Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1990-09-19 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 19, 1990 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach was called to order on September 19, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers by Chalrman Fife. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commlssioner Sharp. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife CommlSSloners Orsinl, Sharp, Dahlman Absent: commissioner McCurdy Also Present: Lee Whittenberg, Director, Development Srvcs. Dept. Barry Curtis, Admin. Asst., Development Srvcs. Dept. Michael Cho, Admin. Intern, Development Srvcs. Dept. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 5, 1990 MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Planning commission Minutes of September 5, 1990 with a correction on page 12 to read "The Planning Commission Mlnutes of August 1 and August 15, 1990 were approved on September 5, 1990". MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Fife, Orsini, Sharp, Dahlman ABSENT: McCurdy PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-90 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 90-332 1120 CENTRAL AVENUE RESOLUTIONS NOS. 1589 and 1590 Staff Report Mr. Curtis dellvered the staff report. The applicant, Bruce Stark, requested the conversion of a two unit apartment into condominiums at 1120 Central. Staff recommended approval of CUP 10-90 and Tentative Parcel Map 90-332 subJect to eleven (11) conditions for the CUP and two (2) condltions for the TPM. The staff report, on file in the Planning Department, noted this property recelved a Conditional Use Permlt, CUP 4-89, allowing a major remodel and addition in 1989. It states this property intrudes two feet (2') into the public right-of-way Vla a planted area along the north slde of the property. It also states the CC&R's are being reviewed by the City Attorney, the Engineering and Plannlng Departments. . . . Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 1990 Commlsslon Concerns Bruce Stark * Seal Beach Mr. Stark stated he wanted to be treated ln the same manner everyone else ln the City was. He said "At the time I started this project in Aprll of this year my contractor, Mr. Cox, approached me and sald he had some reservations about contlnuing with thlS project. I asked him why and he said that Mr. curtis and a BUlldlng Inspector had been out on the job gOlng over it with a 'flne tooth comb' and saying they were instructed to check my proJect copiously and if there was any deviation whatsoever they were going to descend on me. And Mr. Cox said he didn't need to get engaged in that sort of a problem. I went to see Lee Whittenberg and Mr. Whittenberg assured me I would be treated the same as everyone else. The remodeling was designed for condominium conversion, having double insulated walls. In fact, the structure exceeds the buildlngs requirements. I would like to address the conditions that staff has imposed and I don't like the staff 'funning' wlth me: #5. Each dwelllng unit shall utili ty meters and utility telephone. be provided with separate lines (gas, electric and That goes without saying; that is belng provlded. I was also told by Mr. curtis 'You've got to have separate water meters'. No problem; I forked out over $2,000 for separate water meters and now I flnd that's not a conditlon after all. Someone's not been straightforward with me. #7. The applicant shall remove the planted area along the property's northerly boundary from the publlC right-of way and reconstruct said planted area within the applicant's property limits. I have about a two foot esplanade between the sldewalk and curb. I suggested filling that in with decorative cement work leaving cut outs for two trees I wanted to plant. 'Oh no. You can't do that. That's got to be planted'. Mr. Bob Eagle confirmed this, that lt had to be planted, that was the City's POllCY. So at great expense the old dirt was trucked out and planter mix brought in and I'm having several flats of ice plant planted there and a sprinkler system to water it. You can lmagine my surprise to find that at 12th Street and Landing, whlle my ice plant lS gOlng ln, they're pouring cement. I spent $300 on palm trees ... there are no trees at 12th Street and Landing, they've got cement. Now accordlng to this I'm gOlng to have to remove the planted area that's on City property. Somebody's 'funning' me again. 2 . . . Planning COll.llission Minutes of September 19, 1990 It was embarrassing to me for Dr. Dahlman to come by Sunday and ask about the condition on the landscaping. I had to come by Clty Hall on Monday and get one [staff report]. I'm not sure what this means about removlng the planted area and extending into the right-of-way. I don't know if the city owns any of that property --- at least they've never indicated to me that they own that property". To demonstrate recent construction in the City that has been built rlght to the property line, Mr. Stark submitted many photographs of new constructlon for Commission review: 12th Street & Landing - they are 6'11" from the curb line and have cement. 113 11th Street - they are 8' from the curb line. Has a brick planter. 215 11th Street - brick planter to the sidewalk. 1501 Landing - 7' to the curb line with deck to the sldewalk (hangs over a blt). 301 15th Street - Corner lot and 3'8" from the curb line at the radlus; 6'10" on the 15th Street side; 6'10" on the Landing Street side. Brick and picket fence. 302 15th Street - 7' from curb line on Landing; 7' on 15th Street, 4' on corner radius. 239 15th Street - 6'11" to the curb. 237 15th Street - 6'10" wlth a block wall. 243 15th Street - 7' on 15th Street; 7' on Landlng, 3'11" on the radius to the corner wlth a brick wall. 238 14th Street - 7'6" to the curb with fence. 242 14th Street - 6'9" on the Landlng side; 7' on the 14th Street side; 3'7" on the radius to the curb. Mr. Fife, to clarlfy Mr. Stark's point, asked if 1 t was to be assumed that the City's ROW llne runs along the edge of the sidewalk closest to these properties and these photographs show a 3 . . . Planning COllDission Minutes of September 19, 1990 pattern of landscaping within the city's ROW? Mr. Stark said "What I am showing you is that recent construction, within the last three years and some photographs here where the construction is presently gOlng on, right over here on 11th Street, they're building right to the property line." The block wall and planter Mr. Stark built was bUll t with a building permit and inspected by the city and approved. Mr. Stark felt it was "unconscionable for the City to suddenly make claim to a foot or two of land and say that I have to tear out all this landscaplng lncludlng the parkway when the City itself was the one that insisted I put it in." #6. The appllcant shall relocate the fire hydrant to provide a minimum clearance of two feet from the beginning of the full height curb. "They want to relocate a flre hydrant two feet. Or two