The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Min 1990-03-21 .- '. . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 1990 The regularly scheduled meet1ng of the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on was called to order 1n C1ty counc11 Chambers by Cha1rman Sharp at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ,1.T.T,EGIANCE The Pledge of Alleg1ance was led by Comm1SS1oner Rullo. ROLL CAT.T. Present: Cha1rman Sharp Comm1SS1oners Rullo, F1fe, Forsythe Absent: Comm1SS1oner Suggs (Excused absence due to 11lness) . Also Present: Lee Wh1ttenberg, D1rector, Dev. Srvcs. Dept. John Fraser, Intern, Dev. Srvcs. Dept. CONSENT CALENDAR 4Cha1rman Sharp separated the three Consent Calendar 1 terns for 1nd1v1dual cons1derat1on. 1. MINUTES OF MARCH 7, 1990 MOTION by Rullo; SECOND by F1fe to approve the Plann1ng CommlSSlon Mlnutes of March 7, 1990 as presented. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 AYES: Sharp, Rullo, Fife, ForsYthe ABSENT: Suggs *** 2. PLAN REVIEW 1-90 513 1/2 OCEAN AVENUE Staff Report John Fraser del1vered the staff report. Plan Rev1ew 1-90 is a request by Eugene Cal1donna to do a minor remodel to the upper un1t of an eX1st1ng non-conform1ng duplex at 513 1/2 Ocean Avenue. The property has no covered on-s1te park1ng but does have 938 square feet of paved area abutt1ng the property at the alley. The total d1stance for the rear facade of the duplex to the rear property 11ne 1S 41 feet staff feels a carport could be bU1lt that would prov1de covered park1ng for 3 of the 4 requ1red spaces. The appl1cant cla1ms (ver1f1ed by staff) that he gets up to 6 veh1cles on the spot at one t1me. Slnce the appl1cant 1S not propos1ng to 1ncrease the square footage of the property, staff leaves the bU1ld1ng of the carport to the d1scret1on of the Comm1SS1on. . . . Page 2 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of March 21, 1990 Comm1ss1on Comments Comm1SS1oner F1fe asked 1f the removal of the second k1tchen would convert th1s from a duplex to a s1ngle fam1ly res1dence? Staff sa1d there are two un1tsi one up and one down. The upsta1rs un1t has always had two k1tchens. The upsta1rs ma1n k1tchen w111 be made larger and the second k1tchen w111 be elim1nated. Mr. F1fe asked, assum1ng the carport would reduce the number of ava1lable park1ng places, 1f the Code requ1res two covered park1ng spaces per un1t (4 on th1S s1te), then does the Comm1ss1on have the power to wa1ve that command of the Code? Mr. Whittenberg sa1d the ord1nance would requ1re the prov1s1on of add1t1onal park1ng 1f he was add1ng add1t1onal 11ving space to the un1ts. The Comm1SS1on has a 11ttle discret10n on th1S Plan ReV1ew - 1t can requ1re the prov1s1on of covered park1ng 1f 1t feels it's appropr1ate but 1t 1S not requ1red to make that 1mpos1t1on because the appl1cant 1S not add1ng square footage. Mr. F1fe asked if the covered park1ng was 1n the nature of a 'grandfathered' s1tuat1on --- the applicant doesn't have to have 1t now but 1f he adds square footage ...? Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d the appl1cant 1S under a non-conform1ng s1tuat1on and 1f the expansion were to add to that eX1st1ng non-conform1ng status of the property by add1ng add1t1onal liv1ng space to e1ther of the un1ts, then at that p01nt, the C1ty'S requ1rements would mandate the prov1s1on of the covered park1ng and 1f he was unable to prov1de the park1ng then a Variance would be requ1red. Staff wanted the appl1cant to place a covenant on the property to let future owners know that at the t1me they acqu1re the property, 1f they want to put an add1t1on on, they would have to deal w1th the 1ssue of prov1d1ng add1t1onal covered park1ng. Mr. F1fe asked 1f there was some part1cular reason staff wanted a covenant recorded aga1nst th1s property? Does every owner 1n Seal Beach have a covenant on their property that may become subJect to th1s? Staff sa1d they are concerned because he is 1n for a part1cular request. H1S park1ng does not meet requirements and under th1s request he 1S not requ1red to do it. Real estate laws are mov1ng 1n the d1rection of d1sclos1ng more and more 1tems as a p1ece of property goes up for sale. Staff felt 1t made sense that when an 1tem comes before the C1ty, where we know 1n the future there could be an add1t1onal 1mpos1t1on, to put that fact out on the property at the t1me the request comes before the C1ty. Th1S same th1ng would apply to many homes - especially 1n the Old Town area spec1fically. Most people who buy homes don't realize what a non-conform1ng s1tuat1on means on a property. Mr. F1fe sa1d he could see the advantage of alert1ng people but the problem of not be1ng fam111ar w1th a Code requ1rement 1S a broad problem. The C1 ty could run 1nto a compound problem of a person saY1ng "I read your not1ce but your not1ce d1dn't g1ve me enough not1ce --- 1t m1slead me -- and the Code has changed 1n between". The C1 ty may be better off Just lett1ng th1ngs stand as they are. We may be deal1ng w1th a flaw 1n the whole t1tle recording system and perhaps t1tle cornpan1es should address th1S rather than us trY1ng to address 1t ourselves. . . . Page 3 - Plann1ng Comm1ss1on M1nutes of March 21, 1990 Mr. Rullo sa1d he would llke to see the cond1t1on rema1n but would llke the C1ty Attorney to rule on 1t. Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d that when staff developed Cond1t1on #3 they spoke w1th the C1ty Attorney and he felt that as part1cular 1 terns came before us, 1f the Comm1SS1on wanted to do 1t on a case-by-case bas1s that would be acceptable. There 1S concern that some persons may not be glven equal not1ce. Mr. F1fe sa1d he would be incl1ned to let the law stand where 1t does because (1) some people would feel they were m1slead because they never had such a recording on the1r property and (2) the Comm1SS1on m1ght make an error, m1SS one property, and we've got a problem because we started th1S and then we erred and d1dn't do 1t on one property. Mr. Sharp sa1d he felt real estate d1sclosure laws would suff1ce. Mr. Whittenberg 1nd1cated real estate laws relate more to phys1cal cond1t1ons of the structure than to potent1al development standards of the C1ty 1tself. Those would have to be checked out by the potent1al buyer. Mr. F1fe asked 1f there was a C1 ty requ1rement aga1nst pav1ng a lot a putt1ng many cars on 1t? Staff repl1ed open park1ng 1S not allowed on a res1dent1al lot unless 1t'S 1n con]Unct1on w1th a res1dent1al use. If 1t'S gOlng to be used for park1ng 1t must be paved. Ms. Forsythe sa1d she would welcome aud1ence comments on th1s park1ng sltuat1on. There were no comments. The appl1cant was not present. MOTION by F1fei SECOND by Forsythe to approve Plan ReV1ew 1-90 w1thout requ1r1ng the owner at th1S t1me to build a carport and w1thout requ1ring the owner at th1S t1me to record any covenant aga1nst the title to the property giving notice of the need for potent1al add1 tl.on of covered parkl.ng l.n the event that square footage l.S added unless the Cl. ty Attorney directs the Plannl.ng Dl.rector to have that recorded l.n order to reduce potentl.al ll.abl.lity of the Cl.ty. