Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1988-12-07 ~ . , e e e ~ . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1988 The Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach met in regalar session, in City Council Chambers, with ChaJ.rman Sharp call1ng the meeting to order at 7:29 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Jessner. ROLL CALL Present: ChaJ.rman Sharp CommJ.ssioners Suggs, Fife, Jessner Absent: Commissioner Rullo was excused due to illness. Also Present: Ed Knight, Director, Development Services Dept. El11ne Garcia, Admin. Aide, Develop. Srvcs. Dept. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent. Calendar items "A" and "B" were discussed separately because correspondence in opposit1on to item "B" was presented to the Comm1ssion. A. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16. 1988 MOTION by Jessner that the Minutes of November 1'6, 1988, be approved as wrl..tten: SECOND by Suggs. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 B. PLAN REVIEW 15-88 125 SURF PLACE OPPOSITION TO PLAN H. E. Wulf of 115 Surf Place and Betty L. Sab1n of 120 Surf Place delivered correspondence in opposition to Plan ReV1ew 15-88 which was read in full, for the Record, by Mr. Knight. ThJ.s correspondence w1ll be placed in the Department of Development Serv1ce's file on Plan Review 15-88. STAFF REPORT Mr. Kn1ght reviewed Plan Review 15-88, saying it was a request by the applicant and property owner, Matthew Mikkelson, to add 226 square feet to a non-conforming garage. Th1S house 1S non-conforming because of the garage width. If this addition is allowed 1 t would be non-conform1ng due to the garage depth. Page 2 - Plann1ng Comm1ssion M1nutes of 12/7/88 tt Staff is concerned that the on-street parking in this cul-de-sac will not be reduced by this addition and the depth of the garage (18'3") will not be reduced by any obstacles. STAFF RECOMMENDS CHANGE TO CONDITION #4 Mr. Kn1ght reviewed the five condit10ns presented in the staff report and recommended a change to condit10n #4 based on consul tat10n with the City's engineer. This change is staff's recommended adherence to the Orange County Environmental Management Agency Plan 209 which calls for a m1nimum driveway w1th of twelve (12') feet. PUBLIC HEARING Matthew M1kkelson * 125 Surf Place * Seal Beach Commissioner Jessner requested Mr. M1kkelson begin with h1s comments. Mr. Mikkelson sa1d the width of h1s driveway is 14' and the minimum is 18'according to County standards. He doesn't think he can get in and out of the three garages with 14' width. The new dr1veway would go straight 1n from the cul-de-sac and, at the top, would have to be the full width of the garages, 34 feet. e He stated he has no woodworking business at his house; he works only on his own house. Staff 1nspected and found cab1nets but no woodworking shop. Regard1ng the water heater and washer/dryer he w111 relocate it to wherever the Code designates. Referencing the Wulf/Sabin letter, Mr. M1kkelson stated that tha~ one specific home has eight cars and that is the problem ... too many cars. Mr. Mikkelson said his plan is to bU1ld over his garage --- and he would prefer to be building over a three-car garage. COMMISSION COMMENTS NEED SPECIFIC INFORMATION The Commission noted there is not enough specific information in th1s presentation. They want a landscaping plan showing where everything is to be placed, includ1ng the driveway. They expressed concern that this plan could result in a completely concrete front yard without landscaping aesthetics. Insistance on a plan with specific information serves the Planning Comm1ssion by allowing them to go back and look at exactly what was approved in case of any future problem. e e Page 3 - Planning Comm1ssion Minutes of 12/7/88 SOUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION Mr. Knight stated that square footage 1S calculated by using 10% of the allowable floor area, which 1ncludes the garage. This case d1fferent in that by doing the enlargement you have a non-conform1ng condition but you're also changing a non- conform1ng condit10n ... it was width now 1t'S depth. Commissioner Fife asked staff if adding square footage 1n the form of a garage (226 square feet) would allow the applicant to bU1ld an addition over that garage of 552 square feet when he should have 495 square feet. Staff said Code section 28-403 could be used to allow the applicant to make his 1mprovements w1thout having to l1mit his 1mprovements or come back before the Commission. COMMISSION WANTS TO REVIEW PLANS Mr. Knight noted condition #3 states "Elevations, including exterior materials and colors, are requ1red for reV1ew and approval by the Planning Department pr10r to building