Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1990-12-05 (.' (e "I. CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 5, 1990 The regularly scheduled Plannlng Commission meeting of December 5, 1990 was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers by Chairman Flfe. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commlssioner Sharp. II. ROLL CALL Present: Chalrman Flfe Commissioners Sharp, McCurdy, Dahlman Absent: Commissioner orsini Chairman Fife ordered Mr. Orsini's absence excused as Mr. Orsini is out of the country. Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Director, Development Srvcs. Dept. Barry Curtis, Admin. Asst., Development Srvcs. Dept. Mlchael Cho, Intern, Development Services Department III. SCHEDULED MATTERS 1. Sonia SonjujPresentation re Seal Beach Trailer Park Chairman Fife announced Ms. Sonju was unavailable to deliver her presentation tonlght on the Seal Beach Trailer Park. Staff indicated it will be rescheduled to the January 16, 1991 meeting. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Minutes of November 28, 1990 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCUrdy to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of November 28, 1990 Subject to the following changes: Page 2, line 23: Page 2, line 26: Page 2, line 43: Page 3, line 38: Page 3, line 38: Page 4, line 44: Page 4, line 47: Change "Chairman Fife" to "Mr. Whittenberg". Change "any" to "certain". Change "noting" to "noted". Add a comma after "room". Add "of" after "purposes". Delete "it's a means" to "it means". Add a comma after "~". . . \. Page 2 Planning Commisslon Meeting Minutes of December 5, 1990 Page 5, line 01: Delete "are". Page 6, line 38: Change "use" to "useable". Page 6, line 50: Add "one should then" before "quit". Page 8, line 18: Correct: "maintained~heyn. Page 8, line 20: Delete "you're". Page 10, line 20: Change "not" to "now". Page 11, line 50: Add "circumstances" at "(tape unclear)". Page 12, line 3: Change "our" to "out". Page 12, line 4: Add "how" before "you feel". Page 12, line 12: Add "viewed" before "differently". AYES: MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, McCUrdy, Dahlman, Fife ABSENT: Orsini *** V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Conditional Use Permit #12-90 500 Pacific Coast Highway, #104 * Bonnadonna's Restaurant Resolution No. 1606 staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file in the Department of Development Services). CUP #12-90 is a request by the applicant, David Bonnadonna, to transfer and upgrade an existing on-sale beer and wine license to a general liquor license ln conjunction with the transfer or ownershlp of a restaurant at 500 Pacific Coast Highway, #104. commission Comments commissioner McCurdy asked lf the facility would be operated as one or two restaurants. Staff replied it's two contiguous suites (Rib Factory and Cafe Swiss) that, after tenant improvements, wlll be the new Bonnadonna's Restaurant. The two suites will be connected wi th a customer aisle. Mr. Curtis sald the applicant wlll be proposing another new restaurant at the location of the present Bonnadonna's Restaurant. commissioner Sharp asked about parklng at the site. Mr. Curtls said this application will not impact the parking because it is a restaurant use taking the place of an existing restaurant. He added that when staff accounts for parking at a restaurant, the existlng Center is considered to meet parklng requirements with two '. . . Page 3 Planning Commission Meeting Mlnutes of December 5, 1990 restaurants in those two suites. Putting another restaurant in place of those two restaurants doesn't increase the square footage of restaurant in the Center. Chairman Flfe referenced McDonald's patlo appllcation and said staff was looklng into the ratio of dining area to total area of the restaurant which might or might not impact parking requlrements. Mr. curtis said staff is uSlng the municipal ~ as it's wrltten today for this application. staff will be reviewing the possibility of a zone change re changing parking requirements for restaurants to take into account the seating area lnstead of solely the square footage of the restaurant. commissioner Dahlman lndicated the staff report lndicated a restaurant use but said they will have a bar. Mr. Curtis said the upgrade to the general llquor llcense would allow the applicant to integrate a bar into the restaurant. Mr. Curtis said the AlcohollC Beverage Control Dept. (ABC) would place separate conditlons for solely a bar. The applicant will meet City and ABC conditions. Commlssioner McCurdy said lt looks llke two separate restaurants because there are two separate kitchens but they both serve food. Commissioner Dahlman asked if this would increase parklng problems in the evenings? Mr. Curtis said "I'm not certain exactly what type of impact this wlll have on it. It seems that there might be a sligtly more service towards evenings than there