Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1990-06-20 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 20, 1990 The regularly scheduled meetlng of the Plannlng Commlssion was called to order on June 20, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. In Clty Councll Chambers by Chairman Sharp. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissloner McCurdy. Chalrman Sharp lntroduced Joseph Orsini, the newly appolnted Planning CommlSSloner from Dlstrict 1. ROLL GALL Present: Chalrman Sharp Commlssioners Orsinl, Fife, McCurdy, Dahlman Also Present: Lee Whittenberg, Dlrector, Dev. Srvcs. Dept. Barry Curtis, Admln. Asst., Dev. Srvcs. Dept. CONSENT CALENDAR Chalrman Sharp separated consideratlon on the three Consent Calendar items because certaln Commissloners were present at certain meetlngs and not at others. 1. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 16, 1990 MOTION by McCurdy; SECOND by Fl.fe to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of May 16, 1990 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 0 - 2 AYES: Sharp, Fife, McCurdy ABSTAIN: Orsini, Dahlman *** 2. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 1990 MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Fife to not approve the Planning commission Minutes of June 6, 1990 as presented and to make the following corrections: 1. At page 6, the Ml.nutes state the audio tape had to be turned over and some discussion was lost. The Commission requested the video from Comcast be reviewed and the testimony by Mr. Krydel and Mr. Arnold be included in the Ml.nutes. 2. At page 3, the motion on Ml.nor Plan Revl.ew #6-90 be corrected to remove the words "Condition #6" from line five to allow the motion to read more smoothly. . . . Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 20, 1990 3. At page 5, line 18, the word "designed" should be corrected to "des1gner". At line 18, the word "our" to be corrected to "out". MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 AYES: Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, McCUrdy *** 3. 1605 SEAL WAY PLAN REVIEW #7-90 staff Report Mr. Curtis indicated M1nor Plan Review #7-90 has been carr1ed forward from the Plann1ng Commisslon meetlng of June 6, 1990 to get and reV1ew clar1fied informat1on. Slnce the June 6th meeting, staff's recommendation and the relevant facts have not changed. Left out of the previous staff report was the fact that the non- conforming garage and the unit above it were bUllt on the property line. D1SCUSS1on on the Code requiring three-foot setbacks centered on (I) prevention of fire spreading, (2) allowing light and ventilation and (3) allowing maintenance and emergency use at the dwell1ngs. The City's mun1cipal Code doesn't require that the three-foot setback be accessible or clear --- a wall across the side yard setback could be built effectively sealing 1t off. commission Comments Dr. Dahlman noted that 1f a car, hav1ng a gas tank, was parked in the sideyard setback 1t would then be conducive to the spread of f1re. And, it 1S h1S understanding that this is the situation at 1605 Seal Way due to the lack of park1ng there. Mr. Curtis sa1d "that's correct". Mr. McCurdy said the plan presented 1S to remodel the basic structure itself and the objections raised by neighbors were to the garage, which is not a part of th1S applicat1on. He sa1d he didn't feel the non-conform1ty of the garage should be an issue at this time. Dr. Dahlman agreed the garage is not the main 1ssue but 1ndicated that in the process of remodeling this property 1 t mlght be conven1ent to correct the def1ciency and make 1t safer. The 1ssue 1S the appl1cation being for an enlargement of the th1rd floor and the property is not zoned for a third floor. It's zoned for one un1t and the request 1S to increase the non-conform1ty on the third floor. The Comm1ssion noted the A-frames were above the height 11mit as an architectural feature but to square 1t off and build a whole squared off build1ng three feet above the he1ght Ilm1t doesn't seem consistent with zon1ng laws. . . II Page 3 - Planning Commlssion Mlnutes of June 20, 1990 Mr. Curtls noted on a 25 foot lot a third story is not allowed under any clrcumstances. Mr. Sharp noted a thlrd story does eXlst so the Commlssion can't do anything about that. Mr. Whlttenberg clarifled that Condltion #2, installation of a