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 AYES: Fl.fe, ForsYthe, Rullo, Sharp ABSENT: Suggs *** . . . Page 4 - Plann1ng Comm1ss1on M1nutes of March 21, 1990 3. PLAN REVIEW 2-90 A-76 SURFSIDE staff Report John Fraser del1vered the staff report on Plan ReV1ew 2-90, Wh1Ch 1S a request by appl1cants K.C. and Anne Coultrup for an 1nter1or remodel. It would 1nvol ve the extens10n of an eX1st1ng non- conform1ng exter10r stairway and addi t10n of approx1mately 180 square foot (not 240 square feet as wr1tten 1n the staff report) comb1nat1on greenhouse/storage room on an open roof deck. Th1S add1t1on 1S proposed for a non-conform1ng, slngle-fam1ly dwell1ng at A-76 Surfs1de. Staff recommends approval with cond1t1ons. Cornrn1ss1on Comments Mr. Rullo asked staff when Sect10n 5-30, Seal Beach mun1c1pal Code was amended? June 1989. Ms. Forsythe asked what floor the sp1ral sta1rcase serv1ced? Staff repl1ed that anyth1ng above the second floor 1S requ1red to have two eX1sts unless 1t's a roof deck of less than 500 square feet. We are requ1r1ng two eX1sts from the roof deck and two eX1sts th1rd floor. Mr. Rullo asked what the deck's square footage was. Staff sa1d 603 square feet of useable space, minus 50 square feet aprox. for the doghouse --- leav1ng 550 square feet roughly. Mr. Rullo noted there's not a house 1n Surfs1de now that has a sta1rway up to the deck. He 1nd1cated he could not state what the square footages were on the var10US decks. It has always been two sta1rways to the th1rd floor and then one sta1rway to the deck. Mr. Wh1ttenberg 1nd1cated the current Code requ1res only one sta1rway 1f the deck area 1S less than 500 square feet. The cond1t1on here 1S 1mposed because the deck area 1S 1n excess of 500 square feet. Ms. Forsythe asked where the second sta1rway 1S gOlng? Staff 1nd1cated 1t w111 be another sta1rway com1ng from the roof deck down to the th1rd level. Mr. Rullo asked about uS1ng a Re1nhart ladder outs1de the house, stat1ng he thought they had been outlawed. Mr. Fraser sa1d the ladder must go all the way to the ground. Referenc1ng Sect10n 3303(a)(5)(a) and (b) a f1xed emergency exit ladder (may be used) from the top hab1table floor to natural grade .. and the dwell1ng shall conta1n a 13-0 f1re spr1nkler system as approved by the Orange County F1re Department and the BU1ld1ng Off1c1al. Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d th1s 1S an opt1on he can cons1der and he could have a ladder from the roof deck to the second deck to where the sp1ral comes up. The other opt1on would be to reduce the Slze of the roof deck to less than 500 square feet. Mr. F1fe asked 1f the greenhouse-storage could be used to reduce the deck area. Mr. Fraser sa1d some people m1ght want to 1ncrease the Slze of the1r 'doghouse' and therefore not need to extra eX1t. Mr. Fraser sa1d he d1d not count the greenhouse or the balcony toward the square footage; he counted the deck 1tself and that carne to 550 square feet. Page 5 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of March 21, 1990 . Appllcant/Owner's Comments K. C. Coul trup * Ll vlng at B-70 Surfslde Whlle Remodellng A-76 Surfslde for hlS own resldence. He lndlcated hlS lntentlon was to do an interlor remodel on a twenty year old house. He sald maklng a second eXlt off the roof deck would (1) be dlfflcult to construct as It'S 35 feet hlgh and lS unwleldy and (2) he could add 2 feet to the wldth of the greenhouse would get close enough to not have to add another eXlt up there. . Mr. Rullo asked lf the 35 foot ladder would be posslble? Mr. Coultrup sald It'S a covered deck and he would have to cut a hole In the deck and may have a waterproofing problem but It's posslble to do. He would prefer to lncrease the Slze of the greenhouse and ellmlnate the second eXlt. He sald lf he had Just bought the house and moved lnto lt and had over 800 square feet on the roof the Plannlng CommlSSlon wouldn't requlre hlm to put an eXlt up there. And if he was plannlng an lnterlor remodel, wlthout dOlng anythlng outslde, he would not be requlred to put In a second eXlt. But Slnce he lS addlng a greenhouse and movlng a stalrway on the exterlor he lS belng requlred to add an eXlt. He sald he dldn't understand how these facts tle-ln together. Chalrman Sharp explalned that when a person comes before the Plannlng Commisslon for a perml t 1 t lS then dlscovered where the non-conformlng propertles are and brlng them up to Code. The CommlSSlon has no other way of knowlng these thlngs. Mr. Coultrup sald the Surfslde Board of Dlrectors met last nlght at thelr regular meetlng. They were requlred to stamp hlS plans. They have serlOUS Ob]ectlons to addlng thls eXl t from the thlrd floor statlng 1 t was precedent settlng In Surfslde. He had a letter from them statlng these obJectlons (not submltted for the Record). . Mr. Flfe restated Mr. Coultrup's optlons --- to (1) enlarge the greenhouse to reduce the open deck area to 500 square feet than (2) puttlng In a second access to the roof --- and lndlcated agaln that Mr. Coul trup wlshed to enlarge the greenhouse. Mr. Coul trup agreed. Mr. Flfe restated staff's posltlon by saYlng the CommlSSlon would have to make an lnterpretlve ruling to the effect that consumlng the deck wlth a structure reduces the amount of open deck for access purposes. Mr. Fraser sald lf you want to base the need for the access on Just the true open deck square footage that could be occupled by people then the CommlSSlon could make that rullng. The storage greenhouse lS assumed to be non-habltable. Mr. Flfe sald the CommlSSlon comes up wlth the problem of glven square footage belng bootlegged lnto habltable square footage. He asked Mr. Fraser lf he was satlsfled that thlS would not happen wlth thlS greenhouse? Mr. Fraser sald the Clty'S BUlldlng Inspector would verlfy this. Mr. Whlttenberg said a greenhouse or sunroom area (such as an enclosed patlo) lS not consldered habl table spaces because of the type of constructlon. Mr. Whlttenberg sald the Clty lS concerned that should