Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1982-07-21 ~ '.' MINUTES OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION OF JULY 21, 1982 The Planning Commission of Seal Beach met in regular session on Wednesday, July 21, 1982 in the Council Chambers of the City Administration Building. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Covington at 7:30 p.m. and the pledge to the flag was led by Commissioner Jessner. PRESENT: Commissioners Jessner, Perrin, Smith & Chairman Covington EXCUSED ABSENCE: Commissioner Goldenberg STAFF: Planning Associate Antos The minutes of the July 7, 1982 meeting were considered and unanimous,ly approved. NEW BUSINESS . The resolutions honoring Jim Gilkerson, and commending Jean Danielson and Robert Denney were deferred until the next Planning Commission meeting when all five commissioners will be present. At this ,time, Mr. Antos requested the Commission to amend the agenda to take Oral Communications from the audience next, for the benefit of a mem~er of the audience. The Commission consented and Mr. Antos gave a brief background of a problem brought to the City's attention. He stated' that in Surfside Colony, there are 3 rows of lots fairly small in size, 25 ft. wide by 35 ft. deep. The construction in Surfs ide Colony now permits 35 ft. high buildings without consideration of stories. The problem brought to the attention of the Building Department at the time when a new 3-story residence was being readied for a Certificate'Jof - Occupancy, is that the house is not built where it should be, has not the proper setback from property line and in fact, is partially on the property line of B15 Surfside. Mike Anderson, Jr. addressed the Commission on behalf of his father, the owner of B15 and C41 Surfside. He indicated that B14 does encroach on his property at B15. He stated that the former house on that property was torn down to allow for construction of the new home. Staff indicated that at the time B14 asked for a Certificate of Occupancy, the City's position through the Building/Engineering and Planning Departments is that no Certificate of Occupancy will be issued until such time as the problem of encroachment onto the neighboring property is resolved between the two property owners, and also the problem regarding setbacks should be resolved. . Chairman Covington asked what has been the City's procedure on matters such as this in the past. Staff replied that no such case has come up in the past. Mr. Anderson wished to bring this matter before the Planning Commission. The normal procedure in law is that the property owner whose property is being Minutes of 7/21/82 P.C. Meeting Page 2 . encroached upon can say "move your building off my property." The other solution, which has been used before, is to sell that part of the property on which there is encroachment to the person who is encroaching and have the lot line redrawn at whatever place the person who owns the property thinks fair. . Chairman Covington added that this should be done subject:to the City's approval. Staff stated that if it comes down to a lot line adjustment, the matter would come before the Planning Commission for approval. Commission Jessner asked if there was a fence along the property line originally'. Mr. Anderson rep1 ied there was a fence on the property 1 ine, but he'did not know who was the owner. Commissioner Jessner indicated that Mr. Anderson's concern was that a Certificate of Occupancy should not be given to B14 until the matter is resolved. Staff replied that no Certificate of Occupancy could be given by law until resolution of, the problem. Mr. Anderson stated tha~_he has tried to contact the owner/builder but has so fal:received' h6 respons-e.- Staff stated that a letter had been sent to the owner/builder apprising him of the problem. He was also informed that Mr. Anderson hired a surveyor to survey his property, a copy of which has been given to the Commissioners. Chairman Covington asked if the survey conformedeto data the City has on record. Staff stated that there was a survey done by Surfside Colony Limited. They hired a firm to perform a complete survey prior to their annexation and a copy was given to the City, Commissioner Perrin asked if a fence has been erected. Mr. Anderson stated that no fence has been built. Mr. Perrin stated further that should a fence be built, there will be further encroachment on Mr. Anderson's property. Commissioner Smith stated that normally it is the responsibj1ity of the owner to have a survey prepared for the architect. Staff 'replied that the City does not go back to old records to make sure a survey is correct. It is up to the person presenting plants to the City to m~kecsure they are accurate. Mr. Antos further stated that the.cause of the problem was due to incorrect lot dimensions. Cha i rman Covi ngton expressed hope that a fa i rand equ,i tab 1 e settlement will occur between both parties. He further stated that if other members of the Planning Commission agree that it would be supportive'to have a motion that would affirm the action of the Planning Department to date.',' . Commissioner Smith moved to affirm the action of the Planning Department in this matter as being consistent with established precedent and pro- cedure where such problems as this occurred in the past. Commissioner , Perrin seconded the motion, which then_passed unanimously. D. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CRITERIA FOR MINOR ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS .; Staff report presented by Mr. Antos. He indicated that all items mentioned under additions to nonconforming buildings to be permitted would all come before the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis. . Minutes of 7/21/82 P.C. Meeting Page 3 In reply to a question by Commissioner Jessner, staff stated.the legal definition of a nonconforming building is a building that at the time of its construction complied with all zoning regulations, but that since then changes had been made in those regulations so as to render the building a legal, nonconforming building. Commissioner Smith asked that_this definition be added to the resolution. Commissioner Jessner suggested that as part of the application process for applying for nonconforming approval, a complete building inspection should be done and those fees for inspection be recovered from the applicant. Staff stated that a Special Investigation fee charged according to the amount of floor a rea is appropri ate "and' poi nted out a copy of tha t fee schedule to the Commissioners. Commissioner Jessner also asked that the results of these inspections be given to the Planning Commission for use in their review before giving their approval to nonconforming building additions. Staff also replied to a question by Chairman Covington, that the Special Investigation fees are being looked at by the City's consultant, along with all other fees to see if changes should be made and that Mr. Covington's comments regarding increasing the threshold of that fee schedule would be forwarded to the consultant. . Commissioner Jessner then asked if consideration had been given to a cutoff date as to allowing additions to nonconforming buildings. Staff replied that between the full house inspection and the repo~t the Planning Commission will review, they may require any needed corrections as part of that cup approval, such as upgrading wiring, etc." therefore no cutoff date is needed. Chairman Covington asked that the resolution be worded in an open-ended manner so as to allow similar items not mentioned yet. Staff stated that in each category in the resolution, the following statement be added "and other similar items as approved by the Planning Commission." E. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CODE ENFORCEMENT Staff report presented by Mr. Antos. Staff supplied the Planning Commission with a recommended program of code enforcement, i.e" inspection of property at the time of sale. At the time property is proposed to change ownership, an application is made with the City for a report. The City does a permit/ document search of all records dealing with property, the property is then inspected for obvious safety hazards and to verify the number of units, garages, and additions. This complete report is then entered into escrow as the public record on the property in question. ., This new program would in no way impact any existing programs. In the discussion of the code enforcement program, the Planning Commission provided many examples of various kinds of cases and directed staff to formulate some guidelines that would generally provide direction on how various types of cases might be hano1ed. Commiss,ioner P.errin expressed concern that too many fines or 'fees might be imposed on some property owners. . Minutes of 7/21/82 P.C. Meeting Page 4 Staff stated that an incremental method of code enforcement be started, that by starting with inspection at the time of sale, the citizens ' will perceive that the City is doing a fair and equitable job, and then other steps with regard to code enforcement may be taken. COMMISSION COMMENTS/REPORT FROM SECRETARY In reply to a question by Chairman Covington, no information has been received with regard to tentative comp~omise with Hellman property. Commissioner Jessner expressed concern about parking conditions in Main Street, particularly shoppers receiving tickets for left turn into parking spots. Staff replied that the reason tickets were given was for hazardous nature of making left turn. It is true that in order to park on the easterly side of Main Street, shoppers must go around the b10ck,which is inconvenient. In order to allow left turn parking on Main Street, the entire street must be restriped. Meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. . F ~. ",e. 'i/? A ~-----." Recoroing Secretary '.