Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1991-02-20 el . a, . .JI CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA * FEBRUARY 20, 1991 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. SCHEDULED MATTERS IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of February 6, 1991 2. Resolution No. 1592 - To Be signed Re: CUP 112-90 * Super Saver Cinema 7 3. Minor Plan Review 11-91 201 Second Street V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Variance 16-90 (Reconsideration) 1140 Catalina Resolution No. 1609 VI. STUDY SESSION 5. Consideration of Municipal ~ section 28-2407 , Enlargements or Structural AI terations to Non-conforming Residential Buildings and Uses. 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 VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 20, 1991 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of February 20, 1991 was called to order by Chairman Fife at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Dahlman led the Pledge of Allegiance. II. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Orsinl, 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 CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 1991 MOTION by Dahlman; Commission Minutes corrections: SECOND by Sharp to approve the Planning of February 6, 1991 with the following Page 4: Paragraph 4, add the word "not" to read "The fact that Mr. Brown spent money should not make ...". Page 5: Paragraph 6, clarify "Commissioner Sharp said from listening to Al Brown speak that he " by adding "(AI Brown)" after the word "he". paqe 7 : Condi tion 9, add the word "rent" after " include in the lease/rent agreement ...". to Page 9: Condition 10, add the word "rent" after "... to include in the lease/rent agreement " . .. . . . . Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 Page 12: commissioner Dahlman said he was concerned about any increase in the length of time of oil storage and related products because that would require an Environmental Impact Report. He said he was assured that there would not be any increase in time of storage. He wants this added to page 12. 2. RESOLUTION No. 1592 SUPER SAVER CINEMA SEVEN Resolution was signed. 3. MINOR PLAN REVIEW #1-91 201 SECOND STREET staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report which is a request by Richard Kempster and Carol Llewellyn to remodel the kitchen and does not enta11 the addition of any square footage. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. MOTION by Sharp: SECOND by McCurdy to approve Minor Plan Review #1-91 with three conditions set forth in the staff report. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Fife, Dahlman V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. VARIANCE 16-90 (Reconsideration) 1140 CATALINA RESOLUTION No. 1609 staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. This Variance application was continued from the February 6th Planning Commission meeting. The applicants wish to relocate the entrance to their garage from the side entry to a front entry. In so doing they would be one foot short on the front yard setback. The City Attorney's opinion of Section 28-403 said once a non-conforming garage's parking area is modified the garage must be brought up to~. Staff surveyed approximately 86 lots wh1ch were on the Hill, the Cove and Gold Coast to determine if unique physical conditions were present at 1140 Catalina which would warrant granting this Variance. Staff . . . Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 presented an exhibit, a color coded map showing which lots had dr1veways at intersections, lots with grade differentials, lots with side entry garages and lots at controlled intersections. The lot, 1140 Catalina, is unique by being located 75 feet past an intersection, having a 2-4 foot grade differential, a side entry garage. This uniqueness does not preclude the property from providing the required front setback or garage depth whether the garage has a front or side entry. staff noted the proposed addition is 2,042 square feet, increasing the house from 1,212 square feet to 3,254 square feet. Staff presented a site plan with a color-coded overlay showing what the applicant proposed for the property. Staff recommended denial of this Variance requested based on the applicants' inability to meet the three findings 1n Section 28-2502. commission Comments Chairman Fife asked if the depth measurement for garages in the City had changed over the years? Mr. curtis replied no, that when the Hill, College Park East and West areas were built the garage depths were 20 feet. One or two models on the Hill did not conform to the required garage measurement for one reason or another. In this case, the stub wall was in the middle of the garage which made the garage inadequate in width. One model has about 19 feet in depth. Because of that, the ~ was amended to allow structural alterations to those structures that were left as built so the owners wouldn't have to go through the Variance procedure for alterations to the house. All these homes were tract, not custom homes. When the homes were built they went through the building permit/inspection process but somehow some slipped through with short garages. Commissioner Dahlman said he thought there were about 7 floor plans for the Hill area homes with mirror images. Mr.Curtis