modified 13-0 automatlc sprlnkler system throughout the structure, ellmlnates the necessity of an exterior stairway. Mr. Curtls clarlfled that the plans show the original 1978 remodel overlald wlth a seml-transparent set of plans for thelr current proposal. Mr. curtis sald there's a 75% maXlmum lot coverage requirement but if all setback requlrements were met the dwelllng could be expanded to the rear. The Code would mandate connectlng the front unlt wlth the rear unit because of required setbacks between habltable structures; there must be ten feet between them. Mr. McCurdy asked staff the dlstance between the rear unlt over the garage and the main buildlng ltself. Mr. Curtls sald he could research the dlstance. Mr. Curtls sald on a 25' lot there's a 25' height llmlt and a 2 story limit. On a 37.5' wide lot there's a 35' height llmlt on the rear half (or on Seal Way, on either half) with a 3 story llmit. On thlS lot a new home would be restricted to two stories. Mr. Curtls sald the structure as lt stands today was approved ln 1977 or 1978 with a thlrd story. The Commlssion at that time was not speclfic in call1ng lt a third story but the plans lndicated lt had two bedrooms on that floor. Three stories were not allowed in that zone at that tlme. It appears from the plans that that area was utlllzed as llving space (a large dormer) prior to 1978 Plannlng Commission approval. Mr. Flfe noted termite damage determined reconstructlon and ambiguous approval for bedrooms without call1ng lt a thlrd story was granted. Addltlonally, eVldence indicates it started out as an access to the second story deck - that was the purpose of the A-frame portion. The Minutes do indlcate the dormers were put ln as an access to a deck above the second floor. Mr. Flfe said his concern was that lf it was approved in terms of how lt was used but that approval was contrary to what the Code allowed, do we go with the approval or the Code? Mr. Whlttenberg sald the plans show the eXlsting structure as it existed on December 10, 1976. It clearly shows the thlrd floor and indicates wall modlflcations to portlons of the thlrd floor area. Staff cannot find any previous bUlldlng permlts as to when those structures were allowed to be built and how they came lnto being. The fact that the structures are legally there has been accepted by staff from thelr reading of the flles. Mr. Flfe asked if thlS is historically a three-story structure that is belng 'grandfathered' forward or is thlS a structure that started out wlth a second-story roof access which is growing into a three-story structure? Mr. Whittenberg said the 1976 plans clearly show lt as a thlrd story Wl th two bedrooms in that area. Mr. Whittenberg sald staff's assumptlon is that lt is a legal non-conforming structure . . . Page 4 - Planning CommlSSlon Minutes of June 20, 1990 that was there at some point in the past and was constructed prlor to the current standards belng placed lnto effect. Mr. Sharp added that lt is legal non-conforming and the Commisslon can do nothing about removlng the thlrd story so the Commlssion's declsion lS whether to allow them to remodel it or not. Mr. McCurdy said he is agalnst addltional bedrooms to the house without additlonal parklng. Andrew Schneider -1605 Seal Way - Mr. Schneider indicated he and his wife now own the home at 1605 Seal Way. The application is to make the home more llveable for them. Plan B lS thelr second cholce. He feels their nelghbors like and support his appllcation. Joe Kalmick - 1603 Seal Way - introduced hlmself as the Schnelder's lmmedlate next door neighbor and supported the applicatlon because it is not a third unit, would improve the aesthetics and does not increase density. Dr. Dahlman noted staff has looked at Plan Band it's not an expansion only an interior remodel of the existing thlrd floor llving space. It squares off the architectural style of the A- frame. Mr. Curtls sald the front balcony would be partially enclosed addlng three feet. MOTION by McCUrdy; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Plan Review #7-90, alaternative "B", with the recommended four conditions. Dr. Dahlman sald he wanted to amend Condition #2, making it subject to a legal review, noting he did not want to deprlve the owner of hlS choice between stairs and sprlnklers. If sprinkler damage were to occur there could be liability. Chalrman Sharp