Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 - Approve PC Min 2012-07-18City of Seal Beach - Planning Commission July 18, 2012 Chair Massa-Lavitt called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 20, 2012. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag led by Joe Osuna, Seal Beach Cable Communications Foundation board member. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Massa-Lavitt; Commissioners: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg (Commissioner Goldberg arrived at 7:30 p.m.) Staff Present: Greg Hastings, Interim Director of Community Development Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney Linda Devine, City Clerk APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Assistant City Attorney requested to reorder the agenda with item #2 (AB 1234 – Ethics Training) moved to immediately follow the approval of the agenda. Motion by Cummings, second by Everson, to approve the agenda as reordered. AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None ABSENT: Goldberg Motion Carried The Assistant City Attorney led the training and gave a PowerPoint presentation (Ethics and the Law in Public Service). There were 18 members of various boards/committees/commission and staff present to participate in the training. The Planning Commission recessed at 6:30 p.m. and reconvened in the City Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m. Chair Massa-Lavitt briefly stated that the Planning Commission meeting was previously called to order at 5:00p.m. for AB 1234 Ethics training. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chair Massa-Lavitt opened oral communications. There being no speakers, Chair Massa-Lavitt declared oral communications closed. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Everson, second by Cummings, to approve the consent calendar as presented. Page 2 – Planning Commission 07/18/12 AYES: Cummings, Everson, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None ABSTAIN: Galbreath Motion Carried 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2012. (Commissioner Galbreath was not present at that meeting, and abstained in accordance with Commission practices). SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. This item was reordered and presented after “Approval of Agenda”. 2. Planning Commission and Staff training – AB 1234 (Ethics). th 3. Rooftop Canopy status – 234 4 Street Commissioner Goldberg recused himself and left the Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m. due to a possible conflict of interest with him residing within 500 feet of the property. Interim Director Hastings provided a brief report regarding the discussion item – there is no action for the Planning Commission to take at this meeting - the homeowners have been notified that the structure needs to be removed or modified to conform with the 25’ height limit of the zoning code. Commission Questions and Comments: Commissioner Everson: inquired when the homeowners received notification to remove/modify the structure - whether a deadline was set in place - and what modifications were suggested for the structure (the letter was sent July 11, 2012 – homeowners were given approximately two weeks to comply, will continue to work with homeowners – modify structure to be retractable, have not yet determined feasibility). Chair Massa-Lavitt opened the floor to allow members of the public to speak th regarding the item. Speakers: Jim and Donna Hardesty, owners of 2344 Street, provided background information regarding the canopy and the process that they have been through – have worked cooperatively with the City - staff and officials have visited their home – unbolting would remove classification as a structure, and would not fall under measure Z – are ready to proceed with unbolting the canopy and making it collapsible – poles would not retract, but the shading unit can be lowered; Marc Loopesko, Old Town resident, stated that the height limit for 25’ lots has been in place before Measure Z, commented that he considers structure to be an awning, not an umbrella, and inquired as to why it is not currently covered under Ordinance No. 1595; Mike Buhbe, Old Town resident, reiterated the amount of support in favor of Measure Z and a 25’ height limit, interprets height limit to prohibit anything from going over 25 feet; Bob West, Page 3 - Planning Commission 07/18/12 neighbor and Old Town resident, commented that the structure is tastefully done, inconspicuous, and supports the home owner. Commission Questions and Comments: Commissioner Everson: received clarification regarding Measure Z (Measure Z uniformly applied a 25’ height limit in Old Town regardless of lot width); inquired about exceptions to the 25’ height limit (chimneys, flag poles, antennae, et cetera); questioned whether there was anything in the current code regarding “furniture” type pieces like umbrellas (past practice has been to allow temporary items like umbrellas, EZ-ups, hot tubs); received clarification regarding the Planning Commission’s authority to act on an item, if not spelled out in the code (to determine whether there should be guidelines or regulations regarding detached rooftop structures in the future; there is no action needed tonight, informational only). Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: appreciated that the homeowners and staff were working cooperatively together and encouraged them to continue to do so. Commissioner Goldberg returned to the Council Chambers at 7:55 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Variance 12-2 (Continued from meeting of June 20, 2012) th 226 4 Street Applicant: Brent Sears – Architect Owners: Bob & Cathy West Request: To allow an existing 7’-0” rear yard setback to remain (9’-0” is the minimum required rear setback for this property) in conjunction with a proposed first-floor addition of approximately 180 square feet to an existing single-family dwelling. Recommendation: Continue to regular Planning Commission meeting of August 1, 2012 The Senior Planner delivered the staff report – indicated that the property owners and the architects have been discussing options subsequent to the June 20, 2012 meeting – property owners and architect are ready to move forward – staff is requesting that this item be continued