Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2004-02-09 #J AGENDA REPORT 14, DATE: February 9, 2004 014? TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council THRU: John B. Bahorski, City Manager FROM: Mac Cummins, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Temporary Moratorium — re: Height Restrictions SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Consider adopting a temporary moratorium for construction regarding height restrictions on trapezoidal lots and direct staff accordingly. BACKGROUND: Late in 2003, the City received an application for a variance to the City Code for the ability to construct a 3rd story on the rear half of the individual's residential lot. Under the Municipal Code, 3` story construction is permitted, when a lot is 37.5 feet in width or wider in the old town area. A question arose approximately 2 years ago with reference to trapezoidal lots along the Electric Avenue greenbelt. In these situations, the lot widths are not equal, but in many situations average more than 37.5 feet in width. At the time, the City considered the matter in a hearing before the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission directed staff to consider only those lots which have both lot widths 37.5 feet wide to be sufficiently wide for the purposes of this provision. When staff received the application for a variance late last year, staff began its usual research process. Upon conferring with the City Attorney's office, staff learned that the interpretation of the definition of lot width should supercede any discussion undertaken by the Planning Commission on this topic. As such, staff informed the applicant that they may proceed with their project and are currently under consideration at the California Coastal Commission. Staff brought a report to the Planning Commission on this matter, and the Commission adopted a Memo to the City Council which details the Commission's concerns on this matter. Principally, the Commission feels that for the purposes of height, the ordinance should be more clear and specifically not allow lots to build a 3rd story unless both sides of the lot are sufficiently wide. The Commission is recommending to the City Council that a temporary moratorium be enacted to stop this project and any others which may be Agenda Item 7 applied for in the near future, and during which the City would have time to change the language in the ordinance as necessary. At the last City Council meeting on January 26, 2004, the Council directed staff to prepare the draft moratorium on the Council's agenda this evening. To adopt the moratorium, a 4/5 majority would be necessary. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Staff time in preparing staff reports. RECOMMENDATION: Consider adopting a temporary moratorium for construction regarding height restrictions on trapezoidal lots and direct staff accordingly. a ,_ Mac Cummins, AICP Associate Planner /Special Projects Manager 7 TEf ' PROVED: i v John B. is ahorski, ity Manager Att hments (5) 1. Draft Moratorium 2. Memo from the Planning Commission to the City Council 3. Diagram of Trapezoidal Lots 4. Staff Report to the Planning Commission, dated January 7, 2004 5. Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2004 Agenda Item _ Attachment 1 Attachment 2 City of Seal Beach Memo To: Mayor Campbell and the City Council From: Planning Commission CC: Date: January 7, 2004 Re: Building Height Standards Mayor Campbell and Members of the City Council, It has come to the attention of the Planning Commission that several pieces of irregularly shaped pieces of residential property may be able to build a 3` story under the current provisions of the Municipal Code. Specifically, the issue has been raised in regard to trapezoidal Tots. These lots are typically found along Electric Avenue or an adjoining alley which runs slightly at an angle to the "normal" grid system. Under the Municipal Code, if a property is 37.5 feet in width or wider, that property may build a 3 story. - The Planning Commission's stance on this matter has always been that any such property must have BOTH sides to the property be sufficiently wide. In the case of the trapezoidal Tots, many of these lots would not have qualified. However, after a recent code analysis by the staff and the City Attorney's office, the current Municipal Code definition for lot width precludes any determination that the Planning Commission has made in this regard in the past. As such, several of these lots would qualify for construction of a 3` story under the current provisions of the code. The Planning Commission is requesting that that City Council consider this matter. Further, the Council might consider placing a temporary moratorium on any such lots until a more clear definition of lot width can be established. As the Code is currently written, the Planning Commission is concerned with the definition and how it affects potential development within the City, as so many of the development standards are directly linked to the "lot width" (Setbacks, height, etc.). The Planning Commission would like to thank the Council for considering this matter and looks forward to any direction the Council can give the Commission and the staff in this regard. James Sharp, - Chairman Planning Commission • Page 2 Attachment 3 Diagram of Trapezoidal Lots: Standard Lot: Trapezoidal Lot: 20 Feet 37.5 Feet 4 0 40 Feet 60 Feet Attachment 4 • January 7, 2004 STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission From: Department of Development Services Subject: Information Regarding Determination of Proper Zoning 37.5 foot wide lots height restrictions GENERAL DESCRIPTION Applicant: DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Owner: