The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC AG PKT 2005-04-25 #L C ' ‘ jted AGENDA REPORT = y DATE: April 25, 2005 j 64 " • TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council •• k . C •0 THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager E� FROM: Christy Teague, Senior Planner Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services SUBJECT: ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 05 -2 — CITY -WIDE CHANGE TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL COURTYARD WALLS AND DECORATIVE WALL ATTACHMENTS IN CERTAIN CASES SUBJECT TO MINOR PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL BY PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Approve Zone Text Amendment 05 -2, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Introduce Ordinance No. , An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach amending Chapter 28, Section 28 -801 and Section 28 -2316, "Fences, Walls, Hedges and Screen Plantings" and to add Sections 28 -208.1 definition of "arbor," 28 -222.5 definition of "courtyard" and 28 -233.2 definition of "finial" (Zone Text Amendment 05 -2). BACKGROUND: At the Planning Commission meeting held January 19, 2005, a Planning Commission Interpretation was discussed regarding courtyard walls. This was brought to the attention of the Planning Commission through an official request to consider a garden wall to enclose a front yard. The Code, as currently written, does not allow any consideration of fence /wall heights above the limits. A request for exception requires approval of a Variance under the existing Code. The proposed change would allow Planning Commission consideration on a case -by -case basis through a Minor Plan Review to be consistent with other similar architectural structures currently allowed through requests for Minor Plan Review. On January 19, 2005, the Planning Commission directed Development Services staff to change the Zoning Code to allow courtyard walls in the front setback with approval of a Minor Plan Review, allowing neighbors and property owners within a 100 feet radius to be notified of the Agenda Item L Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 5 -2 Courtyard Walls and Decorative Wall Attachments City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 consideration and allow them to give feedback prior to the Planning Commission decision. Similar structures are currently approved through the Minor Plan Review process, including outdoor fireplaces, gazebos, and other architectural structures in setback areas. The current fee for Minor Plan Review is $150. The Planning Commission also directed Development Services staff to eliminate the exception addressing courtyard walls according to location of houses on adjacent properties. On April 6, 2005, after conducting a public hearing, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 05 -16, recommending the City Council approve Zone Text Amendment 05 -2 to allow courtyard walls and decorative wall attachments in certain cases upon Planning Commission approval of a Minor Plan Review and delete the unclear exception on courtyard wall placement according to structures on adjacent properties. Three separate changes and three new definitions are proposed to be added to the Code: 1. The Code change specified below, with proposed deletion shown in bold type. Section 28 -801 Residential High Density Zone (RHD) General Provisions, Lot Size, Open Space, Bulk and Yards. The Planning Commission may, by the issuance of a Conditional Use permit, approve modifications in the required front yard setbacks provided minimum setback of six feet is maintained. Consideration may be given to open courtyards, patios or other functional open space located on the lot. 2. The Code change specified below, with proposed deletion of the exception shown in bold type. Section 28 -2316. Fences, Walls, Hedges and Screen Plantings. A. Specific Fence Provisions. Setback Requirements: 1. Front Yard a. Interior Lots. On an interior lot or interior site of a corner lot, a wall, fence, hedge, or screen planting not more than six (6) feet in height may be located to the rear of the front of the building nearest the front property line between such building and the nearest side property line. Exception. Whenever a lot has a larger front yard setback than both adjoining lots, a wall, fence, hedge or screen planting not more than six (6) feet in height may be located in the front yard setback, provided that such 2 Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 5 -2 Courtyard Walls and Decorative Wall Attachments City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 encroachment does not exceed the greatest front yard setback existing on the adjoining lots. 3. The Code change specified below, with proposed addition shown in bold type. Section 28- 2316.Fences, Walls, Hedges and Screen Plantings. B. General Fence Provisions: 12. Courtyard walls with minimum 6 feet front setback and up to 6 feet in height and fence /wall height exceptions, including decorative features such as finials or arbors, may be permitted subject to minor plan review approval by the Planning Commission. 4. Upon recommendation of the City Attorney's office, the proposed changes include definitions of "arbor," "courtyard," and "finial" be added to the Code. These definitions are specified below. 28 -208.1 —Arbor - a framework capable of supporting climbing plants, providing an archway under which a person may walk. 28 -222.5 — Courtyard — an extent of open ground enclosed by walls and adjacent residential building 28 -233.2 — Finial — a small crowning ornament or detail, such as a decorative knob, pinnacle, or fleur- de -lis The information contained within the Planning Commission Staff Report provides the overview of the issues before the City Council, and presents the information that the Commission considered in determining to recommend approval of the Zone Text Amendment. Staff will be available to address any questions the Council may have regarding the information in the Planning Commission Staff Report, the Planning Commission Minutes, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 05 -16. Based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission, staff has prepared an ordinance for introduction that would implement the recommendation of the Commission. If the City Council determines that no modifications are necessary upon completion of the public hearing, the ordinance would be appropriate to introduce. If modifications are determined appropriate, based on the public testimony and the deliberations of the City Council, staff will be prepared to propose modifications to the draft ordinance and return at a later City Council meeting for introduction of the revised ordinance. 