Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2009-09-14 #I~-GEN®A STAFF REPORT DATE: September 14, 2009 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: David Carmany, City Manager FROM: Jerome Olivera, Senior Planner SUBJECT: DENIAL OF HEIGHT VARIATION NO.09-3; HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 09-4; HEIGHT VARIATION 09-5; AN® HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 09-6 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Consider Adopting Resolution No. 5911; 5912; 5913; and 5914, in its proposed form or as may be amended by the City Council, denying the request for height variations. (applicant Robert J. Tavasci) EACCr<GROUN®: At the regular City Council meeting of August 10, 2009, the Council directed staff to prepare a resolution denying a request for Height Variation 09-3 for the property at 124 - 10th Street; Height Variation 09-4 for the property at 126 - 10th Street; Height Variation 09-5 for the property at 202 - 10th Street; and Height Variation 09-6 for the property at 204 - 10th Street to construct anon-habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25-foot height limit. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMEN®ATION: Adopt Resolution No. 5911 (HV 09-3); Resolution No. 5912 (HV 09-4); Resolution No. 5913 (HV 09-5); and Resolution No. 5914 (HV 09-6). SUBMITTED BY: Olivera, Senior Planner NOTED AND APPROVED: ~~ David Carman ,City Manager Agenda Item RESOLUTION NUMBER 5911 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A HEIGHT VARIATION FOR A NON-HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE IN EXCESS OF THE 25-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AT 124 10T" STREET (HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 09-3) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. The City of Seal Beach ("City") has approved atwo-story, 3,005 square foot single-family residential development ("Project') at 124 10th Street, Seal Beach. With the exception of a proposed architectural feature that exceeds the City's height limit, the Project complies with all City requirements and development standards. On April 15, 2009, Robert Tavasci (the "Applicant') filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Height Variation 09-3, requesting approval for anon-habitable architectural feature (elevator enclosure) in excess of the 25-foot height limit at 124 10th Street. Section 2. Pursuant to the Seal Beach Municipal Code, the City may not approve such a height variation unless it can find that the proposed height variation is compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general, is consistent with the General Plan, is appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood and will not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet. Section 3. After a duly noticed public hearing held on June 3, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-23 denying the subject application. Section 4. The Applicant duly filed a notice of appeal. Section 5. The City Council considered the application at a duly noticed public hearing de novo held on August 10, 2009. At the meeting of August 10, 2009, numerous speakers, including the applicant, spoke in favor of the application arid numerous speakers spoke in opposition to the height variation. In addition, the City received several letters in support of and in opposition to the proposed project. Section 6. The record of the hearing indicates the following: (a) On April 15, 2009, Robert Tavasci (the "Applicant') filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Height Variation 09- 3. (b) Specifically, the applicant is requesting approval of a non- habitable architectural feature (elevator enclosure) in excess of the 25-foot height limit at 124 10th Street. (c) The subject property is described as Orange County assessor's parcel # 199-042-23. (d) The subject property is a rectangular shaped property that is 50'-0" feet wide by 117'-6" feet deep. The property is presently developed with an existing single-family residential building fronting 10th Street. (e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: ^ NORTH, SOUTH, EAST and WEST -Residential uses in the Residential High Density (RHD) Zone. Resolution Number 5911 (f) A primary goal and objective for the City's General Plan is the retention of the City's "small-town character." The Land Use Element of the General Plan requires that the City's "small town feel" with a "small town like" population shall be preserved and enhanced. Many residents testified that the proposed development in excess of the City's height standard would adversely affect the "small town" atmosphere, and would adversely affect primary views, light and air circulation. They testified that the proposed height variation is not compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general and is not appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood. One resident supplied the City Council and City Staff with a survey of residential structures within the neighborhood. This survey quantified the number of one, two, and three story residences, as well as the number of residences with covered roof access structures, in the neighborhood. (g) At the last general election in November of 2008, the City's residents overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure restricting the height of structures in the area surrounding the proposed height variation to the standard City-wide 25 feet height. Over 73% of the City's voters voted to limit the height of residential structures in the neighborhood to 25 feet. The proposed height variation exceeds 25 feet. Residents testified that the proposed height variation is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the measure. Section 7. Based upon substantial evidence