Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1977-03-02 Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 2, 1977 . THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH MET IN REGULAR SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 1977, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN KNAPP AT 7:30 P.M. AND THE PLEDGE TO THE FLAG \~AS LED BY COt1MISSIONER COOK. Present: Lanning, Knapp, Ripperdan, Cook, Madsen The Minutes of February 16, 1977 were approved as presented. 1. Public Hearings A. Mike Mundy, V-3-77 Applicant is requesting a Variance to permit the conversion of a nonconforming triplex in the R-3 zone into a duplex and the addition of two bedrooms, one bathroom and enlargement of the living :room at 1423 Ocean Avenue. Public Hearing Opened, Mike Mundy, 1423 Ocean Avenue, stated that he needed the bedrooms based on the size of his family and that it was not practical to provide additional parking. The Planning Commission discussed various options related to parking. Public Hearing Closed. After discussion, the applicant requested a two week continuance to explore various parking alternatives. Matter continued until March 16, 1977: . B. Public Hearing on Coastal Commission Development Regulations which affect Seal Beach. ,., ".' Secretary presented a deta i 1 ed Staff Report on the Coasta 1 to~i ss i on, City development'standards and the Coastal Co~ission Interim Guidelines. The schedule of Pu~lic Hearings before the Coastline Commission was reviewed and the addresses of the South Coast and State Co~issions were provided so that interested persons could submit written comments if they desired. Four written communications were received. Public Heari ng Opened. Dave Potter, 1007 Sea 1 Hay, i ndi cated that these guidelines were interim and nothing in the law requires these to be adopted. They appear to be specific development standards rather than guidelines and he opposed the proposed densities, setbacks and commercial standards dealing with Pacific Coast Highway. . Bob Herron, Surfside Colony Ltd., President, spoke in opposition to height reductions, string line concept, 1.5 criteria and setbacks. Henry Ericksen, 127 6th Street, noted that current duplex develo~~ent provides more actual parking spacE's per unit than the proposed single family developllIE:nt. He noted that in the administration of the 1.5 criteria, all amenity features are counted as living space ~hich will force development of boxes. '. Gino'Seliguini, Surfside Board of Directors, spoke in opposition to the string line concept on the basis of equal treatment for all. Phil Oliver, 300 Ocean, spoke against the density proposal based on the restriction of housing to the very wealthy and noted that the 1.5 criteria limits units to one small three bedroom and one small two bedroom. . Mr. Gilkerson, 1011 Electric spoke in favor of the guidelines be- cause he feels property values in the beach area are based mainly on speculation price of land. Tom Greeley, 1629 Seal Way, spoke in fav'or of the guidelines be- cause he is opposed to recycling of property, opposed to tandem parking and noted that enforcement is lax, Jim Watson, 1499 Seal Way, noted that the only recycling that is taking place is the removal of very old, poorly maintained 600 t square foot units and the construction of modern single family re- sidences or duplexes. If the new guidelines became effective, Seal Beach will become an exclusive community for the very wealthy. He notes that the 1.5 criteria would limit a single family residence to an apartment size unit selling for $150,000. He opposes the proposed setbacks as too rtgid which limits design alternatives. Similarly, ,he opposes the string line concept, Seal Beach's present standards are designed to allow flexibility in design while protecting the community character, By concensus, the Planning Co~ission left the Public Hearing Opened, and determined to discuss each of the 10 guidelines in order. 1(al.' Denisty By consensus the Planning Commission opposed this item and favors the present zoning standards. The City's present development standards are the result of a lot of work on the part of citizens, the Planning Commission and City Council represented by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. To alter these standards without a great deal of study at the local level is not in the best interests of the community. l(b). Two parking spaces per dwelling unit on new construction of major remodeling. This item is consistent with present City policies and the Planning Commission has no opposition to it as presently worded. l(c) . 1.5 Criteria on small lots . The Planning Commission is of the opinion that the 1.5 criteria, if based on the City's present setbacks, would not cau,e a problem for development. 25'Height limit on all residential structures. The Planning Commission was of the opinion that the City's present height limits should be retained ~tith no cha~ge.. :he ~res7nt height limits have posed no problems and no Justlflcatlon lS apparent for change. New or enlarqed commercial buildings should provide adequate parking. The Planning Commission felt that the term "adequate" should be defined and show what standards qualify as adequate.' 