3 Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 5 -2 Courtyard Walls and Decorative Wall Attachments City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 FISCAL IMPACT: Minimal. Costs will be borne by the City in publishing the adopted ordinance and in training staff as to the new requirements of the Zoning Code that would be implemented by adoption of the proposed ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Zone Text Amendment 05 -2, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Introduce Ordinance No. , An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach amending Chapter 28, Section 28 -801 and Section 28 -2316, "Fences, Walls, Hedges and Screen Plantings" and to add Sections 28 -208.1 definition of "arbor," 28 -222.5 definition of "courtyard" and 28 -233.2 definition of "finial" (Zone Text Amendment 05 -2). / / A Y ! � e Wh it nberg Christy D. Tea! ue, AICP / D irector of Development Service Senior Planner NOTED AND APPROVED: I%4:2a B 7 . Bahorski P City Manager Attachments: (5) Attachment 1: Ordinance No. , An Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach amending Chapter 28, Section 28 -801 and Section 28 -2316, "Fences, Walls, Hedges and Screen Plantings" and to add Sections 28 -208.1 definition of "arbor," 28 -222.5 definition of "courtyard" and 28 -233.2 definition of "finial" (Zone Text Amendment 05 -2). Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolution No. 05 -16, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Approval of Zone Text Amendment 05 -2, 4 Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 5 -2 Courtyard Walls and Decorative Wall Attachments City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 Amending Sections 28 -801 and 28 -2316 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach to Allow Courtyard Walls and Fence /Wall Height Exceptions be Considered and Approved by Planning Commission through Minor Plan Review Attachment 3: Planning Commission Minute Excerpt re: Zone Text Amendment 05 -2, Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 6, 2005 Attachment 4: Planning Commission Minute Excerpt re: Planning Commission Interpretation, Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 19, 2005 Attachment 5: Written Communications received re: Planning Commission Interpretation 5 Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 5 -2 Courtyard Walls and Decorative Wall Attachments City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. , AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 28, SECTION 28 -801 AND SECTION 28 -2316, "FENCES WALLS, HEDGES AND SCREEN PLANTINGS" AND TO ADD SECTIONS 28 -208.1 DEFINITION OF "ARBOR," 28 -222.5 DEFINITION OF "COURTYARD" AND 28 -233.2 DEFINITION OF "FINIAL" (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 05 -2) 6 Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 5 -2 Courtyard Walls and Decorative Wall Attachments City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 ORDINANCE NUMBER • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 28, SECTION 28 -801 AND SECTION 28 -2316, "FENCES, WALLS, HEDGES AND SCREEN PLANTINGS" AND TO ADD SECTIONS 28 -208.1 DEFINITION OF "ARBOR," 28 -222.5 DEFINITION OF "COURTYARD" AND 28 -233.2 DEFINITION OF "FINIAL" (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 05 -2) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. At its meeting of April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of Zone Text Amendment 5 -2. This amendment would: ❑ Add definitions of "arbor," "courtyard" and "finial." ❑ Delete unclear paragraph regarding courtyards. ❑ Delete exception allowing courtyard walls in cases according to adjacent properties. ❑ Allow for courtyard walls, with minimum 6 feet front setback and up to 6 feet in height and fence /wall height exceptions in certain cases subject to Planning Commission approval of Minor Plan Review. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305, § 15268 and § 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Zone Text Amendment 05 -2 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because it consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in average slope of less than 20% and does not result in any changes in land use or density; § 15268 (Ministerial Projects) because the proposed zoning text amendment is ministerial in nature; 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 April 6, 2005 to consider the subject zone text amendment. At the public hearing, the Planning Commission invited and considered any and all testimony offered in favor or opposition to said zone text amendment. Section 4. A duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on April 25, 2005 to consider the subject zone text amendment. At the public hearing, the City 7 Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 5 -2 Courtyard Walls and Decorative Wall Attachments City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 Council invited and considered any and all testimony offered in favor or opposition to said zone text amendment. Section 5. Based on the foregoing Sections 1 through 4, the City Council hereby approves Zone Text Amendment 05 -2. Only Subsection H of Section 28 -801 is to be amended to delete a paragraph, Subparagraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section A, of Section 28- 2316 is to be amended to delete a paragraph, Subparagraph (12) of subsection (B) of Section 28- 2316 is to be added, and Sections 28 -208.1 definition of "arbor," 28 -222.5 definition of "courtyard" and 28 -233.2 definition of "finial" are to be added and renumbered; all other provisions of Chapter 28 remain unchanged. The City Council hereby amends Chapter 28 as indicated below: 1. Delete the following paragraph from Section 28 -801: The Planning Commission may, by the issuance of a Conditional Use permit, approve modifications in the required front yard setbacks provided minimum setback of six feet is maintained. Consideration may be given to open courtyards, patios or other functional open space located on the lot. 2. Delete the following paragraph from Section 28 -2316 (C) 1 (a): Exception. Whenever a lot has a larger front yard setback than both adjoining lots, a wall, fence, hedge or screen planting not more than six (6) feet in height may be located in the front yard setback, provided that such encroachment does not exceed the greatest front yard setback existing on the adjoining lots. 3. Add the following to Section 28 -2316 (C ): 12. Courtyard walls with minimum 6 feet front setback and up to 6 feet in height and fence /wall height exceptions, including decorative features such as finials or arbors, may be permitted subject to minor plan review approval by the Planning Commission. 4. Add the following definitions: 28 -208.1 —Arbor - a framework capable of supporting climbing plants, providing an archway under which a person may walk. 28 -222.5 — Courtyard — an extent of open ground enclosed by walls and adjacent residential building 28 -233.2 — Finial — a small crowning ornament or detail, such as a decorative knob, pinnacle, or fleur- de -lis 8 Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 5 -2 Courtyard Walls and Decorative Wall Attachments City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council of the City of Seal Beach hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2005. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE } SS CITY OF SEAL BEACH } I, Linda Devine, City Clerk of the City of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance is an original copy of Ordinance Number on file in the office of the City Clerk, introduced at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2005 and was passed, approved and adopted by the City Council at a meeting thereof held on the day of , 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers And do hereby further certify that Ordinance Number has been published pursuant to the Seal Beach City Charter and Resolution Number 2836. City Clerk 9 Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 5 -2 Courtyard Walls and Decorative Wall Attachments City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 05- 16, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 05 -2, AMENDING SECTIONS 28 -801 AND 28 -2316 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO ALLOW COURTYARD WALLS AND FENCE/WALL HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS BE CONSIDERED AND APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION THROUGH MINOR PLAN REVIEW io RESOLUTION NUMBER 05 -16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 05 -2, AMENDING SECTIONS 28 -801 AND 28 -2316 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH TO ALLOW COURTYARD WALLS AND FENCE/WALL HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS BE CONSIDERED AND APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION THROUGH MINOR PLAN REVIEW THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. At its meeting of April 6, 2005, the Planning Commission considered Zoning Text Amendment 05 -2. This amendment to the Code would allow courtyard walls and fence or wall height exceptions to be considered and approved by the Planning Commission through Minor Plan Review. Section 2. Pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 and § II.B of the City's Local CEQA Guidelines, staff has determined as follows: The application for Zoning Text Amendment 05 -2 is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to 14 Calif. Code of Regs. § 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations), because it consists of minor alterations in land use limitations in average slope of less than 20% and does not result in any changes in land use or density; 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 by the Planning Commission on April 6, 2005 to consider Zone Text Amendment 05 -2. Section 4. The record of the hearing April 6, 2005 indicates the following: (a) At said public hearing there was oral and written testimony and evidence received by the Planning Commission. (d) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. (c) The proposed text amendment will allow courtyard walls and fence or wall height exceptions to be considered and approved by the Planning Commission through Minor Plan Review. Page 1 of 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 05 -15 Zoning Text Amendment 05 -2 Courtyard Walls and Fence/Height Exceptions April 6, 2005 Section 5. Based upon the facts contained in the record, including those stated in § 4 of this resolution and pursuant to § 28 -2600 of the City's Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: (a) Zoning Text Amendment 05 -2 is consistent with the provisions of the various elements of the City's General Plan. Accordingly, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment is administrative in nature and will not result' in changes inconsistent with the existing provisions of the General Plan. (b) The proposed text amendment will revise the City's zoning ordinance and enhance the ability of the City to ensure orderly and planned development in the City through an amendment of the zoning requirements. Section 6. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment 05 -2 to the City Council in substantially the following form: 1. Subsection H of Section 28 -801 of Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended, by deleting the paragraph following said subsection H: The Planning Commission may, by the issuance of a Conditional Use permit, approve modifications in the required front yard setbacks provided minimum setback of six feet is maintained. Consideration may be given to open courtyards, patios or other functional open space located on the lot. 2. Subparagraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section A, Specific Fence Provisions. Setback Requirements, of Section 28 -2316 of Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby amended, deleting the following paragraph: Exception. Whenever a lot has a larger front yard setback than both adjoining lots, a wall, fence, hedge or screen planting not more than six (6) feet in height may be located in the front yard setback, provided that such encroachment does not exceed the greatest front yard setback existing on the adjoining lots. 3. Subparagraph (12) of subsection (B) of Section 28 -2316 of Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach is hereby added to read: Courtyard walls with minimum 6 feet front setback and up to 6 feet in height and fence /wall height exceptions, including decorative features such as finials or arbors, may be permitted subject to minor plan review approval by the Planning Commission. Page 2 of 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 05-15 Zoning Text Amendment 05 -2 Courtyard Walls and Fence/Height Exceptions April 6, 2005 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 6th day_of Apri1 2005 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, and Sharp NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners Shanks Phil Ladner Chairperson, Planning Commission Lee Whittenberg Secretary, Planning Commissi. - • Page 3 of 3 Public (fearing - Zone Text Amendment 5 -2 Courtyard Walls and Decorative Wall Attachments City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 ATTACHMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT AND STAFF REPORT RE ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 05 -2, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 6, 2005 11 • April 6, 2005 STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission From: Department of Development Services Subject: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 05 -2 City Wide Change to Allow Courtyard Walls and Fence/Wall Height Exceptions be Considered and Approved by Planning Commission through Minor Plan Review REQUEST To amend the Code of the City of Seal Beach to consider courtyard walls and fence /wall height exceptions be considered by Planning Commission through Minor Plan Review. Currently, since there is no provision in the Code for courtyard walls or fence /wall height exceptions, a Variance would be the only approval option for such requests. BACKGROUND At the Planning Commission meeting held January 19, 2005, a Planning Commission Interpretation was discussed regarding courtyard walls. This was brought to the attention of the Planning Commission through an official request made by Architect Kent Trollen, on behalf of clients Edward and Teresa Miller, to consider a garden wall to enclose their front yard. At the January 19, 2005 meeting, the Planning Commission directed Development Services staff to change the Zoning Code to allow courtyard walls in the front setback with approval of a Minor Plan Review, allowing neighbors and property owners