in the record of the hearing, including the facts stated in Sections 1 through 6 of this resolution, and pursuant to the City Charter and § 28-2317D of the City's Municipal Code, the City Council hereby finds: (a) The issuance of Height Variation 09-3 for anon-habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25-foot height limit is not consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. A primary goal and objective for the City's General Plan is the retention of the City's "small-town character." The height variation is not consistent with that primary goal and objective. The surrounding area ("Old Town") is a densely developed, residential area that is characterized by residences with minimum setbacks, and many newer structures that exceed the 25-foot height limit. The proliferation of large structures with heights in excess of 25 feet prompted the ballot measure to establish a uniform 25-foot building height. There was testimony, presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council, that the requested height variation is not compatible with surrounding uses or the City's general plan. The proposed use is also not consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, because the policies of those elements must be consistent with the Land Use Element. (b) The proposed height variation is not compatible with surrounding uses. As noted above, Old Town is a densely developed, residential area that is characterized by residences with minimum setbacks, and many newer structures that exceed the 25-foot height limit. Such conditions adversely affect the neighborhood, especially residents in the proximity of the proposed development who live in single story structures. Such residents testified that the height variation would adversely affect their primary views, light and air circulation. (c) The proposed height variation is not appropriate for the character and integrity of the vast majority of properties in the surrounding neighborhood. As noted in Subsection b, Old Town is a densely developed, residential area that is characterized by residences with minimum setbacks, and many newer structures that exceed the 25-foot height limit. The survey that was provided to Council and Staff by a resident shows that there are three existing structures in the 100 block of 10th Street that exceed two-stories and one structure that has a covered roof access structure. Such conditions adversely affect the neighborhood, especially residents in the proximity of the proposed _ Resolution Number 5911 development who live in single story structures. As a result, over 73% of the City's voters voted to limit the height of residential structures in the neighborhood to 25 feet. While the Municipal Code section conditionally authorizing height variations was not repealed by the measure, residents testified that the proposed height variation is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the measure. (d) As noted in Section 1, the City has approved atwo-story, 3,005 square foot single-family residential development for the site. Thus, the applicant and future residents can fully use the property as asingle-family residence. Moreover, the proposed architectural feature in excess of the City's standard height limit is not needed to provide access to the roof deck areas of the proposed structure, as the submitted plans also show an uncovered stair access to the roof deck. Such access complies with the City's standard height limit and can be installed without a Height Variation. Thus, the future residents of the proposed residence can fully access and enjoy the roof deck without an elevator that exceeds the City's height limit. (e) Likewise, the applicant can redesign the project to incorporate an elevator without exceeding the City's height limit. Section 8. Upon considering all testimony and evidence presented at the hearing de novo, the City Council announced a tentative decision to deny the application. The Council directed staff to prepare a resolution incorporating findings based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. Section 9. Based upon the record of the hearing, including the facts stated in Sections 1-8 and the substantial evidence entered into the record, and pursuant to the City Charter and § 28-2317D of the City's Municipal Code, the Council hereby disapproves the application for a height variation. The City Council's decision is based upon each of the totally independent and separate findings listed above, each of which stands alone as a sufficient basis for its decision. Section 10. The City Council hereby invites the Applicant to redesign the project and consider installing an elevator that does not exceed the height limit. Section 11. Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Procedure and Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 1.20.015 govern the time within which judicial review, if available, of the City Council's decision must be sought, unless a shorter time is provided by other applicable law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Seal Beach, at a meeting hereof held on the 14th day of September , 2009 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Resolution Number 5911 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 5911 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of September , 2009. City Clerk RESOLUTION NUMBER 59~ 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A HEIGHT VARIATION FOR A NON-HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE IN EXCESS OF THE 25-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AT 126 10TH STREET (HEIGHT VARIATION NO.09-4) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. The City of Seal Beach ("City") has approved atwo-story, 3,005 square foot single-family residential development ("Project") at 126 10th Street, Seal Beach. With the exception of a proposed architectural feature that exceeds the City's height limit, the Project complies with all City requirements and development standards. On April 15, 2009, Robert Tavasci (the "Applicant") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Height Variation 09-4, requesting approval for anon-habitable architectural feature (elevator enclosure) in excess of the 25-foot height limit at 126 10th Street. Section 2. Pursuant to the Seal Beach Municipal Code, the City may not approve such a height variation unless it can find that the proposed height variation is compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general, is consistent with the General Plan, is appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood and will not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet. Section 3. After a duly noticed public hearing held on June 3, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-24 denying the subject application. Section 4. The Applicant duly filed a notice of appeal. Section 5. The City Council considered the application at a duly noticed public hearing de novo held on August 10, 2009. At the meeting of August 10, 2009, numerous speakers, including the applicant, spoke in favor of the application and numerous speakers spoke in opposition to the height variation. In addition, the City received several letters in support of and in opposition to the proposed project. Section 6. The record of the hearing indicates the following: (a) On April 15, 2009, Robert Tavasci (the "Applicant') filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Height Variation 09- 4. (b) Specifically, the applicant is requesting approval of a non- habitable architectural feature (elevator enclosure) in excess of the 25-foot height limit at 126 10th Street. (c) The subject property is described as Orange County assessors parcel # 199-042-23. (d) The subject property is a rectangular shaped property that is 50'-0" feet wide by 117'-6" feet deep. The property is presently developed with an existing single-family residential building fronting 10th Street. (e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: ^ NORTH, SOUTH, EAST and WEST -Residential uses in the Residential High Density (RHD) Zone. Resolution Number 5912 (f) A primary goal and objective for the City's General Plan is the retention of the City's "small-town character." The Land Use Element of the General Plan requires that the City's "small town feel" with a "small town like" population shall be preserved and enhanced. Many residents testified that the proposed development in excess of the City's height standard would adversely affect the "small town" atmosphere, and would adversely affect primary views, light and air circulation. They testified that the proposed height variation is not compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general and is not appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood. One resident supplied the City Council and City Staff with a survey of residential structures within the neighborhood. This survey quantified the number of one, two, and three story residences, as well as the number of residences with covered roof access structures, in the neighborhood. (g) At the last general election in November of 2008, the City's residents overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure restricting the height of structures in the area surrounding the proposed height variation to the standard City-wide 25 feet height. Over 73% of the City's voters voted to limit the height of residential structures in the neighborhood to 25 feet. The proposed height variation exceeds 25 feet. Residents testified that the proposed height variation is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the measure. Section 7. Based upon substantial evidence in the record of the hearing, including the facts stated in Sections 1 through 6 of this resolution, and pursuant to the City Charter and § 28-2317D of the City's Municipal Code, the City Council hereby finds: (a) The issuance of Height Variation 09-4 for anon-habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25-foot height limit is not consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. A primary goal and objective for the City's General Plan is the retention of the City's "small-town character." The height variation is not consistent with that primary goal and objective. The surrounding area ("Old Town") is a densely developed, residential area that is characterized by residences with minimum setbacks, and many newer structures that exceed the 25-foot height limit. The proliferation of large structures with heights in excess of 25 feet prompted the ballot measure to establish a uniform 25-foot building height. There was testimony, presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council, that the requested height variation is not compatible with surrounding uses or the City's general plan. The proposed use is also not consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, because the policies of those elements must be consistent with the Land Use Element. (b) The proposed height variation is not compatible with surrounding uses. As noted above, Old Town is a densely developed, residential area that is characterized by residences with minimum setbacks, and many newer structures that exceed the 25-foot height limit. Such conditions adversely affect the neighborhood, especially residents in the proximity of the proposed development who live in single story structures. Such residents testified that the height variation would adversely affect their primary views, light and air circulation. (c) The proposed height variation is not appropriate for the character and integrity of the vast