MULTIPLE - Location: THROUGHOUT TOWN Classification of Property: RHD, RMVID Request: EXPLANATION REGARDING PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION THAT IDENTIFIED THAT TRAPEZOIDAL SHAPED LOTS THAT ARE 37.5 FEET WIDE ON ONE SIDE AND LESS THAN 37.5 FEET WIDE ON THE OTHER SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE 37.5 FEET WIDE FOR THE PURPOSES OF HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS Environmental Review: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW. Code Sections: 28- 701; 28-801 Recommendation: RECEIVE AND FILE STAFF REPORT. FACTS • On March 22, 2000, staff brought an item to the Planning Commission regarding whether or not to consider lots which are trapezoidal in shape and average 37.5 feet in width to be 37.5 feet in width for the purposes of a zoning code provision which allows 3 story construction on such lots. At that meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff that such situations should not be considered sufficiently wide for the purposes of that provision, unless both sides �f the lot meet the width requirement. • Staff has received inquiries as to whether or not a 3 Story can be placed on lots in the Residential Medium Density (RMD) and Residential High Density (RHD) zones which have one width greater than 37.5 feet and one less than 37.5 feet should be considered to be 37.5 feet wide. Staff has been informing these individuals that such a request would require a variance to the City Code. . • The City has a number of trapezoidal shaped lots in these zones, particularly along Electric and Ocean Ave., near the curve near Seal Beach Blvd. • A gentleman has requested a variance at 212 14 St. to build a 3 story. This application has been reviewed by staff. • In consultation with the City Attorney's office, staff has concluded that.the City Code currently has an unambiguous definition of lot width, and this definition supercedes the Planning Commission's prior policy statement on trapezoidal lots. DISCUSSION The City has received a variance request regarding construction above the 25 foot height limit on 37.5 foot wide lots. Currently the Code reads that lots 37.5 feet wide OR wider have a 3 story, 35 foot height limit "On the rear half of the property." Lots less than 3,7.5 feet have a 2 story, 25 foot height limit. As noted above the Planning Commission made a determination which requires both sides of the lot to be 37.5 feet in width in order for this provision to be applicable. A question has arisen as to how to classify the lots which run along Electric. There are several trapezoidal shaped lots which have one side (width) greater than 37.5 feet and the other less than 37.5 feet. In some cases, the difference in sizes is substantial. In fact, there are lots which have nearly 60 feet of frontage on the street and only 25 feet of frontage near the alley. , As part of the application process for VAR 03 -3, staff has reviewed the past minutes and staff reports relating to this matter. During this research, staff and the City Attorney's office worked diligently on the definition of lot width. Upon further review, staff and the City Attorney's office have concluded that the City currently has a definition of lot width which clearly defines how lot width should be calculated on all lots, including trapezoidal lots. As a result, absent a Code revision, the Planning Commission does not have the discretion to disallow third stories on the rear halves of trapezoidal lots based upon an averaging of the two lot widths. As such, staff should not have brought the Zoning Determination on this matter to the City Planning Commission in March of 2000. Staff has informed the applicant in VAR 03 -3 that his project meets the stipulations of lot width, as defined in the City Code, to build a third story and has advised him that his plans are signed ready to move forward through the development pipeline. As such, the applicant in this matter is proceeding forward. It is not known whether or not a moratorium would be in place before his application met a critical point and was permitted to build. This is a possibility, regardless of the direction the Commission takes in this matter. At this juncture, staff has recognized that this might be in conflict with past Planning Commission direction. As such, staff has prepared a draft memorandum for the Commission's review. This memorandum, if adopted, would move forward to the City Council, and would essentially recommend to the City Council that a moratorium be put into place which would halt construction in these situations, until such time as the Municipal Code can be further clarified to restrict the definition of lot width to be in conformance with the Planning Commission's past direction. As such, staff has provided the Planning Commission with 2 options: • Current Definition of Lot Width: "Section 28 -258. Lot Width. "Lot Width" means the horizontal distance between the lot side lines measured at right angles to the line comprising the depth of the lot at a point midway between the lot front line and the lot rear line; provided that the length of the line constituting the rear line of the required front yard shall never be less than the required lot width in the established zone." This essentially means that in the case of trapezoidal lots, the mid point on the perpendicular, or 90 degree angle, side of the lot will be the point at which lot width is measured. This measurement is taken straight across the lot. Option #1: Accept the Current Definition of Zoning This option would essentially allow the existing zoning provisions to remain in place regarding lot width and how it is calculated. This option would essentially allow anyone who meets the current definition of lot width