ILlnm 1@ I ®finecnme[D se In rt. wo I Ia In rt. wa tmc BUILDING CODE tlBx nlraaorawDwme.'mx nugmwarwlmml.Awtwf IfNWrBJDIP. TIE mnw,talgleftvufsglelm fIDaq ne N4 GINfY Beets tfa pam ®nca 11E1 WUM flli�l�! D]IDj nE Iwowumwr.Kaa letm Htt� nErwDUiae:lfa'.KmEPU7Prm iBlvJt Tlerreuruegtlrxt>aDtm fBeQlt AE GI W PM Fl! lig te0r DnG1 A[ DIBB W fN3C m.Yt�11fR! mlQq nE9i. ®ae I\9� N M an 61aL RI DIWaw. � N G®Mf EI[ nE®SALY@/14 WIIM 11EN0.@HNnBnRYIDBl�1D611E Nbl1IXn® P16H.' IYMLL(f)/LYIMIIITFImrltllgT£Nplei V TE WIIIImWI ®arMDn! WMrMralt®BAMLDBB® I ®Ima•me ucw mDw ff ne aeww lursn mD rm rmw fvamelwlcD,lrl�efet. ff feel ®mnelfaee aBN�I Tmwao efml ffaID•r•Iltalrnnwr 91eLBiPDM1lfnMnyBnLItDBIre MINK W,CatA6YW WmIM0N11CIQ1aMNOCI W1Lm.1M1Y WeM NL NN W e ®r Y1 W UiABIr ppM:N$ >.�t ID IiMMI f N PIlWII NT Bf4 0 ®W� W BIrY W�IrRIRNfl11 \IIINl1ElIVBTfOl1111M KRi1Ll1E IrpIIIeITM,uDUnlmsen W 11Erf1eC WDgNgB.'IDIIFfIeaN SPEGRL NOTES • nwNB¢ rauBlawarNtmneamr�onclsc•Inemr� wn nc ®r,111E ¢• eKF.Y f ranLHAB IIIO D1V aonva • ifAO ®BOY1WBWfi�eINBSfNODB.TOIB�1 vl�mwomm ®mrn m Bw.m.��lltw nxw. VIGNTIY MRP t 1 I SHEETINDEX R, n1 .M/ Pe6 -T8 ml tasrKrtra wl ml,a wt wBrHml /eae.8trltal M ®LnfLl /IfQ ®{FILM N I�MJe M lOnM /NffiBeN1rf)® M ffvm /earfBw,ftle M fenln0e ®Di wT aemaegtw M fDme® M MDIDIlfEY1fW of Ncrpmleealr uwrt W fTinlDnmiBg'IT.K4YM /D, MCIBd1BIKDrMe teat mDUeemrGlla iau muuweorGlfe M eDefOWee NNNOeiN)e1 flleReeelit0 fY�rvq.q�•le R.J. TRVRSO RIR t4rPO ea.� �ao:� �I..tr; �es.voo.tes;a SINGLE FAMILY RI7 WF1 1 INCA 10th. STREET 8B BB H' CA. 90140 BULLLET HILL DEVELOPMENT, LLC TITLE SHEET PROJECT DATA Irolear nD. w�eP Mu" V,a eexel PnID ts•_m�Hrsw•P nDnr ND. TS -1 et lHlVYLIUI® N elliB.B1! /ffeeel•iW HMI N e ®anml /t�nw.>rnwx D, alncnefgDTae ne mBDIlMLDTae w elnemelll.mTUe a IDBCeIW.If9ae N fnlee.YUw.Drae N enwrnwafnrae DIRECTORY MIL Ieu1:TlufKwwelr,lte ITefIIfflC efneWtiAnrealD.weeem Iegfellxn IurmneravNtnln w+BDwrwn NSee ntlfeate.eYte •riHfYEliDeel PxlmmomW IIA�I� W pg�TeDpl�{�a ueweaKBereloo IuafwlxGfe® er1HR1t�Y110 uafa vxlt ®av�a WBDMGfIDIe •IIBNIrI M eDefOWee NNNOeiN)e1 flleReeelit0 fY�rvq.q�•le R.J. TRVRSO RIR t4rPO ea.