feet from a full curb. Now that fireplug has been there from before Barry was born. And when they improved the alleys, such as behind Main Street, they did all the moving of the fireplugs that had to be moved. There is nothlng wrong with that flreplug Sl tting there ... it's been in front of my place for over ten years. Why does it suddenly have to be moved and why should it be moved at my expense? I didn't put it there". #9. All taxes for the flscal year 1990-91 shall be pald in full, and evidence of payment provlded upon submittal of the Final Parcel Map. "Item #9 is a little peculiar, they want me to pay my taxes ahead of everybody else. Taxes are due in December and in April and they want me to pay all my taxes in December for some reason. Tax-wise that is not very good for me. I always pay my taxes. I don't know why the Cl ty is suddenly concerned about whether I'm paying my property taxes or not. ... I am sorely upset over being told by City staff that I've got to plant something and now suddenly find out two days before this meetlng that I've got to tear it all out, that they've made a mistake. That's my money. I don't mind lf I have to tear lt out - I want to see everybody else ln town tear lt out too. But I think that's a great dlsservice for people who are trying to make the City more attractive and to beautify It. Well over a quarter million dollars has gone into that proJect. And to come along at thlS late date and change the rules and say you've got to do it dlfferently I thlnk that's a great injustice and I don't like being treated differently. So I would ask the Commission to remove Conditions #6 and #7. And maybe the City's got some explanation as to why I've got to pay my taxes in advance for Condition #9. If I have to I will. I have always paid my 4 . . . Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 1990 taxes ...". Mr. Stark added the property was surveyed prior to building to make sure the setback requirements were met. Regarding Condition #7, Chairman Fife reminded Mr. Stark that the public ROW line would remain where it is and he would not acqu1re adverse title by having landscaping there. He asked Mr. Stark if he saw any harm in the landscaping remaining until such time as the city uses the land? Mr. Stark said he had no objection to that. He added he was not claim1ng adverse possession. Adding that in the ten years he's been using the property he may have an easement but he's not concerned about that. He sa1d 1f the City wants to claim that one foot of property he would turn 1t over whenever they wanted to do something with it. Mr. Stark said Condition #7 was unclear - he didn't know if the city wanted him to tear out the parking strip, the trees and the sprinkler system. Regarding the trees, Mr. Stark said Mr. curtis told him it was a requirement that he put in two parkway trees; Bob Eagle planted them. Mr. Stark had to and did replace the curbing. Comm1ssioner Sharp asked Mr. Stark how much common area there was? Mr. Stark replied the common areas are the walkway on the build1ng's perimeter to the east and south, the landscaping in the front and the laundry and water heater rooms. Cha1rman Fife asked Mr. Stark where the property line ran? Mr. Stark said "everyone assumes it's at the sldewalk" and indicated he used to have a grape stake fence from the property line on the East to the driveway. Mr. Stark said the property was surveyed prior to building to make sure the building was going in with proper setbacks. The surveyor put marks in the alley about six inches from the sidewalk and the other marker is just about on the sldewalk so it runs at an angle. Mr. Stark thought the average property under d1Scussion is about one foot maX1mum in from the sldewalk. Mr. curtis replied to Mr. Stark's comments. Regarding Condit10n #6 he stated this was imposed by the Engineering Department. Mr. curtis said he was not an expert on how far a fire hydrant must be in distance from a full curb height. He stated th1s 1S a normal condition for a fire hydrant but staff would be pleased to double check with the Engineering Department. If it's not a normal requ1rement it could be dropped from the list of conditions. Regarding Condition #7, Mr. curtis said th1S was poorly worded. What staff was referring to was not to the parkway strip but was to the br1ck wall built clearly beyond the property line. It was bU11t one to two feet 1nto the public ROWand 1.5 feet h1gh. An alternative to removing the wall would be for the applicant to sign 5 . . . Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 1990 a release and provide an insurance bond for $1,000,000 holding the City harmless due to any accidents related to the wall. Regarding Cond1tion #5, two separate water meters were not required because two months ago the Planning Commission asked for the cond1t1on not to be required because it was a hardship on the property owners. Regarding #9, This is a normal condition with each condo converS1on requiring taxes to be pa1d 1n full for the year prior to approval of final map because tax status changes at that t1me. Regarding the cement at 12th street and Landing, the Engineering Department requires pervious material in the parkway to keep water off the streets. That owner dealt with Public Works and Eng1neering and his water was retained by retaining walls. Mr. Sharp noted that a person could drive around the City and could f1nd things that weren't right but that shouldn't affect what the Plann1ng Commission does on this applicat1on. Mr. Stark said he was looking at new construction approved and built 1n the latest one to two years and one that's being built right now. Chairman Fife indicated the Comm1SS1on does not know where those property lines end. Mr. Stark said he wasn't sure the City's property d1dn't end at the sidewalk. Comm1ssioner Orsini said he went out with Mr. Curt1s to look at a slmilar project on Second Street and saw a lot of work that comes right to the sidewalk. Mr. Orsini agreed with Mr. Stark that if one 1S allowed all should be allowed. Mr. Stark sa1d his brick wall is not harming anything and 1S beautifying the property and he is not suggesting anyone tear anything down. He said Mr. curtis wants the new block wall torn out and moved back one foot (1'). Mr. Wh1ttenberg commented that the conditions 1n the staff report are based on recommendations from the Department of Development SerV1ces and the Department of Public Works. The encroachment of the wall into the ROW was shown on the parcel map prepared by a licensed surveyor and the sidewalk 1S two feet (2') from the property 11ne as shown on plans from the applicant's engineer. Code section 14-8 allows no encroachments into the public ROW. Public Works Department permits have a hold-harmless clause to benef1t the City. The fire hydrant is located in a slope area of the alley dr1veway and a standard cond1tion for fire hydrants is they not be located on a slope area and they must be a certa1n d1stance from the dr1veway itself. 