Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1991-02-06 f , ~ 6- CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA * FEBRUARY 6, 1991 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. SCHEDULED MATTERS IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 2. 3. . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. Minutes of January 16, 1991 Signing Resolutions: Resolution No. 1608 Re: Denial @ 601 Ocean/MPR 115-90 Resolution No. 1607 Re: Denial @ 123 Eighth St./MPR 113-90 Resolution No. 1606 Re: Approval @ 500 PCH/CUP 112-90 Resolution No. 1603 Re: Approving General Plan Amendment 2B-90 Resolution No. 1602 Re: Approving General Plan Amendment 2A-90 Resolution No. 1601 Re: Approving ZTA 17-90/So. Pacific ROW Resolution No. 1600 Re: Approving Zone Change 11-90 *** 9. Plan Review 113-90 (Reconsideration) 123 8th Street 10. Plan Review 115-90 (Reconsideration) 601 Ocean Avenue .' ~~ , ') . Page 2 Planning Commission Agenda 2/6/91 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. Variance #6-90 1140 Catalina Less Than Required Front Setback Resolution No. 1609 12. Conditional Use Permit #13-90 Nassau Drive (Leisure World) Storage Shed Resolution No. 1610 13. Variance #5-90 1733 Crestview (Reconsideration) Illegal Rear & Side Yard Intrusion Resolution No. 1611 14. Zoning Text Amendment #1-91 Minimum Lot Size in District I Resolution No. 1612 15. Parkland Dedication Fees (Continuation) Resolution No. 1613 ~ *** VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - At this time members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any item wi thin the subject matter of the Commission provided that no action may be taken on off-agenda items unless authorized by law. VII. STAFF CONCERNS 16. Variance #4-90 (McDonald's) 17. Minor Plan Review #4-90 A-116 Surfside VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT .~ . @ir\1~ 0 m~~ ~ ~ @J1jJ~~ ~~ (!'iliJ~ @l]o~W . . March 14, 1991 MEMO To. From: Plannlng CommlSSloners, Clty Clerk Joan Flllmann, Plannlng Department Correctlon to Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of February 6, 1991 Re: ReVlew of the February 6, 1991 Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes showed lnadvertent omlSSlon of the votes on Mlnor Plan Revlews #13-90 and #15-90. The votes have now been added to the Mlnutes. Mlnutes attached for your records. Thankyou. . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 6, 1991 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 1991 was called to order by Chairman Fife at 7:32 p.m. in City Council Chambers. I. PLEDGE OF ~T,T,F.GIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Orsini. II. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Orsini, McCurdy, Sharp, Dahlman Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, Director, Dev. Srvcs. Dept. Barry Curtis, Admin. Asst., Dev. Srvcs. Dept. Michael Cho, Intern, Development Srvcs. Dept. III. SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no Scheduled Matters. IV. CONSENT CAT,F.lmAR 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES/JANUARY 16, 1991 MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by McCUrdy to approve the Planning commission Minutes of January 16, 1991 with the following change at page 14, paragraph three: Delete "Consumer Price Index" and replace with "median price of real estate". MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 . 2. SIGNING OF RESOLUTION No. 1608 3. SIGNING OF RESOLUTION No. 1607 4. SIGNING OF RESOLUTION No. 1606 5. SIGNING OF RESOLUTION No. 1603. 6. SIGNING OF RESOLUTION No. 1602. 7. SIGNING OF RESOLUTION No. 1601. 8. SIGNING OF RESOLUTION No. 1600. 9. PLAN REVIEW #13-90 for 123 EIGHTH STREET, SEAL BEACH Staff Report . Mr. Cho delivered the staff report, indicating Minor Plan Review #13-90, an application for a remodel and additional floor space to an existing legal non-conforming structure, had been heard and denied by the Planning Commission and reviewed by the City Council on appeal. The applicant, pursuant to Council's decision, submi tted revised plans to the commission. The revised plans incorporate the dens/studies with the bedrooms, resulting in larger bedrooms. (This staff report is on file in the Department of Development Services). Commission Comments The Commission discussed Plan Review #13-90 for approximately one hour. They asked staff if Ordl.nance #948, defining "bedroom", was part of the original legislation creating the Minor Plan Review process. Mr. Whittenberg said no, the original process came about in 1985. Ordinance 948 was adopted in 1968 at which time expansions for non-conforming residential uses were processed via the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. At that time it required no additional bedrooms be added unless the entire property was upgraded to meet parking requirements. Staff was asked to characterize the transition from the CUP process to the Minor Plan Review process. Mr. Whittenberg said it was a relaxation of the process for those proposed expansions less than 10% of the allowable floor area. Prior to this the CUP process required greater notification to adjacent residents and placed the project at a different level of review at the Commission level. The CUP process continues to be maintained for expansions greater than 10% of the allowable floor area with the bedroom/parking requirement. . Mr. Whittenberg recapped the City Council actions, indicating a request was made to reconsider Minor Plan Review #13-90 by the applicant, the request was granted and the Council referred the . . . Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 project back to the Commission with the understanding the plans would be redesigned to bring it into compliance with municipal ~ provisions. There was no discussion by the Council as to how that redesign would occur and what would be involved, that was left to the applicant and his architect. Commissioners McCurdy and Sharp indicated the revised plans probably did not comply with the City Council's intent (stub walls and two doors) and asked if Council Minutes were available. Staff said the City Clerk was about three months behind in Council minutes preparation. Albert Brown - 509 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach, applicant, said his intent for the property is not to sell it, nor to modify the bedrooms at a future time, but to maximize his rental incomes. Discussing staff-recommended option II, Condition number 6: 6. The stub walls and walls separating the doors be removed and a single point of access to the bedrooms be provided. Mr. Brown said he left the two doors in purposely as they make a nicer looking entry and would allow the occupant to use both exits and have more ventilation. He indicated French doors are more easily broken and are less practical in an apartment situation. He asked the Commission to state now if he is violating any municipal Codes at this point. Mr. Brown indicated it was unfair for the Commission to design the building for him. Commissioner Dahlman indicated his intention was to be sure whatever was built would not require future City monitoring. Chairman Fife suggested recording a covenant against the property's title which stated these properties shall not be sold, marketed or used as more than the legal number of bedrooms (one bedroom); Mr. Brown said he would agree to that. Chairman Fife said ~ Section 28-286 requires Commission consideration of intended/stated uses and all uses to which the property may be put and expressed staff and commission concerns that this project could easily be converted into two bedrooms by the present or a future owner. The present plans appear to allowed for adding a separating wall with minimum cost and delay. Chairman Fife said his reaction to the project is that the applicant is hedging against the possibility the City may opt to favor increasing density in the downtown area and the applicant could easily react to such a ~ change. Mr. Brown said scrapping the present plan would mean losing all monies expended thus far. and he felt must stay with what has been designed to date. MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Fife to open a Public Hearing. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: orsini, McCUrdy, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman . . Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. No one in the audience wished to speak in favor of this project. Leroy Brown * 705 Ocean Avenue spoke in opposition to the project, saying he felt if the Council had approved this project, the injustice would have been to the people unable to build only single family homes since 1978. He felt municipal ~ enforcement should not be based on the amount of money borrowed or spent in a business proposition. He asked why apartment owners couldn't be happy with the units as they exist instead of increasing density and making the neighbors suffer. He said during the last ten years he has used the 8th street alley frequently and has never seen the three garages at 123 8th street open with cars parked in them~ cars park across the garage aprons. He felt the garages should be opened up and used for parking. Mr. Curtis advised that prior to the present parking requirements some garages were allowed to be converted to rooms. Staff inspected the garages at 123 8th Street and found them to be open and clear but used for storage by tenants. without clearing the garage out cars could not be parked inside. Mr. Curtis advised that a great number of garages in Seal Beach are used for storage and "other things besides cars" that it would be a massive ~ enforcement to get every garage in town cleared out. Staff does not have the time, manpower or Council/Commission direction to do anything about this situation. Therefore, staff is treating the 123 8th Street garages the same as the other houses. This property has three garages thus making the property seven spaces short. Leroy Brown suggested Al Brown could insert in his leasing agreements that the garages must be clear sufficiently for cars to be parked inside. Mr. Curtis said staff would agree with that and if the Commission would like that could become a Condition. Jerry Anderson * 1301 sandpiper spoke in opposition to the project in concept, noting the bui lding was short on parking. He was against the commission allowing additional square footage. He added the Code may sloppy and may have some leeway --- but the intent is plain --- a major remodel should trigger that it must be brought into compliance with the parking. He suggested to the Commission that that Code revision should be made. He felt Mr. Brown's expenses could have been limited with a Concept Approval, followed by plan preparation. The fact that Mr. Brown spent money should make it incumbent to approve the project. He felt people continually try to stretch the~. He suggested public meetings to change the ~ and then have everyone abide by it. He added that if an item needs to be brought before the Planning Commission then the Commission should have discretionary powers and the responsibility to oversee the project. . The Public Hearing was closed as no one wished to speak further. . Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 commission Comments commissioner Sharp sa1d he felt that despite the removal of the wall, the plans are 99% like the previous plans and he could not vote to approve this project. commissioner orsini said he was in favor of option II. Commissioner Dahlman said he could not vote to approve this project. He felt the staff report termed this "minor construction" but that's only true in a literal sense and he felt it should never have come under the Minor Plan Review process although it qualifies literally (for the Minor Plan Review process). He said the modification of the original plan was minor and rough-edged, a careful jOb was not done. The Commission should not be considering what the cost is in doing a good job that meets with the intent of the rules that apply here. Since what might be done, regardless of the owner's intent, must be considered he would not vote to approve. commissioner McCurdy said he had no new comments to add. . Chairman Fife said his views had not changed considerably and he would not vote to approve. The original "study" was said to be a non-bedroom because it lacked a closet now shows as part of a larger room but does have a closet. He viewed this as an insufficient variation/revision of the previous plans to comport with the Council's intent. The proper solution may be to put the project on hold until upcoming Public Hearings on the downtown density issue is resolved. commissioner Sharp said from listening to Al Brown speak that he had no intention of changing his plans. Mr. Brown said he would comply with the Conditions presented in staff's option II. In discussing what could be changed, Mitch Sheltraw. Architect said the stub wall connecting to the exterior of the building is a bearing wall. The non-bearing wall separating the two doors could be modified and a single door could be put there. The closet walls could be the bearing walls. The partition remaining at the windows is a moment frame and is used to displace seismic activity. Mr. Whittenberg suggested clarifying Condition #6 by adding the word "interior" before the words "stub walls". The plans would not come back before the Commission if Mr. Brown were only adding a larger wall for a closet area. . Mr. Whittenberg reviewed the Commission's three options on this project. The Commission always has the right to approve a project subject to conditions whether or not the applicant agrees with the conditions. The applicant has the right to meet those conditions or appeal them to the City Council and see if they would over-ride those conditions. .- . . Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 ~ ... td Mr. Whittenberg suggested adding an elghth condltlon (sugges e Mr. Fife and agreed to by Mr. Brown) which would be recording covenant indicating these apartments be one bedroom units. Chairman Fife, indicating he would be inclined to adopt staff's option II with the condition suggested by Mr. Whittenberg, to read: by a 8. In addition to the recording of a Covenant, that the units shall not be sold as having more than one bedroom until and unless The Code of the City of Seal Beach. CA (~) is amended so as to allow units to be converted to more than one bedroom. /- Chairman Fife suggested an additional condition: Given the degree of shortness of this property from its required parking that the applicant be required at the time of any new leasing of any of these dwelling units to include in the lease agreement a specific requirement that the tenant use whatever garage, if any, is assigned to that particular unit primarily for parking and not use it in any manner which makes the garage unsuitable for parking. And that the tenant, upon reasonable notice from the City, to permit inspection of the garage to make sure that it is indeed compatible with parking. Chairman Fife this was not a significant hardship on the privacy of the tenant(s) and with those conditions in place felt he could support staff option II. 9. Commissioner McCurdy said he was not certain the Commission could legally require the garage be used for parking and that it not be used for storage. Mr. Whittenberg advised there are ~ sections which deal with two issues. One is a leasing arrangement between the landlord and a potential tenant and the second is that there is a requirement in each of the residential sections of the ~ which reads: Section 28-803 [Residential High Density Zone] - All required garages and carports shall be used for short term parking of licensed passenger motor vehicles for persons residing on the premises. Required garages and carports shall not be used for storage of inoperable motor vehicles, boats, trailers, furniture, building materials or other materials which would interfere which would interfere with the parking of licensed passenger vehicles. . . . Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 MOTION by orsini; SECOND by Sharp to approve Minor Plan Review #13-90, by the adoption of staff-recommended option II, and subject to the following nine conditions: 1. Minor Plan Review #13-90 is approved for the remodel and addition of 801 square feet of living space to a legal non-conforming structure at 123 8th Street; 2. Replace all electrical meters and rewire the garage; 3. Hard wire installed smoke detectors in each apartment in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Building ~; 4. DrYWall the garage, including around existing steel posts, with 5/8 type "X" drYwall; 5. Replace existing exterior staircase (as part of the submi tted plan); 6. The interior stub walls and walls separating the door be removed and a single point of access to the bedroom be provided; 7. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through Minor Plan Review #13-90; 8. In addition to the recording of a Covenant, that the units shall not be sold as having more than one bedroom until and unless The Code of the City of Seal Beach. CA (~) is amended so as to allow units to be converted to more than one bedroom. 9. Given the degree of shortness of this property from its required parking that the applicant be required at the time of any new leasing of any of these dwelling units to include in the lease agreement a specific requirement that the tenant use whatever garage, if any, is assigned to that particular unit primarily for parking and not use it in any manner which makes the garage unsuitable for parking. And that the tenant, upon reasonable notice from the City, to permit inSPeCtion of the garage to make sure that it is indeed compatible with parking. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Fife, Dahlman *** . . . Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 10. PLAN REVIEW #15-90 for 601 OCEAN AVENUE, SEAL BEACH staff Report Commissioner Sharp indicated Minor Plan Review #15-90 is the same applicant as the previously reviewed Minor Plan Review #13-90 and has many of the same issues, he asked Mr. Cho to deli ver an abbreviated staff report. Mr. Cho indicated a second living room or area is proposed for the second floor unit. Staff and the City Attorney discussed this item and concluded that only one living room is permitted and the other rooms would be considered bedrooms. This resulted in another bedroom which is prohibited under Section 28-2407 (non-conforming property due to density). Staff believes the second living area problem can be mitigated by ( 1) combining two bedrooms to one bedroom with one door or (2) that living room is opened up to the atrium or made into a patio. The second living room must be reconfigured by the applicant and his architect in some way so as not to have two living areas. Chairman Fife suggested holding this item over until such time as the plans had been changed. Al Brown said his interpretation of Section 28-210 shows any area is a bedroom except a hall, a kitchen, a bath, a pantry, or living room. Therefore a dining room, a study, a family room would be considered bedrooms. An atrium is a non-habitable area. Agreeing, Mr. Whittenberg said in Section 28-210 this applies to existing non-conforming residential uses which are over density and under parked and does not apply to structures meeting the parking requirements. Mr. Brown said this structure was built in the 1940's - 1950's. Mr. Whittenberg said at that time the structure was permitted as a two bedroom unit and the City accepts that as an existing legal non- conforming situation. As long as that unit remains in its original configuration the City cannot require the owner to modify it. Once remOdeling begins the owner must meet the current Code requirements which puts the owner into this definition problem with Section 28-210. The applicant requested Mr. Whittenberg to read Section 28-210: Section 28-210 - Bedroom means, for the purposes of determining required parking spaces, all rooms other than a living room, kitchen, hall, pantry, closet or bathroom. Commissioner McCurdy advised Mr. Brown that the number of bedrooms had nothing to do with parking spaces --- it is the number of units that determines the number of parking spaces needed. Chairman Fife, noting this is the only definition of "bedroom" in the ~ and the ~ says if you're going to undergo a Minor Plan Review for a non-conforming property due to density you may not add bedrooms. Al Brown expressed his desire to not have this item held Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 over and agreed to remove the wall and door at the two bedrooms side-by-side. Chairman Fife called a recess from 8:55 to 9:05 p.m. to allow the Commission, staff, the applicant and his architect to discuss an item on the plans. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve Minor Plan Review 115- 90 by the adoption of staff-recommended option II and Subject to the following ten Conditions: 1. Minor Plan Review 110-90 is approved for the remodel and addition of 1,019 square feet of living space to a legal no-conforming structure at 601 Ocean Avenue; Installation of new 100 amp electrical service for each of the four (4) units; Install drYwall in the garage with 5/8 type nXn drYwall; . 2. 3. 4. 5. . 6. Rewire electrical lines in garage in accordance wi th Uniform Building Code provisions; Hard wire installed smoke detectors in each apartment in accordance with Uniform Building Code provisions; The interior stub walls and walls and walls separating the doors be removed and a single point of access to the bedroom be provided; 7. The second floor unit be redesigned to provide for two (2) bedrooms and one (1) living room; 8. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through Minor Plan Review 115-90; 9. In addi tion to the recording of a Covenant, that the units shall not be sold as having more than one bedroom until and unless The Code of the City of Seal Beach. CA (~) is amended so as to allow units to be converted to more than one bedroom. 10. Given the degree of shortness of this property from its required parking that the applicant be required at the time of any new leasing of any of these dwelling units to include in the lease agreement a SPeCific requirement that the tenant use whatever garage, if any, is assigned to that partiCUlar unit primarily for parking and not use it in any manner which makes the garage unsuitable for parking. And that the tenant, upon reasonable notice from the City, to permit inspection of the garage to make sure that it is indeed compatible with parking. . . Page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, McCurdy. *** 11. VARIANCE #6-90 for 1140 CATALINA AVENUE, SEAL BEACH . staff Report Mr. curtis del1vered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Department of Development Services]. The applicant is Brent Sears, Architect. The owners are Paul Treece and Susan Perrell. The applicants are requesting to provide less than the required front yard setback in conjunction with the remodel and second story addition to a single family dwelling. The present driveway is approximately 30 feet long and the proposed driveway 16'6" long. Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. Tom Zahl ten. Archi tect from Brent Sears Architects said the applicants are requesting a driveway that is twelve (12") inches shorter than the ~ mandated eighteen (18') foot driveway. He said they are trying to work with the house as it exists to save the cost of demolishing and building a new home. The lot is wide at the front/street side and narrows as it goes back thus making it difficult to remove the bearing wall in the garage. Susan Perrell * Owner. 1140 Catalina said they are anxious to make their driveway safer. She explained that due to the rise in the road going from Balboa Drive toward Catalina Avenue and the way their driveway currently sits, it is very difficult for traffic to see them pulling out of their driveway. Their lot is high and above eye level. There is also a ficus tree that blocks vision. Traffic may be slow but traffic approaches from three different directions. Ms. Perrell noted they have talked to many neighbors and the neighbors are in favor of this project. Paul Treece * Owner. 1140 Catalina said he felt the Variance process was to mitigate land problems and reviewed the three State- mandated Variance and how their application should meet the requirements. He felt the new front entry garage with a roll up door would be much safer but moreover, if the Variance is not granted it would mean a complete change in the plans and require something entirely different. Since the backyard is narrow, moving the house back would eliminate the back yard. Chairman Fife said residents have the right to safe access to streets. Mr. Curtis noted several of the hill area properties have grade differences but are not necessarily at street intersections. Staff was requested to analyze the surrounding properties and gather more information. Mr. Treece agreed to postponing this item . . . . Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 until the Planning Commission meeting of February 20, 1991 so that more information will be presented before a decision is made. Roy stone * 13080 Oakhills Drive * Leisure World * Seal Beach - suggested a turntable approach to this problem. Mitchell Sheltraw * Architect * Long Beach - said about five years ago he presented a report to the Planning Commission dealing specifically with parking requirements as they exist in Seal Beach. The study's bottom line is that Seal Beach is using an antiquated twenty foot (20') dimension for the required garage measurement. The national survey, which has been adopted by the City of Los Angles and the City of New York (which are roll models for our Uniform Building Codes) have adopted an eighteen foot (18') dimension for garages. Mr. Sheltraw said he would be willing to provide information to the Commission and Planning Department staff on previous studies presented and perhaps reconsider the depth of the garages because it is a major concern considering the way the vehicle configuration sizes are going. He felt a Cadillac vehicle is 18 feet bumper to bumper but the average medium for a vehicle is sixteen feet (16') today. There are a couple of agencies that perform national studies --- the Parking Association --- and the common denominator or magic number that they've come up with today's moving trend of vehicles is eighteen (18') feet and this has been adopted in Los Angeles. In site planning there are a certain amount of criteria that's given towards compact credits when the developers cannot meet the full required amount of full- sized vehicle parking. Mr. Sheltraw suggested the City may want to look at mOdifying the actual requirements for the garage depths themselves. Commissioner McCurdy restated that this would change the garages to a nineteen foot (19') depth and the driveway to eighteen feet (18'). Chairman Fife asked Mr. Sheltraw if he would provide that information to the Commission and staff; Mr. Sheltraw said he would be glad to provide it. Jerry Anderson * 1301 Sandpiper Drive * Seal Beach - said the topography in that region is not unusual and residents call it "The Hill" which means the area is not flat. He suggested making one of the house rooms shorter by one foot, saying there must be ways to not encroach into the setback which the City has as its Codes. Galen Ambrose * Seal Beach - spoke on Variances. He sa1d Codes are established for specific purposes. He suggested we should stay within the boundaries of our Codes and felt roll up garage doors would be a way to circumvent the Codes and get Variances granted. He said he was against Variances of any kind and if Codes are going to be changed they should be changed for everybody. Commiss10ner Dahlman said he disagreed, saying Variances are very often not applicable, but there are situations where they are clearly the only way to go. Mr. Ambrose said that when a person purchases a residence they should know or find out what Codes apply to that property. Not purchase and then expect to have laws changed for . . . Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 you. He said "I see the quality of my life being destroyed by economics and I oppose it ... I don't want to see Seal Beach like Manhattan Beach because it is economically feasibly to see it that way" . No one from the audience wishing to speak further, Chairman Fife closed the Publ~c Hearing. By ORDER OF THE CHAIR, Chairman Fife CONTINUED THIS PUBLIC HEARING to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of February 20, 1991, and requested staff to examine the issue of whether the topography of this lot in relationship to this intersection presents any unique circumstances regarding this property owner's privilege of safe access to public streets that might justify a finding. *** 12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #13-90 STORAGE SHED/LEISURE WORLD on NASSAU DRIVE RESOLUTION No. 1610 Commissioners Sharp and McCurdy excused themselves from this proceeding as they are shareholders in Leisure World, and left the City Council Chambers. Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Golden Rain Foundation, is requesting to construct a 25' x 50' metal storage shed on an existing storage lot located on Nassau Drive, Leisure World. Commission Comments Chairman Fife asked staff if the Leisure World workers are employed by the Golden Rain foundation. Mr. Curtis said they were in the past but believed they are now hired out. The equipment and supplied stored in the shed will be for the exclusive use within Leisure World; that's the only commercial use being made of this structure. Presently they store fertilizer, oil for lawn mowers in an open site there and they want it covered. Commissioner Dahlman asked about the entry to the storage shed. It would be a continuation of the existing use. Mr. Curtis clarified that this ~ section was actually written for the Oakwood Apartments and was re-reading of the .cm;}& section as it pertained to Oakwood Apartments was that it not be a commercial use which would be accessible for outside use. It could be conditioned that the applicant place a patio or a courtyard in front of the building. The zoning for that parcel is RHD-PUD. Commissioner Orsini noted the shed must be sprinklered and asked where the ventilation was. . . . Page 13 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 Mr. Curt1s replied that ventilation would be up to the plan checker of the City of Seal Beach. Chairman Fife asked if there would be a drain in the floor which might be subject to having oil etc. "in more than casual concentrations" disposed of down that drain? Mr. Whittenberg said an annual inspection by Orange County Fire Department is required on the storage of their flammable materials that might within the building (required by the building permit issuance process) but there is no requirements for sewering capacity like a filling station. As this request goes thru the plan check process and through the Orange County Fire Department certain conditions can be placed if felt they are needed based on the types of materials stored in the building. The Fire Department ascertains the materials are being stored in compliance of the Fire code. Public Hearing Howard McCurdy * 1320 Mayfield Road * Leisure World - said this building is intended for dry storage, such as spare refrigerators, washing machines, hot water heaters. All maintenance work of lawn mowers etc. is done in the maintenance shop at the other end of the compound. Roy Stone * 13080 Oak Hills Drive * Leisure World - In response to a question, staff advised this storage building will be 13 feet tall, two feet below the maximum allowed. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Condi tional Use Permit #13-90 subject to four Conditions through the adoption of Resolution No. 1610: 1. CUP 13-90 is approved for the construction of a 25' x 50' metal storage building on the existing storage lot located within the community gardens on Nassau Drive. 2. Fire sprinklers shall be installed throughout the building. 3. A fire hydrant shall be installed if required, upon review by Orange County Fire Department. Subsequent submittal of construction documents shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved in Conditional Use Permit #13-90. 4. MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 0 - 2 AYES: Orsini, Fife, Dahlman ABSTAIN: Sharp, McCUrdy . . . Page 14 - Planning commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 Chairman Fife called a recess from 10:20 p.m. to 10:25 p.m. 13. VARIANCE #5-90 1733 CRESTVIEW (RECONSIDERATION) RESOLUTION No. 1611 staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. A stop-Work-Order was issued on for a rear-yard deck in December 1988. The homeowner subsequently filed for a Variance (#5-90) which was heard and denied by the Planning Commission on October 3, 1990. The applicant appealed to the City council, who heard the appeal on November 26, 1990. The applicant provided the Council new information (a listing, by address, of several properties along Crestview Avenue which were illegal in some manner) which the City Council felt the Commission might want to review. The Council remanded Variance #5-90 back to the Planning Commission for further investigation and review. Staff explained the remand is for the Commission to determine if the list of other illegal properties is new information they did not previously consider and if that information is significant enough to warrant reconsideration of the Commission's previous determination. Mr. Cho reviewed the materials provided by Mr. Ralston. Staff investigated these properties along Crestview which were brought to staff's attention by Mr. Ralston. Staff sent letters to these homeowners. Staff inspected these properties --- thirteen of the twenty properties had rear or side yard encroachments by storage sheds. There were seven decks, six of which had no building permits including Mr. Ralston's, which come close to satisfying the rear and side yard setbacks but all of them do in some way encroach into the setbacks. Many of the property owners said they would, if forced to, remove the storage sheds so as not to encroach. Two homeowners said they would be willing to cut back their decks to meet the requirements. Staff is waiting for Commission director to change the ~ to allow the encroachments to remain, or to proceed with ~ enforcements. Staff recommends side yard setbacks not be changed because of light, air and fire separation. Arguments for these rear yard setbacks, arguments are that these properties abut raw land. Commission Concerns Commissioner McCurdy asked if the homeowners on the south side of Crestview had decks extending to the property line or is this only because there is vacant land out back (on the north side)? Mr. Cho said staff has not checked the south side of Crestview. Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Whittenberg why the City Council felt that the presence of other violations on Crestview should send this . . . Page 15 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 applicant back to the Planning Commission? Mr. Whittenberg indicated he felt the Council's intent was to allow the Commission time to review this more detailed information which was presented to Council but not to the Commission in that amount of detail. The Council did not indicate that information is new information or that it may change the Commission decision. Commissioner orsini said six decks were illegal and were built without permits. commissioner Dahlman reasoned the present owners may not have been the builders of the decks. And if they were the builders of the decks they may not have thought of the decks as structures but like cement patios which do not need building permits. Commissioner Dahlman said on "day one" many of these properties may have been owned by someone other than the present owner. Also, it's likely that when these homeowners built these decks they had no idea anything would be required "for two reasons: (1) if you put a flat wooden deck extending out your back door toward the property line ... you don't feel like you're putting a structure there with a view directly into your neighbors back yard and so you don't really feel like you're infringing on a setback even though I understand the current wording of the ~ is such that a flat deck is considered as much a structure as a two-story addition to your house. I think there's a problem with our ~ in that a flat deck is being treated differently than if it were paved ... you can pave all the way to your rear property line if it's flat. Whereas if you put a deck all the way to your rear property line ... is that a structure? Mr. Whittenberg clarified that if a person is putting concrete on your existing ground level, that's not considered a structure. In these cases, the patio deck may begin being flat but as it extends out toward the rear yard it can be several (12' to 15') above the natural ground level. It's a problem of topography but also a problem of the ~'s wording. Commissioner Dahlman said "I would first like to address the situation for everybody in Seal Beach, especially those people on flat ground, which is probably 98% or 97% where there's not a steep drop off. And then we can look at how the rule applies to the north side of Crestview and see if you don't feel that the playing field isn't level for these people. Because my understanding is that if you pave your backyard out to the property line that's not an encroachment on the setback if it's flat land. Because these people happen to live with a steep drop off in their rear yards they encounter problems that restrict their use of the land in a way that other people in town are allowed to use it because they wind up having to put a structure there that either a retaining wall, fill it with dirt and put pavement there. And in many cases that would be allowed". Mr. Whittenberg said he recalled