The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Min 1989-05-03 e . e .. CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 3, 1989 MEETING The regular meet1ng of the Plann1ng Comm1ssion was called to order 1n C1ty Counc11 Chambers by Cha1rman Sharp at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ~T.T.EGIANCE The Pledge of Alleg1ance was led by Mr. Jessner. ROLL C~T.T. Present: Cha1rman Sharp Comm1ss1oners Rullo, F1fe, Suggs, Jessner Staff Present: Edward Kn1ght, D1rector, Development Serv1ces Barry Curt1s, Adm1n. A1de, Development Serv1ces CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF APRIL 19, 1989 MOTION by Suggs, SECOND by Fife to approve the PlannJ.ng Co~ssJ.on MJ.nutes of April 19, 1989 as presented. AYES: Sharp, Rullo, FJ.fe, Suggs ABSTAIN: Jessner MOTION CARRIED SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. PLAN REVIEW 9-89 57 RIVERSEA ROAD, SEAL BEACH TRAILER PARK Staff Report Barry Curt1s read the staff report Wh1Ch 1S a request by appl1cant, Terry Brennan, to add a second story cabana of 822 square feet to an exist1ng tra1ler. Comm1ss1on Comments Cha1rman Sharp noted th1s second floor add1t1on completely covers the eX1st1ng tra1ler in all dimensions. MOTION by Suggs, SECOND by Rullo to approve Plan RevJ.ew 9-89 wJ.th the seven condJ.tions J.n place. AYES: Sharp, Rullo, Fife, Suggs, Jessner MOTION CARRIED . Page 2 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of May 3, 1989 3. PLAN REVIEW 10-89 66 RIVERSEA ROAD, SEAL BEACH TRAILER PARK Staff Report Barry Curt1s del1vered the staff report on Plan ReV1ew 10-89, Wh1Ch lS a request by appl1cant, Don Ph1llips, to add a two-story cabana of 690 square feet to an eX1st1ng tra1ler 1n the Seal Beach Tra1ler Park. Barry Curt1s 1ntroduced a letter from Greg Stepan1cJ.ch of the C1ty Attorney's Off1ce, dated 5/3/89, Wh1Ch glves the1r legal op1nJ.on of spacJ.ng requJ.rements between two-story cabanas J.n the Seal Beach Tra1ler Park (copy attached for reference): "Sect1on 28-2319 establ1shes special development standards for two-story cabanas w1th1n a mobile home or tra1ler park. Subsect10n E(3) prescr1bes the spac1ng requ1rements as follows: "No two-story cabana shall be located closer than twenty feet from another two-story cabana." e We 1nterpret th1S prov1s1on to requ1re a m1n1mum of twenty feet between the cabanas themselves, rather than between a cabana and a tra1ler." Comm1ssion Comments Off-set Cha1rman Sharp saJ.d these plans d1ffer from prJ.or second story addit10ns he'd seen ... th1S add1t1on lS separate and bes1de the tra1ler, not d1rectly above 1t. It covers about three (3') feet of the eX1st1ng tra1ler. Barry Curt1s sa1d 1t lS off-set to make up for the twenty (20') foot separat10n between adJacent two- story cabanas. More Than One Entrance On rev1ew1ng the plans, the Comm1ssJ.on noted there 1S more than one entrance and plans must be changed to have only one entry and the ab1l1 ty for only one. Barry Curtis saJ.d "currently there appears to be more than one entrance ... but the owner has not been consulted at th1S t1me" about rev1sed plans. Comm1SSJ.oner Jessner sa1d he d1d not want to act on Plan Rev1ew 10-89 untJ.l the CommJ.ss1on reV1ews the revised plans. e Spac1ng Requ1rements Not1ng the C1ty Attorney's 5/3/89 letter, the Commiss1on sa1d J.t wanted an 1nterpretat1on, adv1ce and comments from the Orange County F1re Department on th1s construct1on before tak1ng any e Page 3 - Planning Comm1SS10n M1nutes of May 3, 1989 act10n on th1s Plan Review. The Fire Department 1n1 t1ated regulat10ns for d1stance between tra1lers and cabanas. Mr. Jessner