to follow the remaining zoning standards attached to lot width (ie setbacks, height, etc.) to use said lot width for those purposes. In terms of building height on trapezoidal lots, would essentially allow some, but not all, of the trapezoidal lots to qualify. Option #2: Vote to Recommend a Moratorium to the City Council: This option would essentially vote to recommend to the City Council that expresses the concerns of the Nanning Commission and recommends that a moratorium be put into place until this issue can be resolved and a new definition of lot width be considered and adopted. The moratorium could provide, for example, that no construction shall be permitted above 25 feet on any property in the RMD or RHD zones unless the lot width, lot front line, and lot rear line are all at least 37.5 feet long. In any situation, until such a moratorium or Zone Text Amendment is processed, if an applicant meets the criteria of the zoning code, they are permitted by right to build what the code allows. RECOMMENDATION Receive and file staff report. Provide direction as necessary. FOR: January 7, 2004 Mac Cummins, AICP Associate Planner - . - Department of Development Services Attachments (3) 1. Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 22, 2000 2. Minutes of PC Meeting: March 22, 2000 , 3. Draft Memorandum to the City Council, re: Potential Moratorium Attachment 1 Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 22, 2000 March 22, 2000 STAFF REPORT To Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission From: Department of Development Services . Subject: Determination of Proper Zoning 37.5 foot wide lots height restrictions GENERAL DESCRIPTION Applicant DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Owner: MULTIPLE Location: THROUGHOUT TOWN Classification of Property: RHD, RAID Request: RECOMMEND DETERMINATION BE MADE THAT IDENTIFIES WHETHER OR NOT TRAPEZOIDAL SHAPED LOTS THAT ARE 37.5 FEET WIDE ON ONE SIDE AND LESS THAN 37.5 FEET WIDE ON THE OTHER SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE 37.5 FEET WIDE FOR THE PURPOSES OF HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS Environmental Review: THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA REVIEW. Code Sections: 28 -701; 28 -801 Recommendation: PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF AS TO HOW TO HANDLE REQUESTS OF THIS NATURE • FACTS N ▪ Staff has received inquiries as to whether or not a 3' Story can be placed on Iots in the Residential Medium Density (RMD) and Residential High Density (RI-ID) zones which _ have one width greater than 37.5 feet and one less than 37.5 feet should be considered to be 375 feet wide • The City has a number of trapezoidal shaped lots in these zones, particularly along Electric and Ocean Ave., near the curve near Seal Beach Blvd. DISCUSSION The City has received an inquiry regarding construction above the 25 foot height limit on 37.5 foot wide lots. Currently the Code reads that lots 37.5 feet wide OR wider have a 3 story, 35 footheight limit "On the rear half of the property." Lots less than 37.5 feet have a 2 story, 25 foot height limit. A question has arisen as to how to classify the lots which run along Electric. There are several trapezoidal shaped lots which have one side (width) greater than 37.5 feet and the other less than 37.5 feet. In some cases; the difference in sizes is substantial. In fact, there are lots which have nearly'60 feet of frontage on the street and only 25 feet of frontage near the alley. The issue is significant in that if these lots were to be considered to be 37.5 feet wide, they would be allowed to have height limits of 35 feet on the rear half of the lots. In many cases, the rear half of the lot is the wider portion of the lot. This would facilitate 3 story construction on areas generally not thought of to be allowable for that type of construction. There is historical precedent for using an average of the two lot widths. The Code currently requires 15% of the lot width for the side yard setback on side yards which abut a street or alley. On the trapezoidal lots, staff has always averaged-the two widths to generate a number to take 15% of for the lot width. However, in the case of building height, a third story or construction of any kind above 25 feet has always been fairly controversial because of potential view blockage. As the code is currently written, third story construction is allowed. The crux of this determination, then, is whether or not to consider lots whose widths are of different sizes to be 37.5 feet wide (If the average of those two sides is 37.5 feet) and allow 3' story construction on the rear half of the lot. The, vast majority of lots which fall under this category are located on Electric, though there are some properties, if combined to form larger lots, - along Ocean Avenue near the Dolphin which would qualify as well. Staff has provided the following 5 options for the Planning Commission's consideration Option 1: . Only consider lots that have 37 5 feet in width on BOTH sides to be 37 5 feet wide and allow 3'" story construction up to 35 feet. These lots are standard throughout much of town and are rectangular in shape. They are currently allowed 3' story construction, up to 35 feet, on the rear half of the lot. Choosing this option would not allow ANY lot with ANY width less than 37.5 feet to have 3 Story construction. Option 2: Only consider lots that have 37.5 feet in width on the STREET side to be 37.5 feet wide for the purposes of the height limits discussed in Sections 28 -701 and 28 -801 of the City Code This option would allow some trapezoidal lots (Lots with varying widths) to be considered 37.5 feet wide for the purposes of height limits. The caveat with this option