within a 100 feet radius to be notified of the consideration and allow them to give feedback prior to the Planning Commission decision. Similar structures are currently approved through the Minor Plan Review process, including outdoor fireplaces, gazebos, and other architectural structures in setback areas. The Planning Commission also directed Development Services staff to eliminate the exception addressing courtyard walls according to location of houses on adjacent properties. The proposed Resolution 05 -16 includes the deletion of this section of the Code. Planning Commission Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment 05 -2 April6, 2005 DISCUSSION The Code, as currently written, does not allow consideration of fence /wall heights above the limits. A request for exception requires approval of a Variance under the existing Code. The proposed change would allow Planning Commission consideration on a case -by -case basis through a Minor Plan Review to be consistent with other similar architectural structures currently allowed through requests for Minor Plan Review. Three separate changes are proposed to the Code: 1. The Code change specified below, with proposed deletion shown in bold type. Section 28 -801 Residential High Density Zone (RHD) General Provisions, Lot Size, Open Space, Bulk and Yards. The Planning Commission may, by the issuance of a Conditional Use permit, approve modifications in the required front yard setbacks provided minimum setback of six feet is maintained. Consideration may be given to open courtyards, patios or other functional open space located on the lot. 2. The Code change specified below, with proposed deletion of the exception shown in bold type. Section 28 -2316. Fences, Walls, Hedges and Screen Plantings. A. Specific Fence Provisions. Setback Requirements: 1. Front Yard a. Interior Lots. On an interior lot or interior site of a corner lot, a wall, fence, hedge, or screen planting not more than six (6) feet in height may be located to the rear of the front of the building nearest the front property line between such building and the nearest side property line. Exception. Whenever a lot has a larger front yard setback than both adjoining lots, a wall, fence, hedge or screen planting not more than six (6) feet in height may be located in the front yard setback, provided that such encroachment does not exceed the greatest front yard setback existing on the adjoining lots. 3. The Code change specified below, with proposed addition shown in bold type. ' Page 2 Planning Commission Staff Report Zoning Text Amendment 05 -2 April 6, 2005 Section 28- 2316.Fences, Walls, Hedges and Screen Plantings. B. General Fence Provisions: 12. Courtyard walls and fence /wall height exceptions, including decorative features such as finials or arbors, may be permitted subject to minor plan review approval by the Planning Commission. Approval through Minor Plan Review allows the immediate neighbors and property owners to be notified and the Planning Commission to review these proposals at the least cost for discretionary review. The current fee for Minor Plan Review is $150. If approved through Planning Commission Resolution 05 -16, the recommended changes to Section 28 -801 and Section 28 -2316 of the Code will be considered by the City Council at a future scheduled meeting of the City Council. RECOMIVIENDATION Staff recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment 05 -2 through Resolution 05 -16, with any amendments determined appropriate by the Commission. FOR: April 6, 2005 Ceti Christy D. T gue, AIC Senior Planner Department of Development Services Attachments (2): 1. Proposed Resolution 05 -16 • 2. Staff Report to Planning Commission January 19, 2005 and Excerpt of Minutes from January 19, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 D A City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2005 1 AYES: Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, and Sharp 2 NOES: None 3 ABSENT: Shanks 4 5 5. Zone Text Amendment 05 -2 6 Citywide 7 8 Applicant/Owner: City of Seal Beach 9 Request: To amend the Code of the City of Seal Beach to allow 10 residential courtyard walls and decorative wall attachments 11 in certain cases. Under the proposed changes any applicant 12 requesting a courtyard wall or decorative wall attachment in 13 excess of the allowable fence /wall heights would be subject 14 to approval of a Minor Plan Review by the Planning 15 Commission. 16 17 Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 18 05 -16. 19 20 Staff Report 21 22 Ms. Teague delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 23 Planning Department.) She provided some background information on this item and 24 noted that currently the Code only allows courtyard walls when adjacent properties are 25 closer than the required setbacks, which was inconsistent. She stated that the new 26 language proposes elimination of this exception, because it is difficult to assign zoning 27 based upon what is located on a neighboring property. She said that Staff recommends 28 approval of Zone Text Amendment 05 -2 and adoption of Resolution 05 -16 with any 29 revisions determined appropriate. She noted that previously no exceptions were 30 allowed, but with the approval of ZTA 05 -2, exceptions can be made upon approval 31 through the Minor Plan Review (MPR) process. 32 33 Commissioner Question 34 35 Commissioner Deaton asked if the exception clause under Section 6, Item 2, addresses 36 only certain homes. Ms. Teague confirmed that this was correct and stated that this is 37 why this exception is proposed for deletion, as requiring approval of courtyard walls 38 using the MPR process would address this issue. Commissioner Deaton asked if there 39 were any clause reflecting a maximum height. Ms. Teague stated that this would be 40 subject to approval on a case -by -case basis. Commissioner Deaton commented that 41 perhaps this should be cohesive with the current fence /wall standards. Ms. Teague 42 stated that Staff has proposed eliminating the exception for the adjacent homes on 43 either side of a proposed courtyard wall, and this would discourage construction of 44 anything in the front setback higher than 42 inches, which is the current standard for 45 fences as stated in the Code, and once again, this would be subject to the MPR 46 process. Commissioner Deaton suggested the inclusion of text stating, "not to exceed 6 Page 8 of 10 D R An City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2005 1 feet," as leaving this open could allow a wall of up to 18 feet. Ms. Teague proposed the 2 following proposed text revision to Subsection H of Section 28 -801 if Chapter 28 of the 3 Code: 4 5 "Planning Commission may by the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit 6 approve modifications in the required front yard setbacks provided a 7 minimum setback of 6 feet is maintained to a maximum of 6 feet in height. 8 Consideration may be given to open courtyards, patios, or other functional 9 open space located on the lot" 10 11 Commissioner Deaton was in agreement. 12 13 Public Hearing 14 15 Chairperson Ladner opened the public hearing. 