permit 1ssuance." Th1S could be changed to "review and approval by the Planning commission". e If he chose to do only the garage portion at th1s time he would st1ll have to bring back elevations for review and approval. SETBACKS Mr. Fife asked staff if his plan were altered to reduce his setback to increase the garage length would this create more problems than what he has now? Mr. Knight said yes. MOTION by Fife that Plan Review 15-88 be approved wi th the proviso that the access not be increased in width beyond the minimum requirements of the County of Orange, and subject to review by the Planning Commission at a later date when final architectural plans, including the actual location of the access, and any landscaping can be finalized; SECOND by Suggs. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 Mr. Fife said he did not want to specify that the driveway would be centered because it may turn out that being slightly off- center would work out better. e Page 4 - Planning Commisslon Mlnutes of 12/7/88 e 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CUP 11-87 2938 westminster Boulevard Seaside Deli Resolution No. 1524 STAFF REPORT Ms. GarCla said thlS request, by applicant extend an existlng CUP the Seaside Deli. was a continued Public Hearing. The Juliet B. Vldanes, lS to indeflnitely for an on-sale beer and wine 11cense at Ms. Garcia said she contacted the applicant by certified mall, and on 11/22/88 she received a phone call from the applicant requestlng a few days to remove the slgns in the windows. An lnspection by staff on 12/01/88 showed no changes. An inspection by staff on 12/07/88 showed the window signs were down but the satelllte dish remained. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED e Jullet Vidanes - 1420 Athena. West Covina. CA Ms. Vldanes said when she purchased the satellite dish the company who sold and installed it told her they would get any necessary permits; they have not. She believed them and she paid them. She received a letter from the City stating the satellite dish lS illegal. At this point she would prefer to purchase a cable service for $1,100 and remove the satellite dish. She has asked her brother to remove the satelllte dish but they are not quite sure how to do It. She requested Slxty (60) days ln order to remove the satellite dish. Regardlng the signage, the beer signs were ln the wlndows when she bought the business and she thought they were OK. Regarding hours of operatlon, Ms. Vidanes requested they be extended from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. dally, seven days a week. e COMMISSION COMMENTS The Commission stated they were concerned wlth satellite dish companys selling to the publlC and telllng customers they don't need permlts or that they wll1 get the permits and they don't do 1 t. The Commlssion said this lnformation needs to be publicly dissemlnated. People should check with thelr Cl ty Hall and/or Building Department. MOTION by Jessner to approve CUP 11-87 as amended to allow sixty (60) days for removal of the satelli te dish and to extend the hours to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. seven days a week; SECOND by Suggs. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 Page 5 - Planning Comm1ssion Meeting M1nutes of 12/7/88 'e B. VARIANCE 7-88 216 5TH STREET, SEAL BEACH STAFF REPORT Mr. Knight del1vered staff's report on Var1ance 7-88 which is a request by the applicants and owners, Gordon and Eileen Sadofski, to dev1ate from the municipal Code provisions for fences, permitting a fence 1n the required front yard setback that is 2.5 inches 1n excess of the allowable 42 inches in height. e The applicant's only recourse was to seek a var1ance from the Code which is subject to three well defined find1ngs ([1] special c1rcumstances, [2] special privilege and [3] not adversely effect C1ty'S General Plan). Staff feels the three findings have not been met and recommend denial of this variance. Mr. Kn1ght said staff feels this 1S a very minor 1ssue, but a major staff concern is that the Code does not allow for minor deviations and approv1ng th1S would be precedent setting. It was noted that the applicant's ordered th1s type of fence to match a railing which runs along the second story balcony. They feel that the 1nstallation of the fence 1n excess of the allowable 42 in height may have been the contractor's om1ssion. OPPOSITION TO VARIANCE Mr. Kn1ght read a letter from Mar1lyn Zahm and Warren Gay of 220 5th Street, Seal Beach who wanted their letter of opposit1on to this var1ance read 1nto the Record. It was noted that this letter will be placed in the Planning Department's f1le on this var1ance. COMMISSION COMMENTS The Comm1ssion requested information