is that the street width is wider than the alley width, and would facilitate a narrower portion of building which would be potentially 3 story construction, since 3' story construction is only permissible on , the rear half of the lot, which would be facing the alley. This would eliminate roughly half of the trapezoidal shaped lots which this would potentially affect. Another restriction that staff would recommend is that while only trapezoidal lots with the wider width on the street side be considered, only lots whose average width is greater than 37.5 feet be considered. This will eliminate lots whose width is just more than 37.5 feet on the street side and significantly less than 37.5 feet on the alley side from consideration. Option 3: This option would only consider lots whose width is wider on the back half of the lot than the front half of the lot This would apply to trapezoidal lots whose width is more than 37.5 feet on the alley side and less then 37.5 feet on the street side Again, staff would recommend that an average between the two sides be mandatory to average 37.5 feet to even be considered. In this scenario, the rear half of the property would be allowed to construct 3 stories, 35 feet. However, the difference between this and option two, is that since the rear half is larger, more 3' story construction would be allowed. Option 4: If EITHER width is greater than 37.5 feet, the lot should be considered to be 37 5 feet wide, regardless of the width of the other side, or the average of the two sides Staff recommends against this option. Option 5: If the average of the two lot widths is greater than 37.5 feet wide, regardless of where the larger side is located (ie street or alley side), the lot shall be considered 37 5 feet wide for the • purposes of the height limit on the rear half of the lot This option would allow ANY lot, whose average width is greater than 37 5 to be considered 37.5 feet wide for the purposes of height tin i s This option follows suit with what has been City policy in the past in terms of averaging the widths to generate the street side yard setback. 1 RECOMM ENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission,-after considering all relevant testimony, written or oral, presented during the public hearing, choose option 1 and direct staff to enforce the policy that only lots with 37.5 feet in width on BOTH sides be considered for 3 story construction. The City has taken a policy in the past of discouraging 3' story development in the old town area, and has restricted 3' story construction to lots greater than 37.5 feet in width, which represents the minority of lots in the old town area By discouraging the development of 3' story construction along the Electric greenbelt, developers will be given the same opportunity as anyone else in the City. If they can assemble 2 lots together and have 37.5 feet wide on BOTH sides of the lot, then they will be allowed to build 35 feet high on the back half of the lot. If the Planning CommissionTeels that the best course of action is to average the two widths ' together to gain an average width for the purposes of this section of the code, staff would recommend option five, where the owner can build 3 stories IF their lot averages 37.5 feet, regardless of where the different widths are located on the lot. FOR: March 22, 2000 Mac Cummins / ee W hittenberg Assistant Planner C• Director Department of Development Services Department of Development Services Attachments (1) 1. Photocopy of the County Assessor's Map book showing sample lots Attachment 1 • 4. C'.ITY n: ScA L E 'HIS MAP WAS FRE'ARED FOR ORANGE JNT'' • 5CF - E � i F UFirUSES ONLY r ��� � n,;JtJJ'�l�1 uC THE ASSESSOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE AS TO ITS ACCURACY NOR ASSUMES ANY LIABILITY FOR OTHER USES NOT TO EE REPRODUCED ALI RIGHTS RESERVED - c. npYRIGHT ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR 1995 0 / / /00 • _1 STREE PAR. / • T G � I p • alt, 0.06740. �- 75 27.5I. Si: SA 25 Cr PM ' g �17 I nes 7$ z i 157c I I ti 1 b a:; ' a 1 I l o g S Q 11(0 118 f l i - v � 1 % \�I a _ ` - PM IX I•. ' 1 ! ' � 1 � �c 3 3� CO ST ®s aw' l ~ 1 ® 'S Y,4 : S • �© No. $13.1 G ,J +2 se 7s' p, P�q l! IPA ' ; I ," - rs 1 11 z 32 i • ''41) 16 16 2 0 24 1k i 4 a4 !a5 f48.. 11 DLo 2 4 " l6 15 1 / / i/9 •21 23 25 27 33 35 37 i J5 i4 1 43 45 '47 �' 1 i 3 25 1 1 n" :5 zs' 3/ 2' 1 •7'1 �,,, PM 1 0 1 _ �n e 'r 1 i 2 Q ft, r, II Iz �� 2 zG i� 1•: Z 0m m z5 1 1 -1- 1a I v 1 1 •r s r - , I - - f I ft 1 13 !/ Il I I ° X 375 � 7 s IC' . r �• 7 7 5_' 5 o • ...:•' 3r JI o ,. ! . . % . STREET 9 . 24 ` . � , 7'1.51+ a 7 5e . i.X 75 z5 T5 5; )0 1 ' tiAtI EE1 ( 1 I 1 1 r ! Ci N 4 6 ®� ®ar ® 3,7 36 E ® ®eo; O 7. 1:+ 7s i 1` I I 34 7 : 1 13 SC.{ � .a o i r5 21 I .. I : l6 - • 30 32 41111116, 8 40 1 4 1 44 146 48 150 152 - 2 /5 F 25 27 1 29 31 14� 7 7 39 1 4/ 45 47 49 51 153 57 1, 9 r` o D r 33 1 35 I I R I • (1 e h iZ zs' 75 • :; I 2 5' i5 1 7 5' I Nig C 1 /\ • D 10 it ® ie 0 m® 0 .1 21 . 5 �� • :s' 1 V a3 � �I 0 I �► I I , a 4 t .,� ► ., 1 1 T -., TI V �� • . ; 55' z5 ' S�• xa' TIC - zi I 10 ]o:1 ''o• ( v /3rH • 0 6 74,4: STREET k v .0 . 08 -19 NOTE • ASSESSOR'S BLOCK & ASSESSOR'S MAP - 47 /5R -1)A' /RR. - PA PC'FI NIIMBERS BOOK I99R PAGE 07 • Q //� -. - • •1/7- a 0 1 . r ,.. - m a • ` -- 4Er•• ' - ./.1 7,-H - - b. "'r r.44143 o r. • -. .. - c_ 0 ..."';'— BO* s •-•.:-: • - .- • -, .....,,, .... -• . . . _- — - . - • • � CS� � ~ 4 . : ru rr P /NC 2 m rn-- F.7) � � Q � - 7 On �N -t y • NI rn C rn > • ,• -. - 7, c,-, g t-, r. s-, . --_._t .. . .[___ . 0 , . . . -;. ..;_;:, 7 : - w f St:— 0 - - - - ED r-- 4 ' . ---- - : .; . — • . ' - • • " . - 1 .1 4 4 c: - .. . ........ . . • . , . .. , • .•• , . . tt) . . _.. .,..... I , ." LSO `` k" � • - - -a— c > 7 p rFT,, ?7, - c . 