16 17 There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Ladner closed the public hearing. 18 19 Commissioner Comments 20 21 Commissioner Deaton proposed the following text addition to Subsection H of Section 22 28 -801 if Chapter 28 of the Code: 23 24 "setbacks provided a minimum setback of 6 feet is maintained not to 25 exceed 6 feet in height." 26 27 Mr. Abbe noted that Item 1 and Item 3 conflict in that Item 1 reflects issuance of a CUP 28 and Item 3 reflects approval of a MPR for courtyard walls. Ms. Teague clarified that the 29 MPR would be for walls with a maximum height of 6 feet. 30 31 Commissioner Roberts noted that Section 6, Item 2, subparagraph (a) does reflects the 32 heights requirement of 6 feet, but does not include text requiring a 6 -foot front yard 33 setback. Ms. Teague suggested the following text revision: 34 35 "Courtyard walls at minimum of 6 -foot setback up to 6 -feet in height and 36 fence/walls exceptions . . ." 37 38 Commissioner Deaton asked if Subparagraph (a) Item 2 should also include the 6 -foot 39 setback text. Ms. Teague clarified that the proposal in Item 2 is to delete this paragraph 40 altogether. 41 42 MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Sharp to adopt Resolution 05 -16 as amended 43 recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Text Amendment 05 -2. 44 45 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 —1 46 AYES: Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, and Sharp Page 9 of 10 D FT City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2005 1 NOES: None 2 ABSENT: Shanks 3 4 5 STAFF CONCERNS 6 7 Ms. Teague stated that the City of Seal Beach has received grant money for 8 improvements to the San Gabriel River area from the pass and entry to Seal Beach 9 down to the River's End, and is conducting a series of public workshops on how best to 10 do this. She noted that the second meeting in the series is scheduled for Tuesday, April 11 12, 2005. 12 13 14 COMMISSION CONCERNS 15 16 Commissioner Deaton inquired about the vacant Main Street Cafe site. Ms. Teague 17 stated that an applicant is proposing opening an Athens West restaurant similar to 18 Daphne's Greek Cafe. She noted that this application would only come before the PC if 19 the restaurant plans to sell alcohol or if the floor plan will be different. 20 21 22 ADJOURNMENT 23 24 Chairperson Ladner adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. 25 26 27 Respectfully Submitted, 28 29 30 31 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secret $' 32 Planning Department 33 34 35 APPROVAL 36 37 The Commission on approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission 38 Meeting of Wednesday, April 6, 2005. Page 10 of 10 • Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 5 -2 Courtyard Walls and Decorative Wall Attachments City Council Staff Report Apri125, 2005 ATTACHMENT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPT RE: PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETATION, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED JANUARY 19, 2005 12 January 19, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETATION To: - Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission • From: Department of Development Services Subject: Garden and Courtyard Walls in Residential High Density Zone General Description - Applicant: KENT B. TROLLEN, ARCHITECT Owner: EDWARD AND TERESA MILLER Location: 355 THIRTEENTH STREET (OLD TOWN) • Property Zoning: RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY Request: THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 6 FEET HIGH GARDEN WALL AROUND FRONT YARD, MAINTAINING THE 6 FEET MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK. • Environmental Review: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA ' REVIEW. Code Sections: • SECTIONS 28 -801; 28 -2316 Recommendation: CONSIDER CODE APPLICATION TO SITUATIONS SUCH AS THE PROPOSED GARDEN WALL TO ENCLOSE FRONT YARD AREAS IN THE RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY ZONE AND SELECT DESIRED ALTERNATIVE TO ADDRESS THIS AND SIMILAR REQUESTS. STAFF RECOMMENDS ALLOWING THESE TYPES OF REQUESTS BE ALLOWABLE UPON APPROVAL OF A MINOR • PLAN REVIEW BY PLANNING COMMISSION.. Background On December 8, 2004, an official request was made by Architect Kent Trollen, on behalf of clients Edward and Teresa Miller, to the City of Seal Beach Planning Commission to consider a garden wall to enclose the front yard. The proposed wall is 6 feet in height, • and would extend along the side property lines and across the front of the property at 355 Thirteenth Street. The proposed wall is 6 feet from the front property line to allow for noise reduction and privacy for the proposed residence, which is to be constructed 23 feet from the front property line. The Code, as currently written, does not allow the proposed garden wall. However, the Code would allow construction of the residence to be up to 6 feet from the front property line, so long as the average frontage on the first and second floor maintains a 12 feet 1 Planning Commission Interpretation Garden and Courtyard Walls January 19, 2005 average setback. Since the Code would allow a residence to be constructed 6 feet from the front property, but not a 6 feet high garden wall, the applicant has requested this matter be referred to the Planning Commission for interpretation. Also, the Code does make an exception in the Residential High Density zone for such a wall if the adjacent • residences are constructed 6 feet from the front property lines, which is not the case for the subject property. • The front setback requirement in the RHD (Residential High Density) zone is 12 feet Average/6 feet minimum. All RHD zoning is in District 1, the Old Town Area, so this is a unique issue to this area within the City of Seal Beach. Specific Request • The applicant is planning to construct a new residence and garage, with the proposed garden wall enclosure, on their property located at 355 Thirteenth Street. This request in unusual for two reasons: • 1. The applicant has a larger lot size than is standard for the neighborhood. The standard subdivision of the neighborhood is lot size of 2,500 square feet (25' X 100'). The Miller property at 355 Thirteenth Street is 3,750 square feet (37.5 X 100'). 2. Many property owners building new residences seek to construct the maximum -size structure allowable within zoning restrictions. In this case, the owners are seeking a larger- than-normal front yard. Instead of the 12 feet average/6 feet minimum front setback, they are proposing a 23 feet front setback. As described in the letter attached, the owners would like to enclose a portion of their front yard with a garden wall 6 feet in height, 6 feet from the front property line. The Code would allow the residence to be constructed 6 feet from the front property line. Typical construction for the 12 feet average /6 feet minimum front setback requirement is a portion or all of the first floor to be constructed at 6 feet, with the second floor or a portion of the first and second floor to -be constructed at up to 18 feet in order to achieve the 12 feet average requirement. Interestingly, the Code would allow the requested garden wall if the neighboring residences were constructed at the 6 feet minimum front setback on both adjoining lots. However, in this case as shown on the provided plans, the adjoining residences are set back at least 12 feet from the front property line. This exception is indicated in the Code as follows: Section 28- 2316.Fences, Walls, Hedges and Screen Plantings. A. Specific Fence Provisions. Setback Requirements: -. 