majority of properties in the surrounding neighborhood. As noted in Subsection b, Old Town is a densely developed, residential area that is characterized by residences with minimum setbacks, and many newer structures that exceed the 25-foot height limit. The survey that was provided to Council and Staff by a resident shows that there are three existing structures in the 100 block of 10th Street that exceed two-stories and one structure that has a covered roof access structure. Such conditions adversely affect the neighborhood, especially residents in the proximity of the proposed Resolution Number 5912 development who live in single story structures. As a result, over 73% of the City's voters voted to limit the height of residential structures in the neighborhood to 25 feet. While the Municipal Code section conditionally authorizing height variations was not repealed by the measure, residents testified that the proposed height variation is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the measure. (d) As noted in Section 1, the City has approved atwo-story, 3,005 square foot single-family residential development for the site. Thus, the applicant and future residents can fully use the property as asingle-family residence. Moreover, the proposed architectural feature in excess of the City's standard height limit is not needed to provide access to the roof deck areas of the proposed structure, as the submitted plans also show an uncovered stair access to the roof deck. Such access complies with the Ciys's standard height limit and can be installed without a Height Variation. Thus, the future residents of the proposed residence can fully access and enjoy the roof deck without an elevator that exceeds the City's height limit. (e) Likewise, the applicant can redesign the project to incorporate an elevator without exceeding the City's height limit. Section 8. Upon considering all testimony and evidence presented at the hearing de novo, the City Council announced a tentative decision to deny the application. The Council directed staff to prepare a resolution incorporating findings based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. Section 9. Based upon the record of the hearing, including the facts stated in Sections 1-8 and the substantial evidence entered into the record, and pursuant to the City Charter and § 28-2317D of the City's Municipal Code, the Council hereby disapproves the application for a height variation. The City Council's decision is based upon each of the totally independent and separate findings listed above, each of which stands alone as a sufficient basis for its decision. Section 10. The City Council hereby invites the Applicant to redesign the project and consider installing an elevator that does not exceed the height limit. Section 11. Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Procedure and Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 1.20.015 govern the time within which judicial review, if available, of the City Council's decision must be sought, unless a shorter time is provided by other applicable law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Seal Beach, at a meeting hereof held on the 14th day of September , 2009 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Resolution Number 5912 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 5912 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of September , 2009. City Clerk RESOLUTION NUMBER 5913 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A HEIGHT VARIATION FOR A NON-HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE IN EXCESS OF THE 25-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AT 202 10T" STREET (HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 09-5) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. The City of Seal Beach ("City") has approved atwo-story, 2,915 square foot single-family residential development ("Project') at 202 10th Street, Seal Beach. With the exception of a proposed architectural feature that exceeds the City's height limit, the Project complies with all City requirements and development standards. On April 15, 2009, Robert Tavasci (the "Applicant') filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Height Variation 09-5, requesting approval for anon-habitable architectural feature (elevator enclosure) in excess of the 25-foot height limit at 202 10th Street. Section 2. Pursuant to the Seal Beach Municipal Code, the City may not approve such a height variation unless it can find that the proposed height variation is compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general, is consistent with the General Plan, is appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood and will not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet. Section 3. After a duly noticed public hearing held on June 3, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-25 denying the subject application. Section 4. The Applicant duly filed a notice of appeal. Section 5. The City Council considered the application at a duly noticed public hearing de novo held on August 10, 2009. At the meeting of August 10, 2009, numerous speakers, including the applicant, spoke in favor of the application and numerous speakers spoke in opposition to the height variation. In addition, the City received several letters in support of and in opposition to the proposed project. Section 6. The record of the hearing indicates the following: (a) On April 15, 2009, Robert Tavasci (the "Applicant") filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Height Variation 09- 5. (b) Specifically, the applicant is requesting approval of a non- habitable architectural feature (elevator enclosure) in excess of the 25-foot height limit at 202 10th Street. (c) The subject property is described