used to be". Commissioner McCurdy sald the parklng problems were not only in the evenlngs. Mr. Curtis said staff has stlll not studied the Center ln depth but believed the parking problems were mainly at the noon hour. Commlssioner Dahlman said the spaces are narrow Wl th no potentlal for restriping to create more parking spaces. Chairman Fife asked about ABC's definition of a "bona fide" eating place. Mr. Curtis said it's "More than 50% of the net receipts must be food items". He asked staff if it had measured the number of persons who could be seated in the previous two restaurants and the number of persons who will be seated in the new restaurant? Mr. curtis said staff was unable to do this because the CUP's for the previous two restaurants did not have the count for the seating. Chairman Fife asked staff if the could forsee a door being placed in the connecting alsle and making these two separate restaurants - one of which is closer to a lounge? Mr. Whittenberg responded that the ABC would not allow that to occur unless a new appllcation were submitted for a separate llcense. . . e) Page 4 Planning commission Meeting Minutes of December 5, 1990 Public Hearing Chalrman Fife opened the Public Hearing. The appllcant was not present. No one in the audience wished to speak for or against this appllcation. commission Comments Commlssioner Dahlman questloned the limiting language of Condition 9: 9. The term of this permit shall be twelve (12) months, after WhlCh time the Planning commission shall review and may extend the permit indefinitely provided that all conditions of approval have been satisfied and no significant police problems have occurred. [Emphasis added to show quallfying language]. Commissioner Dahlman suggested removal of the highlighted wording so as not to tie the hands of the Commission. Mr. Curtis suggested removing the word "indefinitely". Mr. Curtis said that with a new CUP new conditions can be added. Under the present municipal Code the Clty has no control of how many seats an applicant can install. He could take out the lounge and put in any number of seats as long as he meets the required for parking for the Slze of the restaurant. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by McCurdy to approve Conditional Use Permit #12-90, with nine conditions and a change to Condition #9 by removing the word "indefinitely", by the adoption of Resolution No. 1606. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Sharp, Fife, McCUrdy, Dahlman ABSENT: Orsini *** 4. Zoning Text Amendment #7-90 Surfs ide Right-of-Way Annexation Resolution No. 1601 staff Report Mr. Curtls dell vered the staff report WhlCh is a request by applicant, Surfs ide Colony Ltd., to amend Sections 28-500 thru 28- 506 and 28-600 through 28-604 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach. CA for the purpose of providing specific development standards for that portion of the Southern Pacific right-of-way . . . Page 5 Plann1ng Commission Meeting M1nutes of December 5, 1990 within the Surfside Colony. (Staff report on file 1n the Department of Development Services). Staff recommends approval of ZTA #7-90 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1601 and the certif1cation of Negative Declarat10n #4-90 to the City Council. commission Comments Cha1rman Fife asked for the Commission's comments. commissioner Sharp said he preferred to hold his remarks until after the Public Hearing. Comm1ssioner McCurdy praised Mr. Curtis for a job well done to meet both the appl1cant's needs and staff's requirements. commissioner Dahlman said he regretted Commissioner Orsini was not present because this is in his d1strict. Cha1rman Fife, referencing page 2 of the staff report regarding parking spaces be1ng located off the rear alley, he asked what would be done for a Minor Plan Review? Mr. curtis sa1d such a cond1tion could be placed on a Minor Plan Review by the Commission. Chairman Fife sa1d he would like the Commission to have discretion, in the s1tuat1on of a remodel that technically qualifies as a M1nor Plan Rev1ew, to require that the parking may be relocated in certain circumstances. Chairman F1fe, referencing page 2 of the staff report regarding dictating all required parking spaces within Surfs ide be covered with a carport or a garage, he asked if that imposed an immediate requirement for building? Mr. curtis said no, it would make exist1ng units w1thout covered parking spaces legally non- conforming and at such time they would do major remodeling covered parking would be required. Chairman Fife, refercing the staff report, sa1d this approach would el1minate merging onto Surfs ide from two directions and asked what t1me span does staff anticipated? Mr. Curtis said wi thin the existing units would probably be phased out in the next 20 years. Publ1c Hear1ng Bob Kendr1ck * President. Surfs1de Colony Ltd. Mr. Kendrick thanked staff for meeting with them and addressing their concerns. The