6 . . . Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 1990 Mr. Whittenberg suggested adding a clarifying statement at the end of the condition to read: "if determined to be necessary by the Department of Publ1C Works upon further review". He explained this statement would provide that if the condition is not necessary then this item would not come back before the Planning Commission. It would allow the Public Works Department to make that decision based on standard criter1a. The applicant could appeal this decision to the City Council. Mr. Whittenberg indicated there are structures around the City that do encroach into numerous ROWs. Sidewalk areas differ 1n width. Comm1ssioner Sharp asked why Mr. Stark had to pay the cost? Mr. Whi ttenberg answered because the fees are generated due to a development request by the applicant. commissioner Dahlman, noting Mr. Stark had a permit for construction in 1989 [CUP 8-89], asked staff why these conditions weren't placed in that Conditional Use Permit and why now? Mr. Wh1ttenberg answered that the plans show the wall on his property and the subdivision plans show the wall is built in the wrong place. Mr. F1fe asked if, when the construction was approved in 1989, Mr. Stark made it clear the construct1on would lead to condo convers1on? Mr. Stark said he let it be known the remodel was for the intention to convert to condominiums; he put 1n double walls. It was not a secret. The applicant stated he is planning this condo converS1on for his estate planning purposes and does not intend to sell the build1ng. Mr. Stark added the City put in the sloping alleys. "If the C1ty contends they had a foot of land that I'm using then I could contend I've been using that it open and notoriously for over ten years and I think I have an easement to use it; I don't claim adverse possession". Mr. Stark submitted a photo of 1495 Seal Way, the condominium conversion most recently considered by the Planning Commission. He contended that photo showed one brick encroachment into the City's ROW. Chairman Fife asked if this was a tempest 1n a teapot? He asked staff how much does the Public Works Department permit cost? Mr. Whittenberg said he was not certain and would check with Public Works. Mr. Whittenberg said 1f Mr. Stark wished to pursue the bond issue he would be glad to put him in touch with the Director of 7 . . . Planning commission Minutes of September 19, 1990 PubllC Works to discuss it. Mr. Stark sald "I don't mind putting up a million dollar policy for the City to protect them from liabillty that may be prudent, Mr. Whittenberg. All I ask is that all the other property owners do the same thing...". Mr. Whlttenberg said he understood Mr. Stark but that lssue is under the purvlew of the PubllC Works Department because it's an encroachment into their right-of-way. Mr. Stark indicated the laws should make sense and lt doesn't make sense to tear out $1000 of newly constructed block wall and move lt back six to twelve inches. Mr. Stark said "Nobody gains anything by it, except perhaps somebody who wants to harass somebody or single me out". Mr. Whl ttenberg indicated the condition regarding taxes is a standard condition on all subdivisions to ensure the taxes are pald prlor to the property belng sold to subsequent lndividuals who would then be responsible for the property taxes. Regarding the condltlon on the fire hydrant, staff would ask the Public Works Department to review that condition again to make sure that the condition should be imposed or not and wordlng has been suggested wordlng WhlCh would allow for that determlnatlon to be made by the Department of Public Works wlthout coming back before the City's Planning Commission for additional review. Regarding the wall, a number of alternatives have been provided for the wall situatlon for Mr. Stark to consider; the Code can't be changed. There's a methodology to have the wall remain via a PubllC Works bond called an "Encroachment Permit." Mr. Flfe, responding to Mr. Stark's comments on Conditlon #9, sald he didn't think that condition was specifically intended for Mr. Stark. Mr. Stark asked why should he pay all of his taxes at once lnstead of part in December and part in April? Mr. Flfe said he's seen this condition written into CUP's ln other cltles. Mr. Stark replied that his property is not in escrow and is not being sold. The ownership will be the same now and after the conversion. Mr. Fife asked if the CC&R's make it a pair of condos versus a single apartment buildlng? Mr. Stark replied yes. Regarding the brick planter, CommlSSloner Dahlman indicated to staff that if there really is slgniflcant liabillty to the City, then staff should go around town and make a list of all the propertles that have these problems. Staff should also find out about the Encroachment Permits and have all owners comply. Mr. Cho, responding to Commissloner Dahlman, said one of his new proJects as a Planning Department Intern is to find right-of-way encroachments. Mr. Cho lndicated Planning Department staff has been at an impasse on its munlclpal Code enforcement. They are not 8 .' . , Planning CODllission Minutes of September 19 I 1990 v1gorously pursuing enforcement at th1S time due to the lengthy process involved in process1ng m1sdemeanor complaints. Once the proposed infraction process 1S 1n place, staff will be in a position to pursue infractions v1gorously. In the meantime, Mr. Cho stated he will proceed to enforce the municipal Codes as presently wr1tten. He 1ndicated staff needs d1rection from the Comm1SS1on. For example, does the City want un1form streets or to allow permitted and insured encroachments? commissioner Dahlman urged staff to "use common sense and make sure the plaY1ng field is level". He asked staff why they didn't know what's involved 1n the Encroachment Permit and the liability insurance? He felt staff should have known about these 1 terns. Mr. Cho advised that the liability insurance is part of the owner's homeowners policy wherein the C1ty is made an additional 1nsured. Larry Peters * 1121 4th street * Seal Beach Mr. Peters spoke in favor of Conditional Use Permit 10-90, stat1ng the mon1es expended had vastly improved the property and thereby the ne1ghborhood. Chairman F1fe asked the Commissioners to let h1m 'try h1S hand' at some changes 1n language before the conditions are actually voted on to see if the Commission can agree: #6. The applicant shall relocate the f1re hydrant to provide a minimum clearance of two feet from the beg1nning of the full height curb, if determined to be necessary by the Department of Public Works upon further review. #7. The applicant shall remove any walls or permanent structures located in the planted area along the property's northerly boundary line from the public r1ght- of-way unless the applicant obtains an encroachment permit. This condition will become effective in 120 days. [Emphasis added to show changes]. The 1dea being to give the appl1cant time to find out the cost of gett1ng the bond or pay an endorsement on his homeowner's policy to cover the City or to corne back to the Planning Comm1ssion before 120 days and try to convince the Commission that the City is not in fact enforcing the ordinance generally but rather 1S enforc1ng 1t peculiarly as to him. Commiss1oner Ors1ni said, regarding Condi t10n #6, that if the actual Publ1C Works Department made the dr1veway slope then they 9 . . . Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 1990 should be liable for it. Dr. Dahlman agreed that lt was clear Mr. Stark dldn't place the fire hydrant. Dr. Dahlman said he would like to delete entirely Condi tlon #6 as inappropriate. Mr. Whittenberg said he could not address what has been done in the past and this is the second condo project he has seen since being employed at the Cl ty. But he did thlnk 1 t would be a proper condi tion if the hydrant was located improperly. He said the Commlssion ought to think seriously about thlS condltion because it's a recommended condition by the Public Works Department and they obviously had some concerns about It. Mr. Whlttenberg felt it would be more appropriate to leave Condition #6 in place with the proviso language. Commissioner Dahlman said he dlsagreed, stating the applicant is present to defend hlS posltlon and staff should be ready to explain and defend their conditions also. If Public Works is not present then thelr condltlons are falr game if they're not present to defend them. Mr. Whlttenberg lndlcated everyone understood there's a concern about the condition and the reasonableness of the condition but that caution should be exercised ln deleting it automatically and not allowing Public Works to come back at some point and be able to justify or not justify the condition. Chairman Flfe, calling for a straw vote, noted there were no Commisslon objections to Conditions 1 through 5. Regarding Condition 6, Commissioners Fife and Sharp wanted it left in with the new added language and CommlSSloners Dahlman and Orsini wanted lt removed entirely. Mr. Sharp suggested addlng " This condition will become effective in 120 days" to Condition 6 and the CommlSSloners agreed this would be a good way to break the deadlock. Commissioner Dahlman sald he wanted the Public Works Department to explain this to the Commlssion and state thlS is truly what they are asklng everyone to do before requiring of it of Mr. Stark and recommended suspenSlon of thlS provislon so that it takes effect 120 days. Chairman Flfe noted the 120 day provision would give the appllcant time to work with the Public Works Department. Regarding Condition 7, Commlssioner Dahlman said he was agreeable to It. Regardlng Conditlon 9, Commissloner Orsini asked if that was also placed on 1495 Seal Way, the last condo conversion? Mr. Curtis said yes it was. Mr. Whittenberg explained it's a standard condition of all subdlvision requests ln the City, whether it's a condo conversion or not. 10 . t , Plannlnq Commission Minutes of september 19, 1990 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve Conditional Use Permit 10-90 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 90-332, subject to the corrections of Conditions #6 and #7 noted below, through the adoption of Resolutions Nos. 1596 and 1597. #6. The applicant shall relocate the fire hydrant to provide a minimum clearance of two feet from the beginning of the full height curb, if determined to be necessary by the Department of Public Works upon further review. This condition will become effective in 120 days. #7. The applicant shall remove any walls or permanent structures located in the planted area along the property's northerly boundary line from the public right- of-way unless the applicant obtains an encroachment permit. This condition will become effective in 120 days. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman ABSENT: McCurdy Chairman Fife called a recess at 8:45 p.m.. 9:00 p.m. Meeting resumed at *** SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR COVERED ROOF ACCESS STRUCTURES staff Report Mr. Curtis del1 vered the staff report on proposed Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) 6-90 regarding Covered Roof Access structures (CRAS). The report presented f1ve alternatives for suggested guidel1nes to the CRAS's. Staff is asking the Commission narrow the five alternatives to one alternative that staff can pursue for the proposed ZTA. At the next Planning Commission meeting, subsequent to noticing requirements, staff will schedule a Public Hearing to d1SCUSS the proposed guidelines. Comm1ssion Comments Commissioner orsini said he preferred Alternative 4, having no CRAS in Old Town as they serve no purpose. 11 . . . Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 1990 commissioner Sharp said he preferred Alternative 1. He didn't agree w1th Alternative 4, not allowing any CRAS in the City but allow1ng uncovered roof access decks. Commiss1oner Dahlman said he preferred Alternat1ve 1. Agreeing with Mr. Sharp, he felt the problem with the CRAS is a loophole in the wording of CRAS zoning, section 28-2317. It allows people to build above the height limit. He felt when the word got out they declared everything being built above the height limit to be a CRAS and proceeded w1th the building w1thout getting a height variance. He stated he felt none of the alternatives presented in the staff report adequately addressed this problem. He said he would like to see the entire loophole removed and start fresh. He said he would have supported Alternative 4 if it would have allowed people to continue to bU1ld CRAS when they were reasonable and appropr1ate. Mr. Whittenberg said that's really what staff's intent is with Alternative 1 --- to remove the paragraph from the Code now Wh1Ch allows for the exemption for the covered and uncovered CRAS as just a straight exemption from the Code and then place a new provision in the Code which would allow future applications for CRAS in the Old Town Area and Surfs ide subject to a Public Hear1ng process and elim1nate any future ones from being sought in other areas of the commun1ty. Chairman Fife, agree1ng with Commissioner Dahlman, sa1d he sensed the core of the issue was not the CRAS concept but the abuse of that concept. People have gone way beyond what 1S necessary for safe roof access. He favored Alternative 1 with the addition of a paragraph of that review at: (5) Uncovered stairwells to Open Roof Decks. C. Review ( 1) (a) (b) (c) The covered roof access structure is functionally limited only for the purpose of provid1ng a safe covered access to the deck and for no other purpose. 