18 — ' 07111'.- c . 'li ft d �� - D � cn � > '' - " - '.1 0* , ..0 z z . _ 72,1 • s .. 0- _ T ''`' 410 T. , • . . . 1 . .1 - LI -ra c.., 00 .- ... ..•. - c co rn C3 0 - • ; ��/ r/� ` N "�Z c> - C:;Z: -.?"..... t i'ZIL -- MO • - • • . m B. ' lite -. 7 e ... od. _- • • ... .. .. .• ". .... • .. _ .... . .,.. _...... . . ...•_ .... . :_..... , .,,,, . • . • .... . . ,_ _ ....._... ,.. . • ..., ......„--).... _. . „,.. . , . • .•• . _: .... . . . ... ... . . .... (.... .-...- 4,, ......_ .. _ , •41 /^ / t N is _ .. b `pi 4.3‘ Q - . • • 1 • -..• is. tr4 s ,,oaf 40:0 . - . , _ ; . - ..; 4904 • • #0.11151114111 i 74111 . _ 1 4 . • • .- ....• . r . ......; ; lik . . •• ••:, r . ) ''' . • 0 • - •• C . Y - - ' - .• • - •0 * 42) sik ,i, - -z- , ... 60 4 . • _. .... • . ir ,:. .,. . _ 4 ,i. 43 ... . . . 1 . 0 a , . z *A i p r . . a *ti f e i l i i f . ...: .. .... . e I or 1 i % Or' 4131...N.- % ...,-, / c., N ' ' I y r,i _ ° — I V _ ALLEr • ~ :Cv -) CO ca 4. a Po ti — — � = y v o� in Z. �� v `o, � , a I I v n C > r� t ea rJ W t`= is• i n _ j - � if-7; ,.. kk, . 7., � �v •• :. i • : __ 1011,,, _� T . L y ` 50• 7 50 7 J { DOLPHIN '° 7S 39 a,,,, „� - . - A VENUE - L r I t / <a i7 bb 730 Mum • -- J �� � . p � 1 t 1 rJ Z ,...3... .V! 8, J O ©© a r 49651 cr, • L., 1 e'c 'vimC ..°'` ,- ' _ •” .�. ti, , • - S � . v J H / Y a ® ' - F7 O °i •, rn _ o hs r �@� � © .J - -04O sr. ��I O o o pal .� o° Q ?s '4; / � •° / Q �J 4b F NU .. 5 � O o `� lir N ‘.- I CO n\ ti A Q t a v • "� 4. s N ♦ / ( y >T� -in I a "Z;) :+ = �cnm02 ;6": l L, ` r y . a O�n• �� c m n > v .4) / - _ > cncci 0' nc » / TH om���U,v ` w i g ' / ST a rnuip�� 0 0 i o o` Z co m G� '13 'II O #s -1 mCnCCO lo Cn 1 T A ( � n cn 0 1'f� cCr) c °Q r C gi _ 0 .4.... Ca CD . • - - CO =N p6 - O • • Attachment 2 Minutes of the Planning Commission March 22, 2000 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2000 1 MOTION b Bro`.^:n; SECOND by Larson to approve the Determination of (General 2 Plan Conformity — Boise Chica Channel Improvements, County of Orange and adopt 3 of Resolution 00 -9. 4 5 MOTION CARRIED: 3 —1 —1 - 6 AYES: Brown, Larson, and Lyon 7 NOES: Cutuli 8 ABSENT: None 9 ABSTAIN: Hood 10 11 12 . 3. Determination of Proper Zoning 13 Citywide . 14 15 - Applicant/Owner: City of Seal Beach Department of Development Services 16 Request: Recommend determination be made that identifies 17 whether or not trapezoidal shaped lots that are 37.5 feet 18 _ wide on one side and less than 37.5 feet wide on the 19 . other should be considered to be 37.5 feet wide for the 20 ' purposes of height restrictions. 21 22 Recommendation: Provide direction to Staff as to how to proceed with )3 requests of this nature. 24 25 Staff Report 26 27 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 28 Planning Department.) He stated that this matter had been brought before the 29 Planning Commission for a determination on how to classify certain lots within the 30 City. He said that currently the City Code allows third story, 35 -foot construction on 31 lots in Old Town that are greater than 37.5 feet wide. He noted that there are 32 several Tots in Old Town that are rectangular that meet this criteria, however, an 33 inquiry was recently made on how to classify lots that run along the Electric Avenue 34 greenbelt. Mr. Cummins stated that many of these lots are quite narrow on one end 35 and very wide on the other. He said that some lots can be 50 to 55 feet on the wide 36 side and 22 to 27 feet on the narrow side. He said that there is some historical 37 precedent for averaging the two widths to generate a width for the lot. He stated that 38 this is how Staff has calculated the width when computing the side yard setback 39 abutting a street, which is 15% of the lot width. Mr. Cummins stated that whether or 40 not third story construction would be allowed is not at issue. He said that the real 41 issue is whether or not the Planning Commission feels it would be appropriate to 42 count lots that have a 37.5 foot width on one side to be 37.5 feet wide for the 43 purposes of the height restriction. He presented several options as proposed by 44 Staff as follows: I.5 46 1. Both sides of the lot must be 37.5 feet wide in order for the lot to be considered 47 -37.5 feet Wide and allow third story construction up to 35 feet on the rear of the 7 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2000 1 l This w ou ld b a standard rectangular lot, or i th c of a tr lot, 2 two 37 5 -foot lots could be assembled together. 3 2. The street side of the lot is 37.5 feet wide, and the average of the two widths 4 would have to be 37.5 feet wide. Staff included this as an option since one lot _ 5 along Electric Avenue can be wider on the street side while the next lot may be 6 wider on the alley side. This is a result of the way Electric Avenue cuts through 7 the lots. Because the 35 -foot height limit is allowed only on the rear half of a 8 lot, those lots that have the wider side on the street side would have less third 9 story construction. 0 3. To allow more third -story construction on the rear half of the lot for those lots 1 that would be wider in the rear than in the front. 2 4 If either side of the lot is 37.5 feet wide, the lot would be considered to be 37.5 3 feet wide, regardless of the average of the two widths. 4 5. To average the two lot widths-to calculate lot width. If the average were 37.5 5 feet or greater, the lot would be considered to be 37.5 feet wide, regardless of 6 where the larger side is located (i.e., street or alley side). 