a flre break out that people who mlght be on a deck of a thlrty-flve foot structure . . . Page 6 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of March 21, 1990 be able to eX1t 1n a safe manner thru adequate eX1ts. Cha1rman Sharp sa1d the Comm1SS1on must be very caut10us 1n these ru11ngs and that human l1fe 1S not Jeopard1zed by sav1ng dollars. Mr. Coultrup sa1d he and h1S fam1ly would be l1v1ng there and he would want 1t safe. Mr. Coultrup sa1d 1f the second exit 1S needed, he would l1ke to get away from the sp1ral sta1rcase Wh1Ch 1S a precar10us pos1t1on hang1ng off the s1de of the house and go to a ladder that would go aga1nst the house enclosed by the deck as a safer solut1on. Mr. Wh1ttenberg 1nd1cated staff would recommend add1ng a cond1t1on that the roof deck area comply w1th the requ1red eX1t1ng requ1rements of the Seal Beach mun1c1pal ~ and then the appl1cant can have h1s opt1on of deal1ng W1 th that 1n whatever manner he w1shes to work w1th it once he's looked at all his opt1ons. The C1ty does not want to be 1n the pos1t1on of wa1v1ng any eX1t1ng requ1rements to the Code. Mr. F1fe asked Mr. Wh1ttenberg 1f the Comm1SS1on has to make an 1nterpretat1on that permanently aff1xed structures on the top level of the bU1ld1ng subtract from the deck for purposes of calculat1on? Mr. Wh1 ttenberg said he would have to depend on the Comm1SS1on' s recollect1on as th1S 1S the f1rst t1me he's seen an 1tem 11ke th1S S1nce he's come to work for the C1ty. Mr. Rullo said a covered area on the deck has never been counted as part of the square footage. Mr. Sharp d1d not remember one com1ng before the Comm1SS1on before. Mr. Wh1 ttenberg said 1 t would be staff's feel1ng that the prOV1S1.0n of the ~ d1scusses "open deck areas" and a greenhouse 1S not an open deck, 1t'S not a hab1table 11.v1ng space, 1t's bas1cally a ut111zat1on area that normally would not have a large congregat1on of persons 1ns1de that area. Mr. Coultrup wanted to d1scuss the f1ve cond1t1ons for Plan ReV1ew 2-90. Cond1t1on #4 reads: The non-conform1ng s1.deyard sta1.rway be extended forward only to the p01nt 1t 1S flush w1th the garage of the adJacent res1dence at A-77. He wants to br1ng that sta1rway flush w1th the end of his garage to make h1s entry work and not flush w1th the adJacent res1dence at A-77 because 1t's about three feet further back than h1S home. Mr. Fraser sa1d he d1scussed th1.s w1.th Barry Curt1s (Adm1n1strat1ve Ass1stant, Plann1ng Department) and "they felt we Just d1dn't want to come r1ght out of A-77 and go r1ght 1nto a sta1rway. We could reV1.ew th1s w1.th Chuck Feenstra ... 1f 1t's not workable we could look 1nto 1. t." Mr. Coul trup sa1d the entry for A-77 1S on the other s1de of that house. A-77 has an empty s1de yard facing h1s house. Mr. Rullo noted that Surfside has houses where entr1es face each other and have d1.fferent he1ghts of sta1rways. The grade doesn't allow for the sta1rways on both houses to be the same he1ghts. A cond1t1on 11ke #4 has not come up 1n Surfs1de Colony before. Mr. Coultup sa1d h1.S plan, approved by Chuck Feenstra (Bu1ld1ng Inspector) called for a sp1ral sta1rcase from the th1rd to the second floor. If a ladder from the deck to the th1rd floor . . . Page 7 - Plann1ng Comm1ssion M1nutes of March 21, 1900 1S allowed, then he would 11ke to have a ladder from the th1rd to the second floor. The sp1ral takes up a lot of space in the front and he feels 1t'S ugly so would prefer the ladder. Mr. Rullo asked staff 1f the ladders are st111 legal? Mr. Wh1ttenberg said they are legal but 1t'S requ1red to go all the way down to natural grade. Mr. F1fe asked why, assum1ng the ~ amendment's purpose 1S for greater safe eX1t for people on th1rd floors, then why would the Comm1SS10n feel that was sat1sf~ed by allow1ng people on a third floor to eX1t to and wind up on a second floor? If a pat10 door was ~nadvertently locked they would have a cho~ce of Jump~ng off a second story pat10. Mr. wh1ttenberg noted that, in th~s S1 tuat10n, when you go from the th1rd floor down the sp1ral sta1rcase to the second floor you can go across the deck and on the Oppos1te s1de of the house there's a f1xed sta1rway that goes to ground level. There 1S a cont1nuous path to the ground. Mr. Rullo noted most ladders are on the sldes of the houses. Mr. Wh~ ttenberg 1nd1cated 1t would be best to have someone from the F~re Department and a BU1ld1ng Inspector to meet w~th Mr. Coultrup to rev~ew the actual eX1t1ng requ1rements. The c~ty's ex~t1ng requ~rements come thru the F1re Department. MOTION by Rullo; SECOND by F1fe to approve Plan ReV1ew 2-90 with the el1m1nation of Cond1tion #4 and all eX1ting requ1rements shall be prov1ded to the sat1sfact1on of the F1re Department and Build1ng Department 1n compl1ance with exist1ng ~ requ1rements. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 AYES: Rullo, F1fe, Sharp, Forsythe ABSENT: Suggs *** PUBLIC HEARING 4. VARIANCE 1-90 242 FIFTH STREET RESOLUTION NO. # staff Report Mr. Wh1ttenberg del1vered the staff report, which 1S a request by Rory and Andrew H1 tchcock and Kurt S. DeMe1re to dev1ate from Sect10n 28-801(1) of the QQgg, Wh1Ch requires a m1n1mum lot s~ze of 50' x 100' for 1nter~or lots 1n D1str1ct I, and create two substandard 25' x 117.5' lots. Mr. Wh1ttenberg ~nd1cated that the C1ty, a number of years ago, changed the m1nimum lot Slze requ~rements 1n the Old Town area from 2500 square foot lots to 5000 square foot lots. There are very few lots in the Old Town area at th1s t~me that are 5000 square foot or larger. Under the current zon~ng requ1rements of one un1t for every 2178 square feet 1f a lot ~s 7500 or 10,000 square feet 1t'S very attract1ve for the Page 8 - Plann1ng Comm1ss1on M1nutes of March 21, 1990 4It owner of that property to cons1der bU11d1ng someth1ng other than detached slngle fam11y un1ts because the dens1ty would allow h1m to put 5 -6 un1ts on a 12,000 lot. The staff's concern lS that the C1ty'S 1ntent seems to be to encourage the prov1s1on of more detached slngle fam1ly owner-occup1ed un1ts 1n the Old Town area. W1th the ma]Or1ty of the lots be1ng 1n the 25' w1dth sltuat10n 1t seems to make sense to look at allow1ng lots smaller than the now requ1red 50' w1dth to be created 1n the Old Town area. Staff feels th1S request could be approved by the f1nd1ngs because 1n the area where th1S property lS located there are many 25' x 117' Jots. Staff would recommend that the Comm1SS1on m1ght also want to reV1ew the m1n1mum lot Slze requ1rements for the Old Town area. . . Comm1ss1on Comments Cha1rman Sharp 1nd1cated he felt what would be best would be to change the ord1nance. He talked to V1ctor Grgas, Joe Hunt and Joyce R1sner and they agree w1th th1S method. He 1ndicated that 1f the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on granted th1S they would grant 1t w1th the st1pulat1on that the Comm1SS1on goes to the C1ty Counc11 ask1ng for a new ord1nance chang1ng the lot Slze for th1S 1tem. Mr. Rullo was 1n complete agreement w1th Cha1rman Sharp. Mr. F1fe asked when the requ1rement for m1n1mum lot Slze of 50' x 100' put 1nto the~? Mr. Fraser sa1d 1975. Mr. F1fe noted th1S was put 1nto the Code when the C1ty already had a number of 25' lots. The 1975 C1ty Counc11 must have had some Ob]ect1ve 1n m1nd. Th1S lssue must have been debated thoroughly at that t1me. Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d that when there's a 50' lot you're tell1ng that owner that you can put two un1ts on that lot but then (1) are they gOlng to be rentals or (2) one owner-occup1ed un1t and a rental or (3) three condom1n1ums versus two slngle-fam1ly occup1ed? As the pr1ce of land escalates, when a person lS requ1red to buy a 50' lot they w111 look to put mult1ple un1ts on 1t to make the payments on the property. On the 50' lots (or larger) that eX1st now, to make those owner-occup1ed un1ts the owner must go thru a subd1vis1on process to create a condom1n1um a1r space subd1v1s1on on the property and gOlng thru cond1t1onal use permit w1th all the t1me and expenses 1nvol ved. If the ord1nance was changed the owner would st111 have to go thru a lot split process. Mr. F1fe asked staff 1f they were sat1sf1ed that the Comm1SS1on has the power to cond1t1onally grant a var1ance that self destructs 1f someth1ng else happens? Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d any var1ance that's granted based on a part1cular set of requ1rements that change 1n the future to where the var1ance lS necessary 1t'S almost the same as el1m1nat1ng the non-conform1ng use by new construct1on on the property. The C1 ty could vacate the var1ance because 1 t' s no longer needed. Mr. F1fe sa1d the Comm1SS1on's grant1ng of th1S var1ance would be absolute. Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d staff feels the Comm1SS1on could make the f1nd1ngs 1n th1S case 1rregardless of what the Counc11 and Comm1SS1on dec1de to do on the m1n1mum lot Slze requ1rements because of the eX1st1ng sltuat10ns on propert1es . . . Page 9 - Plann1ng Comm1ss1on M1nutes of March 21, 1990 1mmed1ately adJacent to th1S one. Almost all of those are 25' lots w1th slngle fam1ly homes on them. Mr. F1fe asked 1f grant1ng th1S var1ance wouldn't be precedent1al for all other 50' and w1der lots. Staff sa1d yes. Noth1ng under the three f1nd1ngs d1SCUSS precedent. Mr. Wh1ttenberg rev1ewed the three var1ance f1nd1ngs, not1ng th1S case presents a reverse un1queness, where the lot that's requ1r1ng the var1ance is the un1que lot. What the appl1cant wants to do lS come 1nto conformance w1th the rema1n1ng lots 1n the area. Also, the lot 11nes on th1S property run under the eX1st1ng homes. The applicants are hav1ng a very d1ff1cult t1me f1nd1ng long term f1nanc1ng because of the lot 11nes be1ng under the home. Mr. F1fe sa1d when Var1ance 3-89 was before the Comm1SS1on on Apr11 19, 1989 the lssue of lot 11nes was d1scussed at that t1me. If 1t wasn't d1scussed at that t1me, why not? Ms. Forsythe sa1d she was concerned with the way we're uS1ng maX1mum lot usage 1n Old Town area. She'd 11ke to see some grass there. Why lS th1S var1ance com1ng before the Comm1SS1on after the houses have been bU1lt (after the fact)? Publ1C Hear1ng Kurt De Me1re and Mr. & Mrs. Rory & Andrew H1tchcock Mr. DeMe1re 1ntroduced themselves as the appl1cants 1nd1cat1ng the Rory H1tchcock lS Kurt De Me1re's slster. He sa1d that now construct1on lS com1ng to a close and they are look1ng for permanent f1nanc1ng they cannot f1nd a lender who w111 grant us f1nanc1ng 1nd1 v1dually W1 th only two un1 ts. If they go to condom1n1ums, they can't f1nd a lender who w111 loan on a two un1t condom1n1um development. When Var1ance 3-89 was granted 1t was to allow to bU1ld two homes that conformed to the 25' lot single fam1ly homes. Mr. F1fe asked 1f 1nstead of Spl1tt1ng the present three lots could they could be comb1ned 1nto one 50' lot, would that preclude you from gett1ng f1nanc1ng? Mr. DeMe1re sa1d "absolutely". Mr. F1fe asked 1f they through of this when they started? Mr. DeMe1re sa1d 1n1t1ally they thought they would be called "condom1n1ums". They wanted them detached as slngle fam1ly homes and that's why we went thru Var1ance 3-89. Now, trY1ng to get f1nanc1ng on a two-un1t condom1n1um lS 1mposs1ble. We're two separate fam111es and we would have to get one mortgage on two houses that's the pred1cament. Mr. F1fe sa1d h1S recollect1on was th1S was d1scussed before and one of the th1ngs beh1nd the grant1ng of Var1ance 3-89 was that th1S was all one fam1ly who would be OccupY1ng two homes. Mr. Wh1 ttenberg 1nd1cated a report could be taken to the C1 ty Counc11 Monday n1ght to get the1r bas1c d1rect1ons to proceed w1th the text amendment regard1ng the m1n1mum lot width 1n the Old Town area. Then we can be back to the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on about Apr11 18th. From there 1t would go back to Counc11 for another publ1C hear1ng and 1ntroduct1on of an ord1nance and then a Second Read1ng. e - e Page 10 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of March 21, 1990 It would take effect 30 days after that. That would be end of June thru mld-July at the earllest before new lot Slze requlrements could be In place. That's lf everythlng went perfectly. The appllcants have already prepared the parcel map. Once the Plannlng CommlSSlon has made the recommendatlon to Councl1 they could submlt the parcel map for reVlew wlth the understandlng that lf the ZTA lS not approved the parcel map could not be processed. But we could get ready to schedule hearlngs upon effectuatlon of new requlrements lf they do take place. Thelr property could be spIlt after a publlC hearlng at the Plannlng CommlSSlon on the parcel map --- that'd be mld-July to early August. Thelr constructlon should be completed at the end of Aprl1 and the constructlon loan carrles a very hlgh lnterest rate. They'd 11ke to apply for permanent flnanclng as soon as posslble. Mr. Whlttenberg sald lots between 25' - 37.5' would constltute 80 - 85% of Old Town lots. There are about 15 -20 lots remalnlng at 50'. Bruce Stark * Seal Beach Mr. Stark noted the staff report makes no mentlon of the $25,000 Park fees. Mr. Whlttenberg