Colony 1S in agreement w1th the staff report and 1ts recommendations. Chairman Fife asked how he felt about modificat1on of the recommendation for parking relocation off the . Page 6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 5, 1990 front alley in conncection with any major remodel or addition and in the discretion of the Commission in a Minor Plan Review? Mr. Kendrick indicated staff's recommendation conforms to their goals. Mr. curtis said the Commission already has the authority it' s seeking but the Commission would want to codify that. Commissioner Fife asked if the words "major remodel or addition", as used in this staff report, is a new phrase or is that going to be the defJ.ning reference to the way that term shows up in certain sections of the QQdg? Mr. curtis said it's been utilized in the Code but there's no specific definition, so suggested including verbage like "and minor remodels at the dJ.scretion of the Planning Department" to be included in the Code. Chairman FJ.fe saJ.d he was trYJ.ng to avoid future situatJ.ons where an applicant would technically argue he is not doing a "major remodel" but a "minor plan review" and therefore "r don't have to move my garage". Ella Rowe * A40. Surfside . Mrs. Rowe spoke in opposition to this application basing most of her comments on increasing density leading to increasing parking problems. Mrs. Rowe questioned lot subdivision possibilities, asking if a 90 foot deep lot could be divided 25'x 35' and 25' x 35'? Mr. curtis said the minimum lot depth is proposed to be 60 feet and the deepest lot will be less than 120 feet that so no one will be able to subdivide because of the new depth. However a person having a 50 foot wJ.de lot could make that into two lots through a legal subdivisJ.on process. Mrs. Rowe questioned lot coverage by asking if the whole lot could be covered wJ.th housing? Mr. curtis said staff has dropped the recommendatJ.on for maxJ.mum lot coverage. A person cannot cover 100% of the lot but they can cover up to 100% of the lot excluding setbacks which are, on a 25 foot lot, 3 feet on either side, 3 feet in the rear, 2 feet on the front and up to the property line on the second and third stories. commissioner Dahlman asked if the elimination of section 28-602 remove the setback descriptions? Mr. curtis advised the removal of that section eliminates the setbacks from the S-P parking zone however, there are already existing rear setback requirements for the Residential Low Density (RLD) zone. Surfside is considered low density zoning. Mrs. Rowe indicated an owener could build a 4,000 square foot house on these lots. . Mrs. Rowe said now the garages are on "0" clearance so if somebody wants to build above the garage what happens to the garage? Mr. curtis saJ.d the setbacks required are no longer zero lot line. At . Page 7 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 5, 1990 . the present time garages in the S-P parking zone are required to have a zero lot line on the West side. Approval of this application would eradicate that requirement so that those garages would become non-conforming and at the time someone redeveloped an eX1sting garage, it would have to be reconstructed or relocated because it wouldn't have the correct footings to withstand an additional load. Also, 1t would have to comply with the 3 foot side yard setbacks. Mrs. Rowe sa1d she would like no below grade build1ng because of problems with flooding and sewers. Mr. Curtis said staff met with Surfside Colony and it was not felt that requirement was necessary. If the building met engineering standards, it meets all applicable bU1lding standards and 1t's built below grade staff has no problem with that. Sufside Colony did not want to see that removed as a possibility. Mrs. Rowe sa1d this was another opportunity to build even b1gger homes thus adding more density to Surfs ide Colony. Mr. curtis said the Code defines "density" as "dwel11ng units per lot". So by bU1lding a larger house than currently exists you're not increasing the den1sity. Mrs. Rowe said she felt bigger houses would lead to bigger families and/or more persons 11v1ng there and resultant more cars. . Mrs. Rowe sa1d Surfside Colony purchased this back p1ece of property and each homeowner is getting 25' x 20' piece of property that they paid $22,000 to $35,000 for. Other buyers in Surfside Colony paid $200,000 for a 25' x 35' lot. All shareholders in the Colony had to pay $4,900 for their share of the back road and the parking lot. Most persons wanted this because if they had to give up that back piece of property they would have to move their garages. She said "I don't feel those people have had to pay that much for the property that they should now be able to add over 800 square feet of home to their existing home ... on any other lot in the Colony you would almost have to tear down the house to add 800 square feet ... to me it adds density. I would rather have seen