1 Planning Commission Interpretation • Garden and Courtyard Walls January 19, 2005 1. Front Yard • a. Interior Lots. On an interior lot or interior site of a corner lot, a wall, fence, hedge, or screen planting not more than six (6) feet in height may be located to the rear of the front of the building nearest the front property line between such building and the nearest side property line. Exception. Whenever a lot has a larger front yard setback than both adjoining lots, a wall, fence hedge or screen planting not • more than six (6) feet in height may be located in the front yard setback, provided that such encroachment does not exceed the greatest front yard setback existing on the adjoining lots. It is an inconsistent treatment to allow construction according to existing conditions on adjacent properties, which could be modified in the future. The plans for the applicant's proposal are attached for reference, including a site plan indicating locations of the adjacent residences on both sides as presently constructed. Suggested Alternatives Alternative 1 — Direct Development Services to allow construction of garden walls up to 6 feet in height to be placed 6 feet .from front property lines in cases such as these, since the existing Code allows the construction of residences up to 6 feet from the front property line. , This is a logical interpretation, to allow a 6 feet high wall in a location where a much .. higher and bulkier structure could legally be built. However, since the Code specifically addresses this issue through the exception noted above, it seems the intention of the Code was to not allow these types of walls to be routinely approved. This alternative would not allow for any public notice to even the closest neighbors and property owners. It also would not allow review by the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission interprets walls such as these to be approved routinely in every case, the Code should be modified to eliminate the above exception addressing this issue according to location of houses on adjacent properties. Alternative 2 — Direct Development Services staff to change the Zoning Code to allow courtyard walls in the front`setback with approval of a Minor Plan Review. This would allow neighbors and property owners within a 100 feet radius to be notified of the consideration and allow them to give feedback prior to the Planning Commission decision. Many similar structures are approved through the Minor Plan Review process, including outdoor fireplaces, gazebos, and other walls higher than the code allows. 2 • Planning Commission Interpretation Garden and Courtyard Walls January 19, 2005 This altemative allows the immediate neighbors and property owners to be notified and the Planning Commission to review at the least cost for discretionary review. The current fee for Minor Plan Review is $150. • • If the Planning Commission- interprets walls to be allowable upon approval of the Planning Commission through Minor Plan 'Review, the Code should be modified to eliminate the above exception addressing this issue according to location of houses on adjacent properties. Alternative 3 - Direct Development Services. Department to interpret existing code as allowing proposals such as this to be allowed upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit per Section of the Zoning Code. The following Code section would support this alternative: Section 28 -801 Residential High Density Zone (RHD Zone) The Planning Commission may, by the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, approve modifications in the required front yard setbacks provided minimum setback of six feet is maintained Consideration may be given to open courtyards, patios or other functional open space located on the lot. In the past, this was generally applied to specific cases seeking less than 12 feet average for front setbacks when open space was provided as courtyard in the mid -lot, additional rear yards were provided, or adequate open space was provided at another portion of the lot. However, the City Attorney and staff agree that this Code section could apply in this case. If this section is applied, a Conditional.Use Permit is required for garden walls when less than 12 feet from the front property line, but no closer than 6 feet from the front property line. • • This alternative to require a Conditional Use Permit, which staff and the City Attorney believe can be applied in these cases, gives maximum public notice through a mailing • within a 300 feet radius of the property, publication, and a public hearing. This is . • excessive when compared to similar items proposed in setbacks requiring approval by the Planning Commission through Minor Plan Review. The current fee for a Conditional Use Permit is $750. Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission direct staff to change the Zoning Code to allow courtyard walls in the front setback with approval of a Minor Plan Review. This would allow the neighbors most affected by the construction to be notified and allow - neighbor comments to be taken into consideration prior to Planning Commission approval. Should the Planning Commission determine that Minor Plan Review is the appropriate approval for this and similar garden walls at the front of properties in the Residential High Density zone, Development Services staff should be directed to eliminate the exception that allows the condition in certain cases based on location of _ adjacent houses placed on neighboring lots. 3 • Planning Commission Interpretation • Garden and Courtyard Walls January 19, 2005 I Christy D. Te.)_ e, AICP / Senior Planner Department of Development Services Attachments: (3) • Attachment 1: Letter dated December 7, 2004 from Kent Trollen, Architect Requesting Planning .Commission Interpretation Attachment 2: Plans • Attachment 3: Photographs • • • • • 4 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2005 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 ( AYES: Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, Shanks, and Sharp 3 NOES: None 4 ABSENT: None 5 6 Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 05-4 begins a 10 -day calendar 7 appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the 8 appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 9 10 STUDY SESSION 11 12 8. Walls /Courtyard Areas in Front Yards 13 14 Ms. Teague delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on. file for inspection in the 15 Planning Department.) She reported that this presentation is the result of a request for 16 a Planning Commission Interpretation (PIC) submitted by Architect, Kent Trollen, who is 17 present tonight, on behalf of his client, Edward and Teresa Miller. The PIC will consider 18 the