as Orange County assessor's parcel # 199-041-08. (d) The subject property is a rectangular shaped property that is 50'-0" feet wide by 117'-6" feet deep. The property is presently developed with an existing single-family residential building fronting 10th Street and an additional single-family residential building towards the rear of the lot near the alley. (e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: Resolution Number 5913 ^ NORTH, SOUTH, EAST and WEST -Residential uses in the Residential High Density (RHD) Zone. (f) A primary goal and objective for the City's General Plan is the retention of the City's "small-town character." The Land Use Element of the General Plan requires that the City's "small town feel" with a "small town like" population shall be preserved and enhanced. Many residents testified that the proposed development in excess of the City's height standard would adversely affect the "small town" atmosphere, and would adversely affect primary views, light and air circulation. They testified that the proposed height variation is not compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general and is not appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood. One resident supplied the City Council and City Staff with a survey of residential structures within the neighborhood. This surrey quantified the number of one, two, and three story residences, as well as the number of residences with covered roof ' access structures, in the neighborhood. (g) At the last general election in November of 2008, the City's residents overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure restricting the height of structures in the area surrounding the proposed height variation to the standard City-wide 25 feet height. Over 73% of the City's voters voted to limit the height of residential structures in the neighborhood to 25 feet. The proposed height variation exceeds 25 feet. Residents testified that the proposed height variation is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the measure. Section 7. Based upon substantial evidence in the record of the hearing, including the facts stated in Sections 1 through 6 of this resolution, and pursuant to the City Charter and § 28-2317D of the City's Municipal Code, the City Council hereby finds: (a) The issuance of Height Variation 09-5 for anon-habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25-foot height limit is not consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. A primary goal and objective for the City's General Plan is the retention of the City's "small-town character." The height variation is not consistent with that primary goal and objective. The surrounding area ("Old Town") is a densely developed, residential area that is characterized by residences with minimum setbacks, and many newer structures that exceed the 25-foot height limit. The proliferation of large structures with heights in excess of 25 feet prompted the ballot measure to establish a uniform 25-foot building height. There was testimony, presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council, that the requested height variation is not compatible with surrounding uses or the City's general plan. The proposed use is also not consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, because the policies of those elements must be consistent with the Land Use Element. (b) The proposed height variation is not compatible with surrounding uses. As noted above, Old Town is a densely developed, residential area that is characterized by residences with minimum setbacks, and many newer structures that exceed the 25-foot height limit. Such conditions adversely affect the neighborhood, especially residents in the proximity of the proposed development who live in single story structures. Such residents testified that the height variation would adversely affect their primary views, light and air circulation. (c) The proposed height variation is not appropriate for the character and integrity of the vast majority of properties in the surrounding neighborhood. As noted in Subsection b, Old Town is a densely developed, residential area that is characterized by residences with minimum setbacks, and many newer structures that exceed the 25-foot height limit. The surrey that was provided to Council and Staff by a resident shows that there are two existing structures in the 200 block of 10th Street that exceed two-stories and one structure that has a covered roof access structure towards the front of the Resolution Number 5913 structure. Such conditions adversely affect the neighborhood, especially residents in the proximity of the proposed development who live in single story structures. As a result, over 73% of the City's voters voted to limit the height of residential structures in the neighborhood to 25 feet. While the Municipal Code section conditionally authorizing height variations was not repealed by the measure, residents testified that the proposed height variation is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the measure. (d) As noted in Section 1, the City has approved atwo-story, 2,915 square foot single-family residential development for the site. Thus, the applicant and future residents can fully use the property as asingle-family residence. Moreover, the proposed architectural feature in excess of the City's standard height limit is not needed to provide access to the roof deck areas of the proposed structure, as the submitted plans also show an uncovered stair access to the roof deck. Such access complies with the City's standard height limit and can be installed without a Height Variation. Thus, the future residents of the proposed residence can fully access and enjoy the roof deck without an elevator that exceeds the City's height limit. (e) Likewise, the