12 Planning COlllDission Minutes of September 19, 1990 . Mr. Whlttenberg sald it is staff's purpose to restrict the abuse of buildlng a extra room on top of your house and calling it a covered roof access by suggesting that all of the applications come before the Planning Commission for review and that all adjoining property owners to the property in question are notified of that hearlng. Staff is looklng for Commission clarification on which alterative is preferred. . commissioner Dahlman asked "Why, if it's so simple that we're just trying to get people who want a covered roof access to glve notice and comply with the height limit or get an exceptlon to the height limlt from us, does it take three pages to write that down? Secondly, why are certain sections of town excluded from it? I don't understand why the people in one section of town should have thlS apply to them and in another section of town lt should not ...". Mr. Whittenberg said the City has received petltlons from many people on the Hill who indicated they don't want any more CRAS built in that area at all. Commissioner Dahlman said he would hate to correct this problem for the Hill area only to have lt crop up in Old Town and have to correct it again. He said "I don't want to grandfather in one builder who has put up a whole bunch of CRAS and the prohibit all further CRAS, granting him some type of uneven playing field". Mr. Whittenberg lndicated two different questions have been brought up, (1) staff's intention is to change the Code to the point where CRAS can be allowed via Planning Commlssion approval to ensure equality and (2) how to deal with the CRAS already built. They are legal and permitted. Do you amortize those CRAS in areas where you feel they are no longer appropriate, like the Hlll? There are four CRAS on the Hill but Old Town and Surfs ide have substantial numbers of them. commissioner Dahlman said "I hate to undermine everything you just said but you gave your assumption that everything you have currently bUl1t is legal and I have to vehemently disagree with that. The zoning text as written allows CRAS and if somebody builds a dome, an observatory dome, then that's something more and it's definltely not permitted by the Code and lt is not grand fathered in. You can't grandfather that dome up there." Addressing Mr. Whittenberg, Commissioner Dahlman asked if, because 1 t would be too much of a workload on staff, staff wants a different rule to apply to the Hill than Old Town? Mr. Whittenberg replied no, that if the Commission doesn't want any CRAS to be built anywhere in the City then the Commission needs to decide how to treat those that have already been built and he mentloned the various options available to the Commission. Commissioner Dahlman sald he felt homeowners from Catalina on south are lnterested in roof decks to get a view of the ocean. . 13 Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 1990 . The Commlssion agreed to take some publlC testlmony on thlS subJect and a PubllC Hearing was opened. Jerry Anderson * 1301 Sandplper Drive * Seal Beach Mr. Anderson stated he flrst called the Planning Commission in June 1989, before the dome was ever on he talked to the City Council in January 1990 and again to the Plannlng CommlSSlon in 1990. He said he felt taking down the CRAS already bUl1t would be ludicrous --- like the 13' x 10' structure on South Shore. "We're not even saying to take this doghouse down ... we're saying the doghouse was bUl1t according to the Code that was ln place ... we have to live with the doghouse but we still hate it ... we presented a 300 signature petition stating that we ... are opposed to any portion of a structure exceeding stated height limit in residential dlstricts ... why do we have a limit and then everybody gets to go beyond the limit? The dome is not a CRAS, lt was added, it was not in the initial plan and-it was built because a mistake was made in the Planning Department and I don't want to live with a mistake". Mr. Anderson said he received a letter from the city Attorney on August 8, 1990. On June 11, 1990 the City Council directed staff to send a letter to Mark Thompson relatlng to the observadome and its amortization. "What is "reasonable" for amortizatlon? I've been talking about this for sixteen months". . commissioner Sharp said "What we're really trying to find out is what we can do about this ordinance. We... know we don't like the observadome ... I for one would like to have lt taken down but that's in the legal department now and we can't do anything about It''. Mr. Anderson said" Sir, that's not so. We direct the legal department. The legal department doesn't run the City of Seal Beach - that's ludicrous". Commissioner Dahlman sald "You're right Mr. Anderson, it's not in the legal department. Nothlng is being done about it". Mr. Anderson sald he and the 300 signatures on the petition are saying they don't want anything built above the stated height limit of twenty-five feet in the entire Clty. Alan Shields * 1300 Catalina * Seal Beach Mr. Shields said he has resided in Seal Beach for ten years. He objected to building above the twenty-five feet limit and urged the Commission to close the CRAS clause and eliminate the loophole. Regarding the observadome he stated that when thlS project first carne before the Plannlng Commission as a Consent Calendar item it stated only that this was a 650 square foot second story addition. The news fed its way down thru the nelghborhood. When they asked about it there were told by the Building Department "don't worry . 14 . . . Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 1990 about it - 1t'S a simple second story addition". "I 11ve adJacent to this property and have lost my view and privacy and loss in quality in life". He recommended enforcing the 25' he1ght lim1t with no exceptions and resc1nd prev10usly issued variances. And red tag all of those persons who have clearly violated the original intent of the CRAS. He said 1n March 1989 the Planning Department surveyed CRAS and people were living in them. until they resolve this by making it not habitable the City should make it very difficult for them to sell that property. Charles Antos * 328 17th street * Seal Beach Mr. Antos stated that prior to the current CRAS provisions being in the Code, there was a small section in Ordinance 628, that allowed some items to go higher than the roof. These were ch1mneys, flag poles, antennae and it did allow a stairwell access. When CRAS went in they were abused and now there are rooms up there. He supported the basic he1ght limit section alternative with the one exception that fireplace chimneys and TV antennae be allowed to go higher than the 25' limit. If someone wants to try for something higher they would have to file a variance. Galen Ambrose * [No Address G1ven] * Seal Beach Mr. Ambrose supported enforcement of the twenty-five foot height limit and felt there was no reason to exceed it. No one wishing to speak further on this subJect Cha1rman Fife closed the Public Hearing. commission Comments Comm1ssioner Dahlman said he hears everyone saying they support the twenty-five foot he1ght limit and that they would tolerate CRAS as long as they did not exceed the height limit. He said "I really don't see that alternative here. I see page after page of language that is just open to --- somebody is going to find a way to exploit this. I think it needs to be re-done". Mr. Whittenberg said Alternative 4 would take that action by removing the provision for CRAS out of the Code. That would allow for a CRAS if it was under twenty-five foot height limit. Dr. Dahlman then supported Alternative 4. Chairman Fife and Commissioners Sharp and Orsini supported Alternative 4. 