Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1988-03-02 e e -- '. MINUTES OF MEETING SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 2, 1988 The Plannlng CommlSSlon of the Clty of Seal Beach met ln regular seSSlon wlth Chalrman Covlngton call1ng the meetlng to order at 7.32 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Vlce Chalrman Suggs. ROLL CALL Present: Chalrman Cov1ngton Commlssloners Jessner, Sharp, Suggs Absent: Commlssloner Rullo Also Present: Ed Knlght, Dlrector of Development Servlces CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Sharp, second by Jessner to accept as printed Item A (Minutes of February 17, 1988) and Item B (Resolution Number 1496, 420 Marble Cove). MOTION CARRIED 4 - O. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance 2-88 405 Opal Cove STAFF REPORT was summarlzed by Ed Kn1ght. Varlance 2-88 lS a request by Robert Ra1ces, homeowner, to permlt an after-the-fact room addltlon of 432 square feet. The result would exceed the maXlmum lot coverage for a Resldentlal Low Denslty dlstrlCt. The Code allows a maXlmum of 45% lot coverage and thlS addltlon brlngs Mr. Ralces' lot coverage to 47.9%. On November 19,1986, the Plannlng Commlsslon denled Varlance 15-86, a request ldentlcal to the present varlance appllcatlon by adoptlng Resolutlon No. 1443. A Code enforcement case on thlS property lS belng enforced by the Clty at thlS tlme. The Clty Attorney requested the appllcants apply for a varlance at thlS tlme to seek approval or to remove the room addltlon. Page 2 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes - March 2, 1988 e FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE. Sectlon 28-2502 of the Code of the Clty o f Sea 1 Be a c h may a p pro v e a v a r 1 an ceo n 1 y 1 f t h r e ere q u 1 red flndlngs can be made: 1. Such var1ance shall not adversely affect the general plan. Staff acknowledges the addltlon of 432 square feet to the home would not lmpact the General Plan. ThlS flndlng can be mad e . 2 . The- lot shape lS 51' x 100'and lS a standard lot for the hlll area. Nelther the shape, nor Slze devlate from the standard lots for the tract and the RLD zone ln general. So. the appllcatlon of 45% lot coverage does not lmpose a property-related hardshlp dlstlnct from any other property 1n the vlclnlty and zone. ThlS flndlng cannot be made. e 3. The grantlng of such var1ance shall not constltute a trant of special privilege inconslstent with other limita ions upon other propertles in the same vicinity and zone. There are no unusual property-related clrcumstances to support Varlance 2-88; the grantlng of th1S appllcat10n would be a grant of speclal prlvllege. The thlrd flndlng cannot be made. The appllcant stated the room addltlon lS necessary to accommodate equlpment used ln therapy for a dlsabled Chlld. Unfortunately, such clrcumstances cannot be consldered cause for a varlance under the strlct appl1catlon of Sectlon 28-2502. Staff suggested the appllcant mlght conslder other optlons avallable wlthln the llmlts of the zonlng Code, such as remodellng the lnterlor of the home to create a room large enough to accommodate the speclal equlpment and expandlng on the second floor. S 1 n c e two 0 f the t h r e e f 1n d 1 n 9 s for a va r 1 an c e can not be mad e , staff recommended thlS varlance not be approved. Based on the Commlsslon's actlon, staff wlll prepare a resolutlon for adoptlon at the next regular Plannlng CommlsSlon meetlng. e Page 3 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes - March 2, 1988 e COMMISSION COMMENTS ON 405 OPAL COVE Sharp' Is thlS the same owner we saw before? Knlght: Yes, thlS lS the same owner. In November 1986, an archltect was the appllcant for thlS owner. Jessner: Is the addltlon completed? Kn 19ht. No. A stop work order was put on lt and no work has proceeded. Covlngton:Has staff researched State statutes regardlng rlghts of the dlsabled (or thelr stewards) - speclflcally