indlcated that the Commlssion frowns on outside stairs in almost every instance because they make it too easy to bootleg a unit into the building. Dr. Dahlman said he understood the reasoning. Mr. Whittenberg said the buildlng and fire codes do not require sprlnkler systems ln that area but they do requlre smoke detectors. And if you do not have a sprinkler system you are requlred to have a second stairway eXl t from that partlcular area. Mr. Whl ttenberg indlcated the City ordinances now require sprinkler systems for any new residential construction in the City whether they are one, two or three stories. Mr. McCurdy sald if he was a neighbor he would like to have that home sprinkled because a good fire could burn down flve non-sprlnklered bUlldings but wlth sprinklers it will damage one. He acknowledged sprinkler heads can get knocked off and can cause damage. - . . Page 5 - Plannlng CommlSSlon Minutes of June 20, 1990 Dr. Dahlman w1thdrew h1S request for an amendment based on Mr. Whittenberg's comments and SECONDED the motion w1thout any qualifications. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Fife, McCurdy, Sharp, Dahlman *** PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no Public Hear1ngs. SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no scheduled matters. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral cornrnunicatlons from the aud1ence. STAFF CONCERNS Chalrman Sharp requested and was granted perm1ss1on of the CommlSSlon to cons1der item #6 f1rst lnstead of #4. 6. PARKLAND DEDICATION SURVEY Mr. Curtls d1stributed a letter from Michelle Brendel to the Commlsslon, statlng he had received th1S letter th1S afternoon. (On file at City wlth variance 1-90). Mr. Curt1s dellvered the staff report (on file ln the Department of Development Servlces at ZONING: Quimby Ded1catlon). Chairman Sharp made the following comments: "When this flrst carne up the Clty had a dlfferent Plannlng Commiss1on and C1ty Councll. There was a different outlook. Since that tlme I have been watchlng the Clty Council and reading the minutes very carefully. ThlS Plannlng Commission at one time passed the Hellman property (Mola proposal) unanimously. The second time 1t was not unanlmous but it was passed with some abstalnlng. It (Mola proposal) is w1th the City Counc1l at the present tlme. If I read and understand the talk, the way the Counc1l is gOlng, there 1S a real questlon they are bringlng up about denying the Hellman Ranch property development on the grounds of earthquake fault, land llquefact10n and things of that sort. I would llke us not to take any actlon on thlS unt1l the City Councll takes action on the Hellman property because if they do deny the Hellman property because of the earthquake fault and because of the unstable part of the land 1n Seal Beach then I feel th1S Commission has to very seriously, I mean very seriously, study and make a recommendat1on to the C1ty Councll that all bUlldlng, all remodellng in the City of Seal Beach be stopped until this is completely cleared legally and every other way untll we allow anythlng. Because lf they do not pass that then they are saYlng that we're on unstable land in Seal Beach and I . . . Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 20, 1990 think we are Just as llable for a remodel as we are for a 329 house element (SlC). And I serlously hope thlS CommlSSlon will consider thlS and take a look at lt and I'm recommendlng we take no action on thlS untll such time as the City Council has acted upon the Hellman property". Mr. Fife sald "I could not agree wlth you more". MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Fife that the Commission defer consideration (on Parkland Dedicatlon Survey) until after the Commlssion has a clear indication from the City Council on what the bUllding policy is going to be ln town. Mr. Fife sald he supports the motion and ''In addition the legal challenge to our most recently adopted Housing Element has been postponed to July 11th. From readlng the attack by the Wetlands Restoration attorney on the Housing Element there is considerable focus on whether Seal Beach has zoning, density and other regulations which discourage the development of mUlti-family or higher density homes. Obviously to make homes available at a lower price you have to get a lot more production per acre. On the other hand, as this thing