Code applications to situations similar to the one the Miller's are facing. They wish 19 to construct a closed garden wall to enclose the front yard area in the Residential High 20 Density (RHD) Zone and have the PC select a desired alternative to address similar 21 requests in the future. Ms. Teague indicated that Staff is recommending allowing these 22 types of requests subject to the Minor Plan Review (MPR) process. She stated that '�. currently the Code does not allow such a garden wall, which would be 6 feet high and would be located 6 -feet from the front property line; however, Code does allow 25 construction of a residence to be as close as 6 feet from the front property line, so long 26 as it has a 12 -foot average front setback. She explained that if the homes on either side 27 of the Miller's home were constructed 6 -feet from the front property line, this wall would 28 be allowed with no discretionary approval required. She stated that in this case, the 29 homes on either side of the Miller's home are more than 12 -feet from the front property 30 line. She indicated that it is inconsistent treatment to allow construction according to the 31 conditions in the adjacent residences, which could be modified in the future. She 32 reviewed the three suggested alternatives as described on Pages 2 -3 of the Staff 33 Report as follows: 34 35 1. Allow construction of garden walls up to 6 feet in height to be placed 6 feet from the 36 front property lines in cases such as this, since the existing Code allows the 37 construction of residences up to 6 feet from the front property line. 38 39 2. Direct Staff to change the Zoning Code to allow courtyard walls in the front setback 40 with approval of a Minor Plan Review. 41 42 3. Direct Staff to interpret existing Code as allowing proposals such as this to be 43 allowed upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 44 • Ms. Teague stated that Staff recommends that Alternative 2 be selected, as this would - allow neighbors most affected by the construction to receive notification and allow their Page 8 of 13 • City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2005 comments to be taken into consideration. She explained that should the PC determine (.. that the MPR process would be appropriate for this type of project in the RHD Zone, 3 Staff should be directed to eliminate the exception that allows the condition in certain 4 cases, based upon the location of adjacent homes on the neighboring lots. 5 6 Commissioner Questions 7 8 Commissioner Deaton stated that in the past these types of projects have been 9 approved in Old Town. She cited a home on Sixth Street that has this type of garden 10 wall, but the wall is not set back '6 feet. She said she was not sure how this received 11 approval. Mr. Whittenberg stated that in prior years there have been several cases 12 where walls within the 6 -foot setback area have been approved at more than the 13 42 -inch height allowed by Code. He noted that most of these have been corner lots. 14 He cited a wall approved for a home at 12 Street and Electric Avenue approximately 5- 15 6 years ago. He stated that the proposed wall would be constructed at the 6 -foot 16 setback line, and the .Code does state that a house can be constructed at the 6 -foot 17 setback line. He said it also states that a wall can be constructed to an exception, and 18 the way that Staff interprets this exception is to provide a courtyard someplace in the 19 interior :of the property. He explained that this is why Staff is recommending Alternative 20 2. Commissioner Deaton stated that if by right you can build a structure to the 6 -foot ' 21 setback, then she is not sure why the PC should make a difference as to whether or not 22 it is a house or a wall being built. She said this seems inconsistent. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the only concern that Staff has is that people may take advantage of the 12 -foot average and begin to consistently construct two -story homes with the ground 25 floor at the 6 -foot line, and the second story set back 18 feet to meet the average, and 26 many homes will have a balcony over the 12 -foot area on the second floor. He said this • 27 is probably seen in 80 -85 percent of the average types of applications that come to the 28 Building Department. He continued by stating that the 'other 15 -20 percent of plans 29 received are for homes with the first floor set back 18 feet and the second floor coming 30 out to the 6 -foot setback and a covered patio area is then created underneath, but there 31 are no walls within this area. He indicated that this is why Staff is recommending the 32 MPR process as a means for reviewing these requests. Commissioner Deaton stated 33 that her main concern has been that currently there have been several residences 34 constructed in Old Town with huge walls in front making these homes look like 35 compounds or prisons. She said that it is the nature of this city that homes would have 36 a setback and would be visible from the front and would look like a village rather than a 37 walled -in community. Ms: Teague interjected that in this case the applicant wants to go 38 23 feet back, because they have. a wider than typical lot, and are not trying to maximize 39 their square footage, but for purposes of noise and privacy, they had requested that the 40 wall be 6 feet at that location. Commissioner Deaton stated that she wants to ensure 41 that the wall is set back far enough. 42 • 43 Commissioner Sharp stated that he favors Alternative 2 as this will allow the PC to 44 review these kinds of projects and also allow the neighboring residents to receive A c notice. Page 9 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2005 Commissioner Shanks noted that the wall will provide a different look than the two homes that are set back on each side of 355 Thirteenth Street. He also was in favor of 3 selecting Alternative 2. 4 5 Commissioner Roberts stated that he also favors Alternative 2. 6 7 Public Comments 8 9 Chairperson Ladner opened for public comments. 10 11 Mr. Kent Trollen, the architect for this project, stated that in looking at the architecture of .12 development while walking throughout the city he has observed new construction that 13 resembles tall boxes built out to the maximum, right up to the 6 -foot setback from the 14 property line. He said that this appears to be very prevalent today. He noted that 15 although Seal Beach has been looked upon as the "Mayberry" of the beach cities, it is 16 rapidly changing, with back 'yards disappearing in Old Town and are popping up to the 17 rooftops. He said that given the ability for the Millers to have this garden' provides the 18 opportunity to have a "back yard," since access to homes in Old Town is usually via the 19 garages that abut the alleys. He stated that the only place to have private time would 20 be within an enclosed patio area. Mr. Trollen commented that he did not agree with 21 having to go through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process in order to construct a 22 garden wall. He cautioned that the PC should take a look at what is happening in this City with property owners maxing out development on their properties. He stated that E _ the integrity and. charm of the City is quickly disappearing. He noted that he lived on the 25 Balboa Peninsula for 15 years and over time the character of that community is starting . 