TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
David N. Carmany, City Manager
FROM:
Richard Thompson, Community Development Director
Laurie Jester, Planning Manager
Angelica Ochoa, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:Title
Appeal of Planning Commission's Decision of a Height Determination for a Coastal Permit (CA 12-25) for a New Single Family Residence at 301/303 25th Street
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION
Line
_____________________________________________________________________
Recommended Action
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's denial of an appeal of a height determination for a coastal permit (CA 12-25) for a new single family residence at 301/303 25th Street.
Body
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications associated with the recommended action.
BACKGROUND:
On October 12, 2012, a Coastal Permit application was submitted to the Community Development Department to demolish an existing duplex and construct a new single-family three-story residence with an attached two-car garage located at 301/303 25th Street. Since this project is located in the Coastal non-appealable area of the City, a Coastal Permit is required. On November 28, 2012, a notice of the proposed project was sent to the surrounding neighbors within the required 100 feet of the subject property and the Community Development Director issued a Coastal Permit on December 19, 2012.
On December 27, 2012, an appeal was filed by the neighbor at 2501 Crest Drive located directly to the east (rear) of the subject property objecting to the property corners used to determine the maximum height of the proposed building. The neighbor expressed concerns regarding the maximum height of the proposed new house since it would directly affect their ocean view. The rear portion of the proposed house will be 8-½ feet taller than the existing duplex.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission heard public testimony at their regular meeting of February 13, 2013, discussed the item and denied (4:0) the appeal of the determination of maximum allowable height for the proposed project (Attachment 1). The following summarized the issues that were discussed:
Measurement of Height
Staff summarized the determination of maximum building height for the proposed project in compliance with the City of Manhattan Beach Municipal Code Section 10.60.050:
10.60.050 - Measurement of height
This section establishes regulations for determining compliance with the maximum building height limits prescribed for each zoning district and area district or as modified by an overlay district. The procedure involves a two (2) step process: first the reference elevation, defined as the average of the elevation at the four (4) corners on the lot, is determined and then a second limit is imposed to ensure that no building exceeds the maximum allowable height above existing grade or finished grade, whichever is lower, by more than twenty percent (20%).
(a) Height shall be measured from a horizontal plane established by determining the average elevation of existing grade at all four (4) corners of the lot. In situations where the elevation of existing grade at a lot corner is not clearly representative of a site topography (because, for example, of the existence of such structures as retaining walls, property-line walls, or planters) the Community Development Director shall select an elevation that minimizes, to the extent reasonably possible, adverse impacts on adjacent properties and encourages some degree of consistency in the maximum building height limits of adjacent properties. Such interpretations may be appealed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 10.100.
(b) No portion of a building shall exceed the maximum allowable height for the zoning district and area district in which the building site is located by more than twenty percent (20%). For purpose of this requirement, height shall be measured from the existing grade or finished ground level grade, whichever is lower.
(c) To determine compliance with this section, the Community Development Director may require applicants to submit a topographic survey of the project site, and if necessary, portions of adjacent sites, prepared by a licensed surveyor or licensed civil engineer, depicting existing contours and the contours of finished grade, if different from existing grade, at elevation change intervals no greater than five (5) feet. Survey measurements also shall indicate the elevations of adjacent curbs and street pavements where no curb exists.
Exceptions:
1. The Community Development Director may approve measuring height from finished grade elevation within five (5) feet of front or street side property lines for alterations and additions to preexisting structures that have height nonconformities under the procedures for granting minor exceptions established in Section 10.84.120.
2. The Community Development Director may administratively approve measuring height from local grade adjacent to an existing or planned building that is adjacent to a street where substantial grading occurred which lowered the street, which, in turn, affected the elevation of the street property line. The intent of this exception is to accommodate situations that exist, such as on portions of Ardmore Avenue.
(A) The procedure and standards established by this section shall not be amended, whether by change in regulation, by addition of exceptions or by other means, so as to increase the elevation above sea level of the highest point of any building on a given lot beyond the elevation permissible under existing law, unless the amendment is first submitted to a citywide election and is approved by a majority of the voters. The term "existing law" as used in this subsection includes the outcome of the March 1997 referendum on Ordinance 1933 ("Measurement of Height") and any future amendments to the municipal code.
Historical Information
Staff presented the supporting documents and information (listed below) that were used in the determination of the maximum height for the proposed building:
1. 2012 Survey - The property corner elevations from the subject property survey were used to calculate the maximum height of the proposed building of 138.29 feet.
2. 1989 Survey (2501 Crest Drive) - To be consistent with the property corners that were used in 1989 for a loft and roof deck addition at 2501 Crest Drive (appellant), staff averaged the north east property corner (on the common rear property line) for the subject building at 301 25th Street to be 116.4 (average of 116.9 and 115. 9). The original house was built in the 1930's and the corner of the house is built directly on the southeast common property corner, which has not changed since that time.