3. Nine acre'DWP parcel to be protected for water-oriented Dublic recreational use. l(d) . . 2. The Planning Commission was unable to make any recommendations on this point and requested City Council to consider this item and make a policy determination regarding it, 4. Imposition of a "string line" concept on beach front development. The Planning Commission opposes this concept as not providing equal treatment to all property O\.mers. The Pl anning Commi ss ion favors the City's policy which establishes a strict setback and allo\~s all persons the opportunity to build or remodel under equal constraints. 5. Restrict buildings in Surfside to 30' in overall height. The Planning Commission was of the opinion that the present City standards should be retained and any changes should be initiated at the local level with discussion between the City and property owners in the affected area. . 6. Continue Bicycle Trail to the beach. The Planning Commission has no opposition to this item as it is in keeping ~Iith present City policies. 7. for re- into planned The Pl anni ng Commi ss i on requested cl arifi cati on of the terms "planned commercial clusters." 8, Protect the EC2logical Preserve in the Wildlife Refuge. The Pl anni ng Co;nmi ss i on supports thi s item and notes that protecti on of the Wildlife Refuge is most important, Nothing should be done to the Wildlife Refuge that would have any negative effect upon its purpose as a refuge. . 9. Reserve the State Lands parcel at First Street and Pacific Coast Highway for recreation, visitor serving accomodations or for a regional transportation terminal. The Planning Commission opposes this policy because the property is rather small in size and located at a major entrance way to the City. This property should be permitted to be developed in conformance with the General Plan and zoning to be a benefit to the City. 10. Residential setbacks: 15' First Floor, 30' Second Floor. ;. The Planning Commission opposes this policy because it is too rigid and does not provide any options in design of the buildings as the present 12' average setback provi des, Further, thi s forces the house to the rear of the lot and does not provide any choice in the placement of open spaces. Rear yards would be precluded by this policy. It was pointed out that zoning regulations in the City are an evolving process. We are just not able to see the results of policies adopted two years ago with the new Zoning Ordinance as newly constructed buildings. Public Hearing Closed. The above Council unamiously with a request on these issues. recommendations are forwarded to the City that the City Council take a policy stand . Res. 1048. 2. Oral Communications ~ There were no oral communications. 3. Written Communications There were no written co~unications. Chairman called a 5 minute recess at 10:00 P.M. Meeting called back to order at 10:05 P.M. 4. New Business A. James R. Watson,'PR-2-77 Applicant is requesting approval for signing in conjunction with a commercial building at 101 Main Street. James Watson, 1499 Seal Way presented examples of the various signs and requested some slight modifications to the signing w~ich would raise the total sign area from 99 square feet to approximately 109 square feet in overall area. Knapp moved to approve PR-2-77. seconded by Lanning and unamiously approved. Res. 1049. B. planning Commission Determinations on Outdoor Promotions in Commercial Areas . Staff brought this item to the attention of the Planning Commission at, the request of a company that wishes to stage promotions on an irregular basis. The Planning Commission discussed the various options and '. . . determined that this type of use should not be permitted at this time. Cook moved to not permit promotions, seconded by Knapp and approved by the following vote: Ayes: Cook, Knapp, Lanning Noes: Ripperdan, Madsen Minute Order. C. "Planning Commission Discussion and Review of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments The Planning Commission had no questions of Staff and concurred with the proposal to advertise for a Public Hearing to consider the amendments on March 16, 1977. 5. Report from Secretary A. Trash enclosure location at 101 Main Street. The Planning Co~ission reviewed plans submitted by James Watson for relocation of a trash enclosure at 101 Main Street. By consensus, the Planning Co~ission approved the plan. Minute Order. B, Secretary reported that the City Yard subdivision would be brought to the Planning Co~ission on March 16, 1977 for the required study session in conjunction with the p,u.n." , C, The Planning Commission discussed having action on a Variance request be limited to the specific items requested and not encompass other items. 6, The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ;/- c- (~~-!; ct.>.//;....--t.'.,.:..",. Recording Secretary