15 . . . Planning COllDission Minutes of SepteDber 19, 1990 Mr. Whlttenberg said staff could do thlS but what he heard tonlght was the most of the Commissioners wanted to just have the 25' helght limlt period. He wondered if much would be accomplished by reviewlng it again. Mr. Fife said the focus on maintainlng the integrity of the 25' height limit has been in a context of the abuses of the CRASs and the Commission has not had much of a debate on whether the height limit needs to be as stringently enforced with respect to the Minor Helght Variation issue. commissioner Dahlman sald if the Minor Height Variation procedure works then he didn't think it needed to be fixed. He restated the Minor Height Variance procedure works by the Planning Commission reviewing and making a recommendation to the City Council for thelr ul timate decision. He suggested accepting Al ternatl ve 4 and 'beefing up' the Mlnor Helght Varlation. Mr. Whittenberg said the Minor Height Variation process included Noticlng property owners and the findlngs needed to make to grant it are not as stringent as those of a regular Variance. Additional findings could be added to be made by the appllcant. These could lnclude impact on adjoining properties, casting of shadows, architectural compatibili ty with the main structure on the property, slmilar rooflng materials. Commlssion Dlrection Chairman Fife said the Commission's consensus is to recommend staff pursue Al ternatl ve 4 with respect to CRAS. It mayor may not follow from that that the Commission may thlnk of throwlng the Minor Height Variance code out; the Commission doesn't know enough about lt at thlS point. The regular Variance findings are very difficult to make. commissioner Sharp suggested that the Commission ask staff to bring back (at the next Commission meeting) a suggested guidellne for the Mlnor Height Variation so the Commission can review 1 t at the Public Hearing. Mr. Fife agreed, saying he would not want the Minor Height Variatlon procedure to un-do what the Commisslon does with Alternative 4. Mr. Whittenberg said this item can be scheduled for the October 17, 1990 Planning commission meeting. A Notice of PubllC Hearing must be done. 16 . . . Planning COllDiBsion Minutes of SepteD.ber 19, 1990 4. WORK PROGRAM: CUP PROCESS FOR OFFICES IN COMMERCIAL ZONES: SHARED PARKING: SIGN PROGRAM staff Report Mr. Wh1ttenberg presented the staff report. The Planning Commission had d1rected staff to br1ng back a work program as to what activities might be undertaken and a timeline that staff thinks to complete the work for requir1ng a Conditional Use Perm1t to be obtained for office uses which would be replacing existing retail uses on ground floor commercial space within the City and to also look at shared parking for shopping center and the landscaping and signage requirements. Cha1rman Fife stated he llkes the presentation and at Task 2 - Field Reconnaissance add a topic called "Ex1sting percentage of C2 space currently leased or offered for office usage by study area and by ground vs. upper floor breakdown". Mr. Whittenberg said this would be included under the first item; staff will be looking at C1 and C2 properties. commissioner Dahlman encouraged the staff by saying "Maybe those are maX1mum times go as fast as you can you guys". Mr. Whittenberg said "this is the time schedule we th1nk we can meet with the existing workload we have now. If that workload changes dramatically we might need to readjust this". Replying to Mr. Fife, Mr. Whittenberg said these times are sequential with the exception of Tasks 2 and 3 the 60 days and 75 days would be overlapping, the others are sequential. No motion is needed; staff has Commiss1on direction. staff will forward this to the City Council for their review. Once Council responds to staff, staff will report back to the Commission that the process 1S beginning. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Galen Ambrose * Seal Beach Mr. Ambrose sa1d he had hoped Commissioner McCurdy would have been at tonight's meeting to address corrections to statements made by Mr. McCurdy as soon as possible. Mr. Ambrose, responding to a September 18, 1990 letter written by Mr. McCurdy to Leisure World resident Lionel Oakum, said certain statements caused the Wetlands Restoration Soc1ety harm. Mr. Ambrose responded: Dear Lionel: In response to your inquiry concerning the content of a letter received by you from Howard McCurdy, I would like to clarify 17 . . . Plann1nq Commission M1nutes of September 19, 1990 some points. Mr. McCurdy states that the WRS brought suit against the City for an out-of-date Housing Element. This is true. His second remark, stating that the WRS filed a second sU1t against the C1ty was incorrect. What the WRS did do at the request of many residents was object to the hastily drawn up Housing Element. This updated Housing Element was rushed through at the old Council's request to provide them with a means for again approving the Mola project before the new Council could act. This attempt to circumvent the wishes of the public failed. Also the court is in the process of deciding on the new Housing Element. The cost of the or1ginal sui t against the City has already been paid by concerned res1dents and environmental groups who realized the cost to the City to defend it would be far less than the cost to our community and environment if Mola were to build h1s project. Mr. McCurdy says you are being asked to help with attorneys fees to sue yourself. This is a misstatement of facts. The reason the WRS is now collecting funds is to sustain a decision against the Mola corporation. This new court action is not a suit against the City as Mr. McCurdy wrongly states, it is an appeal brought by Mola involving a decision he lost at the lower court level to have his Development Agreement re1nstated hoping to overturn the lower court's decision. We hope that you and other concerned residents will continue to sort out the facts and will not be mislead by incorrect statements. We also hope you will continue to support the WRS in the protection of our community and environment from people who would destroy it for selfish motives. S1gned, Galen F. Ambrose Vice Chair Person Mr. Ambrose said "Thank you Mr. McCurdy and now that you have the correct facts at your disposal that you will go around and correct the misstatements made to maybe other people than Mr. Oakum." Alan Shields * Seal Beach Mr. Shields said his understanding of the dome 1ssue comes from his representative on the Hill, Gwen Forsythe, from the City's legal department "as addressed 1n a letter 1n response to Jerry Anderson's letter ..." that spec1fic action was going to occur relative to 1305 Sandpiper. He feels the wheels of just1ce are turning very slowly. 