No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1983-12-21 - "-, Minutes of the Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting of December 21, 1983 The Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, December 21, 1983, in the Council Chambers of the City Administra- tion Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:43 p.m. by Chairman Goldenberg and the pledge to the flag was led by Commissioner Covington. PRESENT: EXCUSED: STAFF: Perrin, Murphy, Jessner, Goldenberg, Covington Gary E. Johnson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer John M. Baucke, Principal Planner Mr. Johnson introduced John M. Baucke, new Principal Planner, to the Commission and members of the audience. Commissioner Jessner moved to postpone discussion of the minutes until Oral Communications, Commissioner Covington seconded the motion, whith passed with the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Perrin, Jessner, Goldenberg, Murphy, Covington None None PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Al Voda, V-8-83 1250 Pacific Coast Highway Staff report was read by Mr. Baucke requesting seven variances of City code to allow the development of a Mercedes sales and service facility located on two lots at 1244 and 1250 Pacific Coast Highway. Applicant is presently using .a temporary certificate df occupancy granted by the City until final disposition of the matter. Seventeen parking spaces are proposed, four are noted as compact and six would:be tandem. The City code allows from 16-22 spaces correctly designed to code. No handicapped parking is proposed. Applicant is proposing valet parking. " Commissioner Covington asked whether the code addressed one-way vs. two~way Girculation for corner ~ision clearance.Th~ cod~ ~oes,not specify the distinction. Chairman Goldenberg inquired if there would be leased office space. It is 'a's's'uin-e(j--b-y" sfa-ff -that the 2nd floor would be used for office space in conjunction with the auto showroom. Commissioner Covington asked for staff interpretation of the section entitled "Corner Vision Clearance Area and Setback" and whether there is a distinction between two lots vs. one lot deep. Code specifies a 15 ft. triangle to be free and clear of any obstructions greater than 2t ft. Code does not address two lots vs. one lot deep. Mr. Johnson stated that Pacific Coast Highway is a major arterial highway. Consideration should be made for ~afety, visiability, and stacking of cars entering the ";'btl's iness fromthi s major arteri a 1. '. PC Minutes of December 21, 1983 Page 2 Commissioner Covington asked what basis other properties had been developed. What type of procedure was used. Possibly another interpretation was used in the past. Were varian8es required. Staff is under the assumption that they were bui It per code at that time. What does the City 'code specHy regarding compact spaces? Code states that 25% of the total can be compact measuring 8X16. Commissioner Jessner asked whether there would be a need for handicapped parking if the business used valet. Staff responded that the State law supercedes City codes, etc. There must be one handicapped space located near the entrance. Chairman Goldenberg asked the legal interpretation of 28-1402 - What is considered a block7 It is the land area bounded by four streets or alley, which in this case is 12th, 13th, Landing and Pacific Coast Highway. Also, is there a five foot required rear setback between the. property line and the proposed auto parts storag'e area and existing building. It is interpreted by staff that itw~s consi~ered a side when originally developed. Therefore, three feet would be the requirement. Public Hearing Opened Randy Morris of .the firm Phelps, Morris and Associates, representing Al Voda. Mr. Morris commented with'the following. Originally both properties were zoned commercial. It i~ presently proposed as a Mercedes sales and service. A block wall has been put up which abutts the exis~ing building. The exist- ingrear auto. service building has a tw6-to-thre~ ft. s~tback. Seventeen parking spaces are proposed ~ith three service bays.' Based on the tandem/v~let concept, he could accommodate 22 cars tHat vary in size. The trend in other communites has been to modify thei~'pa~king standards, allowing more compact spaces (40%) and smaller stall sizes~:i.e.,Long Beach. Tandem spaces are becoming more and more acceptable, especially in valet parking. At present, landscaping is minimal as they were unaware of the landscaping requirements. Commissioner Jessner made inquiry in regard to the number of cars that would be frequenting the business ~~ residents of 13th Street would not want the overflow. Applicant did not feel customers would