on locating "natural grade" to determine fence height. Mr. Kn1ght stated "natural grade" is determ1ned by measuring an average between posts. This 1S done to allow for sloping ground. It was noted that "natural grade" could not be created by trucking in dirt to a spec1fic slte. In this case the fence is next to the sidewalk and that forms the natural grade. The sidewalk is a consistent elevation that occurs on a lot. This fence sits on concrete blocks which could be cut and the fence dropped. e Page 6 - Plann1ng Comm1ss10n M1nutes of 12/7/88 e PUBLIC HEARING OPENED V1ctor Natupsky - 216 5th street, Seal Beach Mr. Natupsky introduced h1mself as the Sadofsky's son-1n-Iaw. He stated there was no 1ntention to have this fence over the allowable height and spoke on behalf of approving this variance. He noted an adjacent fence that is approx1mately six (6' ) feet tall. He said they researched having the fence altered to bring it 1nto Code compl1ance and 1t would be an elaborate process and could result in a continual rusting problem from the fence onto the slump stone its sitting on. It was noted that a permit 1S not needed for a 42 1nch fence so the contractor did not submit a sketch. e Representat1ve (No name 9iven) - Los Alamitos Iron This gentlemen introduced himself as being an employee of Los Alamitos Iron and stated it was his company who bU1lt the Sadofsky's fence. He sa1d his company has never had a problem with a fence when the frame is 42 inches, it's a IIsee thrull fence and the excess is a finial on the top. If the fence 1S cut at the bottom and it Slts on the masonry it will rust. Cutting the finials off the top w111 result 1n the fence's not tY1ng in with the existing second floor railing which is to Code. He noted the neighboring hotel that has a very h1gh fence which is right up against the sidewalk; this fence is about 32 inches in. Mr. Kn1ght said the Code is quite clear on fence he1ghts. It says, liThe height of the fence shall be the average height between pilasters or posts to the nearest full masonry unit to six feet or forty-two inches. The height of the property 11ne shall be measured from the owner's side of the fence. A Joint fence on the property line may be measured from either slde of the fence. II The f1nials on top of the fence frame are approx1mately 2 1nches. commissioner Fife asked staff what IIsubstant1al compliancell would be. Mr. Knight said (in th1S case) 1/411 would have been OK. Commissioner Fife sa1d he felt IIsubstantial compliance" ought to be broad enough to include this kind of a fence when the bulk of the he1ght excess is a series of balls which 1S no substant1al way interferes with line of site or V1ew. Cutting this fence down would wreck it --- the gate would have to be cut down as well. He felt the balls architecturally should rema1n because they match the second floor railing. e If th1s var1ance should be denied, Chairman Sharp advised the applicant of h1s/her appeal rights to the C1 ty Counc11 and the manner 1n which this may be achieved. Commissioner Jessner noted the Council would have to make the same three findings. e Page 7 - Planning Commission M1nutes of 12/7/88 Commissioner Jessner asked staff about another variance that involved several feet of fence on Ocean Blvd. What was finally allowed? Mr. Knight said that fence was reduced in height but not to 42 1nches. It was reduced to the fence he1ght that was ad)01n1ng the property, wh1ch was a legal non-conforming fence of approx1mately 50 or 60 1nches. Mr. Suggs recalled that was a compromise between the two neighbors. Mr. Kn1ght said that fence should have been 42 1nches but it was built to the full six (6') feet. The Commission denied it and it was appealed to the Council and they reduced the height from 6' to 4.5' or 5.0' (the exact height could not be remembered), but 1t matched the neighbor's fence. Mr. Fife asked staff if the City Counc11 was requ1red to make the same three requ1red find1ngs as the Planning Commiss10n was? Mr. Knight sa1d "Yes." Mr. Fife asked how, then, the Council could have made that finding? Mr. Knight sa1d he would have to go back and look at the resolut10n. Mr. Fife commented that he had "difficulty with the idea that our hands are any more t1ed that the C1ty Counc1l's with respect to making these findings. I don't see how two neighbors can get together and agree on something that violates the City's General Plan. If a 44 inch fence violates the City's General Plan, 1f 7 Seal Beach residents agree that 1t doesn't, that does not change the fact that it violates the C1ty'S General Plan. And, I th1nk that if the Council can make a finding that a 60 inch high fence is O.K., I have great difficulty think1ng that a fence that is 2 