a ten foot retaining wall would be allowed, which could be filled to that point and at that point pave; a terrace type Page 16 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 ~ design. Mr. Cho said those lots along the north side of Crestview are 25' deeper than the rest of the lots in the general area. Commissioner Dahlman said "I hope you are not suggesting the City of Seal Beach pick up 20% of their property tax bill because it's big. And they are paying taxes on that land. And they paid for it, they bought it and I think they're entitled to use it to the same extent that other residents of Seal Beach are entitled to use it. .. I think it applies to a whole lot of residences along Crestview not just to one. Therefore I think something ought to be corrected as in your recommendation I ..." "Couldn't we define a deck that's flat with the ground or flat with the general property line couldn't that be equated with pavement to the rear property line and why is that a structure, the same as two story house with a view looking in your neighbors bedroom? Why are they treated the same?" Commissioner Orsini questioned the fact that Mr.Ralston ignored the stop Work Order. The owner was informed they had to pull building permits. Why now are we looking at granting a Variance. ~ ~ Commissioner Dahlman stipulated to issues related to enforcement but not to this property. Commissioner Dahlman said "It is not our roll here to enforce the ~ except as it's presented here to us. On the issue being presented, is there grounds for issuing a Variance here. I hear your concern about Code enforcement and people not pulling (building) permits and I understand that concern and I'm fully with you. What I would like to see is a Code that represents a level playing field and then when people don't pull a permit than I think that they should be enforced. But when the ~ is unfair to them I can understand why people might tend not to get a permit sometimes". Commissioner Orsini countered that thought by using the example of Variance #6-90, the request for the driveway shortage --- "They are one foot off (and are) asking for a Variance. So basically they should do that without a building permit and wait for the law to change. If the garages go down to 18 feet in a couple of years or so fine, then they'll be legal. So they should build it without a permit. No. That's what the idea of a permit is. That's why a stop Work Order was issued. You can't ignore what was done". Commissioner Dahlman said "What was done was done --- it's over with. Can we now look to the future and be constructive about this? That's all I'm aSking". Mr. Orsini said "But you can't grandfather a violation". Commissioner Dahlman said "I'm not trying to grandfather anything. I'm trying to stipulate to various accusations that you may now make and will cloud the issue but I want to clear that out of the way so we can consider the issues that I raised". Commissioner Orsini said "It's not clouding it when it's in paragraph one". Mr. Whittenberg said the purpose of the matter before you this evening is to review the information that's provided and make a determination if that information is new and substantial enough to warrant looking again at your original recommendation to deny this request ...". Page 17 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 . Chairman Fife notes the many number of Code violations along Crestview probably are due to topography but also to the empty Hellman property in the back (no one has complained) and this would not impel me to reconsider my position with respect to the Variance application. The situation does suggest Crestview has special problems which might merit consideration similar to the homes that back onto high speed streets because of the noise. A ~ modification might be created for those kind of homes. Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. William Ralston * 1733 Crestview * Seal Beach - Said he has been a resident for seventeen years. He said he thought the original backyard setback was set for flat properties and for properties that backed up against one another. He suggested changing the municipal Code. He stressed some twenty or thirty properties on the north side of Crestview are unique as they are the only properties in Seal Beach with a rapid drop off and border on the Hellman properties. Chairman Fife said "My point that I was trying to make sir is I think perhaps a group of homes on Crestview that are unique but you are not unique within the Variance context because the Variance context is so restrictive that probably your most fruitful pursuit would be to try to get the ~ modified in such a way as to take into account the special problems of the Crestview topography. But it's very difficult for 1733 Crestview to be singled out as unique within the restrictive context of the Variance procedure. Mr. Ralston said he then asked the Commission to consider changing the ~. Mr. Ralston told Commissioner Orsini that when the stop Work Order was placed there was no further work done at all. Mr. Ralston said his deck was replacing an existing deck and some of the original pilings remain. Mr. Whittenberg asked if the previously existing deck extended out to the rear property line and elevated above the ground level? Mr. Ralston said "It was about two feet below the ground level and it did approach the rear property line, it was about four feet shy. This one is one foot shy... it was not elevated this high, it was about 1.5 feet lower". Chairman Fife said "I would not vote against you in some punitive sense because you ignored the stop Order. If you qualified for a Variance I would vote for your Variance. If you don't qualify for a Variance I don't vote for your Variance. And if that requires your tearing out a 30,000 foot deck that's a risk you took in ignoring the stop Order. But I don't view my function in considering a Variance application to punish you, that's somebody else's problem. I'm suggesting, that I think given the restrictive requirements of Variances that the better avenue is the ~ situation. I'm not terribly sympathetic to the fact that the Hellman Ranch property was vacant. Although obviously developing the Hellman Ranch property brings blood to a boil within the City, the possibility has always existed that you could have homes on the other side of your back yard ...". Mr. Ralston asked how he would get the Commission to consider a change to the~. Chairman Fife said the Commission must first request . . . . . Page 18 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 staff to prepare them a report on the basis of which the Commission might be able to recommend a ~ change to the City Council. Commissioner Dahlman agreed that inequities in the QQQg should be rectified and then enforce it. "If people disobey a fair .QQQ& then they ought to be enforced. But if there are inherent inequities in it then I think we need to suspend the enforcement for a time while we find out whether we should change the ~ or not and if so how...". commissioner Sharp wondered if, since the lots on the north side of Crestview are 25 feet larger than the lots on the south side of Crestview, the houses were originally sold for the same prices and if the extra 25 feet was never planned to be useable for living on because it was considered useless and the builder added the 25 feet to make the north lots comparable to the south side lots. Commissioner Dahlman said in general the lots on the north side of Crestview are selling for sUbstantially higher prices at this time. Commissioner Sharp said he wanted the original selling figures. Mr. Whittenberg said those figures would have been based on an estimate of the property value by the Orange County Assessor and not on an actual sale price. Those houses were built as a tract. Commissioner Dahlman said "My guess ... those homes on the north side have southern exposure, somewhat more light, so in addition to larger lots ... a vista type view... they were 15% to 20% more expensi ve. Chairman Fife said that even if the developer had thrown in the extra 25' with a proviso that this is unusable the problem that develops is that the cumbersome ~ enforcement procedure is such that gets quickly lost in the shuffle. The City needs some system where the Councilor Commission can make a determination that a ~ violation exists with respect to a property and record something against the title. Galen Ambrose * Seal Beach. CA - said to Commissioner Dahlman "Your argument, in my opinion, is totally ridiculous ... ignore what happened in the past and just move forward". Commissioner Dahlman said "I'm sorry ... you misconstrued ... I meant to acknowledge all of that, get it taken care of and then look at the issues that we can do something about. We were talking history and it was just inflaming the situation. I wanted to calmly and objectively approach the issues at hand". Mr. Ambrose said "We are not talking history. We are talking about a Variance application in front of you right now. That is not history". Commissioner Dahlman said "He is not applying to build without permits in this town. He is applying for permission to get a permit for his building after-the- fact". Mr. Ambrose said "He's applying for a Variance after-the- fact". Commissioner Dahlman said "He's not asking the City for permission to go without a building permit". Mr. Ambrose said "No, because he's already done that ... he's up here applying for a Variance ... I am amazed at your reasoning. Maybe I should be your neighbor and do something wrong. I don't know. Your reasoning just amazes me". Commissioner Dahlman further clarified that . . . Page 19 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 "Although it's Dr. Ralston's Variance application it is now quite clear there are a whole lot of homes on the north side of Crestview faced with the same topographical problems who also have done what they thought would be perfectly alright and they find themselves in violation of the~. I don't want to, in the heat of the moment, in any uniqueness of this particular Variance application, to ignore the interests of all those other people". Mr. Ambrose said he was addressing only Mr. Ralston's application --- nothing else. He suggested going through the Public Hearing process to change the municipal Codes in the right way --- not because somebody got caught and now are asking for a Variance and the Commission individually grants them. Damon Swank * 1685 Crestview. Seal Beach - urged the Commission to seriously consider and pursue Alternative #1, reevaluating setbacks on these particular properties as the setbacks serve no useful purpose. They back to undeveloped open space. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini that the additional information presented to the Planning commission this evening is not sufficient to warrant a re-evaluation of the Planning commission's recommendation on Variance 15-90. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 1 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife ABSTAIN: Dahlman Mr. Whittenberg advised the Commission that with this determination the matter will be referred back to the City Council for their ultimate decision on the appeal. Commissioner Dahlman said "I think there's no reason why we can't send recommendations to the City Council based on some of the things that have come to light. Which is there are two major inequities in the way the ~ reads and we really ought to do something about them". Mr. Whittenberg said that could be an appropriate determination for the Commission to make in the form of a motion. MOTION by ___ ;SECOND by to receive City Council authorization to instruct staff to proceed wi th reviewing the existing setback requirements along the north side of Crestview leading toward possible zone text amendments regarding rear yard setbacks and distance requirements. [This Motion was considered at the end of the meeting under commission Concerns]. Commissioner Sharp noted the staff is conducting a study on properties backing up to major arterials in regard to noise mi tigation. This study could result in the change in allowed . . . Page 20 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 height of fences and the size of rear yard setbacks Mr. Whi ttenberg said he hopes to have that report to the Planning Commission at their March 6, 1991 meeting. At a previous Commission meeting when discussing 1733 Crestview, it was decided not to include 1733 Crestview in the other study because the height of walls and reduced rear yard setbacks because those conditions were proposed to reduce noise generated by traffic on arterial streets. staff suggested 1733 Crestview be handled as a separate issue as it doesn't relate to the basic underlying concerns. commissioner Dahlman requested that "Pending a review of these provisions that enforcement against all these people be held in abeyance unt11 we can analyize this issues. I don't want ... I would like to see that enforcement is held in abeyance for a period of time until we can determine what is going to be allowed here". Mr. Whittenberg said he thought the two are closely related and should both go to the Council as joint requests. *** 14. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 11-91 MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN DISTRICT I RESOLUTION No. 1612 Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The effect of this proposed amendment will be to allow the large non-subdivided to subdivided to 25 feet wide lots to encourage the construction of single-family homes over multiple-family dwellings as the municipal ~ currently favors. It would not alter the total number of units which could legally be constructed in Old Town. Mr. Whittenberg advised the Commission on the two options before them, noting these options could be 'mixed-and-matched': 1. To amend the existing provisions of the sub-di vision ~ to exempt any project which sub-divides 4 parcels or less into a configuration which does not add existing parcels over what currently exists from paying any fee at all. 2. To require all sub-divisions to pay the fee but revise the fee to an amount that a developer is willing to pay rather than to go thru the process of building multi-unit project, renting the project out for five years, then coming in and converting it to a condo and not having to pay the fees at that time in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. Staff, responding to Commissioner Dahlman's question as to how other cities may be collecting a fee, said cities have additional . . . Page 21 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 fees placed on the issuance of a building permit. The City of Seal Beach places a fee of $327 on a building permit when a new unit is being added but this is not based on a sub-division but on a building permit. The State codes say that a condo conversion, you cannot charge a Quimby Act fee --- so they are charging some other type of fee. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Whittenberg if a third option could be considered: To not totally exempt subdivisions of four (4) or fewer lots that create no net increase in lots but rather charge those kinds of sub-divisions a flat fee of $10,000 per dwelling lot. And then charge a higher fee for sub- divisions that increase lots. Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. Kurt DeMeir *242 Fifth Street. Seal Beach - Stated his property would be affected by this zone change. He encourages single family development. No one wishing to speak further, Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini by the adoption of Resolution No. 1612, approve Zoning Text Amendment #1-91 thus recommending it to the city Council with the following correction: 5. When any lot or parcel in any zone contains a greater area than the required minimum lot area for the zone in which it is located, then said lot or parcel may be divided into individual lots provided each resulting lot contains the minimum required length, width and area for the zone in which it is located. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Fife, Dahlman *** . Page 22 - Planning commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 15. PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES (Continued) RESOLUTION No. 1613 staff Report Mr. curtis presented the staff report, which was continued from the Commission's January 16, 1991 meeting. [staff report on file in the Planning Department]. commission Comments commissioner Dahlman said he understood the loophole of building apartments and converting to condominiums after 5 years has been stopped by neighboring communities. He asked staff to find out how that was done and then incorporate that in Seal Beach. Mr. curtis said staff will telephone other cities to see what they are doing and if that was the Commission's opinion, staff would not recommend proposal #1 to the Council, therefore any sub-divisions would require the park fees exclusive of condo conversions. Chairman Fife said given the opportunity to collect some fees for the City's strapped bank account for parkland fees without putting the Hitchcock/DeMeir's "in the poorhouse, why not strike a compromise". . commissioner Sharp agreed that the fee schedule needed to be changed but for four lots or less sub-d1visions the fee should be much less. Commissioner Orsini, agreeing with Mr. Sharp, said the fees should be lowered. Stating the east beach is in trouble, he asked staff to research the ramifications of converting the City's beach from a regional park to a community park. Mr. Whittenberg said that type of change would require a General Plan amendment with Public Hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr.Curtis said the City's beach is now classified as "regional park". Mr. Whittenberg said that's a designation the City placed on the property in their General Plan to indicate the facility is used by persons living outside the City to a great extent. In that type of a designation, Quimby Act park monies cannot be used for rehabilitation or improvements to facilities because it's a regional facility and not a community/neighborhood park. If it was designated a community facility the Quimby Act fees could be used for maintenance and upgrading and provide new facilities. Commissioner Orsini indicated the down side may be the loss of potential County, State or Federal funds that could be brought into the beach area because it serves a larger public segment than just the city. . Chairman Fife asked of the 72.2 acres of proposed developed parklands what does that become if the Hellman Ranch property is not developed and the Hellman properties cancel the lease on the . . . Page 23 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 Gum Grove Park? Mr. Whittenberg said the City would lose 26 acres, dropping down to 52 acres. That would drop us below the demand of 3 acres per 1000 residents. So reclassifying the beach would keep the City at the 3 to 5 acres of park per 1000 City residents. Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. Marilyn Hastings * 121 12th Street. Seal Beach - said about one month ago the greenbelt was dedicated to the City as a park in perpetuity and the deed has been completed and the City of Seal Beach has accepted that deed. She indicated she discussed this with Mr. Whittenberg who is preparing a report on previous actions of the City Council re acceptance of the beach groin in 1959 - 1960 but has nothing to do with regional or community parks. Ms. Hastings said she and Mr. Whittenberg had discussed holding hearings and make the regional park a community park and use our park funds and then after those funds were depleted in repairing and doing what can be done to the beach, the City could turn around and make it a regional park again. But that doesn't seem the appropriate way to do things. She felt, after speaking with Mr. Whittenberg, that grant monies would not be forthcoming and perhaps making the beach a community park would release the Quimby Act park funds to do necessary repairs. She suggested it could be switched back to regional park if monies became available later. Chairman Fife asked Ms. Hastings how many parks are in the downtown area. She noted the greenbelt, Marina Park, Zoeter Place (ballpark), Eisenhower, green parks wi thin Bridgeport and the proposed Department of Water and Power (7 acres). Kurt DeMeir * 242 Fifth Street. Seal Beach - Said his understanding on the reason for park dedication fees was to develop funds for new parks as new families moved into an area. Park fees were first established in Seal Beach in 1976 the park fee per new unit was $660. The raise in fifteen years is outrageous. He felt the reason the State law exempts condo conversions from park fees is there were no additional families being brought into town. He felt the City Attorney's proposal for no park fees for sub- divisions of four units or less was along the same lines. Chairman Fife didn't agree with the assessment that condominium conversions don't bring new families into the area. They do. He felt the exemption for condos was probably due to astute lobbying by developers in Sacramento. No one wishing to speak further, the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments Chairman Fife asked Mr. Curtis if setting the parkland dedication fees based on the fair market value of raw land would result in $2700 per unit. Mr. Curtis said that was a rough estimate based . . . Page 24 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 on staff's estimated costs for the Hellman Ranch site as being bought as raw land. The fair market value would have to be reappraised in each instance. Mr. Fife asked if the Hellman Ranch site was available at $150,000 per acre? Mr. Whittenberg said that was staff's best estimate from some of the numbers we've heard discussed for the acquisition of that property. Commissioner McCurdy asked how staff determined fair market value? Mr. Whittenberg said that under the provisions of the ~ an appraiser would be hired to determine that figure for the city. Mr. Curtis said staff is recommending a fixed rate. If the City were to purchase vacant parkland it would be based on the value of the land at that time. MOTION by Sharp; --- _ to leave the existing fee structure in place based on 762 square feet of land area for sub-divisions of raw land wi thin the City of Seal Beach. For re-subdi vision of existing sub- di vided parcels establish a flat fee on those sub-di visions of $10,000 per lot. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND commissioner Dahlman asked Commissioner Sharp if he meant "dwelling unit". Commissioner Sharp said yes. Commissioner Dahlman said "For any fixed fee I would like to see it indexed to the median cost of real estate in the area so that twenty years from now it hasn't become totally insufficient for the needs". Commissioner McCurdy noted the Commission could review that fee yearly. Commissioner Dahlman said he was uncomfortable because this is a major decrease in the fees and "Whenever we consider something like this all we do is lower the fees". Chairman Fife said he was disturbed by the possibility that a large developer developing raw land might be required to pay fees of no more than $2600 per dwelling unit. Whereas the person in Old Town is really re-subdividing may pay as much $7500 per unit. "The dedication should be, at least for the developer of raw land, the higher of the price based on raw land as it's available or the fixed amount which applies for the four or fewer SUbdivisions". Mr. Whittenberg clarified that on a sub-division of raw land the City has the option of whether to accept a fee or take dedication of property. It is generally the position of the City to take dedication of land. commissioner McCurdy questioned the use of the term "dwelling unit" citing problems that could occur for mUlti-story building. Commissioner Dahlman said by using the word "dwelling unit" the Commission might avoid creating a new loophole for condo conversion. Chairman Fife supported using the term "dwelling unit" because mUlti-story would have more units and a lot more people. . . . Page 25 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Dahlman to adopt a modified version of staff-suggested proposal II with modifications: Add to paragraph a: If the ci ty were to accept fees in lieu of raw land itself that the dedication fees would be based on the greater of the value of available raw land or the minimum fees per dwelling unit extractable for conversions of four or fewer lots fixed at $7500 to $10,000. Chairman Fife said if there was a point where someone was building 45 units and there wasn't enough land available for land dedication to make a meaningful park and the City decided to opt for the fees --- should that developer of 45 units pay at the rate of $2500 per dwelling unit when someone downtown who is basically doing an internal lot line adjustment is paying $7500 per lot. For four (4) or fewer units we should have a fixed rate of $10,000. Commissioner Sharp asked what the figures would work out to if Hellman Ranch were developed? Chairman Fife said based on $150,000 per acre ... the City would get $2624 per unit if the City opted for the fees ... . Commissioner Sharp said that at $10,000 per unit it would be $3,290,000 (329 proposed homes). Mr. Whittenberg clarified that in that proposal is not to pay the fees but to provide the park facili ties themselves. In large projects the first goal of the City will be to obtain park land. Commissioner Sharp said with the present negotiations if the Mola proposal was built as proposed and the parks were given it would amount to more than $3,290,000. Chairman Fife agreed but noted that when the large developer buys land he pays less effective monies in park dedication fees because he has bought a greater volume of land at a lower price per acre and he's in a position to give the City something he couldn't otherwise give. But in the downtown area park land costs are prohibitive. "I think a person who comes in and develops 25 homes or 30 homes should pay more just because of the inefficiency in the whole process. All he can really do is give the City money but what can the City do with the money? Its got to go out and try to find something to buy with it and will pay through the nose for it". commissioner Sharp noted his motion failed for lack of a second. Chairman Fife said he would struggle through his comments for another motion. commissioner Dahlman said he likes Fife's motion if it were to use the term "dwelling units" and wondered if he could gather support for indexing it? commissioner Dahlman said nI'll second that with the proviso that the maker of the motion will accept it, I don't known. Commissioner Sharp asked if he meant that we reassess the fee every five years? Commissioner Dahlman said five years would be good, to recalculate the fee according to the median price of real estate? Mr. Whittenberg said this condition was legal to include. The difficulty with it is on . . . Page 26 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 what inflation index would be used. This will have to be reviewed with the City Attorney to be sure it's justifiable index. Commissioners Sharp and McCurdy said they felt it was not geared to an index but was to be reviewed by the Planning Commission every five years. Chairman Fife suggested a mandatory requirement as part of the resolution that it be reviewed periodically. Commissioner Sharp said he would like to change his Motion to include that the fee schedule be reviewed every five years. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Sharp if he would accept the provision for a minimum, i.e., should money be accepted for larger development then it wouldn't be left ... Commissioner Sharp said "I don't want to change the present system for large developments because it seems to be working just fine". Sharp's Motion was to keep the present system for large developments, put a flat fee of $10,000 on developments of four dwelling units or less, and to add that it be reviewed every five years by staff and Planning Commission. Commissioner Dahlman said "I'll SECOND that". Commissioner Orsini expressed raising the fees for large developments. Mr. Whittenberg restated that a land dedication would be required so a raise in fees would not impact them. Bixby shows a 7 acre park on Lampson Avenue in their proposal. The Commission discussed what they considered large developments and the fairness of the fee impacts on the larger developer versus the smaller developer. Commissioner Dahlman said he was under this misimpression that the larger developer was going to pay more under the existing fee schedule and if that's not true they should be subject to the minimum. Chairman Fife suggesting changing the figure from "four or fewer lots" to "fifty or fewer lots pay $10,000 per lot" ... the person gets to pay the same as the people in Old Town pay. Commissioner Sharp said he felt the park dedication fees as they are working now, according to what was agreed to by the Hellmans (whether it goes thru or doesn't) was far in excess of the $10,000 that we're charging on Fifth Street per unit. Mr. Whittenberg the Mola proposal would have required 5 - 6 acres of land for park facilities and Mola's proposal was for 26 acres. Mr. Whittenberg said there are 225 acres of Hellman Ranch minus the 149 acre proposal leaves 80 acres remaining. Thirty-five acres of the 80 acres is the retention basin which leaves 40 - 45 acres of net useable land for potential development. The monies collected must be used within a certain amount of time but in these types of cases where sub-division is occurring in a non-gated community area it's easier to find use for those funds. For a 50 lot subdivision including streets it would be 10 acres of land area; there are not many parcels in Seal Beach that size. Commissioner Dahlman said "So these fees aren't high enough". Mr. Whittenberg said the fees are $78,000 but the City hasn't collected any money on a sub-division since 1983. The general intent in Old Town is to encourage single family homes. The zoning is set up to only allow one house per parcel of land at this time on a 25' lot. On wider lots people are building multiple family units, renting . . . Page 27 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 for five years and under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, then converting to a condominium and they are exempt at that point from paying any fee at all. Staff's feeling is that if the fees are lowered to a reasonable amount a person might be willing to pay that fee up front and build detached single family homes. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Whittenberg "Why aren't they going to build more apartments if they can? Why would someone choose to build single family homes if he has the option to build apartments?" Mr. Whittenberg said because of the sales price and the return that you can get on developing a single family home in a beach area is very great compared to building rental units and maintain those, hold onto them for five years, try to find renters, and then at five years pay the cost to convert them to condos. Commissioner Sharp said "I'll change my Motion to have the fifty lots or less instead of the four lots ... to apply to the fee of $10,000 per unit and to leave the other for larger units as isn. Commissioner Dahlman said nI made a mistake by Seconding before and I have to abstain from Seconding this. I can't approve $10,000 for little guys and $2,700 for big guys. It's as simple as thatn. Commissioner Dahlman said "This measure really doesn't do justice to these people who probably shouldn't be paying any fees. I really don't like any of this". Chairman Fife said he would SECOND the Motion as it's a reasonable compromise. The big developer pays less in effect because he's dedicating land, he's passing on to the City comparable value because the City winds up with land for parks. The big developer may pay less money per dwelling unit but that doesn't necessarily mean the City gets less value. The City has the option of choosing the fees or the dedication of land. Mr. Whi ttenberg said this Motion would put the City in the position of saying that for any sub-division of fifty lots or less the City will collect a fee, there will be no land dedication in those cases. Fifty lots or more the City retains the option to do whatever it feels is most appropriate in given the circumstances before it. Commissioner Dahlman asked what happened in Leisure World? Commissioner Sharp explained at that time the park had to be close enough for the people who paid the fees to use the park. There was no land available in Leisure World, only across the street on the Navy property and the Government wasn't going to sell it. So there was no place to buy the land. The wording of the Subdivision Map Act said the park had to primarily serve the residents of the sub- division and now the word "primarily" has been removed from the law and the park just needs to serve the needs of the sub-division. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Fife to recommend to the City Council staff proposal II with the following amendments: a. Leave the parkland dedication fee schedule as shown in Section 21-32 of the City'S municipal ~. . . . Page 28 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 b. Create a fixed parkland dedication fee schedule of $10,000 per unit for sub-divisions of fifty lots or less. This fee schedule is to be reviewed every five (5) years by the Planning Department staff and Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, Mccurdy, Fife, Dahlman *** IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one in the audience came forward to speak during this segment of the meeting. VII. STAFF CONCERNS 16. VARIANCE #4-90 (McDONALD'S RESTAURANT) staff Report Mr. Whittenberg said McDonald's request for enclosing their outdoor patio dining area, based on discussion at City Council and Planning Commission meetings, has been folded into the Planning Department's study on office commercial uses in retail centers and the parking study. Additional updates will be provided. 17. MINOR PLAN REVIEW #4-90 @ Al16 SURFSIDE staff Report Mr. curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant has requested to place windows in the proposed attic. Staff recommends the Commission conditionally approve the placement of three (3) non-operable windows in the attic area. MOTION by Sharp: SECOND by orsini to approve additional request to Minor Plan Review #4-90 subject to the five (5) conditions outlined in the staff report. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Fife, Sharp, Mccurdy, Dahlman Bill Bruten * B61 Surfside - said he built this attic and indicated the applicants told him they genuinely were using the attic for storage and had no plans to use it as habitable space. He said the applicants were willing to sign a deed restriction to that effect. Page 29 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 .. **. MINOR PLAN REVIEW #3-90 1305 SEAL WAY Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg said this is a request for a slight modification to Minor Plan Review #3-90. The applicant was approved to build an addition to his structure with a deck on the second floor which was not to be covered. This request is to cover his second floor deck in the exact same way as the structure immediately next door to him -- with a frame and sky lights above it just to provide protection to the people on the deck. It was not part of the original submission but complies with all Code requirements. It is not above the height limit. MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Sharp to approve Minor Plan Review #3-90 with the modification the second floor deck is enclosed. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, Fife, McCUrdy, Dahlman VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS . Commissioner Sharp asked about the height of the fence being built on Seal Beach Boulevard. Mr. Cho said the fence was permitted and a eight foot (8') fence is allowed. Commissioner Orsini asked for support for the east beach. Commissioner Orsini asked for a staff report to help the parking downtown to help the merchants. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by McCUrdy to recommend to the Ci ty Council authorize and direct the staff to conduct the necessary investigation and report to the Planning Commission for consideration of possible ~ zoning text amendments regarding grade and whether a deck is a structure. And hold in abeyance any ~ enforcement along the north side of Crestview until the issues have been examined. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, McCUrdy, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman . Chairman Fife recommended to the City Council that they authorize and direct staff to prepare a report to the Planning Commission to come up with a more efficient, more streamlined, less cumbersome method of accomplishing municipal ~ enforcement other than the present criminal misdemeanor process. Specifically a process which would involve a determination by the Commission that a given property is in violation of the ~ and a recording of a notice a . . Page 30 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 thereof against that property as a means of getting something going on this kind of problem rather than always having to resort to a criminal proceeding. Mr. Whittenberg said staff is currently pursuing this issue and staff will ask the City Attorney's Office to finish their reports to staff as soon as possible. IX. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 12:55 a.m. Respectfully Submitted: ~o..-.~c.--.____ Jo n Fillmann Executive Secretary Planning Department THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. *** The Planning commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 were approved by the Planning Commission on February 20, 1991. ~