replled thlS lS not a request for a lot Spll t but a varlance request. At the tlme the parcel map lS processed lS when the Park fees wl11 be lmposed. Mr. Stark gave a hlstory on Park fees. He sald these appllcants must be treated as other resldents and must pay the Park fees. The flndlngs can't be made because of "not grantlng a speclal prlvl1ege" lf they don't pay the park fees because of prevlous buyers. Addltlonally, the flndlng on "adversely affectlng the General Plan" can't be made because we've got a court order statlng the Cl ty can't grant bUl1dlng permlts therefore you can't grant a varlance. These appllcants wl11 have to come back when a varlance can be granted. Mr. Whlttenberg re-stated that the fees are lmposed at the tlme of the sub-dlvlslon. If there's no sub-divlslon of the property there's no lmposltlon of Park fees. In the ordlnance, Sectlon 2132 1 t dlscusses the amount of land area needed for dedlcatlon for slngle faml1y resldences and the Code lndlcates 762 square feet shall be dedlcated for each slngle faml1y resldence. If a fee In 11eu of dedlcatlon lS requlred the fee shall be based on the fair market value of the amount of land descrlbed above for each unlt. An appralsal would need to be done to determlne the approprlate fee based on 762 square feet for each slngle faml1y dwelllng. The $25,000 fee mentloned by Mr. Stark may be been a "best guess- tlmate" at the tlme hlS wlfe wanted to purchase that property. Park fees are QUlmby fees. Ms. Forsythe asked the appllcants lf they were lnformed of the Quimby fees at the tlme they went thru Varlance 3-89? In revlewlng the Plannlhg Commisslon Mlnutes for Varlance 3-89 he sald he was not sure. . . . Page 11 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of March 21, 1990 Chalrman Sharp asked lf the Clty could yet lssue bUlldlng permlts? Mr. Whlttenberg sald at thlS tlme we are enJolned from lssulng bUlldlng permits for resldentlal constructlon. We are not enJoined from conslderlng varlances, condltlonal use permlts, zone changes, all of the approvals on the Mola proJect WhlCh were granted after the deadllne date for the updatlng of the Houslng Element were found to be lnvalld and those wlll have to be reconsldered by the Clty at a date after the Houslng Element has been reapproved. Mr. Stark sald the SUlt that was flled In Orange County never requested that thelr be a stop In the lssuance of bUlldlng permlts. The court has never ordered the cessatlon of bUlldlng perml t lssuance. In readlng the pleadlngs ... the clted cases demonstrate the lssuance of a varlance lS Just as vOldable or subJect to court lnJunction as lS the tract map and agreement wlth Mola. He suggested Mr. Whlttenberg talk to the Clty Attorney on thls matter. Chalrman Sharp sald the Clty Councll lS deallng wlth thlS not the Plannlng Commlssion. The Councll knows what's gOlng on and Chalrman Sharp dldn't feel thls ltem should be stopped tonlght. Mr. Whl ttenberg lndlcated the Cl ty Attorney recel ved the Plannlng Commlsslon's agenda packet last week and had no obJections to proceedlng wlth the agendlzed ltems. Charles Antos * 210 Elghth Street. Seal Beach Mr. Antos dlscussed the 50' lot prOV1Slons saying that when the 50' lot provlslon was put lnto effect there was a dlfferent denslty In Old Town area. You could have two unlts on a 25' lot; the denslty factor was one unlt per 1250 square feet. If you comblned lots or portlons of lots you could theoretlcally get more lots. In the early 1970's the Clty had a phllosophy WhlCh encouraged, by zonlng, the comblnatlon of lots. Therefore you had larger buildlngs bUll t. By 1978 the downtown area cltlzen's phllosophy was to roll back denslty to one unlt per lot. Twenty unlts per acre. The orlglnal reason for newly created lots In the downtown area belng 50' lS no longer really here based on the deslres of the publlC and the Clty government. Regardlng the park fees he pOlnted out that realtors have told hlm the prlce for a 25' lot In the downtown area lS $300,000 or hlgher. Calculatlng the lot purchase prlce dlvlded by the square footage he flgured $100 per square foot tlmes the factor tlmes two could make the park fees In the $120,000 range. Mr. Whlttenberg made a clarlflcatlon on the park fees saYlng the Code has a provlslon WhlCh states that thlS park shall not apply to any subdlvlslons exempted from dedlcatlon requirements by Sectlon 66477 of the Subdlvlslon Map Act. He dld not have the Map Act wlth hlm but sald he would research that sectlon to see lf there's an exemptlon there that would apply to thlS partlcular type of a use. He sald QUlmby Act fees don't come lnto play untll you're deallng wlth flve (5) lots or more. There were no further speakers for or agalnst thls lssue and the . . . Page 12 - Plann1ng Comm1ss1on Meet1ng of March 21, 1900 Publ1C Hear1ng was closed. Comm1ss1on Comments Ms. Forsythe sa1d there seem to be a lot of unanswered var1ables here that she felt the appl1cants would 11ke answers to before they pursue th1S. If they are fac1ng $120,000 1n fees for Spl1tt1ng th1S property they m1ght want to look further for financ1ng. Mr. Sharp sa1d the Comm1SS1on should not deal W1 th those fees ton1ght at 1t'S a d1fferent matter and the Comm1SS1on should deal w1th Var1ance 1-90. Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d Var1ance 1-90 would allow the subm1ss1on of a parcel map to real1gn the lot 11nes to less than 50' w1de lots at a later date. If approved, Var1ance 1-90 would not create new 25'lots on the property that's 1nvolved. It w1II not 1mpact the homes that are currently on the property. Those homes can be occup1ed. The owners have expressed f1nanc1ng problems that they need to deal w1th and that's an 1ssue they may w1sh to re-evaluate once staff prov1des them 1f there's an exempt10n under the Subd1v1s1on Map Act that would apply to them or not. Mr. F1fe sa1d he d1d not feel he could make f1nd1ng #2 and would be 1ncl1ned to vote aga1nst Var1ance 1-90. He would prefer to hold th1S appl1cat1on over 30 days W1 th a recommendat1on that the D1rector of Development SerV1ces subm1 t a report to the C1 ty Counc11 request1ng the Counc11 speed1ly act on a reV1S1on of the ord1nance to allow for 25' w1de m1n1mum lots. Depend1ng on what progress the Counc11 1S mak1ng, Var1ance 1-90 should be recons1dered by the Comm1SS1on at that t1me. Ms. Forsythe agreed w1th Mr. F1fe. Mr. DeMe1re sa1d they hold t1tle as Tenants 1n Common. Mr. and Mrs. H1tchcock own one-half 1nterest and Mr. DeMe1re holds one-half 1nterest. Mr. DeMe1re sa1d the C1V1I Eng1neer that prepared the Tentat1ve Parcel Map told h1m that 1f the var1ance was approved ton1ght he could proceed very speed1ly 1n gett1ng the Parcel Map thru the County of Orange and there would be no problem 1n gett1ng the permanent f1nancing before the construct1on loan run out. Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d 1f th1S var1ance 1S not granted ton1ght staff cannot process the map. And 1f staff 1S 1nstructed to change the ~ staff would be 1n place to process the map at the end of May or early June. He 1nd1cated 1f Var1ance 1-90 were approved ton1ght and there were no appeals and the dec1s1on stands, the Comm1SS1on has granted h1m a var1ance to subm1t the Parcel Map for two 25' w1de parcels regardless of whether a future change 1S made to the ~. The most conservat1ve approach would be to not take act10n on the var1ance request and proceed w1th the Code amendment. Page 13 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of March 21, 1900 . MOTION by Fl.fei SECOND by Rullo that wl.th respect to Varl.ance 1-90 that the determl.natl.on of the appll.catl.on be contl.nued to Aprl.l 4, 1990 and that l.n the l.nterl.m the Dl.rector of Development Servl.ces be authorl.zed and dl.rected to proceed to l.nl. tl.ate the process to have the Cl.ty's Code changed to perml.t ml.nl.mum lot Sl.zes of 25' l.n wl.dth l.n the downtown resl.dentl.al hl.gh densl.ty zone. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 AYES: Rullo, Fl.fe, Sharp, ForsYthe ABSENT: Suggs *** Mr. Rullo requested a 5 ml.nute break. SCHEDULED MATTERS 5. HOUSING ELEMENT of GENERAL PLAN . staff Report Mr. Whlttenberg sald a PubllC Hearlng has been advertlsed for Aprl.l 4, 1990 on the Houslng Element of the Clty'S General Plan to conslder adoptlon of the Housing Element that's been prepared by staff and lS now under reVlew by the State Department of Houslng and Communlty Development ln Sacramento. The purpose of brlnglng the 1 tern before you tonlght was to formally present 1 t to the CommlSSlon for reVlew prlor to the PubllC Hearlng to answer questlons and take comments. . Mr. Rullo - Pages 28-29 show a 1994 need of 294 lS the estlmated need for very low, low and moderate new houslng unlts wlthln the Cl ty as determlned by the Southern Callfornla Assoclatlon of Governments. He asked Mr. Whl ttenberg to explaln the quoted paragraph on page 29. Mr. Whl ttenberg lndlcated a number of actlon over the years regardlng Houslng Elements have led people to thl.nk that those numbers ... 62 new houslng unlts for very low lncome housing unlts are a requlrement that need to be provlded. In fact, what they are lS a goal that the Clty lS requlred to strlve to achleve over that flve year perlod of tlme. As long as the Clty lS showlng a good-falth reasonable effort to reach that goal that lS really what the purpose of the Houslng Element lS there for -- - to ensure that attentlon lS belng pald to those areas of concern and when approprlate opportunitles are made avallable that the Clty takes advantage of those opportunlties and acts ln a responslble manner. Cl tles cannot Just shut themselves off from those concerns. But the flgures are not an absolute number that need to be achleved by a date ln 1994 and there's not a penalty lf, ln fact, the Clty lS not able to provlde all of those unlts that are set for ln the document. A General Plan lS a long range look at the communlty lnto the future and It'S a goal document of thlngs you'd 11ke to achleve. . . . Page 14 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of March 21, 1990 Mr. Rullo asked about dollar cost for un1ts. Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d those are determ1ned by the 1ncome of the fam111es OccupY1ng those un1ts and the number of persons 1n the family. For a fam11y of 4, a moderate 1ncome fam11y 1n the L.A.-Orange County area 1S $40,000 - $44,000 1ncome and equates to a hous1ng pr1ce of 3 - 3.5 t1mes the yearly 1ncome therefore $150,000 to $170,000 sel11ng pr1ce for a home. For low and very low 1ncome levels 1t'S very d1ff1cult to prov1de owner occup1ed hous1ng g1ven the pr1ce of homes 1n Southern Ca11forn1a. Mr. Sharp asked 1f the hous1ng 1n Le1sure World would be cons1dered 1n the overall pr1c1ng of hous1ng 1n Seal Beach for low 1ncome? Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d the number of un1ts 1n Le1sure World prov1de a large pool of more moderately pr1ced hous1ng than you would normally f1nd 1n a community th1s S1ze. The f1gures on page 28 are look1ng a future hous1ng and are not cons1der1ng what 1S already here. The f1gures are based on future populat1on growth W1 th1n the Southern Ca11forn1a reg10n and are broken down by commun1 ty. Mr. Sharp asked 1f a HUD proJect for low 1ncome fam111es qua11fy as low 1ncome hous1ng? Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d 1f you were creat1ng new un1ts, e1ther by C1ty acqu1s1t1on of presently eX1st1ng rental propert1es and makes those un1ts ava11able to Sect10n 8 cert1f1cate holders (where a port1on of the rent 1S pa1d by the Federal Government and that port1on of the rent goes d1rectly to the property owner). The C1ty currently has 85 - 100 fam111es or elderly 1nd1v1duals 1n the C1ty of Seal Beach who are 1nvolved 1n that program. The fund1ng levels for 1t are not nearly suff1c1ent on a nat1on-w1de level to meet the demand. Orange County had a wa1t1ng 11st of 2000 people to part1c1pate 1n the Sect10n 8 program and usually grows rap1dly. Mr. Sharp sa1d he wondered 1f the C1ty should sponsor th1s program to meet our needs for cheaper hous1ng as 1 t would use less land. Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d the problem 1S f1nd1ng ava11able s1tes and the pr1ce of land values makes th1s very d1ff1cult. Mr. F1fe asked 1f the Hous1ng Element must be approved by the Sate Department of Hous1ng and Commun1ty Development? Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d the word1ng is the document has to be rev1ewed by the State and the State has to make comments on 1t and then the C1ty has to cons1der those comments 1n adopt1ng the final element. Once the C1ty has cons1dered those comments and adopted the document, then by statute 1t has to be referred back to the State aga1n. At that p01nt the State has the opt1on of 1ssu1ng a statement that the Element 1S 1n comp11ance w1th the1r guide11nes or that 1t 1S not 1n comp11ance. The State has no way, thru the State Department of Hous1ng and Commun1ty Development 1tself to force a change 1n the document. That can be done thru pr1vate c1t1zens f111ng SU1t 1nd1cat1ng the document does not meet State gU1de11nes. The Attorney General has that author1ty under State law to make that type of court challenge. But the State Department of Hous1ng and Commun1ty Development 1tself does not have the author1ty to make that sort of challenge to the Hous1ng Element. They are requ1red to reV1ew 1t, make comments and the C1ty 1S requ1red to respond to those comments 1n a respons1ble manner. Mr. F1fe asked 1f a policy . . . Page 15 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of March 21, 1900 pr1or1ty w1th the state agency 1S to 1ncrease the amount of new hous1ng un1 ts that are adaptable to the needs of low 1ncome fam1l1es? Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d th1s 1S a very strong po11cy of the state of Ca11forn1a S1nce 1976 when Hous1ng Elements were f1rst requ1red. Mr. F1fe sa1d g1ven the fact that apparently there's a restr1ct1on aga1nst 1mpact1ng and further concentrat1ng the low 1ncome un1ts 1n the same sub-area, what consequence do you see a new Hous1ng Element hav1ng on the development of a parcel such as the Mola parcel? Mola would be bU1lding 329 hous1ng un1ts not one of wh1ch would l1kely qua11fy as low 1ncome hous1ng. Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d the prev10us approvals that were granted by the C1ty for the Mola proJect would not 1nclude any un1ts that would qua11fy as low or moderate 1ncome hous1ng un1ts. That 1ssue was cons1dered when that part1cular proJect was g01ng thru the C1ty approvals and the C1ty at that t1me made a conSC10US dec1s1on that at a future date, as add1t1onal ent1tlements are sought on the rema1nder of the Hellman property, that that's when the prov1s1on of low and moderate 1ncome un1ts would ser10usly be looked 1nto. Mr. Sharp sa1d the part of the property 1n the Redevelopment area w1ll have 20% of that tax money set aS1de for low 1ncome hous1ng. Mr. F1fe sa1d he was trY1ng to get at 1S whether the 1nev1table result of uS1ng that much of rema1ning developable C1ty land to bU1ld a development wh1ch does not 1nclude any low 1ncome hous1ng necessar1ly force you, 1n order to meet your requ1rements for low 1ncome hous1ng, to pack that 1nto your eX1st1ng areas, such as Old Town? You'd run 1nto 1mpact1on obJect1ons. Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d the way the document 1S constructed at th1s p01nt lets the staff feel the document allows the lat1tude to the C1ty to meet those 1dent1f1ed needs (294 un1ts over 5 years) w1thout hav1ng to go back and reV1se the prev10us approvals that were granted for the Mola proJect. That's a Judgement call the City w1ll have to consider at the t1me 1t recons1ders the Mola app11cat1on. Mr. F1fe asked 1f the Hous1ng Element goes thru and for whatever reason the C1ty comes to gr1ps W1 th a State agency as to prov1d1ng low 1ncome hous1ng does staff see the poss1b1l1ty of a pr1vate c1t1zen act10n to enJo1n the adopt1on of the Hous1ng Element wh1ch would then extend th1s d1lemma w1th respect to the Mola proJect and bU1ld1ng perm1ts 1n general 1n the C1ty? Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d he th1nks 1f the C1ty adopts a document that the state Department of Hous1ng and Commun1ty Development does not have any strong obJect1ons to that would carry a lot of we1ght w1th the courts. It would be hard to tell on any future c1t1zen act10ns because each Judge or court would look at the laws d1fferently. Ms. Forsythe, referenc1ng page 46 and also throughout the document, they seem to look at goals to prov1de very low and low 1ncome hous1ng throughout the C1ty, spec1f1cally 1n the Old Town and H1ll area. How enforceable 1S th1s? W1ll we be made to do th1s? Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d there has to be an opportun1ty to the C1ty ... we're not 1n the pos1t1on of acquir1ng, by condemnat1on, a p1ece of property to do construct1on. The programs 1nd1cated 1n the document relate to prov1s1on of "granny un1ts" wh1ch are now 16 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of March 21, 1990 ~ allowed under the~. Those un1ts, 1f people take advantage of what's currently allowed under the Code, normally would be cons1dered to e1ther be low or very low income un1ts. That's a program the C1ty has 1n place. Those types of un1ts would not have a maJor 1mpact on the C1ty. Some of the other programs talk about the use of factory bU1lt hous1ng, mob1le homes --- those un1ts are currently allowed to be constructed on s1ngle fam1ly res1dent1al lots 1n the C1ty by the prov1s1on of State law requ1rements. The C1ty cannot d1sallow someone from uS1ng a factory bU1lt hous1ng un1t and plac1ng 1t on a lot as long as 1t meets C1ty requ1rements. Those could qual1fy for moderate 1ncome housing. Many of the Seal Beach Tra1ler Park un1ts meet that cr1ter1a. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE Charles Antos * 210 E1ghth Street Mr. Antos addressed the Hous1ng Element at page 46, "F. Program." He sa1d that program deals w1th s1ngle room occupancy hous1ng. For the Record he wrote Orange County's "Homeless Ass1stance Plan" of wh1ch the C1ty 1S part. He would make the follow1ng recommendat1ons: ~ 2nd 11ne: Str1ke the words mUltl-famlly houslng. Other Jur1sd1ct1ons do not 11m1t acqu1s1t1on to mult1-fam1ly hous1ng. In some 1nstances they are uS1ng old motels/hotels, commerc1al bU1ld1ngs. At Impact Area: change to Census Tract 995.05 clty-wlde. Census Tract 995.05 1S the downtown area. S1ngle room occupancy does not have to be 1n the Old Town area. At F1nanc1ng: add the words Federal, State and 1n front of "redevelopment tax 1ncrement funds". The funds for these sorts of programs pr1mar1ly come from the Federal Government d1rectly or from the Federal Government to the State. At page 47. H. Add 1n the zon1ng ord1nance that says wlthln that provision of the zonlng ordlnance thls does not apply to lllegally lnstalled unltS. ~ He opposes someone tak1ng advantage of State law by tak1ng an 11legal un1t and convert1ng 1t to a "granny flat". Illegal un1ts should be converted back to what it should be and then make an appl1cat1on. Mr.F1fe suggested a rigorous search of the C1ty for 11legal un1ts as a method of obta1n1ng "granny flats". Not Page 17 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of March 21, 1990 4It absorblng the extra expense of demolltlon may persuade homeowners to apply as "granny flats". At page 48. A. Program: Add whatever program lS put lnto the zonlng ordlnance that lt be by Condltlonal Use Permlt. If you're gOlng to glve a denslty bonus, lf the provlslon lS not presently In the zonlng ordlnance to requlre a Condl tlonal Use Permlt or some type of PubllC Hearlng method, lt should be by use permlt. Mltzle Morton * 153 13th street * Seal Beach Ms. Morton sald she lS concerned about page 48, ltem A at provldlng a bonus for "25% or other lncentlves". She sald the denslty In Old Town lS hlgh enough already. Bootleg unlts, lf counted, would probably flll our quota but the prlces would not be for low cost houslng. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whlttenberg sald certaln reports lndlcated on the Agenda were not able to be completed. . 7. REPORT: HEIGHT LIMITS IN RLD ZONES/DOGHOUSES Mr. Whlttenberg dellvered the staff report on "doghouses" aka "covered roof access structures". It lS before the CommlSSlon for revlew, comments and staff lnstructlon. . Mr. Rullo sald staff and the CommlSSlon should arrlve at speclflc dlmenslons for CRASs. Mr. Whl ttenberg sald there lS no baslc deslgn crlterla In the QQQg that allows the Clty latltude on reVlew when 1 t' s proposed as part of a resldentlal unl t. Staff has recently heard concerns on (1) the locatlon on the structure, (2) the CRASs appearance and (3) the CRASs Slze. Ms. Forsythe sald Jerry Anderson called her to tell her he is clrculatlng a petltlon on the Hlll and has 200 slgnatures opposlng CRASs. Mr. Flfe sald people have been taklng great Ilbertles wlth stalrwell and actually create habltable space. The language lS satlsfactory and staff must deal wlth the people who are ObVlously bUlldlng structures that go beyond what lS needed to cover the top of a stalrwell. Mr. Whlttenberg sald Slnce January 1989 thlS has been the Clty'S POllCY. The recent lssues are non-appropriateness for the nelghborhood. Secondly, lf allowed, the should not be allowed on the lmmedlate exterlor walls of the house ltself. CRAS are only allowed ln con]Unctlon wlth roof decks. Chalrman Sharp sald the best CommlSSlon actlon tonlght would be no actlon at all and to let staff handle the sltuatlon as they are handllng lt now. Mr. Rullo agreed. Ms. Forsythe asked Mr. Whlttenberg how the "observatory" at 1501 Sandplper Drlve could be consldered an access to a roof deck? Mr. Whlttenberg sald that one partlcular structure has been extensl vely revlewed by Cl ty staff and the Cl ty Attorney. The real problem came about when the plans were lnltlally submltted they cam thru on a Mlnor Plan ReVlew due to the non-conformlng status of the Page 18 - Plann1ng Commiss1on M1nutes of March 21, 1990 ~ home's garage and was approved thru the Planning Comm1SS1on. Once the structure was 1n fram1ng the owner changed the roof cover1ng mater1al from plex1glass skyl1ght dome structure to an openable observatory type of structure and look at the sky. There 1S no floor area up there, 1t only covers the sta1rway. It st1l1 meets all C1ty ord1nance requ1rements. It's not a habitable room. The C1ty Attorney sa1d he could have dec1ded to put a sh1ngle room up there and we couldn' t have done anyth1ng about 1 t e1 ther . The fact that 1t opens doesn't make 1t any d1fferent than a skyl1ght that could open. Because of these factors staff cannot change that structure. Staff 1S aware people are not happy w1th th1s structure but 1t does meet QQgg requ1rements. Staff is now not allow1ng any extra enclosed area 1ns1de the closed structure other than the sta1r land1ng and the open1ng for the sta1rway 1tself. . . *** 8. REPORT: VARIANCE 6-89/NOISE STUDY @ HOMES ABUTTING ATERIALS. Staff Report Mr. Wh1ttenberg de11vered the staff report. Staff has contacted the Orange County Health Department and they are able to prov1de noise meters 1n the rear yards of certa1n res1dences and are g01ng to be sett1ng those meters 1n homes that have 6' and 8' fences to get 1deas as to what effect the he1ght of a fence actually has 1n reduc1ng n01se levels. Twenty-one C1ty letters has produced ten responses. The n01se study w1ll beg1n th1s week-end at two homes on Coastl1ne and one home on Emerald. There has been d1Scuss1on of look1ng at areas close to PCR and Seal Beach Blvd. at maJor 1ntersect1ons. County personnel feel 3 to 6 measurements w1l1 g1ve them the necessary 1nformat1on to make a reasonable deduction. Staff w1l1 cont1nue to update the Comm1SS1on. 9. REPORT: ADDITIONS TO NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES (WHICH ARE NON-CONFORMING DUE TO BOTH DENSITY OR TANDEM PARKING). Staff Report Mr. Wh1ttenberg del1vered the staff report. The C1ty'S mun1c1pal ~ has a prov1s1on that allows for a one t1me add1 t10n not greater than 10% of the floor area of the exist1ng un1t when that structure 1S non-conform1ng only due to tandem parking. There's another prov1s1on 1n the Code wh1ch says you can do a maJor add1t1on more than 10% when all of the requ1rements except for , , . Page 19 - Plann1ng Comm1ss10n M1nutes of March 21, 1990 . dens1ty are met. In the past the C1ty allowed tandem park1ng by r1ght. Several years ago the C1ty changed 1ts requ1rements and does not allow tandem park1ng any more. There are many cases 1n town where eX1st1ng un1ts have tandem park1ng --- so these un1ts are non-conform1ng both due to the dens1ty (example: two un1ts on a lot) and they have tandem park1ng (example: 4 spaces). But the ~ shows them as non-conform1ng under both sltuat10ns and they are precluded from d01ng any add1t10ns to those eX1st1ng homes. Staff br1ngs th1S sltuat10n before the Comm1SS10n to see 1f they would cons1der mod1fY1ng the Code to allow a structure 1n that sltuat10n to do add1t10ns --- perhaps add1ng to the 11veable area. Comm1ss10n Comments The Comm1SS10n asked Mr. Wh1 ttenberg to agend1ze this for next month so there lS more t1me to study the lssue. M1ke AV1an1 * 207 Th1rd Street * Seal Beach Mr. AV1an1 sa1d he added a garage apartment 1n 1978. He was requ1red to add add1t10nal park1ng at that t1me - Wh1Ch he d1d. He has four tandem slde-by-s1de park1ng spaces which total about 1000 square feet. He would now like to add to h1S front house but under the current Code cannot do th1S. He would not be add1ng to the eX1st1ng dens1ty. He has more park1ng than all h1S ne1ghbors. 4It COMMISSION CONCERNS Ms. Forsythe asked about stand1ng water by the Zoeter School slte. Mr. Whittenberg sa1d he would 1nform Public Works of th1S and ask them to correct the sltuat10n. ADJOURNMENT Cha1rman Sharp adJourned the meet1ng at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully Subm1tted, ~O~~~ Joan F11lmann Secretary Development Serv1ces Department *** These M1nutes are tentat1ve and are subJect to the approval of the Plann1ng Comm1SS10n. *** The Plann1ng Comm1SS10n M1nutes of March 21, 1990 were approved on ~ Apr11~, 1990. ~