the Commission go with some kind of setbacks on the back piece of property so we don't see such extremely large houses ... I really feel this isn't be1ng unfa1r to these people because they havent' had to pay that much for parking, the property was appraised for parking and garages and that's why they only had to pay as little as $22,000 and $35,000". She said the Colony only has alley park1ng, not1ng owners can park two cars 1n a garage and one beh1nd the garage. She sa1d the new park1ng lot has been half rented out. She 1nd1cated from behind her house --- from B40 to Al -- there are over 20 rental units, 15 of which are owned by one owner. Almost all of those have 3 to 4 individuals living 1n them. Mrs. Rowe said the staff report doesn't state that the homeowners gaining . Page 8 Planning Commlssion Meeting Minutes of December 5, 1990 property will now be able to build over the back part and most Colony residents understood these lots were gaining parking and a yard. . commissioner Dahlman, restating the ~ definition of "density", asked how many dwelling units are allowed on the lot before the property acquisltion? Mr. curtis said presently one dwelling per lot is allowed and one dwelling unit per lot would be allowed under the proposed amendment. Mr. Curtis felt people were confusing densi ty with intensity of use. commissioner Dahlman indicated this approxlmates the issues discussed at the last Commission meeting (123 Elghth street and 601 Ocean Avenue). The Code, in defining bedrooms and relating it to parking, says if it's non-conformlng due to density then you can't add bedrooms. There should be a restrlction on these particular homeowners from adding an unlimited number of additional bedrooms to ther houses. Mr. Curtis said the ~ requires only two parking spaces for each dwelling unit and it doesn't say how large the unit may be. Commissioner McCurdy said there is no prohibition on renting out bedrooms in a dwelllng uni t. Mr. curtis lndicated it would not be legal to prohibit rentlng out bedrooms on an individual basls. He further stated that several court cases have said that people living in a single house or dwelling unlt, living in a family type manner, sharing cooking facilities and other things are considered a family --- whether they are blood kin or otherwise. Commissioner Dahlman said this appears to be another loophole and there seems to be no way to address the issue wlthout a definition of "denslty" into the Code. Commlssioner Dahlman asked staff if the prior discussion on sump pumps being required by Code was deleted during the staff/Colony discussion? Mr. Whittenberg said below grade buildlng would have to comply with all building code requirements which would probably include a pumping system. It's a requirement of the Uniform Building Code and not the City'S zoning ordinances. Mr. Whlttenberg said that with sub-surface structures pumping structures are required whether the property's in a flood zone or not. Commissioner Sharp clarlfied that the discussion on building bedrooms in Surfside residences are not similar to Commission deliberatlon on Mlnor Plan Review applications for 123 8th Street and 601 Ocean Avenue because the Surfside residences are not short of parklng. . Chalrman Fife said he felt the concept of two parking spaces per dwelling unit was probably conceived in the context of dwelling uni ts being located on public streets which provide additional . . . Page 9 Planning Commiss1on Meeting Minutes of December 5, 1990 parking capabi11ties. But in Surfside that option doesn't exist. He wondered if the definition of "two parking spaces per dwel11ng unit" 1S fully adaptable in Surfside. Mr. curtis that unless parking is required to be placed on the front and rear of the property, the lots in Surfs ide are too narrow to accommodate additional parking. Comm1ssioner McCurdy asked staff if parking was allowed in alleys? Mr. Curt1s sa1d he didn't know if it was legal. Mr. Kendrick said park1ng 1n alleys is allowed. There is no police enforcement in the Colony but there is a "community system of pOliteness". He said the residents are happy with the parking situation there. Mr. Kendrick commented on Mrs. Rowe's position by indicating the the shareholders ln the Colony didn't go into this plan blindly. The property was purchased for a specific purpose which was to ma1ntain single family homes and protection from purchase by other developers. The1r goal was not to let the property be subdiv1ded and 1ncrease density; they planned to request R1 zoning from the ci ty. It was a concensus of all shareholders to purchase the property with the 1ntent to use the land to build out the use of that property. The property was not purchased as a parking space and rear yard at all. Chairman Fife commented on Mrs. Rowe's remarks re the cost of that land and asked Mr. Kendrick if he was able to negotiate with Southern Pacific Railroad based on the assumption that the property