applicant can redesign the project to incorporate an elevator without exceeding the City's height limit. Section 8. Upon considering all testimony and evidence presented at the hearing de novo, the City Council announced a tentative decision to deny the application. The Council directed staff to prepare a resolution incorporating findings based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. Section 9. Based upon the record of the hearing, including the facts stated in Sections 1-8 and the substantial evidence entered into the record, and pursuant to the City Charter and § 28-2317D of the City's Municipal Code, the Council hereby disapproves the application for a height variation. The City Council's decision is based upon each of the totally independent and separate findings listed above, each of which stands alone as a sufficient basis for its decision. Section 10. The City Council hereby invites the Applicant to redesign the project and consider installing an elevator that does not exceed the height limit. Section 11. Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Procedure and Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 1.20.015 govern the time within which judicial review, if available, of the City Council's decision must be sought, unless a shorter time is provided by other applicable law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Seal Beach, at a meeting hereof held on the 14th day of September , 2009 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Resolution Number 5913 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 5913 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of September , 2009. City Clerk RESOLUTION NUMBER 5914 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A HEIGHT VARIATION FOR A NON-HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE IN EXCESS OF THE 25-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AT 204 10T" STREET (HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 09-6) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY FIND AND RESOLVE: Section 1. The City of Seal Beach ("City") has approved atwo-story, 3,005 square foot single-family residential development ("Project') at 204 10th Street, Seal Beach. With the exception of a proposed architectural feature that exceeds the City's height limit, the Project complies with all City requirements and development standards. On April 15, 2009, Robert Tavasci (the "Applicant') filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Height Variation 09-6, requesting approval for anon-habitable architectural feature (elevator enclosure) in excess of the 25-foot height limit at 204 10th Street. Section 2. Pursuant to the Seal Beach Municipal Code, the City may not approve such a height variation unless it can find that the proposed height variation is compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general, is consistent with the General Plan, is appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood and will not significantly impair the primary view of any property located within 300 feet. Section 3. After a duly noticed public hearing held on June 3, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-26 denying the subject application. Section 4. The Applicant duly filed a notice of appeal. Section 5. The City Council considered the application at a duly noticed public hearing de novo held on August 10, 2009. At the meeting of August 10, 2009, numerous speakers, including the applicant, spoke in favor of the application and numerous speakers spoke in opposition to the height variation. In addition, the City received several letters in support of and in opposition to the proposed project. Section 6. The record of the hearing indicates the following: (a) On April 15, 2009, Robert Tavasci (the "Applicant') filed an application with the Department of Development Services for Height Variation 09- 6. (b) Specifically, the applicant is requesting approval of a non- habitable architectural feature (elevator enclosure) in excess of the 25-foot height limit at 204 10th Street. (c) The subject property is described as Orange County assessor's parcel # 199-041-08. (d) The subject property is a rectangular shaped property that is 50'-0" feet wide by 117'-6" feet deep. The property is presently developed with an existing single-family residential building fronting 10th Street and an additional single-family residential building towards the rear of the lot near the alley. (e) The surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: Resolution Number 5914 ^ NORTH, SOUTH, EAST and WEST -Residential uses in the Residential High Density (RHD) Zone. (f) A primary goal and objective for the City's General Plan is the retention of the City's "small-town character." The Land Use Element of the General Plan requires that the City's "small town feel" with a "small town like" population shall be preserved and enhanced. Many residents testified that the proposed development in excess of the City's height standard would adversely affect the "small town" atmosphere, and would adversely affect primary views, light and air circulation. They testified that the proposed height variation is not compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general and is not appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood. One resident supplied the City Council and City Staff with a survey of residential structures within the neighborhood. This survey quantified the number of one, two, and three story residences, as well as the number of residences with covered roof ' access structures, in the neighborhood. (g) At the last general election in November of 2008, the City's residents overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure restricting the height of structures in the area surrounding