stated he felt 1t was not the 1ntent of the orig1nal ord1nance to "sk1rt" the twenty (20') foot distance. Mr. Kn1ght sa1d th1s issue was d1scussed at the 2/1/89 Plann1ng Comm1ss10n meet1ng, saY1ng the zone text amendment says "no two-story cabanas shall be closer than twenty (20') feet from another two- story cabana" and says noth1ng about off -sett1ng . The City Attorney says its "cabana to cabana --- not tra1ler to tra1Ier". The Comm1SS10n quest10ned who's 1nterpretat10n do we go by? Publ1C Hear1ng Opened Don Phil11ps * 66 Riversea Road Mr. Phil11ps noted he has two lots, side-by-s1de, with the present tra1ler OccupY1ng one lot. He wants to build onto the second lot. There is no intent to create a second entrance or second un1t. He sa1d he has f1ve ch1ldren ... and he wants to create space for h1mself upsta1rs. The downsta1rs (in future years) could possibly be for someone to do 11ght housekeeping for h1m. e James Coppedge * 500 E. Pac1fic Coast H1ghway. Seal Beach Mr. Coppedge addressed the entry 1ssue by stating the primary entry to th1s dwel11ng 1S located to r1ght of sta1rwell. To ga1n access to the sta1rs you must enter the mobile. The other access, from the sta1rwell, 1S to the spa. The 1ntent was to enable the owner to reach the spa from the upsta1rs W1 thout hav1ng to go thru the rema1nder of the dwel11ng. Mr. Kn1ght expla1ned to Mr. Coppedge that the opportunity does eX1st to create a second un1 t and the Plann1ng Comm1ss10n 1S request1ng that opportunity be removed. Mr. Kn1ght sa1d it would be appropr1ate to cont1nue th1s 1tem for two weeks, to the May 17, 1989 Comm1ss10n meet1ng. COlDlR1.SS10ner Sharp requested Plan Rev1ew 10-89 be cont1nued to the May 17, 1989 Plann1ng COJDlD1SS10n meet1ng. The COJDlD1SS10n wants to hear from Orange County F1re Department at that date also. - e Page 4 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of May 3, 1989 4. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 2-89 1. CUPs for Offlces ln Commercial Zones 2. Development of Master Plan for Rossmoor Center The CommlSSlon decided to dlSCUSS these two lssues concurrently. Ed Knlght said Mr. Flfe brought up the posslblllty of requlrlng a Condltlonal Use Permlt (CUP) for offlces that occur in commerclal zones and Mr. Jessner brought up the posslbllity of utllizing a master plan at the Rossmoor Center to monltor use changes in the Center. Mr. Knight sald staff feels that requlrlng a CUP for an office use ln a commercial zone lS good for protectlng the City'S commerclal base WhlCh Seal Beach should be looklng at slnce 1 t has a very poor sales tax base. Requirlng a master plan gets away from plecemeal plannlng, but with a CUP requlrement that would automatlcally put Rossmoor ln touch wlth the City. e Commlss10ner Flfe sald staff recommendatlons "A" and "B" concerned hlm. He would llke the verbage changed to add "no more than 10% of any flrst story space could be used for any purpose other than retalls sales use". Also add "Any conversion to offlce usage of any eXlstlng C-2 space that has been used for retal1 sale purposes at any tlme ln the flve (5) years preceding appllcation be subJect to the requlrement of a CUP Wl th some showlng on the part of the property owner that he can't feasibly use lt as retall space". He noted that as procedures stand now, the Center could go rlght through the Planning Department and changes would not be seen by the Plannlng Commlsslon. Mr. Flfe sald he assumed from Rossmoor Center's letter of 3/3/89 that they thought the Plannlng Commlsslon would be exerclslng veto power over thelr retal1 leases and thls lS not