those statutes provldlng for speclal lmprovements to property that fall outslde normal restrlctlons? Knlght Staff lS not aware of any State law that would provlde that type of rellef. Jessner. If the room addltlon was made smaller, and would come wlthln the 45% lot coverage requlrement, would staff have a problem wlth thlS varlance? e Knlght: There would be no problem. Approxlmately 140 - 150 square feet need to be removed from the 432 square feet. Lot coverage before addltlon was 39.5% so 280 square feet could remaln. PUBLIC HEARING on 405 OPAL COVE Bob Ralces - 405 Opal Cove, Seal Beach Mr. Ralces lntroduced hlmself as the homeowner of 405 Opal Cove. He sald he wanted to bUlld out rather than up to accommodate hlS d a ugh t e r who 1 s 1 n a w h eel c h a 1 r . 0 n e 1 eve 1 wo u 1 den a b 1 e h 1 S daughter to get lnt%ut of the house easlly. He hlred an archltect (Yates) who drew the plans. They were apparently not aware of the maXlum lot coverage requlrement. He hlred a llcensed contractor to do the work, but nelther he nor the contractor checked wlth the Clty on permlts before startlng to bUl ld. He had the contractor go off the plans he had when he bought the house. Apparently those plans dlsagree wlth the plans the Clty has on lot coverage. The room lS about 60% completed the roof lS on, the floor lS ln, plus drywall, and framlng are done. e e Page 4 - Plannlng CommlSSlon Mlnutes - March 2, 1988 Mr. Ralces sald he has talked to an attorney regardlng hlS rlghts and on ways to proceed lf thlS varlance lS not granted. He has read the staff report and has no obJectlons to It. Chalrman Covlngton sald lt was unfortunate Mr. Ralces had placed hlmself ln the hands of a llcensed professlonal that dld not check wlth the Clty of Seal Beach on permlts. But that's not the C 1 t y' s fa u 1 t . An d the P 1 ann 1 n 9 C omm 1 s s 1 0 n can't use t hat err 0 r to Justlfy thlS varlance to happen. There lS no basls under State law to grant thlS. Grantlng thlS would set a precedent. Chalrman Covlngton suggested other methods of constructlon to accompl1sh Mr. Ralces' goals and advlsed Mr. Ralces on hlS methods of appeal. Commlssloner Jessner: The room Slze would be 18' x 16' lf the back wall were moved. He thought thlS would be a good Slze room, and thlS would then conform wlth the lot coverage requlrement. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED as there were no other comments. MOTION by Sharp, second by Suggs to deny Variance 2-88. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 ~ COMMISSION COMMENTS e Chalrman Covlngton, agreelng wlth Commlssloner Sharp, sald that the law applled wlthout compasslon lS dlfflcult to Justlfy. However, there lS adequate opportunlty for owner redress toward those that put them lnto thlS posltlon due to no fault of thlS owner. Only by denYlng thlS varlance request (and clearlng the slate as the Clty Attorney has asked) can we asslst the appllcant by placlng hlm In the pos1tlon to pursue recourse. Chalrman Covlngton advlsed Mr. Ralces on thlS appeal rlghts. e e e Page 5 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes - March 2, 1988 SCHEDULED MATTERS A. Zoning Text Amendment Non-Conforming Residential Uses STAFF REPORT Mr. Knlght sald staff recommends the Plannlng Commlsslon lnltlate a zone text amendment to Sectlon 28-2407(A)(3) by mlnute order. If the Plannlng Commlsslon adopts staff's recommendatlon, staff wlll prepare a draft ordlnance coverlng thlS ltem. ISSUE - Staff lS experlenclng a problem ln admlnlsterlng the zoning sectlon of the Code. The lssue lnvolves property owners who want to make maJor alteratlons to non-conformlng resldences meetlng denslty and parklng requlrements, but havlng mlnor setback devlatlons. . As our Code currently reads, homeowners are allowed to lmprove to 10% of the allowable floor area; thlS can be somewhere from 130- 200 square feet. The homeowners have been asklng for addltlons of 300 - 400 square feet. The