the proposed height variation to the standard City-wide 25 feet height. Over 73% of the City's voters voted to limit the height of residential structures in the neighborhood to 25 feet. The proposed height variation exceeds 25 feet. Residents testified that the proposed height variation is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the measure. Section 7. Based upon substantial evidence in the record of the hearing, including the facts stated in Sections 1 through 6 of this resolution, and pursuant to the City Charter and § 28-2317D of the City's Municipal Code, the City Council hereby finds: (a) The issuance of Height Variation 09-6 for anon-habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25-foot height limit is not consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. A primary goal and objective for the City's General Plan is the retention of the City's "small-town character." The height variation is not consistent with that primary goal and objective. The surrounding area ("Old Town") is a densely developed, residential area that is characterized by residences with minimum setbacks, and many newer structures that exceed the 25-foot height limit. The proliferation of large structures with heights in excess of 25 feet prompted the ballot measure to establish a uniform 25-foot building height. There was testimony, presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council, that the requested height variation is not compatible with surrounding uses or the City's general plan. The proposed use is also not consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, because the policies of those elements must be consistent with the Land Use Element. (b) The proposed height variation is not compatible with surrounding uses. As noted above, Old Town is a densely developed, residential area that is characterized by residences with minimum setbacks, and many newer structures that exceed the 25-foot height limit. Such conditions adversely affect the neighborhood, especially residents in the proximity of the proposed development who live in single story structures. Such residents testified that the height variation would adversely affect their primary views, light and air circulation. (c) The proposed height variation is not appropriate for the character and integrity of the vast majority of properties in the surrounding neighborhood. As noted in Subsection b, Old Town is a densely developed, residential area that is characterized by residences with minimum setbacks, and many newer structures that exceed the 25-foot height limit. The survey that was provided to Council and Staff by a resident shows that there are two existing structures in the 200 block of 10'h Street that exceed two-stories and one _ Resolution Number 5914 structure that has a covered roof access structure towards the front of the structure. Such conditions adversely affect the neighborhood, especially residents in the proximity of the proposed development who live in single story structures. As a result, over 73% of the City's voters voted to limit the height of residential structures in the neighborhood to 25 feet. While the Municipal Code section conditionally authorizing height variations was not repealed by the measure, residents testified that the proposed height variation is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the measure. (d) As noted in Section 1, the City has approved atwo-story, 3,005 square foot single-family residential development for the site. Thus, the applicant and future residents can fully use ~ the property as asingle-family residence. Moreover, the proposed architectural feature in excess of the City's standard height limit is not needed to provide access to the roof deck areas of the proposed structure, as the submitted plans also show an uncovered stair access to the roof deck. Such access complies with the City's standard height limit and can be installed without a Height Variation. Thus, the future residents of the proposed residence can fully access and enjoy the roof deck without an elevator that exceeds the City's height limit. (e) Likewise, the applicant can redesign the project to incorporate an elevator without exceeding the City's height limit. Section 8. Upon considering all testimony and evidence presented at the hearing de novo, the City Council announced a tentative decision to deny the application. The Council directed staff to prepare a resolution incorporating findings based upon the evidence presented at the hearing. Section 9. Based upon the record of the hearing, including the facts stated in Sections 1-8 and the substantial evidence entered into the record, and pursuant to the City Charter and § 28-2317D of the Ciys's Municipal Code, the Council hereby disapproves the application for a height variation. The City Council's decision is based upon each of the totally independent and separate findings listed above, each of which stands alone as a sufficient basis for its decision. Section 10. The City Council hereby invites the Applicant to redesign the project and consider installing an elevator that does not exceed the height limit. Section 11. Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Procedure and Seal Beach Municipal Code Section 1.20.015 govern the time within which judicial review, if available, of the City Council's decision must be sought, unless a shorter time is provided by other applicable law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Seal Beach, at a meeting hereof held on the 14th day of September , 2009 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Resolution Number 5914 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number 5914 on file in the office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 14th day of September , 2009. City Clerk