inches out because of some finials is beyond our capac1 ty to make a finding ... philosophically I tend to go w1th the purpose of the rule and I look more to whether the purpose of the rule is being violated rather than the letter. The purpose is allow a visual line of site between ad)oin1ng properties. (Your part1cular) two inches of offend1ng excess height doesn't seem to violate the spirit of the rule. If it was solid masonry I would be much less sympathetic ...". e LEE WILMORE - 5TH STREET (NO NUMBER GIVEN) Mr. Wilmore said he lives d1rectly across 5th Street from 216 5th Street. He stated he measured this fence and got 47 inches at every p01nt. He spoke in favor of ma1ntaining the mandated fence height. There was discuss10n regard1ng creating a grade by backfilling an area. Mr. Jessner said "natural grade" could not be artificially created. ELLINE SADOFSKY - (NO ADDRESS GIVEN) Mrs. Sadofsky said Los Alam1tos Iron also put in the fence up at the motel and she wonders why Mr. Wilmore 1S not worried about this 6 foot fence? She said she feels there are personal grudges involved 1n this matter. She said this same neighbor tried to get the second story railing torn down. The Planning Department approved the second story ra1ling. e PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Page 8 - Plann1ng Commiss1on Meeting of 12/7/88 e COMMISSION COMMENTS The Comm1ssion discussed the1r desire to make the three find1ngs. e commissioner Fife said he thought he could make a finding on the un1queness of the property --- on the grounds that the building, as constructed with the second floor fence railing --- which was constructed before the fence along the sidewalk sets a parameter. By not build1ng the fence (along the sidewalk) to be consistent with the second floor fence would disrupt the aesthetics of the architectural plans. Mr. Jessner asked Mr. Knight 1f he thought everything had come out at tonight's meet1ng that m1ght help the Commission come up with f1ndings for th1S variance. Mr. Knight said he could not see anything that could make the three necessary findings. Mr. F1fe asked 1f in making the finding for "special circumstances" you could take into consideration the improvements that are erected on the property at the time that the var1ance issue f1rst presents 1tself or are you limited to looking at the dirt? Mr. Knight sa1d that in this case the owner has a series of options ... he could keep the balls and lower the fence to the masonry. Mr. Jessner asked staff to what degree "substantial compliance" could be stretched? Mr. Knight sa1d our Code does not allow any percentage of deviation. Mr. Fife re-emphasized h1S point that he would have much less sympathy if this were a solid masonry wall because that would impede visual line of sight and he felt this point should be considered in the "substantial compliance" analys1s. Mr. Knight said the balls must be cons1dered part of the fence although they visually take up a small part of the fence. MOTION by Fife to refer Variance 7-88 back to the Department of Development Services staff with the commission's recommendation that they consult with the City Attorney to see if there's a possibility of finding the existence of "special conditions" ei ther as a function of the structure and the architectural qualities of the structure including the existing second floor railing and/or the issue of the surrounding area including presently non-conforming fence heights, and have this matter come back before the Planning Commission once that process is completed (at the January 4, 1989 meeting); SECOND by Jessner. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 e e e e .. . Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of 12/7/88 SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no scheduled matters. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications from the aud1ence. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Kn1ght sa1d there were no 1 tems for consideration for the regularly scheduled December 21, 1988 meeting and therefore, it should be cancelled; the Comm1ssion agreed. COMMISSION CONCERNS Mr. F1fe asked Mr. Knight about the ABC l1cense transfer for the restaurant at the corner of Ocean & Main street. Mr. Knight said that the l1quor license stayed w1th the owner --- the restaurant only changed names. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Sharp adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~~~. J an Fillmann Secretary . c:...-. THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND Are SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION. * * * The Planning Commission Minutes of Dece~r 7, 1988 were approved by the Planning Commission on January ~, 1989. J>>t-