3. 1913 Street Plan - In order to verify street grading information on Highland Avenue, staff contacted the Engineering Department to obtain historic information. The street plan from 1913 shows that the property grade before the walkstreet was built on 25th Street was steeper towards Highland Avenue than Crest Drive at the rear. The existing grade of the lot is representative of the grade in 1913.
4. 1966 Topographic Plan - According to City records, this plan shows the elevations before the original existing duplex at 301 25th Street was built. The elevations for all property corners and the maximum height in 1966 compared to 2012 very similar and it shows that the grade has not substantially changed in over 40 years.
5. 1988 Shoring Plans (2504 Highland Avenue) - This plan is for the original construction of 3 units, shows that the grade has not changed for the adjacent full lot directly to the north of the subject lot. The difference in elevations for all property corners and the maximum height in 1966 compared to 2012 is minimal and it shows that the grade has not substantially changed, consistent with the 2012, 1989, and the 1913 plans.
The elevations of Highland Avenue, Crest Drive, 25th walk street, and the subject property corner elevation have not changed significantly in the last 100 years.
Planning Commission Comments
The Planning Commission discussed the survey information and property corner elevations used by Staff to determine the maximum height of the proposed building. Staff relies on surveys for the actual property corner elevations of a lot. The discussion focused on the 1989 survey, from the property to the east at 2501Crest Drive that was used to average the northeast property corner. The Planning Commission felt that staff complied with City of Manhattan Beach Municipal Code Section 10.60.050 a. that states that the Community Development Director shall select an elevation that minimizes the impacts on adjacent properties and is consistent with maximum building height limits of the adjacent properties. Staff applied the same benchmark elevation used in 1989 to the 2012 survey, which showed consistency and the same allowable building height.
The Planning Commission stated that half-lots are common in the Beach area of the City and they will eventually be re-developed. As a result, this will create new buildings based under the current height calculation, different from those that were built in the 1980's, under a different height methodology. For this reason, the existing actual building heights are different from the maximum allowed building heights. The properties to the north of the subject lot, which are full size lots, were developed under the old code height methodology and have lower heights in the front half and higher heights in the rear half, than allowed by the current code. This compares to the appellant's rear half lot (towards Crest Drive), the maximum height limit is higher than the subject front half lot (towards Highland Avenue).
Another issue that was discussed was the number of stories of the proposed building and the existing retaining wall in the north and south side yards about 10 feet west of the property corners. The appellant's attorney states that the proposed building is 4 stories and the grade was filled at the northeast and southeast property corners. Staff explained that the proposed building is only three stories with a deck above the third story, which is allowed per code. In addition, the existing retaining wall on the north side was a cut to access a crawl space for the existing building, the south side was cut to access the existing duplex front doors off the 25th walkstreet, and not a fill as the appellant's attorney stated. The Planning Commission agreed that the supporting documentation reflects that the slope of the property is represented of the walkstreet Highland Avenue and Crest Drive grades.
Overall, the Planning Commission felt that staff followed the measurement of height for the proposed building per Section 10.60.050 of the City of Manhattan Beach Municipal Code, that the correct property corners were used, and that all of the above mentioned documents supported the Director's determination of the maximum height for the proposed building. They concluded that the grade of the walkstreet (25th Street) and Highland Avenue, Crest Drive as well as the north side of the property, per the supporting documentation presented by Staff, has not changed historically in over 100 years.
General Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan goal of maintaining the low-profile development since it is only three stories as allowed per the development standards in the district. In addition, it complies with the General Plan goal of providing open space, required setbacks, balconies, and architectural details to reduce the bulk of the building and enhanced landscaping to beautify the walkstreet.
Appellant's Appeal
At the Planning Commission meeting, the appellant's attorney stated that the documents that were used in the determination of height were not accurate and that the property corners used were not consistent with the actual building heights of the surrounding properties. The attorney stated that the northeast and southeast property corners were disturbed because of existing retaining walls, that the grade was artificially raised and therefore the property corner used in the maximum height calculation was incorrect.
Current Appeal (Attachment 2)
The appellant is appealing the Planning Commission's decision to uphold the Community Development Director's decision on the determination of height for the subject project. The appellant states that the Planning Commission did not address other issues, such as the number of stories, the square footage allowed for a half-lot and the inconsistencies with actual building heights of the surrounding properties. The Planning Commission appeal was limited to building height, which is the Planning Commission Authority. The proposed new single-family residence complies with all zoning codes and the Local Coastal Plan development standards including number of stories, square footage, and height.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, staff is recommending that the City Council uphold and support the Planning Commission and Director of Community Development Department decision of the maximum height determination, thereby denying the appellant's subject appeal.
The attached staff report and minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of February 13, 2012, includes more detailed information regarding the subject item.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Documents from February 13, 2013 (Minutes, staff report and related attachments)
2. Appellant's Appeal dated February 20, 2013
3. Property Owner's Documentation February 26, 2013
4. Letters of support and petitions
5. Building Plans