problems staff lS havlng lnvolves the wlder lots 1n Old Town where the lots are 37 1/2 feet. The zonlng Code requlres the slde yard be 10% of the lot wldth. A lot of these resldences are 3 feet. ThlS lssue lnvolves lnches; mlnor devlatlons of less than a foot. It lS staff's contentlon that the resldences WhlCh meet denslty and parklng but have only mlnor setback problems should be allowed to expand greater than 10% wlthln the llmltatlons set out ln the zonlng sectlon of the Code for the approprlate dlstrlct. BY MINUTE ORDER THE CHAIR DIRECTS THE STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION. Page 6 - Plannlng CommlsSlon Mlnutes - March 2, 1988 e B. MEASURE A (a/k/a The Spring Initiative) Mr. Kn 19ht opened dlScusslon on Measure A by gOlng through the components of the lnltlatlve and the January 20, 1988 memo from Bob Nelson, Clty Manager to the Mayor and Clty Councll lncludlng summary and concluslons. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commlssloner Jessner sa1d he feels Measure A lS lnconSlstent and amblguouS. He made the followlng pOlnts: e . He does not agree wlth the statement liThe Clty'S Government lS commltted to a P011CY of rapld, uncontrolled hlgh denslty development to the detrlment of our quallty of 11fe." . He does not agree wlth the statement liThe Clty prevents eXlstlng property owners from lmprovlng thelr property or rebulldlng ln the event of a dlsaster so as to create bllghted areas". The Clty Just drafted a dlsaster clause WhlCh allows a great deal of latltude ln thlS event. . He dlsagrees wlth the statement "The Clty has held resldents and homeowners to strlct compllance wlth parklng requlrements to where prlvate homes and apartments are ln danger of deterloratlng to near slum condltlons." He does not feel thlS lS a case. We bend over all the tlme to allow less parklng than lS requlred wlthln certaln gUldellnes. . He felt the deflnltlon proposed for "Tavern" was lmpreclse. Accordlng to the deflnltlon the donut shops, McDonalds, Grand Ma's Ice Cream would be consldered a tavern. . Deflnltlon of "Urban Forest" leaves the words II ln close proxlmlty" ln questlon. . "No tree ln an urban forrest standlng on publ1C land or quasl publlC land or park land may be cut and/or moved wlthout the Clty flrst obtalnlng the afflrmatlve recommendatlon of the Chalrman of the Department of Forestry at a recognlzed Callfornla unlverslty." The Clty would have to go to some recognlzed person at a unlverslty and have them come out to determlne whether or not somethlng could be done wlth a tree --- whether It' s an emergency or safety sltuatlon or whatever. ThlS seems a blt far fetched. e e e e Page 7 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes - March 2, 1988 . Commlssloner Jessner referred back to thlS Inltlatlve, saYlng there are several areas where lt states that lf a cltlzen lS unhappy wlth certaln percelved non-compllances (wlth the enforcement of artlCles wlthln thlS Inltlatlve) they can flle a lawsult and the Clty of Seal Beach would have to pay all the attorney fees. He percelves thlS as a threat sltuatlon, holdlng the Clty hostage. He sald he thlnks the maln thrust of the backers of thlS Inltlatlve has to do rebulldlng non-conformlng bUlldlngs that have no parklng whatsoever. Everyone else ln the Clty has had to bUlld thelr propertles, and malntaln at least 1 parklng space per un 1 t . Commlssloner Sharp made the followlng pOlnts: He sald he lS 11vlng 1n Lelsure World, and hopes the people llvlng there reallze that the tree problem there lS a maJor lssue. At the present tlme lf you need to prune or remove a tree you have the nelghbors, the Board of Dlrectors and the gardeners to contend wlth. If lt gets to a pOlnt where they have to have an expert come ln for each one of those lssues lt would get to be a very expenSlve lssue. An 0 the r 1 t em 1 nth 1 s In 1 t 1 at 1 vet h at rea 11 yam a z e s Co mm 1 s s 1 0 n e r Sharp lS the need to