7 8 Staff is recommending approval of Option No. 1, which proposes that only lots that • 9 are 37.5 feet wide on both sides be considered eligible for third story construction. :0 ' Mr. Cummins stated that in the past the City has taken the position of discouraging '1 third story development. Staff recommends maintaining this objective. He noted :2 that developers could assemble two lots contiguously, which would create a lot that :3 is 37.5 feet wide on both sides. : 4 :5 Commissioner Questions :6 '7 Commissioner Lyon asked how many lots were involved. Mr. Cummins responded '8 that approximately 15 -20 lots were affected. He stated that some of the Tots that run :9 perpendicular to Electric Avenue measure 25 feet. ,0 .1 Commissioner Larson asked if under Option 1, a lot with a 50 -foot frontage and .2 measuring 35 feet on the alley could not have a third story 35 -foot construction since .3 the rear of the lot measures less than 37.5 feet. Mr Cummins responded that this ;4 was correct. •5 )6 Public Comment ;7 • Chairperson Hood opened for public comment. ;9 .0 Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he was not a big fan of how the City height limits are .1 . written. He said that the 35 -foot height limit.was actually a 42 -foot height limit, and .2 25 -foot height limits are actually 32 feet. He stated that there was a lot of deception .3. about what the height limits actually are Mr. Clewley stated that while it may be true . in Old Town and in Surfside that if you have a 37 5 -foot lot, you can have a 42 -foot .5 height limit, on The Hill the height limit is 32 feet. He said that this was patently •6 unfair and that the same height limit should be applicable to all City properties He 8 u City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2000 said that until the City corrects t e qu ties in this th best way interpret 1 h ine,, i i n thi law, b„s � ay to 2 what is allowable would be to follow the recommendation of Staff to approve Option 3 No. 1. Mr. Clewley stated that if the height limit was to be increased for anyone, it 4 should be increased across the board for everyone, without making exceptions for 5 odd shaped lots. 6 7 Chairperson Hood closed the public comment period. 8 9 Commissioner Comments 10 11 Commissioner Larson asked why Staff was specifying 37.5 feet. Mr. Whittenberg 12 responded that his best guess would be that most of the-lots in Old Town are 25 feet 13 'wide. He said that for many of these lots, property owners have acquired half of an 14 adjoining parcel creating a 37.5 -foot lot. He stated that he assumed that in the 15 1960's when the City Code was developed, in order to accommodate existing 16 construction on the wider lots, the City made a conscious decision to limit the lots to 17 37.5 feet. He said that the City has remained very strict on this. He noted that when 18 applications were brought before the Planning Commission and the City Council for 19 third story construction on lots measuring 37.48 feet along Ocean Avenue, they were 20 denied. He said that this was the first time that Staff can recall application being 21 made on this issue for the trapezoidal lots along the Electric Avenue greenbelt or 22 anyplace else within the City. As such, Staff felt that the issue should be presented 23 to the Planning Commission for final determination. 24 25 Commissioner Brown stated that this was one of the easier issues presented to the 26 Planning Commission. He noted that in the 7 years that he has served on the 27 , Planning Commission, there has been a consistent movement to lower the density of 28 Old Town, and the determination was made to limit lot size to 37.495 feet. He said 29 that there had also been a plan proposed by then Mayor Hastings to eliminate third. 30 stories altogether. Commissioner Brown stated that this proposal was never 31 approved because for some residents it would have meant taking away something 32 that they already had. He said that the general consensus was that it was a good 33 . idea to not have third stories in the back of lots because they looked awkward and 34 there was concern that this would impact the light, airflow, and view for neighboring 35 properties. He said he was strongly in favor of Staffs recommendation of 36 maintaining that only those lots measuring 37.5 feet for front and back of lot widths 37 be allowed third story construction. He noted that he had not seen any mention of 38 the actual Code within the Staff Report, and stated that he felt it was important to • 39 include this. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would be corrected. Commissioner 40 Brown stated that should a property owner wish to build a third story structure, this 41 could be done by acquiring two lots. 42 43 Commissioner Lyon stated that he was in agreement with Staffs recommendation. 44 He stated that if a lot is not 37.5 feet on both sides, it is not a 37.5 -foot lot 45 9 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 22, 2000 1 Chairper Hnnri noted that it appe th the Commi w as in f of Option 2 1 3 4 .MOTION by Lyon; SECOND by Brown to approve Option No. 1 as recommended by 5 Staff, and direct Staff to clarify language and compose Zoning Text Amendment to 6 present to Planning Commission at a future meeting. 7 8 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 9 AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon 0 NOES: None 1 ABSENT: None 2 3 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS _ 5 6 4. Minor Plan Review 00 -2 (Continued from January 19, 2000.) 7 1733 Crestview 8 9 Applicant/Owner: Gary and Terri Myers 0 Request: To receive approval for a previously non - permitted deck . 