18 . . . Planning COlllliBsion Minutes of September 19, 199Q Mr. Whittenberg said once the Commission has developed new criterla then the Commission will need to deal wlth the issue of how to handle the existing structures ln town. Mr. Fife said "whether or not, and how, you amortize out structures that were fully in compllance wlth the Code that applled when they were built because you now have a dlfferent Code is one issue ... others have focused on the proposltion that the dome, if not other CRAS, did not even meet the Code that applied when they were built and the concept that if the government makes a mistake it's not necessarlly bound by that mlstake ... it's a general proposition that government can make a mistake and it's very difficult to stop government". Addressing Mr. Shields, Mr. Fife said "if the required level of action that you would like to see being taken is not belng taken by the Councll, the Planning Commisslon is certainly not in a position to direct and push the Councll ... we only recommend to the Council, the Council takes the ultimate action". Mr. Flfe advised Mr. Shields that staff is working on a more streamlined Code enforcement process. Where now there is the criminal mlsdemeanor enforcement method WhlCh is expensive and cumbersome, staff is anticipating an infraction/fine process. Mr. Shields said "that is almost exactly classic. You really don't have anything to do wlth what I just said ... I'm saying I have been led to believe ... something is going on ... we have been led since April of this year through the City Council and the way lt has dlrected various parts of its staff to take some kind of action ... I've just got thru hearing ... you have nothing to do with my problem". Mr. Fife explained again that with respect to enforclng the posslble infraction of existing Code, for that structure of other structures like that, which were built in violation of the Code as it stood when they were built the present, ultimate enforcement rests with the Council as it directs staff. If that lsn't moving fast enough there's nothing the Commission can do about that. However, staff and the Commission is working toward a better, more streamlined enforcement process to recommend to the Council then the Council would not be facing a cumbersome enforcement process. Commissioner Dahlman said his position on this observatory has not changed, it dld and does require a Mlnor Height Variance. Mr. Whittenberg said "the position at this time is that the structure is there and the City Attorney is taking a look at an abatement process for that thru some sort of amortlzation. They do not feel it is there in such a manner to where they can go out and order the summary removal of it and be successful in doing that". Mr. Shields said they must first determlne it shouldn't be there; he asked he be notified. Mr. Whi ttenberg said "there are competing viewpoints as to whether that structure is there legally or not. The impresslon we're getting from the City Attorney's Office is the structure is there properly, they do have permits for it, it's not in total conformance with the 19 . . . Planning COJIDission MinuteB of September 19, 1990 plans as subm1tted ... 1t'S 1n substantial compl1ance. The C1ty Attorney's opin1on 1S that there is not sufficient legal grounds to go in and just order that structure to be removed". Mr. Sh1elds held up a photograph and said "All you have to do is look at it - that's not a covered roof access, that's a separate use structure above the height limit". Mr. Anderson said "It needs a M1nor Height Variance". All we hear is that Lee is either working on something or the Attorney is work1ng on something ... we'd like to get it in the process. We want to know e1ther 1t'S O.K. and we have to live with it or 1t'S not O.K. and he has to take 1t down". Mr. whittenberg said". .. the posi t10n of the City Attorney is that there is not a legal method that they can find at this p01nt to force the project to come back before the City under a Minor Height Variance". commissioner Dahlman said "I'm sorry. That's not the information I got from speaking directly with Quinn Barrow. I would like to make a mot1on to direct staff to request a Minor Height Variance on this project. And at least we'll get some feedback by the next meeting". Cha1rman Fife said the Commission cannot take that kind of action. The Commission can place this 1 tern on the agenda for the October 3rd meet1ng as a scheduled matter w1th a Public Hearing with Notice of property owners to determine whether or not this structure, as built, satisfied the applicable Code and the Comm1ssion could then recommend something to the Council. Mr. Whittenberg said it would be appropriate to get a further city Attorney report as to what the different act10ns available to the City are. Mr. Anderson sa1d he felt like he's been spinning his wheels for the last n1ne months and now "... we're asking the attorney to glve us an op1nion. The attorney should know everyth1ng there is to know about it". Mr. Whittenberg said the City Attorney has not seen fit to direct Planning Department staff, the City Councilor the Planning Commission to schedule any sort of hearing on th1S item because he does not feel it's appropriate. Cha1rman F1fe said that "since we have normal plenary jurisdiction on Minor Height Variations in the f1rst place and we should be able to agendize the question of whether or not th1S structure should have required a Minor Height Var1ation. If we find it did not then that ends it. If we find 1t should have had one then we can determine whether we wi 11 recommend to the Council that they in turn direct some sort of enforcement action. I think elementary due process requires that the affected property owner have sufficient notice to come down here and give his reasons as to why it shouldn't have required a Minor Height Var1ation ...". Chairman Sharp noted the City Council, not the Planning Commission, should direct the C1ty Attorney. Chairman F1fe agreed and said we could determine whether this should have had a Minor Height Variation. He said he would like to hear both sldes of the issue. 20 . . . Planning CODDission Minutes of Sept8Dber 19, 1990 MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Dahlman to agendize and hold a Public Hearing at the October 17, 1990 Planning Commission meeting on whether the covered roof access structure/observatory dome at 1305 Sandpiper Drive should have had a Minor Height Variance. And ask for input on October 3 or October 17, 1990 from the city Attorney as appropriate after consulting with the City Council. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman ABSENT: McCUrdy Alan Shields * Seal Beach Mr. Shields said this issue culminated with the City Council, wlth the petitions presented and with Notice to homeowner Mark Thompson. Mark Thompson told the Council he followed the rules. The result was the Councll re-directed the City Attorney again to look harder --- the Council has already gone through a process like this. Charles Antos * 328 17th Street * Seal Beach Mr. Antos, through the Chair to Mr. Whittenberg, asked about the new street signs with seals on them - who authorized them and how much dld they cost? He asked staff to pass this word to the City Manager. Mr. Antos noted that replacing street signs could be very costly and if, as Councilmember Hunt indicated, the City would be broke in three years how much is being spent on this. Bruce Stark * Seal Beach Mr. Stark asked the Commission to give property owners along Seal Beach Boulevard direction on what can be done with thelr properties. This is a commercial area. Regarding imposing into right-of-ways, Surfside is probably one of the biggest offenders. He said "the City has set idly by and let Surfs ide build into the public way and nothing is said about that". Regarding CRAS, he agreed with the city Attorney in not being able to get the owner to remove it. Chairman Fife said the Commission was reviewing the shared parking concept as a workable Solutlon and the next step would be where to apply it; it should not be differentially applied. Mr. Stark sald "Everybody has their opinion on parking. I would like to see something equitably enforced - to everybody the same. Instead of all these d----d exceptions ... if you know somebody in City Hall and you've got the access to talk to somebody well you can bUlld whatever you want and not have to meet the parking requlrements or go down to st. Anthony's (sic) and try to fill that up four-fold. If you don't know anybody, too bad too sad, you better try to start your business in Huntington Beach and forget about Seal Beach". 21 . . . Planning Commission Minutes of September 19, 1990 Mr. whittenberg objected to that statement, saying "I thlnk that's totally incorrect. Our staff does not grant speclal privileges to people wlthout it going through the proper channels". Galen Ambrose * Seal Beach Mr. Ambrose asked how hlgh the observatory dome was? Staff said it was measured at less then 32 feet; it exceeds the Hill's height Ilmlt of 25 feet. Mr. Ambrose sald the observatory dome at 1305 Sandplper should have had a variance and recommended the Clty hire an aggressive City Attorney, not one who does not want to take a chance on loslng a case ... one who knows how to apply our City laws correctly. Secondly, regarding parking at McGaugh School. It loans itself out for other activities and it makes parking on week-ends almost impossible for residents. Shouldn't there be some parking requlrements belng enforced there? commissioner Dahlman said the middle and elementary schools are planned with parklng for teachers only; there is not much parking. Mr. curtis said recreation permits are not mentioned in the Code. A church should have a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and it is requlred ln the Code. Mr. Curtis said if a CUP was required specific parking requirements could be placed on it during its processing. Staff will have to check City files to see if that church does or does not have a CUP. For school educatlonal activities the City has no control over what happens on school district property. State laws exempt educational facilities from any requirements of the city. Even the structural building requirements are dealt with at the State level. Staff will research and make a report to the Commission on Calvary Chapel Church at McGaugh School at the October 3, 1990 meeting. Alan Shlelds * Seal Beach Mr. Shlelds said that the owner of 1305 Sandpiper bypassed the Clty'S building procedures. Jerry Anderson * Seal Beach Mr. Anderson, rebuttlng Mr. Stark's comment that the "price of liberty is vigilance" said he was here. Lee Whittenberg and Barry curtis were at 1305 Sandpiper Drive before the dome went up. He has been vigilant. STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. 22 . . . Planning commission Minutes of Septenber 19, 1990 COMMISSION CONCERNS CommlSSloner Dahlman sald hlS plannlng packet contalned a Navy map showlng SlX earthquake faults ln town --- WhlCh are more faults than he knew about. Mr. Whlttenberg sald thlS was from an EIS done on Endangered Specles Management Plan at the Naval Weapons Statlon. The indlcated faults are malnly sub-surface faults that are not currently recognized by the state of Californla as belng actlve faults. An active fault is mapped under the Alquist Priolo Act and in town it's the Newport-Inglewood fault. The Navy map was derived from looking at subsurface geology reports for oil exploration in the area. Based on those drillings they are postulating there are other sub-surface faults. Mr. Whittenberg said he spent two days making 45 telephone contacts to different cities getting information on geological mapping. Once the information is compiled, staff will prepare a summary for the City Council for their consideration "since they were the ones who asked that the previous report to the Planning Commission be held until they were provided some additional information". staff will take direction from Council. It is not on the agenda at this time. commissioner Dahlman asked about the Irisher not having a cup for the sale of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Whittenberg said it is a legal pre-existing location that has been in existence long before CUP's were required in the city. staff is assembling background on problems occurring in that location thru the Police Department. Staff will discuss with the Clty Attorney an abatement process to deal with those issues. Staff has contacted the property owners who have brought the problems to the City's attention and they are aware of the process. commissioner Dahlman asked staff to check the date of the first meeting in January, stating he thought it would be January 9th. Chairman Fife said the trash is gathering again at the Bixby fence along Seal Beach Boulevard. Mr. Cho said Bixby Co. is trying to send a regular maintenance person to that site. Mr. Whittenberg will check. Chairman Fife said Bill Dawson, owner of the Seal Beach Trailer Park, wants to address the Planning Commission on the history of the Trailer Park, where the taxes go etc. Staff will place it on the October 17, 1990 agenda. Chairman Fife asked staff to be certain a Police Department representative is present at the October 3, 1990 meeting when the Super Saver Cinema Seven CUP is reviewed. 23 . . . Planning commission Minutes of September 19( 1990 ADJOURNMENT Chalrman Flfe adJourned the meetlng at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully Submltted, \\O~~~~ Joan Fillmann Executive Secretary Planning Department *** These Minutes are tentative and are subject to Planning Commisslon approval. *** The Planning Commission Minutes of september 19, 1990 were approved by the Commission on October ~ 1990. -d:- 24