to August 1, 2012. Motion by Cummings, second by Everson, to continue the item to the regular Planning Commission meeting of August 1, 2012. Page 4 – Planning Commission 07/18/12 AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None Motion Carried 5. Conditional Use Permit 12-2; Minor Use Permit 12-4 th 125 14 Street Applicant: Ralph Bakker Owner: Frank Bakker Request: To allow a short-term vacation rental property; front porch addition; and interior wall reconfiguration to an existing, nonconforming property within the th Residential High Density (RHD-20) zone at 125 14 Street. Recommendation: Approve CUP 12-2 and MUP 12-4, subject to conditions. The Senior Planner delivered the staff report – indicated that there non- conforming front and rear setbacks – the code does not allow square footage expansion for non-conforming multi-unit properties – does permit changes such as balconies, porches, roof decks – staff generally agrees with the applicant’s request subject to conditions – the CUP is for a new vacation rental. Chair Massa-Lavitt opened the public hearing. Speakers: Ralph Bakker, applicant, was concerned with the limits on the number of persons allowed and it potentially deterring many renters, inquired about any possible roof allowance – does not see it as architecturally pleasing to have the roof limited to two feet and the porch jetting out farther, indicated that his father (owner) wants to be in compliance. Commission Questions and Comments: Commissioner Galbreath: stated concerns regarding the overhang above the porch and inquired about setbacks (average setback is 12 feet, and property is nonconforming). Commissioner Goldberg: commented on concerns regarding response time by property manager if owner is out of state (not required to be selected at this time, property manager will be local). Commissioner Everson: inquired whether applicant would consider taking the wall in to maintain design element (applicant would need to discuss with owner and evaluate costs). There being no other speakers, Chair Massa-Lavitt declared oral communications closed. Page 5 - Planning Commission 07/18/12 Commission Discussion: Commissioner Goldberg: received clarification regarding condition #18 (intent is to avoid permanent business signage); would like to see condition requiring property owners of short-term vacation rentals to notify neighbors of conditions placed on property and provide contact information; stated concerns regarding parking impacts and ability to enforce number of guests. Commissioner Everson: in favor of the architecture and design, but believes the planning elements (like the setbacks) have greater priority; supports using the number of bedrooms as a starting point of consistency in limiting the number of occupants; supports condition requiring garage to remain open and not used as storage; supports notifying adjacent neighbors and providing them with contact information for property manager. Commissioner Cummings: supports notifying neighbors of required conditions. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: spoke in favor of the architectural design of the porch, and is hesitant to approve without viewing revised plans; concurs with limiting the number of persons per bedroom; Commissioner Galbreath: inquired whether there are restrictions on other rental properties in the City that limit the number of occupants allowed (State law covers occupancy limits for residential properties; the CUP process allows Commission to impose such restrictions). The Assistant City Attorney reviewed the additional conditions the Commission had discussed: Add New Condition – Prior to the occupancy of the first short term vacation tenant, the owner shall deliver to the owners of all immediately adjacent properties by certified mail with return receipt requested, the telephone number required to be provided to the City, pursuant to Condition 15, and a copy of the resolution (conditions of approval). Motion by Goldberg, second by Everson, to approve Conditional Use Permit 12- 2, and adopt Resolution No. 12-11, as amended. AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None Motion Carried The Assistant City Attorney advised that the approval of Conditional Use Permit 12-2 and adoption of Resolution No. 12-11 begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. Motion by Everson, second by Cummings, to approve Minor Use Permit 12-4, subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution No. 12-12, as presented. Page 6 – Planning Commission 07/18/12 AYES: Cummings, Everson, Galbreath, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None Motion Carried The Assistant City Attorney advised that the approval of Minor Use Permit 12-4 and adoption of Resolution No. 12-12 beings a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. DIRECTOR’S REPORT No report at this time. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Cummings had concerns regarding a banner in front of the tattoo parlor (Staff has been made aware and has discussed with code enforcement); Commissioner Goldberg inquired about the guidelines for temporary banners; Commissioner Massa-Lavitt questioned when the Commission might discuss guidelines regarding rooftop furniture (Staff will be providing a list of potential discussion items at a future meeting for the Commission to select). ADJOURNMENT Chair Massa-Lavitt adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Deputy City Clerk Approved: Chair Attest: Deputy City Clerk NOTICE: The following document has not been approved for accuracy and may be corrected, modified or amended before final approval. Because it is being made available prior to final action, it should not be considered a true record of the meeting. It is not the official Minutes of the Planning Commission and cannot be relied on or used as an official record of the proceedings. Although the City of Seal Beach makes every effort to see that proper notes are taken at a meeting, and although draft Minutes are generally approved as submitted, changes and corrections are sometimes made before a final version is approved. The City therefore makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the contents of this document. Once Official Minutes have been pproved, a copy can be obtained from the City Clerk. a