26 to disappear because of maximization. He indicated that the street on which he lived 27 used to be all cottages and now there are mostly 2'/ story structures along this very 28 narrow street. He compared it to being in New York and stated that there is no longer 29 any privacy for residents. He stated that garden walls will begin to appear more 30 frequently, as this provides that small, intimate space for residents' privacy and 31 enjoyment. He again cautioned that Seal Beach is changing and he encouraged the 32 Commission to look to the future and see that this kind of project will begin to appear 33 with more frequency. Mr. Trollen then stated that personally he opposes having to go 34 through the MPR process, as he believes a person has a right to privacy. He suggested 35 allowing the garden walls by right. He noted the irony of having to go through a public 36 hearing in order to have a wall for privacy. 37 38 . Commissioner Deaton stated that she was in agreement with Mr. Trollen's comments 39 about the mansionization issue. She said that the PC is preparing to address this Issue 40 in the near future. 41 42 Mr. Trollen noted that the City of Newport Beach had attempted to control 43 mansionization using setbacks and open space requirements. He said that many times 44 in getting focused on the details, you lose sight of the big picture, and Seal Beach is 4 quickly losing its small town ambiance. He stated that five properties on either side of his office are maxed out with what he sees as dwelling units, not houses. Page 10 of 13 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2005 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Ladner closed public comments. 3 4 Commissioner Comments 5 6 Commissioner Deaton stated that she is in total agreement with Mr. Trollen's comments 7 and that the issue is one of balance between maximization and privacy, and walling in 8 the City. She said she would still support a MPR for these projects. 9 10 MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Roberts to direct Staff to draft a Zone Text 11 Amendment requiring a Minor Plan Review for applications for garden walls within front 12 yards. 13 14 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 15 AYES: Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, Shanks, and Sharp 16 NOES: None 17 ABSENT: None 18 19 Mr. Whittenberg stated that the draft of the Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) would 20 probably be ready for presentation at the March 9, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. 21 22 Mr. Whittenberg then reminded the Commission of the need to return to review of the ��. public hearing for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 01 -14 (Indefinite Extension) for Daphne's Greek Cafe. He asked if the applicant had arrived. Ms. Teague reported that 25 the representative for Daphne's had not arrived. She did note that the applicant for 26 Variance 04 -1 was now present. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the PC should decide 27 whether to take action on CUP 01 -14 tonight, or continue the item to the next scheduled 28 meeting of February 9, 2005, to allow the applicant to be present. 29 30 MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Roberts to continue Conditional Use Permit 01 -14 31 (Indefinite Extension) to the next scheduled meeting of February 9, 2005. 32 33 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 34 AYES: Ladner, Deaton, Roberts, Shanks, and Sharp 35 NOES: None 36 ABSENT: None 37 38 Mr. Abbe recommended that the public hearing for this item be opened. So ordered by 39 Chairperson Ladner. 40 41 42 STAFF CONCERNS 43 44 None. a� Page 11 of 13 Public Hearing - Zone Text Amendment 5 -2 Courtyard Walls and Decorative Wall Attachments City Council Staff Report April 25, 2005 ATTACHMENT 5 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED RE: COURTYARD WALLS 13 kent b. trollen 231 Seal Beach Blvd., Suite 2 Seal Beach, Ca. 90740 562.799.9936 Dec. 7, 2004 Cristy D. Teague, AICP Senior Planner City of Seal Beach 211 Eight Street Seal Beach, Ca. 90740 Re: Proposed six foot hight garden wall, six feet from front property line. Dear Christy Attached you will find a Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations of a.preliminary design,concept for the Miller Residence at 355 Thirteenth Street here in -Seal Beach for Edward, and Teresa Miller. To my knowledge, currently the design is in compliance with the Zoning Codes of Seal In fact the design more than complies in that the building-is under the height restrictions, the building is set back beyond -the required •distances at the -front -of -the - property, and the -lot -c- overage -is substantially less than allowed. It is my understanding that the building set back line at the front of property for the first floor is six feet, and the average for the first and second floors is eighteen feet. The proposed design is twenty three feet from the front property line, which is greater than required for both floors. The Owners would be allowed to build a single story residence up to the six foot required setback, however have chosen not to do so. Instead would like to build a six foot high garden wall, six feet from front property line, in lieu of the building line: T understand that the current code does not allow a six foot garden wall, and would be grateful if you would consider granting this request. Given the proximity to Pacific Coast Highway, the Shell Gas Station across the street, and traffic on that street, the owners would like to build this wall for sound reduction, and a bit of privacy. They intend to have family gatherings in the patio area, and would like to be buffered from the public . right of.way. -T -am of the opinion that the relations.ship.of the existing elements on the adjoining properties will-be compatible. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully /4 Kent B. Trollen • ' (t) ,-, ALLEY property line 37.50' 1 — --- --- --- — \ 3-7" t- 30-4" 3._7.. a . line of 2nd floor above • I 1 I . I , § st4 1 d Z I I I I Z . 8.4 1 I fl' • el., 0 • ' 20 THREE CAR GARAGE a. il 1 4. ri 0 11 • 0 ti /1 Ii . I I . 0 0 hi 11 1 • ii pi 1 0 0 0 WI BATH . II II ' 0 iall10_0 I ' I BEDROOM : 0 1 II Al g il UP I I 0 " 1, 11 . . 1:1 14 ` ----- t . 11 0 MI r e ri 1 il r f ENTRY I- hi 0 II 0 1- 0 T DINING • II – P DN II . 0 . _I II rI tl II (I 0 a - 7 1 0 ri 0 0 KITCHEN e e pi UP Ki ( . P . ..--' \ P . • 0 I ri LIVING 0 1 1 li 0 0 1 1 0 i 1 _ . li 0 .."-----... . • 1.1 . . il II il d 11 6" /4 vor.1 k / -- 'gr 353 13th Street ii • 357 13th Street PATIO 0 • ' PATIO d 4'-6" 0 _ – \ 0 (e) 6' high wall—■ 0 ' • . N- --. --..---.-- . i 355 13th Street • 1 7 .:..,- - 1 . . • 't? i ---- 6' high garden wall— to ■••,) V I .4. .--+ - - .-■ i., r (e) loW wall --or I '!:i' • to 0 El _ ._ _property line 37.50 ___ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ \ :-. k • sidewalk k E,