� �ao:� �I..tr; �es.voo.tes;a SINGLE FAMILY RI7 WF1 1 INCA 10th. STREET 8B BB H' CA. 90140 BULLLET HILL DEVELOPMENT, LLC TITLE SHEET PROJECT DATA Irolear nD. w�eP Mu" V,a eexel PnID ts•_m�Hrsw•P nDnr ND. TS -1 o �C8 Q E} RDIRCM PROPERTY 117.5- SOM PROPEM NEW 3,096 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ®w ®oe t ns� RDIRO3R PROP'ERW SITE PLAN KEY NOTES ,� gym•. • IN 140' I110YIAdE 3d. RT ..I ATTACHED 400 SQ. FT. I 2-CAR GARAGE I ff I :.M ur_:m- awappVaaww.� wr w -a wrr �.-.. •o-a vncsr R w-,ma.aar wtw wwew+ar. nunr� -uorww rwm nmeeee+ev wea -cw�m nwarew m v¢wnm rya �e-s re, war - iecarwaoiee snag m sawn w r,a FF�ag �C m 11=61 PD -i M s TR r P� M rt iD= ;a G V m -i = N po=i g'u_ m m a ° nr n - 226 t' c IN @D -------------- ---- - - - - -- sm m .5 PROJECT —P-- NEW RESIDENCE SEAL BEACH, CA 80740 OWNER BULLET HILL DEVELOPMENT, LLO. BRSeAW FLOOR PLAN N RRST FLOOR PLRN N N•: wulN•: i• ppp n rnrga Qua n.m •,umr 1rw s.*n onnn..1e11 mLmL n m: •' LIuawmOi ft : mA - - U wm awe 1e�iec um0a rw�i:wr�ireMeemsdem'm V .TJLC mT.e1 a,1c. RMTa / 11®L mT nm R,O. a.R M.f TLN AY 1TrJL m ay.s Rrmm Q lm1IIO Ra RCRt 1A • M1T® •T Ma Nw1 L1m L 1 R.ILr -IQ�mL OlRrm• N IWY m1L JK YID IgN6 to � Q.o ww 1nc,141w1mN TnY a m m Iuf •m mO1 .Ci EI&MM {i, RLi 0wlm: DYLm1L R1R A LmmLTQ1t la MwAT 1LLL _ �is:� �sr•�a�i,�•�wii Y� ®YR m,�.msv SN6Bi TITLE: � A v BASEMENT/ IST, FL FLOOR PLAN � RIDI m Rl161m tmN AY PROJECT NO. fps —e. mw �� tl GTE: MR IA Leo• F DRAWN BY: yh6 awow. nmt Rim m m m J iGLE: 7.m !bT Jom •rmmnm,s[x t FlLE: — K111T SNEET NO. Rm eDn �e ynpa.m NRm iI1L 16�1ii 4r mc®MOy1�0•.Q0 SILVOiC A A � K-2 ©y - Q i :.c ��rL:�a■ rwi m A O J A X� Jig sm m .5 PROJECT —P-- NEW RESIDENCE SEAL BEACH, CA 80740 OWNER BULLET HILL DEVELOPMENT, LLO. BRSeAW FLOOR PLAN N RRST FLOOR PLRN N N•: wulN•: i• ppp n rnrga Qua n.m •,umr 1rw s.*n onnn..1e11 mLmL n m: •' LIuawmOi ft : mA - - U wm awe 1e�iec um0a rw�i:wr�ireMeemsdem'm V .TJLC mT.e1 a,1c. RMTa / 11®L mT nm R,O. a.R M.f TLN AY 1TrJL m ay.s Rrmm Q lm1IIO Ra RCRt 1A • M1T® •T Ma Nw1 L1m L 1 R.ILr -IQ�mL OlRrm• N IWY m1L JK YID IgN6 to � Q.o ww 1nc,141w1mN TnY a m m Iuf •m mO1 .Ci EI&MM {i, RLi 0wlm: DYLm1L R1R A LmmLTQ1t la MwAT 1LLL _ �is:� �sr•�a�i,�•�wii Y� ®YR m,�.msv SN6Bi TITLE: � A v sm m .5 PROJECT —P-- NEW RESIDENCE SEAL BEACH, CA 80740 OWNER BULLET HILL DEVELOPMENT, LLO. BRSeAW FLOOR PLAN N RRST FLOOR PLRN N N•: wulN•: i• ppp n rnrga Qua n.m •,umr 1rw s.