starts out, we have a policy downtown to dlscourage multi-family development in favor of slngle family homes - those seem to clash. And if this judge in Orange County decides yes, the Wetlands Restoration Society is correct, we need to strip out of the Code of the City of Seal Beach anything that discourages mUlti-family development. It seems to me we are in a problem and we need only to await not only the decision on the Hellman property but also if the Housing Element is going to sail through or get derailed. So for those reasons, I would like to postpone this to a specific date at which we are confident will be beyond the time they will act on Hellman and the judge rules on the Housing Element". Mr. Whlttenberg sald the issue before the Planning Commlssion is whether there should be a dlfferent impact fee for park dedication purposes for subdlvisions of four lots or less versus flve lots or more sub-division. staff's concern is that this lS a separate lssue which the Commlssion needs to consider regardless of other development impacts the Commission may be conslderlng. Secondly, Commissioner Bauer determlned today to contlnue the Housing Element matter until July 11, 1990 at which time all partles should be ready and avallable to respond. So, lf the Commlssion wlshes to consider this matter, Mr. Whittenberg suggested lt be set for July 18th. Mr. Whlttenberg said thlS lssue would not need a PubllC Hearlng before gOlng to Council because 1 t lS not part of the zoning ordlnance. It's a separate section of the Code, under the subdl vision sectlons. The Council has requested the Commlssion review that particular provision of the Subdivislon Act and make . te . Page 7 - Planning Commiss1on Minutes of June 20, 1990 a recommendat1on to them but it 1S not necessary it be a Publ1C Hear1ng. It would be a Public Hear1ng before the Counc1l. Chairman Sharp requested the Mot1on be changed to say "continued unt1l July 18, 1990". Dr. Dahlman indicated the C1ty Counc1l has formed a c1tizens commiss1on to evaluate the Hous1ng Element and the expected input from that 1S in three months. Mr. Whittenberg said (1) there is a proceed1ng before the court from the Wetlands Restoration Society challenging the adequacy of the Hous1ng Element as 1t has been adopted by the City and (2) the City Counc1l has appointed citizens to an advisory comm1ttee to reV1ew the Hous1ng Element and suggest any amendments they feel would be appropriate. Two separate things are going on at the same time. Mr. Wh1ttenberg urged the Comm1SS1on to focus on the 1ssue before them tonight - that there is a concern at staff level that there should be a separation in the types of fees that are charged for parkjrecreat10n facilities for a very small subdivis10n as opposed to larger subdiv1sions. Staff could provide more information on this 1ssue at another time. Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d the Housing Element 1S required to be sent to the State Department of Hous1ng and community Development pr10r to adoption for review. The City received a letter from that agency on April 10, 1990 with comments suggesting add1tional mod1fications. Those were cons1dered by both Counc1l and Commission and many changes were incorporated into the document after considerat1on by Planning Commiss1on, City Counc1l and citizen input. Th1S is the 1ssue that is before the court and could be determined on July 11th. Chairman Sharp asked Commlssioner Dahlman if he would change his Motion to say this matter is continued to July 18, 1990 to give the Planning commission more tlme to study and have more information; Commissioner Dahlman agreed and Commissioner Fife, the SECOND, concurred. Mr. Fife requested, but not as a part of the Mot1on, that Mr. Wh1ttenberg prov1de the Commiss1on w1th a stat1stical compilat1on of the lots within the City that could be subject to subd1vision with f1ve or fewer parcels and would obta1n the benefit of th1S. Mr. whittenberg agreed. AYES: MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 Orslni, Fife, McCUrdy, Sharp, Dahlman *** . . . Page 8 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of June 20, 1990 Bruce Stark - Seal Beach - To assist the Commlssion ln thelr study, Mr. Stark provided a 11stlng of the eXlstlng Clty parks wlthln the City of Seal Beach as publlshed by the City's Recreatlon Department. He noted the City owns 11.5 acres of parks and not the 71 acres staff says the City has. He suggested the Commissloners verlfy thlS lnformatlon wlth the Recreatlon Department. 