so. Chalrman Sharp sald he was concerned the Plannlng Commlsslon was lnterferlng wlth retall buslness to a pOlnt lt shouldn't be. He dldn't thlnk the Commlsslon should go with the master plan ldea. Mr. Jessner sald hlS concern stemmed from what he sees gOlng on at the Center ... a large offlce bUlldlng structure gOlng up on one end and a group of seven mOVle theatres belng bUllt ln the center of the complex. He sald a few days ago he walked thru the complex and there was a very hlgh percentage of vacanCles wlthln the complex. What lS the lntent of the owner for thlS Center? Are they trYlng to flll up these vacancles? Or Just empty out the Center to do something else? He would 11ke thlS clarlfled. . Chalrman Sharp sald he talked to Dottle PhllllP, the Center's manager. She sald the Center lS trYlng to upgrade the Center and be very choosy on tenants. e Page 5 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of May 3, 1989 Mr. Suggs stated the Center has spent several m11110n dollars there 1n the last few years and he doesn't see any maJor m1stakes they have made. He felt they had the C1ty'S 1nterests and the1r own 1nterests at hand. He said the C1ty should cooperate w1th them and let them take the lead as to who gets 1n and what type of construct1on they prov1de. Mr. Fife sa1d he is concerned about the Center's ult1mate long range plans. The Center has enough vacant lot space that 1 t could be a cons1derably larger reta11 center than 1t 1S. If all that space disappears w1th new off1ce construct1on it may doomed to be a marginal center w1th a 11m1ted future. e MOTION by F1fe for the Plann1ng Comm1ssion to direct the Plann1ng D1rector to, at th1S time, prepare recommendations for a spec1fic zon1ng text amendment on the 1ssue of conversion and/or new construction 1n this commercial zone for office usage. And to put forward to a future meeting the question of whether or not we would like to have the owner come here and g1 ve us 1nput as to h1S long range and/or master plans for the Center. Also, mod1fy paragraph "A" would prov1de that (at end of paragraph) "overall w1th no more than 10% of any f1rst story space used for any purpose other than reta1l sales usage." And the word "development" in the f1rst line be changed to "development or conversion project". D1Scuss1on Mr. Rullo suggested the f1gure be " ... 30% of any f1rst story space". Mr. Kn1ght suggested that the language could be "office use on the f1rst floor 1S only 1nc1dental for the bus1ness at hand". Mr. F1fe suggested second and third stor1es are not best used as reta11 space but f1rst story is. MOTION WITHDRAWN by F1fe and moved that the Plann1ng D1rector prepare spec1f1c language for a proposed zone text amendment deal1ng w1th the matter of new development and/or conversion of eX1st1ng space 1n the C-2 space for commercial off1ce usages. e Issued Cont1nued Cha1rman Sharp sa1d there 1S no rush on th1s 1tem and 1t w111 be cont1nued to a future meet1ng 1n June or July. Mr. Kn1ght sa1d the Comm1ss1oners have g1 ven staff d1rect1on. He agreed the reta11 committee should get 1nvolved. Mr. Kn1ght sa1d he could advert1se th1s for a Publ1C Hear1ng as a zone text amendment, n~tify some of the reta11 owners 1n the commun1ty and the Comm1SS1on could rece1 ve test1mony. The Plann1ng Comm1ss1on could reach conclus1ons, and on a vote, refer 1t to the retail comm1 ttee for the1r recommendat1on and get the1r 1nput to the ci ty Counc11 as well as the Comm1ssion' s 1nput to the C1 ty Council. e Page 6 - Plann1ng Cornm1SS10n M1nutes of May 3, 1989 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bruce