*n onnn..1e11 mLmL n m: •' LIuawmOi ft : mA - - U wm awe 1e�iec um0a rw�i:wr�ireMeemsdem'm V .TJLC mT.e1 a,1c. RMTa / 11®L mT nm R,O. a.R M.f TLN AY 1TrJL m ay.s Rrmm Q lm1IIO Ra RCRt 1A • M1T® •T Ma Nw1 L1m L 1 R.ILr -IQ�mL OlRrm• N IWY m1L JK YID IgN6 to � Q.o ww 1nc,141w1mN TnY a m m Iuf •m mO1 .Ci _ I RLi 0wlm: DYLm1L R1R A LmmLTQ1t la MwAT 1LLL _ �is:� �sr•�a�i,�•�wii Y� ®YR m,�.msv SN6Bi TITLE: � BASEMENT/ IST, FL FLOOR PLAN � RIDI m Rl161m tmN AY PROJECT NO. fps —e. mw �� tl GTE: MR IA Leo• F DRAWN BY: yh6 awow. nmt Rim m m m J iGLE: 7.m !bT Jom •rmmnm,s[x t FlLE: — K111T SNEET NO. Rm eDn �e ynpa.m NRm iI1L 16�1ii 4r mc®MOy1�0•.Q0 SILVOiC C: XL.urvu rluum ruilm swe,w ED I -- r=� irk, IN !� c I ER --------------------------------------- L--_________------_-----------_-----_-------__—__—.J ------------------ - eaa 1 _ NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION EXTERIOR MATERIALS so ui. oeaiwlox O f e.... ma.n lm, ufw9 iri m.xe°V�° -°G° s :on tN n:o w nmw RAY E M lo�m.r Rm.ml may wrmuo wru nmr is mq X mw nr: -mao uRiw �: 0. nW Q Q ILI n® m axBlRxols L�r�rOW .e...� .. ®n .........R R.J. TRVRSCI AIR PROJECT NAM@: NEW RESIDENCE STREET BEAL BEACH. CA. BD74D -IBRI BULLET HILL DEVELOPMENT. LLC. BNBBTTI'TTL�B-:I / ELEVATIONS PROD @CT NO. 1007 -pT DATE: APR. 'm, -I DRAWN BY: yid BCAL @: AB NO }m FILE: BNE@T NO. 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- - - - - ---------- ---- - -- - -- H- ------------------------------------ ,--T ___ _______ ---- { --- �- ___ - a�: me��o » : :e�e�����������t�y������lSi a LNI SOUTH ELEVATION IN'.1'SOOE (I �r 1 u EXTERIOR MRTERIRLS M4 Do. I Dtwxpnm o aYA Noa P1. B aa�,l0 war sx ano w room O❑ n,sw rmc nlml aw - rwa rm< „rm E wmlva am vm F 1 - aW4Wr,M Arw K ar, M wow P wp a aNl ors p,aW QJ masW, k❑ a. ar wm .w a,mlal +wee ro a,:,rw,r:r uasrir raros.aa� r 3m Dc") R.J. TAVRSCI AIR 32 PING AVENYe BYI�� 400 LONG BEACH OA. aOSOR PHONE:: ES�.SBD.6222 PAX: 682.680.627 Z PRG.Iacr AME: NEW RESIDENCE REAL BEACIi, CA. 80740 OWNER: BULLET HILL DEVELOPMENT, LLC. aHEET one: SOUTH /EAST ELEVATIONS PRO.IEOT NO. oATe, ♦rla m, aoo. oRwwN Er. �.a, ecALe: Ae Norm FILE: SHEET NO.