1 extending into the rear yard setback. '2 3 Recommendation: Recommend item be continued to the Planning :4 Commission meeting of May 3, 2000. , '5 :6 Mr. Whittenberg noted that a letter from the applicant requesting a continuation was :7 included with the Agenda packet. He stated that the letter was not exactly correct, :8 as Staff had never determined a date that would be appropriate for continuation. He :9 said that this would be the decision of the Commission. Mr. Whittenberg stated that .0 his comment to the applicant had been. that he did not believe the Commission .1 would be willing to grant an extension of more than 30 days. He said that the Myers' ;2 have retained a structural engineer who due to a full schedule has not been able to ;3 visit their home to evaluate the structure. Mr. Whittenberg recommended this item ;4 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 3, 2000. ;5 ;6 Chairperson Hood asked if the matter required a public hearing. Mr. Whittenberg ;7 responded that he would research this, but that as he recalled the Commission did ;8 not authorize Staff to present this item as a Public Hearing item. Commissioner ;9 Brown stated that he believed City Council wanted this to be a Public Hearing Item. -0 Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would look into the matter. Commissioner Brown -1 stated that if the item were to be continued, it should be re- noticed as a public -2 hearing item. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this would not be a problem. =3 -4 Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he wished to comment on Minor Plan Review 00 -2. -5 Chairperson Hood noted that because this was to be continued, there would be no -6 public hearing at this time. He inquired of the City Attorney as to the protocol Mr I 1 0 Attachment 3 Draft Memorandum to the City Council, re: Potential Moratorium Crtf of Seal Beach Memo . To: Mayor Campbell and the City Council From: Planning Commission CC: Date: January 7, 2004 Re: Building Height Standards Mayor Campbell and Members of the City Council, It has come to the attention of the Planning Commission that several pieces of irregularly shaped pieces of residential property may be able to construct a 3 story under the current provisions of the Municipal Code. Specifically, the issue has been raised in regard to trapezoidal lots. These lots are typically found along Electric Avenue or an adjoining alley which runs slightly at an angle to the "normal" grid system. Under the Municipal Code, if a property is 37.5 feet in width or wider, that property may build a 3 story. The Planning Commission's stance on this matter has always been that any such property must have BOTH sides to the property be sufficiently wide. In the case of the trapezoidal lots, many of these lots would not have qualified. However, after a recent code analysis by the staff and the City Attorney's office, the current Municipal Code definition for lot width precludes any determination that the Planning Commission has made in this regard in the past. As such, several of these lots would qualify for constriction of a 3 story under the current provisions of the code. The Planning Commission is requesting that the City Council consider this matter. Further, the Council might consider placing a temporary moratorium on any such lots until a more clear definition of lot width can be established. As the Code is currently written, the Planning Commission is concemed with the definition and how it affects potential development within the City, as so many of the development standards are directly linked to the "lot width" (Setbacks, height, etc.). The Planning Corrunission would like to thank the Council for considering this matter and looks forward to any direction the Council can give the Commission and the staff in this regard. James Sharp, Chairman Planning Commission Attachment 5 J 1 2 3 MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as 4 amended. 5 6 MOTION CARRIED: 4 — 0 — 1 7 AYES: Sharp, Deaton, Ladner, and Shanks 8 NOES:. ' None 9 ABSENT: None 10 ABSTAIN: Eagar 11 12 13 SCHEDULED MATTERS ' 14 15 2. Information Regarding Determination of Proper Zoning — 37.5 Foot Wide Lot Height 16 Restrictions 17 18 Staff Report _ 19 20 Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 21 Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and 22 explained that the Planning Commission (PC) conducted public hearings 3 years ago to 23 determine whether or not trapezoidal- shaped lots should be considered sufficiently wide 24 for the purposes of the height provision in the Zoning Code (ZC). He clarified that the 25 ZC currently states that if a lot is 37.5 feet wide or wider a third story can be constructed 26 on the back half of the lot. He said that 3 years ago there was a series of applications _ 27 for third stories on the back half of trapezoidal lots that either fronted Electric Avenue or 28 the alleys behind Electric Avenue. He stated that at that time the question of using an 29 average of the lot dimensions was addressed. Mr. Cummins indicated that after 30 conducting public hearings on this issue the PC had determined that both sides of these 31 lots had to be 37.5 feet wide or wider in order for the lot to' be considered wide enough 32 to allow a third story. He stated that approximately 3 months ago an application' was 33 received for a Variance to this provision to construct a third story on a trapezoidal lot. 34 He said that in reviewing all of the information, including the PC determination with the 35 City Attorney's office, Staff has determined that the current definition of lot width must 36 - supersede any previous PC determinations on this matter. He indicated that as a result 37 the City currently has a definition of lot width that must be applied to all properties 38 regardless of their shape. Mr. Cummins stated that Staff conceptually approved the 39 project previously scheduled as a Variance. He said that this information is being 40 brought before the PC to apprise the Commissioners of the situation and to seek 41 direction. He explained that currently this provision exists by ordinance and is City law 42 and Staff must process all applications as such. He identified the two options available 43 to the PC as follows: 44 . 