have a 2/3 vote to over turn lssues. When you go away from a slmple maJorlty vote to a 2/3 vote --- he sald that would be 11ke stacklng the cards before you begln. Commlssloner Suggs asked. What wlll thlS cost the Clty? Mr. Knlght (referrlng to the January 20th memo from Bob Nelson WhlCh attempted to look at some of the costs) sald lt would lnvolve hlrlng consultants or full tlme staff to look at Measure A and try to lnterpret varlOUS sectlons. For example, Measure A could lnvolve needed amendments to the zonlng sectlon of our Code, our admlnlstratlon, our procedures that could result 1 n add 1 t 1 0 n a 1 co s t s t h r u s t a f fan d / 0 r con s u 1 tan t wo r k . A b 1 9 questlon regards 11tlgatlon costs ln case thlS was chall enged. If we were lltlgated we would not only have damages agalnst us but we'd have to pay the other partles legal fees also. Property taxes cannot be ralsed (Proposltlon 13) but the Clty wlll stl11 have to pay for these damages. From someplace else -- your level of serVlce or addltlonal fees. Page 8 - Plannlng Commlsslon Meetlng - March 2, 1988 e e Chalrman Covlngton: He sald he's not votlng for Measure A. He brlngs to that declSlon an extenslve background. In almost 25 years of resldency ln thlS Clty he has actlvely partlclpated ln a mlnlmum of 15 open space/park lssues. He has always been a very strong advocate of publlC parks, adequate recreatlon, open space. He appreclates and understands the concern that lS demonstrated ln Measure A --- assumlng that all lS well lntended for open space preservatlon and protectlon. But, for example, he sald that you don't buy a car for ltS palnt Job lf you're concerned that It'S drlve traln lS qUlte below standard or poses a danger to you. Although Measure A has many commendable ltems ln WhlCh park land and open space lssues are addressed (In such a way to galn publlC support) and has brought In many well lntended people who belleve Measure A addresses thelr concerns sufflc1ently to vote for lt ... but (these peopl e may) 19nore those other components that they elther clearly don't llke or don't understand. In any event, Measure A would produce very negatlve, long-term consequences for the Clty. If Measure A had truly lntended to solve all the concerns (partlcularly Slnce the flrst measure dld not get sufflclent votes) there was ample opportunlty for the proponents to rethlnk, redeslgn, re-present the elements that are contalned ln Measure A. They could have separated the publ1C lands/open space/recreatlonal elements lnto one measure and the prlvate property/ dlsaster clause/bulldlng rlghts lnto another measure. They dld not do thlS and thlS makes me cur10US as to why not. In 1970 - 1971 the Redevelopment Agency of thlS Clty and the Clty Councll adopted a phllosophy WhlCh has carrled on contlnuously. The phllosophy was that ln the development of any lands avallable to the Agency or the Clty ... a mlnlmum amount of resldentlal or commerclal development would occur as would be requlred to permlt the acqulsltlon, malntenance and development to balance the land for open space purposes, recreatlon purposes. An example of thlS lS the Paclflc Electrlc rlght of way. The SpeclflC Plan that was adopted provlded for a ratlo of 70% ope n spa c e / r e c rea t 10 n t 0 30% co mm e r c 1 a 1 spa c e . The com mer c 1 a 1 space would provlded lncome (example' sales tax) to malntaln the 70% open space. ThlS lS a good POllCY, but Measure A totally 19nores It. There lS not even a reference to It. e e e e Page 9 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes - March 2, 1988 Chalrman Covlngton sald he felt Artlcle 5 lS the core of Measure A. That lt lS the II lmperfect drlve traln" he referred to. Artlcle 5 says that anyone who now owns property... WhlCh was acqulred ln the past, perhaps through poor plannlng, or perhaps through poor publlC P011CY, or lnapproprlate asslgnment of publlC powers for bUlldlng ... wlshes to have the rlght