could only be used for park1ng? Mr. Kendrick said "That was a negotiating point of course. If you were to look at it dollar for dollar we got a good deal, plus the BRow owner did. Of course, at the same time the community acted as an angel for S1xty homeowners and put the money up. We put it up as a corporation. It was a business dec1sion ... we run the Colony as a corporation and we treat as a business decision and we negotiate it that way. Our fortune in purchasing at a good price was also a r1sk position. We d1dn't have entitlements for R1 but we all took the risk and ... we hope you conform to our w1shes and g1 ve us R1". Regard1ng subterranean parking, Mr. Kendrick said the Colony views this as a personal call and Surfside has not taken any position on what someone should do with their house. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Kendr1ck about the following provisions on measuring height limits: Section 28-503 of the QQgg be amended to provide a common base height from wh1ch to measure all building heights within Surfs1de. Staff, after meet1ng with representat1ves of the . . . Page 10 Planning Comm1ssion Meeting Minutes of December 5, 1990 Surfside Colony, is recommending the following be added to the end of ~28-503: ", as measured from the crown of Surfside Avenue." Such an amendment would provide a more permanent base he1ght for the Colony. Presently the shifting sand is utilized for the base height along the "A" row. Mr. Kendrick said the Colony never knew it was based on sh1fting sand. The Colony has a 35 foot height 11mi t but never knew averaging was be1ng done to determine height. This came to light 1n December 1990 when a problem cropped up. The Colony supports a mean measurement, which is the street's crown as it's the most consistent thing along the beach front. commissioner McCurdy said in 1972 the Colony lost a lot of sand and there was water under the houses. Mr. Kendrick said "We've been los1ng sand off and on since the creation of the east jetty by the Navy 1n 1945. Immediately after that we lost f1ve or six homes in the first storm that hit. And then continually have lost homes since then. So 1t'S a unique beach. Sometimes it's a beach". Steve Rowe * Secretary. Sunset Beach Sanitary District Mr.Rowe said after the 1983 - 1984 floods they wanted to come to the City and initiate a restriction on underground plumbing fixtures. As a result of the 1983 - 1984 floods and a history of flood1ng in Surfside, the sand and sea water went into the toilets and bas1ns thereby coming 1nto the water system. They took five yards of sand out of their system at the Anderson Street man hole. They thought the line was broken but found the sand and sea water was a result of direct 1nfiltration from the various below grade plumbing fixtures. The Sanitary District would like the Code to restrict underground plumbing fixtures. Sump pumps kicks on and pumps storm water. It 1S aga1nst District 11 regulations that storm water be pumped into the water system. In 1983 - 1984 during the floods, the Colony and the Sanitary District lost electricity. That meant that the four motors of the main pumps shut down. Sewage water was g01ng into Sunset Beach; Surfside 1S at the h1gh end of the system. That flood1ng got into the Sanitary District's impellers and wore them unduly. The cost was borne by the Government and the Sanitary District taxpayers all as a result of underground plumbing f1xtures. . Page 11 Plannlng CommlSSlon Meeting Mlnutes of December 5, 1990 Mr. Rowe asked if tandem parking was permitted. Mr. Curtis sald "People can utilize tandem parklng but we only count it as one parking space". Mr. curtis said new habi tble structure must be six feet apart; garages are not habitable. Over time the non- conformities will weed out and everyone will be six feet apart. Chalrman Flfe asked that if the Commlssion were lncllned to prohiblt underground plumbing fixtures how would that be done? Mr. whlttenberg said staff would recommend an amendment to the ordinances that reference the Uniform Building Code and a specific provision would have to been prepared and forwarded to the City Councl1 for consideration and action to them. This type of amendment would not come back to the Planning Commission. . Chairman Flfe, noting tandem parking is not allowed wi thin the Clty, but because of Surfside's unlque situation asked if there could there be a requlrement that you put in tandem spaces in? Mr. curtis said each garage parking space is 20 feet deep and the lot that's being added onto their existing lot is only 25 feet deep, so they would have to tear lnto the existing residence 15 feet. The Commission could recommend this. Bob Montgomery * Board of Dlrectors. Surfside Colony Mr. Montgomery said he favored ZTA #7-90. Noting he had lived in Surfside seventeen years, Mr. Montgomery said B71, B72 and B73 are typical residences which have been built the same way the new homes could be bUllt. They