45 1. Accept the current definition for lot width in the Zoning Code, Page 3 of 6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2004 2. Ask City Council to consider changing the definition of lot width in the Zoning 2 Code. 3 4 He stated that Staff has included a draft memorandum, should PC choose to forward it 5 to the City Council for consideration in changing the definition of lot width, or the PC 6 could choose to give Staff direction to accept the current definition of lot width. Mr. 7 Cummins stated that because the PC had conducted public hearings in the past on this 8 issue, Staff thought it appropriate to bring this item back before the PC for 9 consideration. 10 11 Commissioner Questions • 12 13 Commissioner Deaton stated that she had driven Electric Avenue today to determine 14 how many homes would be affected by this issue, and she found that almost all of the 15 homes on the south side would be impacted. She asked if by entertaining this issue, 16 would the City be opening the door for "mansionization "? Mr. Cummins stated that he 17 did not believe that "opening the door," would be the best terminology, since City Code 18 currently exists and there has been no significant increase in applications either for 19 Variances or to build under the provisions of the Code. He confirmed that the majority 20 of these properties are located on the south side of Electric Avenue along with the first 21 properties on the numbered streets that abut the alleys behind Electric Avenue. He explained that the majority of these properties probably meet the definition of being 37.5 feet wide, but many of these properties have existing apartment units and economically 24 he did not see that it would make sense to tear these buildings down to construct large, 25 three -story homes. He noted that the nonconforming provisions as they currently exist, 26 would prohibit converting these structures to three stories. Commissioner Deaton 27 stated that she is not concerned about a rush of applications, but is more concerned 28 about buildings becoming bigger and using more lot coverage. She asked if this would 29 be a way to expect to see more three -story structures going up along this area. Mr. 30 Cummins stated that the Zoning Code would allow this. 31 - 32 Commissioner Shanks asked if the moratorium were made indefinite, are there any 33 applications in process right now that would be affected? Mr. Cummins stated currently 34 there is one project in the pipeline, and it would be up to City Council (CC) to determine 35 whether they wish to exempt projects currently in the pipeline. Commissioner Shanks 36 asked if the City is assuming that the moratorium would be looking into the 2000 37 Planning Commission recommendation that lot size be 37.5 feet at front and back? Mr. 38 Cummins stated that the way the memo is drafted the PC would be recommending to 39 CC that they consider amending the definition of lot width to make sure that both the 40 front and back sides of lots are 37.5 feet wide, with the moratorium to stop third story 41 construction until this definition is properly amended to protect the public health, safety, 42 and welfare. Commissioner Shanks asked why no action was taken in 2000 when the 43 PC made this recommendation? 'Mr. Cummins responded that when the PC made this A 4 determination Staff began interpreting the Code in that manner, informing applicants that in order to construct a third story on these lots they would need to apply for a 46 Variance. He said Staff would also inform the applicants that the PC had made the Page 4 of 6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2004 1 determination .that lots must measure 37.5 feet wide on the front and back of the lot. 2 Commissioner Shanks stated that as he reads the present Code it states -that "if Tots are 3 37.5 feet halfway between the front and back of the lot." Mr. Cummins confirmed that 4 this was essentially correct. 5 6 Public Comment Period 7 8 Chairperson Sharp opened for public comments. . 9 10 There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Sharp closed the public comment 11 period. 12 13 MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Deaton to approve the memorandum to the City 14 Council dated January 7, 20,04, recommending a moratorium on construction of three - 15 story homes on lots that measure less than 37.5 feet in width on the front and back of 16 the lot. 17 18 MOTION CARRIED: 5 — 0 19 AYES: Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks 20 NOES: , Wine 21 ABSENT: None 22 23 24 PUBLIC HEARINGS 25 - 26 None. 27 28 29 STAFF CONCERNS 30 31 Mr. Whittenberg reported that Mr. Cummins is now the proud father of a son, and he 32 then stated that he hoped everyone had a nice holiday season. 33 _ • 34 35 COMMISSIONER' CONCERNS 36 37 Chairperson Sharp stated that it appears that work on the Boeing Project has begun. 38 He asked when the double -paned windows are to be installed in those homes in Leisure 39 World along Westminster Avenue across from the Boeing site? Mr. Cummins reported - 40 that this project has just begun the California Coastal Commission (CCC) review 41 process, and this would have to be completed prior to beginning the installation. Mr. 42 Whittenberg interjected that currently the archaeological investigation work is under 43 way. 44 45 Commissioner Shanks noted that he had observed some work being done close to 46 Westminster Avenue along Seal Beach Boulevard where the flooding occurs whenever Page 5 of 6 .