need to park on the street. Commissioner Covington asked if there is presently a 6ft. high cement b16~k wall at the rear of the ~roperty. Since.this was constructed by permit, is there a contradiction: be8ause of the need for the setback. Speaking in Opposition: Charles Antos, 316 10th Street, Seal Beach. Commented as to the historical development of the parti~tllar properties in question in the surrounding area, stating that they were developed per code at that particular time. He also responded to specific Commission inquiries about past interpretations and Commission policies. Public Hearing Closed PC Minutes of December 21, 1983 Page 3 . Lommission discussion ensued with the following questions from Commissioner Covington: 1. Will valet parking be offered as a full-time service? 2. Is 16 parking spaces the minimum? With valet parking, do you really need a handicap space? 3. In reference to other codes, what is the suitability of transparent side walls? 4. What is the range in size of the Mercedes Benz the applicant would be working with? If the size is smaller, there might not be a need for a variance. After disussion, Commissioner Covington moved to deny the variance request without prejudice so that staff could readvertise for Public Hearing and allow for additional time to respond to discussion items, Commissioner Perrin seconded the motion, which pa~sed with the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Perrin, Murphy, Jessner, Goldenberg, Covington None None ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF 83 RIVERSEA ROAD . Mr. Johnson reviewed the staff report with recommendation for approval as submitted. The proposed two-story cabana has an overall height of 25 ft., with the upper 8ft. devoted to roof style and a ladder to the roof for maintenance only. Public Hearing Opened Mr. Charles Antos, 316 10th Street, Seal Beach, representing the applicant, Mr. Brent. Informed Commission that he would be willing to answer any questions regarding the proposed two-story cabana. Commissioner Jessner raised the following questions and comments: 1. In the Staff report the overall height is shown as 25 ft., yet the dimensions on the plans do not reflect this. I would like to see the overall height shown the plans before I could approve. Mr. Johnson stated that there will be a plan check review by the Building and Planning Departments. What we are looking for this evening is an architectural review. The height certainly is a critical component of that. 2. The plans show a ladder to the roof for maintenance only, for what? . Mr. Antos stated that the ladder would be used for maintenance to the roof, scuppers, chimeny flue, etc. 3. The plan shows only two sides, is there a deck up there? Mr. Johnson, I believe there are solar panels proposed for the future on the roof. Mr. Antos, the solar panels would be subject to a'subsequent building permit. . . . PC Minutes of December 21, 1983 Page 4 Commissioner Jessner, I am certainly opposed to any ladder. 4. Where the solar panel area is, is that a sloped roof or a deck? Mr. Antos, in referring to the east elevation, there is a peak area which drops back as part of the roof. This is where future solar panels would be placed. 5. Item #6 states that roof equipment deck to be stucco on the sides with wood rail on the top. Please clarify. Mr. Johnson, as submitted it shows a deck for portion of the solar panels and other roof equipment. Precise plans have not been submitted. Code requires a rail for any type of deck. If the deck was eliminated that would take care of the deck and ladder. 6. Item #D of the Ordinance states, no decks or balconies shall be permitted above the floor level of a second story. The ~l'ans do not totally show what's going on. In one place it refers to an equipment deck with ladder. The plans show a ladder going up to one area, but I do not see anything on the plans in regards to the euipment deck. Ordinance says this is not allowed. Mr. Antos, the Ordinance does state that no deck shall be permitted above floor level, but this'is basically an access not a roof deck. Commissioner Covington, this would not be occupied by people but equipment. Mr. Antos, this is an access deck above the attic. Commissioner Covington inquired, this would be used for equipment not people. Mr. Antos, this is correct. This is an access deck above the attic. Commissioner Covington, if it is a sloped area, it would be a deck. Commissioner Perrin, does the concrete ~creen prevent'the solar ~anel~ f~om sight? Mr. Antos, Yes. The ordinance states all off the roof equipment architectural screened. If'the panels are correctly placed with and down and at an angle, they will not be seen from the ground. panels can still