are 80' to 90' deep lots, 3 stories, 3500 to 4000 square feet, double car garages in the rear, no extra parking space behind garage. There has not been any abuse of the large square footage as Mrs. Rowe noted. The B row homes (B1 thru B70) presently have a third parklng place at their rear except for B71, B72 and B73. Mr. curtis sald parklng dimensions are 8' x 16' for compact spaces and 9' x 20' for regular spaces. Mr. Montgomery said "In reality the impacted properties that we're talking about could have 3~ parking spaces --- the double car garage plus 1.5 parking spaces behind that". Regarding tandem parking, he thought that would be a wrong way to go as it would encourage multiple family use. . Ella Rowe sald the example Mr. Montgomery sited lsn't accurate because the B row homes he slted face a parking lot. She said one of those residents is rentlng two or three parking spaces in that lot. However, thlrty houses down B row, there is no parklng lot and there is a real parklng problem due to no place to put extra cars. . Page 12 Planning Comm1ssion Meeting Minutes of December 5, 1990 Mr. Kendrick said Surfside Colony likes to see unique homes with relief from box-like structures but said it was difficult to design on narrow lots. He said the parking problems have d1minished over the years. The Colony has "transi tioned from ... basically renters to homeowners to where ... we're right now 50/50 ... it's turn1ng over but it does take t1me. Our goal is to make it a community of fam1lies ... each homeowner has the right, although the street adjacent to his house belongs to the community, he has the authority of the corporation to call the Pol1ce and remove a car if they're parked in front of their house ... I come home and there's a parking place in front of my house ...". . Comm1ssioner Dahlman said the Colony is handling the parking problem by saturating the parking resource. The parking will become saturated to a point where there isn't any more parking. He interpreted Mr. Kendrick's statements on parking as parking would run out then apartments wouldn't be bootlegged in. Chairman Fife restated the Colony's premise - "If you remove the present si tuat10n which allows some parking in front and some parking 1n back, that that will shift the future course of that particular un1t toward a single family use rather than a rental use". Mr. Kendrick said that the increased financial investment in the lot would demand that it become a single family house. Mr. Fife said he was inclined to think that large homes with many family members tend to work their parking problems out between them. commissioner Sharp noted that with the cost of housing being very high we're going to have people sharing a house. Many young people cannot afford to have a house on their own so they have to share. Commissioner Dahlman asked why "Maybe" was checked on Risk of Upset. Explosion~ Release of Hazardous Substances on the Negative Declaration (page 5 of Attachment 2, Appendix 1)? He noted the following commentary did not address that "Maybe". Mr. curtis sa1d he would have to read back through his notes on why that was given a "Maybe" response but felt it could have been designated as "Maybe" during the construction phase - if any construction was going on on these propert1es there is that possibility due to construct10n techniques and "we do feel that is an insignificant threat". Cha1rman Fife asked if it would be more accurance to say "The project, when completed, will not result in the risk of an explosion"? Mr. Curtis said since there is a minute possib1lity "Maybe" should be indicated but he will re-check in case this is an error. . . . . Page 13 Planning Commisslon Meeting Minutes of December 5, 1990 Commlssioner Sharp said that if they're using the road as a means of measuring, he would think they would also use that for the level of the lots. He felt the Code should be amended to prohlbi t locating plumbing fixtures below grade. The Commisslon recommended that the City Council consider an appropriate amendment to the Uniform Building Code to restrict locating plumbing fixtures below grade. Mr. Whittenberg read Section 28-213 from the munlcipal Code on measuring building height: Building height means the vertical distance measured from the average level of the hightest and lowest point of that portion of the building slte covered by the building to the highest point of the roof peak. He indicated the Code does specify an average situation be taken on the proposed bUllding site. In Surfside the ground surface tends to fluctuate over the years. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Zoning Text Amendment #7-90 be approved through the adoption of Resolution 1601 and with the change that the parking be moved to the rear of the lot in conjunction with any major remodel or addition or in the discretion of the Planning commission with respect to Minor Plan Reviews and recommend certification of Negative Declaration #4-90 to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: McCUrdy, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman ABSENT: Orsini [Emphasls added]. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman for the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that they study the Uniform Building Code for Surfs ide as to plumbing and below ground level construction and advise the Planning Commission if they wish to have the commission hold Public Hearings. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: McCUrdy, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman ABSENT: Orsini . . . Page 14 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 5, 1990 commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Whittenberg if municipal Code section 28-213 should be modified to include the height measurement for Surfsl.de? Mr. Whl. ttenberg said there will be a separate definition in the Ordinance for Surfside. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications from the audience. STAFF CONCERNS Memorandum re Minor Plan Review #8-90 Barry Curtis said on October 1, 1990 the Commission approved Minor Plan Review #8-90, the converSl.on of a four unit apartment to a three unit apartment. The Commission imposed conditions on the approval due to the moratorium of covered roof access structures. The applicant wants to go ahead with the construction and he came to the Building Department to obtain an after-the-fact building permit for an installed enclosed patio awning which was going to be added to the Minor Plan Review. In staff's opinion l.t wasn't conforming to the approved plans. The applicant installed this as a stop-gap measure until the time the moratorium was lifted and then he wanted to proceed with the rest of hl.S addition. Staff is requesting the Commission pick the appropriate course of action: (1) have the applicant apply for a new Minor Plan Review for the addl.tl.on as it's been bUl.lt to date and at the time the moratorium's ll.fted he could go ahead with hl.S original and approved proposal or (2) to allow the applicant to obtain a permit for the awning which staff would recommend be consl.dered a temporary structure utilized only until the moratorl.um on CRAS was lifted. The Commission could place a time limit on time for removal. Mr. Curtl.s described the awning as bridging an open area between the two ground floor units. It has a roof, walls and windows. If Ordinance 1309 is never repealed the applicant cannot build the structure. Ordinance 1309 has an automatic expiration date pursuant to state law which is 10 months and 15 days from date of adoption whl.ch would be April - May 1991. The City Council has scheduled Public Hearings for the new CRAS provl.sions December 10, 1990. It would take effect in early February and would repeal the urgency Ordinance. . . . Page 15 Planning Commission Meeting M1nutes of December 5, 1990 MOTION by Sharp: SECOND by Dahlman to ask the applicant of Minor Plan Review #8-90 to follow staff recommendation #1: To have the applicant apply for a new Minor Plan Review for the addition as it's been built so far. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: McCurdy, Fife, Sharp, Dahlman ABSENT: Orsini Mr. curtis said staff will provide cond1tions at the January 2, 1991 meeting. This is not an urgent issue because the structure has already been 1nstalled. Mr. Whittenberg wished the Planning Commiss1on a happy holiday season. Mr. Whittenberg said the information on hazardous waste perm1ts at the Naval Weapons station was provided to the Commissioners for information purposes w1th no action necessary. The City Council will consider this item on December 10, 1990. The Environmental Quality Control Board will review it on December 18, 1990. It's author1ty to continue for five years an operation that's been on- going there for several years. COMMISSION CONCERNS Mun1cipal Code Change re Auto Detailing Cha1rman Fife asked Mr. Curtis the status of a municipal Code change for Ed Quayle's car detail1ng shop? Mr. Curt1s said staff has the information it needs and is looking into the broad picture of the auto detailing trade and achieve fair standards. Mr. Quayle 1S working now and "doesn't have a problem until this is dealt w1th". Staff should have a report to the Commission at the January 16, 1990 meet1ng. Curtis Response to Comments by Stark Chairman Fife said "I would note for the Record that I've read your response to the comments to Mr. Stark's comments at the September 5 and September 19, 1990, and I thought that was a good jOb". . . . Page 16 Plann1ng Commission Meet1ng Minutes of December 5, 1990 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~o~ J an Fillmann Secretary Planning Department *** These Minutes are tentative and subject to the approval of the Planning commiss1on. *** The Planning commission Minutes of December 5, 1990 were approved by the Commission on January ___, 1991.