Stark * 204 Ocean. Seal Beach Mr. Stark congratulated Ed Kn1ght on h1s new pos1t10n as Plann1ng D1rector at Dana P01nt. Add1 t10nally, Mr. Stark sa1d he felt Plann1ng Comm1SS10n dec1sions were not admin1stered "even handedly". Mr. Stark alluded to a 25' x 117.5' property that was turned 1nto "un1que parcel of land" and wh1ch rece1ved a waiver for park1ng requ1rements; no name and no address g1ven. Cha1rman Sharp took except10n to th1s, stat1ng he knew of no such dec1s10ns by the Planning Comm1SS10n. STAFF CONCERNS Four Homes on F1rst Street Mr. Kn1ght sa1d the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Tentative Parcel Map were approved by the C1ty Council w1th all the recommendat10ns of the Planning Comm1SS10n 1ntact--- 1ncluding the he1ght restr1ct10n 1n back and the number of un1ts. e Mola Development Mr. Kn1ght sa1d the City Counc1l cons1dered Mola Development at the1r 5/1/89 meet1ng. The Response to Comments to the Supplemental EIR have not been completed so th1s 1tem was cont1nued to the City Counc11 meet1ng of May 15, 1989 where they w111 be 1n a pos1t10n to make a dec1s10n on the Mola plan. Th1S dec1s10n could take two forms: 1. They could approve the proposed plan which the Plann1ng Commiss10n has already cons1dered in a Pub11C Hear1ng (1ncluding the Vest1ng Tentat1 ve Tract Map). The proJect would then be completed. 2. They could refer back to the Cornm1ss10n one or more of the var10US alternat1ves on the Spec1fic Plan. In referr1ng th1s back to the Cornmiss10n 1t w1ll not be a Public Hear1ng and the Cornm1SS10n would not be cons1dering any Tentat1ve Tract Map. The Comm1ss10n would be rev1ew1ng the alternat1ve(s) --- g1v1ng the1r 1mpress10ns and recommendat10ns to the C1ty Council at a future date. wi th that 1nformat10n 1n hand the Council can make a final dec1s10n. After this, the applicant could reapply for a Vest1ng Tentat1ve Tract Map wh1ch would come through th1s Comm1SS10n as a Pub11c Hear1ng. COMMISSION CONCERNS e Fence Heights Mr. Jessner, not1ng Mr. Kn1ght's comments regard1ng C1ty Counc11 action on ra1s1ng fence heights from 8' to 10'asked on what bas1s the Counc11 approved 1t. Mr. Knight rep11ed the1r approval was based on aesthet1cs vs. n01se m1t1gat10n and pr1vacy. The C1ty e Page 7 - Plann1ng Comm1ssion M1nutes of May 3, 1989 Counc11 felt the commun1ty benefitted more from n01se m1tigat1on and pr1vacYi the extra two feet was 1mportant. W1th the staff cr1ter1a 1n place, 1f these ten foot fences do go up, they would be sUbJect to a reV1ew by the Plann1ng Comm1ss1on for cons1stent treatment etc. Mr. Jessner was concerned about the present fenc1ng at Seal Beach Boulevard and Pac1f1c Coast H1ghway saY1ng 1t lS a shambles--- every house has a d1fferent fence, a d1fferent he1ght, some fall1ng over -- 1t'S an unplanned eyesore. At PCH at Bolsa you have the same type of fences. Mr. Rullo sa1d a ten foot fence would requ1re redes1gn. Owners would not be able to Just add to the1r eX1st1ng fences of SlX or e1ght feet ... the foundat1on would not hold a ten foot fence. To hold a ten foot fence would requ1re a much larger foundat1on (for even an e1ght foot fence). Mr. Knight sa1d he talked to the C1ty's BU1ld1ng Inspector and aff1rmed Mr. Rullo's 1nformat1on. Most of the walls 1n the C1ty are SlX feet. e Mr. Jessner asked the Planning Comm1SS1on for a consensus to recommend to the Counc11 that 1f they do want to go to the ten foot he1ght that before we Just vote th1S 1n we give thought toward plannlng and aesthet1cs. Mr. F1fe asked staff why the Counc11 exclude Lampson? Lampson has h1gh speed veh1cles very close to homes. He