function. to be the sun The 7. On the plans it looks like the future solar panels are facing north, solar panels should face the south. If not, they will not get any sun. Mr. Antos, they could be facing south as far as the angle. After continued discussion, Commissioner Covington suggested a recommendation to staff to obtain additional information and return for a decision. PC Mi nutes of Decerrber 21, 1983 Page 5 Chairman Goldenberg then ordered staff to return at an additional time for another architectural review with the necessary drawings based on the comments by minute order. Commissioner Jessner made arequestJtn!regard to.future submittals of cabanas. The staff report should indicate that it complies to Item E-3 of the ordinance, "No two-story cabana shall be located no closer than 20 ft. from another two-story cabana". COMMISSION REQUESTS Chairman Goldenberg requested the following from staff: 1. A three-hole binder containing the signed Planning Commission minutes from July 1, 1983 to present. 2. A Municipal Parking sticker for each Commissioner. 3. Requested some type of identification to be used when conducting official business. .- Mr. Johnson had spoke to City Manager in this regard. Business cards were recommended. Secretary will order business cards for Commissioners. Chairman Goldenberg suggested additional time to review staff reports and submittals, especially any matter with complexity. Mr. Baucke stated that he had reviewed this matter and feels that the City of Seal Beach does not have an adequate time frame for processing. Cities through- out Orange County are running on a 30-40 day review process and .he,wilJ be setting up a new processing schedule. The Commission concurred. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Commissioner Covington had received a notification earlier that day stating there would be a Public Hearing regarding the mobile home on 12th Street. Mr. Johnson explained that because the certificate of occupancy was issued on December 7, 1983, a variance was not required. Therefore, the Public Hearing was not necessary. Commissioner Covington complimented the secretary for her effort in completing the minutes, but feels further time is needed for additional corrections. . Commissioner Jessner feels in,this regard that valuable information was omitted concerning the mobile home on 12th Street. In particular, the blocks as part of the foundation. He was lead to believe from the contractor that they were for decorative purposes. But after contacting Bob Werner on December 8, he was told they were indeed part of the foundation. PC Minutes of December 21, 1983 :8 Page 6 With this new information, it is requested of staff to contact the City Attorney for a ruling to reopen the hearing for a variance. Mr. Johnson will obtain a report from the City Attorney on the legal position for City involvement. Commissioner Jessner made the following comments: 1. If the blocks around the perimeter of the building are part of the foundation, then the staff report was incorrect showing that the encroachment was only 2t". 2. If the structure is raised, then concrete walks around the side yards are necessary with screens for ventilation. Commissioner Covington feels a new procedure should be instituted and adhered to. Chairman Goldenberg sug~ested in the future the Planning Commission should make the final decision. Staff can discuss the particular situation with the Building department and suggest the owner make application for a variance. For correction purposes, Chairman Goldenberg submitted to recording secretary an insertion for the December 7, 1983 minutes. It was also noted that an incorrect vote tally was taken, correction will be made. .,-.- - - Commissioner Jessner feels he received questionable answers regarding the foundation. Staff will investigate the legal aspect of changing his vote. Commissioner Covington then moved to postpone the approval of the minutes until further input is received, Commissioner Murphy seconded the motion, which passed with the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Perri n,: Jessner, Goldenberg, 'Murphy, Covi ngton None None COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS: None at this time. REPORT FROM SECRETARY: Mr. Johnson referred to letter received from Bixby requesting the Old Ranch Business Park, Specific Plan, be postponed until January 18th. The recent December 15th ALUC Commission meeting's minutes will be transcribed and a copy distributed to Commissioners on January 18th. . Bryan Sweeney, Seal Beach resident, suggested installing a new sound system for the Council Chambers. He has spoke to Joanne Yeo in this regard. Meeting adjourned at 10:29 p.m. .0. 2J ' Jackie Snyder,