to perpetuate thlS total lnfrlngement on the other local property owners ... that they should be granted the rlght forevermore to have thlS economlC prlvllege. ThlS would be for Just a few percent of property owners --- for a small core of well-vested property owners who would derlve stralght economlC beneflt from thlS legal non-conformlng status forever. The only people who'd pay are the other people around them. ThlS lS not democratlc. MOTION by Jessner, second by Sharp that the Seal Beach Planning Commission oppose the approval of the Spring Initiative, Measure A, as a poor piece of legislation detrimental to the welfare of the City of Seal Beach as a whole. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 COMMISSION COMMENTS Chalrman Covlngton asked Mr. Knlght that lf Measure A were to be passed, and lf lndlvldual components were to be challenged, and publlC hearlngs held on them lndlvldually, would lt be posslble for the Plannlng Commlsslon to clalm lmmunlty ln that they voted categorlcally agalnst It? Reply by Mr. Knlght. Groups and bodles, such as the Clty Councll, the Plannlng Commlsslon, the Parks and Recreatlon Department, can vOlced thelr oplnlons as they see flt -- elther as lndlvlduals or as a body. If you have an oplnlon on thlS leglslatlon you can VOlCe that oplnlon through a vote. If lt becomes law lt then becomes your duty to carry lt out. As a staff member I don't have the optlon of vOlclng a motlon. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE MITZIE MORTON - 153 13TH STREET SEAL BEACH Ms. Morton had questions re ZTAinon-conformlng resldentlal uses and requested clarlflcatlon on certaln pOlnts. Mr. Knlght replled by readlng sectlons from the Seal Beach Munlclpal Code. e e e Page 10 - Plannlng Commlsslon Meetlng - March 2, 1988 STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS MOLA/HELLMAN Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Knlght for a status of the Mola/Hellman proJect. Mr. Knlght sald he hasn't heard from Mola ln a month. Mola lS stlll deallng wlth the Corps of Englneers and the F1Sh & Game Commlsslon, trYlng to reach reconclllatlon on the amount of wetlands that would be provlded on the slte. Mr. Knlght could not glve an ldea when the proJect wlll move ahead. TRAFFIC AT LAMPSON/SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD Chalrman Covlngton stated hlS concern over the trafflC stoppage at the lntersectlon of Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard wlth the B1Xby Offlce proJect only 30% occupled. The preferred trafflc Solutlon had been two left turn lanes gOlng onto the freeway--- there lS one lane now. The owners agreed to eventually bUlld an eXlt that would go from Seal Beach Boulevard dlrectly onto the 7th Street ramp lnto Long Beach. He sald thlS lssue needs to be addressed and resolved before the rest of that bUlldlng lS occupled. DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER PROPERTY Chairman Covington stated that property owners ln the Clty have been shortchanged for years because DWP has seen flt to do nothlng to lmplement the SpeclflC Plan WhlCh calls for 70% open space and recreatlon and 30% for commerclal development. A very flne State Coastal Conservancy staff worklng wlth a world-know hotel developer consultant that the 30% flgure was adequate for the hotel commerClal development on that s1te to deprlve the e e e Page 11 - Plannlng CommlSSlon Mlnutes - March 2, 1988 lncome acqulre and develop the 70% for publlC use. DWP chooses not to do that. The Clty lS belng shortchanged by thousands of dollars every year. He urged the Commlsslon and cltlzens to do whatever they can to make the Speclflc Plan happen. ADJOURNMENT Chalrman Covlngton adJourned the meetlng at 9.15 p.m. Respectfully Submltted, ~ oc.--- ~ ' ~,~__ Jo n Fil mann Secretary THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Mlnutes of March 2, 1988~ere approved by the Seal Beach Plannlng Commlsslon on March I~ 1988.