4. CONTROLLING CONDUCT OF SPEAKERS Mr. Whlttenberg sald this materlal was recelved by staff from the City Attorney's Offlce and has been photocopled for the CommlSSlon. It was recelved and flIed by the CommlSSlon. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6-90 490 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Staff Report Mr. Curtls dellvered the staff report. The appllcants for CUP 6- 90 have re-filed this appllcatlon with the Department of Development SerVlces and lt wl11 be heard by the CommlSSlon at ltS July 18, 1990 meetlng. Mr. Flfe asked about the deflnltion of a gasoline station vs. minl- mart in the Code, asking lf there was an incompatibl1lty in our Code deflnltlon of a "gasollne station" and what has been done at the Mobl1 but also on Paclfic Coast Highway? Mr. curtis sald there was an lncompatlble use at the Mobl1 station; a permlt was granted in 1988 WhlCh should not have been granted. Mr. McCurdy asked Mr. Curtls how the Code deflnes the difference between a gasollne statlon WhlCh sells groceries and mlnl-mart that sells gasoline? Mr. Curtls sald neither lS addressed ln the Code however the Code only allows automobile service stations to provide lnCldental motorist serVlces and supplles --- selllng of grocerles or mlni-marts are not allowed under the Code. Several nelghborlng cities allow minl-marts. Mr. Flfe asked Mr. curtis to research nelghboring clties and glve the Commission their municlpal code sectlons allowlng these. COMMISSION CONCERNS Chalrman Sharp asked and was granted the Commisslon's permlssion to not hold the regularly scheduled meeting of July 4, 1990 as there are no agendlzed ltems. Chalrman Sharp requested staff agendlze a reorganlzatlon of the Planning Commlssion for July 18th to elect a new Chairman and Vlce- Chalrman. Commlssloner Orslni asked staff if the City employed a Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Whlttenberg explalned thlS work had been handled by a part-tlme lntern but that posltlon was now vacant. , . Page 9 - Planning Commission M1nutes of June 20, 1990 ~ The Planning Department is in the hir1ng process for the part-t1me 1ntern position. Mr. Whittenberg said he has requested budget funds for an addit10nal full-t1me person in the Planning Department to allow Mr. Whittenberg and Mr. curtis to focus on the General Plan updat1ng. The new pos1t10n would back-f1ll --- prepar1ng staff reports, rev1ew1ng plans and assisting the 1ntern position on Code enforcement activ1t1es. Comm1ssioner Dahlman said he wanted to reV1ew h1S llSt of suspense items with staff: (1) a program for general signage rules in town - is this underway? Mr. Wh1ttenberg replied that item 1S on the "to-do" list; (2) Dr. Dahlman spoke to Mr. curtis about Mr. Stark's 1ssue on what 1S appropr1ate to be put on a setback and that is 1n process; (3) Dr. Dahlman said he could speak for a long time on the Mola 1ssue but said "I th1nk I listened carefully and re-read your remarks Mr. Fife last week and I th1nk there is going to be ... fa1rness 1S of concern to everybody, especially me and I'm sure Gwen (Council Member Forsythe) and that that w1ll be looked at." . commissioner Fife sa1d "my concern in ra1s1ng the remarks was not exclusively to make sure that Mola was treated "fairly", I was at least as much concerned about the City sett1ng the precedent that geology is gOlng to be a significant factor on that development when we have a h1storic record of geology not be1ng a factor in other developments and if 1t'S an issue of public safety concern for the Mola site then 1t ought to be an 1ssue whether you are bU1ld1ng a four-unit development of a 329-un1t development. So I'm concerned apart from Mola about potential legal liab1l1ty of the C1ty to knock down a 329-unit proJect because of earthquake considerat10ns and 19nore those same considerat10ns 1n a six-un1t development in Old Town". ADJOURNMENT Cha1rman Sharp adJourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~n~~~ Execut1ve Secretary Department of Development Serv1ces THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. *** . THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 20, 1990 WERE APPRO~BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ~'-~ \ ~ 1990.