d1dn't th1nk the two foot ga1n was suff1C1ent in n01se m1t1gat1on and pr1vacy lS Just1fy what lS likely to become a hodgepodge. MOTION by Jessner that the Plann1ng Comm1ssion recommend to the C1 ty Council that they hold off on estab11sh1ngjvot1ng on th1S add1 t10nal fence raise 1n he1ght because of the reasons ra1sed ton1ght and StUd1ed further. Lampson should be restud1ed. MOTION WITHDRAWN MOTION by Jessner, SECOND by F1fe to 1n1t1ate an agenda 1tem w1th regard to the fence height. AYES: Rullo, F1fe, Suggs, Sharp, Jessner MOTION CARRIED MOTION by Jessner, SECOND by F1fe that the Plann1ng Comm1ss1on recommend to the C1ty Counc1l that they hold off or resubm1t the1r w1shes on th1s add 1 tional fence ra1se in he1ght to ten (10') feet and stud1ed further. Lampson should be restud1ed and 1ncluded. e AYES: Rullo, F1fe, Suggs, Sharp, Jessner MOTION CARRIED e Page 8 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of May 3, 1989 Safety Improvements/Lampson Mr. F1fe asked Mr. Kn1ght 1mprovements made on Lampson? would get 1t. 1f he had the l1st of safety Mr. Kn1ght said "no" but that he Ed Kn1ght's Res1gnat1on Cha1rman Sharp asked Mr. Kn1ght about h1s res1gnat1on. Mr. Kn1ght sa1d h1s res1gnat1on was announced at the C1 ty Counc1l meet1ng on Monday, May 1, 1989. Ed Kn1ght has accepted the pos1t1on of Plann1ng D1rector at the C1ty of Dana P01nt. ADJOURNMENT Cha1rman Sharp adJourned the meet1ng at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully Subm1tted, e ~~:;,~<>-,~ Secretary Department of Development Serv1ces *** THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. *** The Plann1ng Comm1ss1on M1nutes of May 3, 1989 were approved by the Planning Comm1ssion on rY\~ 11r~ 1989. ~- e RICHA"CS. WATSON & GIl..SHON ATTO.-NCya lito" LAW .. ..o.....'o...~ _~"ON el!::~ . _ .,.091 .O~~ _ O...ON .. MSur ~ UlMU" .....OLD IllION "" '" ""'nMON 1IIC.w.D .. ~L IIIWIN L ~ DMOioD II ~pu PMII ... raNI,," TItOMM ... l'IWKtIIO. .. ~\~ ..LL'...... ~ iTMUiJ 1tOIIC"'.. OOloaPllllO ANTHON" .. DfIIWIl'I' MITC"'~ L AMOTT 'NIlQT..... l. NlUflUt ~N ... uo..d :m:.: :-=ICCM =~u& IIIOWItC ., t"UN IIICHAl:L oICIllll Iill W1L..... .. .UDn-L MltIO ~ c:o.tDl TERdA" 'IWtIoC" 0\111111" IIMltOW CIMO~ .. L...c.. =-::~-,r. .lit =::: JOIi~:~1& ~~~ 0.... .. 1IIIlILC IlL . 10MII ,.... It J~_ =w IIUL__ ..-r ~ mr'OM ~ ... ......~ J&"~ WCWUl IIRL ~NHt .... III DI'~ ....11 0 INN" MalII II 1&AIl_la .".,.,. II COGAIiI ~IIDICC' .bat u.'nl~1I1 ~ IUC~ IIAYlIlIIVllllim C\IIITtlIA II w.ulP CdIIT1 14OO1N Ift\ICN .. on DeII()MN IL IWlNAN IIeMAll IIICNA11D8 .......... May 3, 1189 "" IIn"loCICb'~" '\000- au eo..n'H _ .-" IoDa .....RWIA c;a",~"1A _I - .~ ... 81.1 GAa~ ..00It1t1. 1II.e_" "'~IRIII' .".. ,1.AQ1II cala! .-. ~H ,.__ ilia! 117-1_ W"'''~. a DIIIII:CT D..... H"'....!:j;I Kr. Edward Knight; Director of Development Servioe. Ci ty of Seal Beach 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, CA 10740 R8: Trailer Park cabanas e Dear Bd: You have requested our opinion aa to the applioable apacinq requirements between two-.tory cabanas in the Seal Beach Trailer Park. Section 28-2319 establishes .pecial development atandard. for two-story cabanas within a mobile home or trailer park. sub.ection B(3) prescribes the .pacinq requirements as follow.: "No two-.tory cabana .hall be located closer than twenty f.et from another two-.tory cabana.W w. interpret; this provi.1on to require a minimum of twenty feet between the cabanaa themselves, rather than between a cabana and a trailer. It you have any further questions regarding this matter, plea.e give .e a call. --1 yours, . 9"8\379 ATTACHMtWi