said about one-third or one-half of the garages are non-conform1ng. Commissioner Dahlman said one reason for the setback from the street was "so you don't get the feeling you're driving through Manhattan when you drive through the neighborhood". He indicated the garages on the Mola Development Co. proposal were 8 feet from the street. Staff said they would have to re-check those plans but thought that was for a side-entry garage; 10 feet is currently required. Commissioner Dahlman felt the increased cost was a concern but cost was not a criteria in the consideration of granting a Variance. Mr. Whittenberg advised that there are very definite criteria in the municipal ~ that must be considered in granting a Variance and economic costs are not one of those criteria. What must be looked at, under the provisions of law, is if there's a way to physically place it on the property, then a Variance should not be granted. The issue of what can be done practically has been . Page 4 - Planning commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 researched by staff and indicates this is an unusual property due to its location to the street, the intersection and the driveway. However, there is nothing relating to the property itself that prevents having the structure with the necessary setbacks. The lot is not unusually shaped --- not pie shaped, not a short lot. CommJ.ssioner McCurdy said he could not find any other short driveways anywhere else in that neighborhood and he said he didn't feel the Commission should start at this time. commissioner Dahlman said "Mr. McCurdy, does that include the Mola project?" Commissioner McCurdy replied "As far as I'm concerned it most certainly does. The Mola project, I presume, is going to be built under the present City Codes". Mr. Whittenberg advised the issue is the project that's before you in relation to the neighborhood in which that home is located. Commissioner Dahlman said "I would hate to force these people to live with a 10 foot rule and then have it voted to be 8 feet because I really don't think that's what people want. People don't want to feel like they're driving through Manhattan around here". staff advised the municipal ~ requires 18 feet and if this Variance were granted the applicants would have a 17 foot setback. . Chairman Fife, referencing Section 28-2502 of the ~, item #2, regarding the words "location or surroundings", if staff interpreted the word "location" to include the location of the lot within the community and also the original improvements within and upon the lot. Mr. Whittenberg said this could be taken into consideration --- the location and the surrounding circumstances. Therefore the street situation, slope of the driveway would be relevant factors to consider. The Commission discussed moving the bearing wall. Commissioner McCurdy said the cost of removing of the garage footings and supporting of the load... "will not be any substantial part of the total cost of this new construction unless the architect convinces me otherwise". Public Hearing Susan Perrell * 1140 Catalina - said that at the last Commission hearing she felt that it was felt that by granting them a Variance to shorten the garage or driveway 12 inches it would be "granting us a special privilege". In dispute of this "special privilege concept" she offered new evidence: . Driveways - She, her husband and their architect measured driveways on the Hill, finding 14 non-conforming driveways that by visual inspection appear to be 16 feet long from the garage door to the sidewalk. Thus calculating about 1/3 of the homes on the Hill have much shorter driveways than the one they are requesting. So they are not requesting a special privilege. . Page 5 - Planning commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 On several Hill houses have had structural modifications made to the garages. "These are houses that I guess went back and were reviewed before they did other structural things to the garage, changing it around. So I suppose that these houses could have moved back their garage into their backyard or something but they are still non- conforming. Chairman Fife asked if the 16 foot driveways are front or side entry. Ms. Perrell said they were all front entry garages. Non of the driveways measured had hardships like street access problems, at intersections. Garages - Ms. Perrell said they were told a lot of the garages on the Hill were non-conforming. Staff informed them of ~ Section 28-403. She started out thinking the non-conforming garages were grandfathered in but found instead that the ~ was changed after building to allow owners with non-conforming houses to not bear the cost of tearing down bearing walls. Ms. Perrell indicated there was a slant in the staff report implying that they were weal thy homeowners because they were adding 2,042 square feet. She explained they moved to Seal Beach from Bakersfield and experienced a large cost difference in purchase price. . She stated "We really believe we're covered in the ~, there's nothing in the ~ that specifically states that since we're altering the parking area that we would not be under Section 28-403. We asked an attorney to look at that also and he just couldn't understand how people could structurally alter their non-conforming garages and we couldn't just because we're changing the orientation of a parking space. I think there's a little bit of discretion there. I want to go back to the last time when we had the argument on the roll up garage and we asked for discretion. You all said that you were very disinclined to apply discretion because you really wanted to apply the full to ~ and not read things into the ~. If we're not reading things into the ~ then we are one of these non-conforming properties who can make structural additions to the garage without having to bring it up to ~ ... we think we fall into the intent and purpose and letter of the ~". She said if the Commission wanted they could gather additional data on homes to support their findings. She said they continue to experience safety problems with pulling out of their driveway. . Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Curtis about interpretation Section 28-403, reviewing the City Attorney's interpretation. Ms. Perrell said she understood that homes having non-conforming garages that made structural modifications were free and clear because they . . . Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 didn't alter the actual parking orientation. Mr. Sharp said to Ms. Perrell "You sounded as though you felt they had changed the garage". "They did. They structurally changed the garage which is perfectly acceptable according to Barry". Mr. curtis said that as long as the parking area is not touched alterations can be done to the house. Ms. Perrell said she felt they could find those houses where people had built to the stub wall. Commissioner McCurdy asked Barry Curtis that "You wandered around all the neighborhoods and you didn't find any short driveways? I would like to have a list of addresses of this place because I wandered around the neighborhoods too". Mr. Curtis said staff did not check every single driveway on the Hill. We were driving around and looked at some that looked to be obviously short but they were 18 feet. Commissioner McCurdy said they looked short to him but he got out and measured and they were 18 or 19 feet. Mr. Curtis said that's what happened to staff also but he would not declare there are not some because some garages were built at the wrong depth. However, staff did not find any short driveways and would have to go back out and do a more in-depth study. Paul Treece * 1140 Catalina - said that according to what Barry curtis told him a non-conforming garage is 18 - 19 feet wide. You can modify the house structurally, you can put windows in the garage, remove the garage roof, enlarge the size of the garage but you cannot change the parking orientation to non-conforming in different dimensions. He didn't agree with the~. He understood staff to say "You can't mess with the garage. If you do it has to be brought up to~. That's not what has happened. Everyone has been allowed to make modifications as long as they kept the garage 19' x 18' and kept the parking orientation as is. Commissioner McCurdy asked to be furnished with a list of addresses. commissioner Dahlman said staff indicated 1140 Catalina is a unique property. There is a lot of work that can be done to a garage without a Variance. Mr. Curtis said the garage modifications allowed under Section 28-403 are a new roof, a structure over the existing garage, alter parts of the garage that are not part of the parking area. Mr. Curtis noted that when alterations are made to the parking area of a garage which create a new non-conformity has not been allowed. Ms. Perrell said now her garage is 375.15 square feet and would become 475.0 square feet. Mr. Whittenberg noted it becomes a much wider garage but the depth is still too short and that's the issue. commissioner McCurdy stated his understanding of this Variance was a request for a shorter driveway and had nothing to do with the conformity of the garage. Mr. Whittenberg said the issue is inter-related. The wording in section 28-403 says "provided the minimum size of an existing non-conforming parking space" and the existing parking spaces are requesting to be changed to a different situation. Ms. Perrell said "That's the only caveat. We will have the minimum size parking spaces". Mr. Whittenberg said "But you're changing the existing parking spaces . . . Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 to a different situation ... it says "an existing parking space" ... and that's where the interpretation of the ~ has come from over the years. That as long as you leave the parking spaces in the orientation they were as part of the original construction of the home that is what this ~ section relates to. Not once you start changing that orientation". Ms. Perrell said the QQQg says "That might be how you interpret it but I don't see that in the ~ and neither does our attorney". Commissioner Dahlman reviewed why the applicants want to change the parking orientation, noting their safety concerns and a list of signatures from their neighbors who favor their request. Commissioner McCurdy indicated they also want to build part of their new living room out into the present space where they turn to get into the garage. Chairman Fife asked Ms. Perrell how much it would cost to tear down and rebuild the bearing wall in the garage; she indicated $20,000. She said she does not have blueprints for the remodel and no bids for their budget. Tom Zahlten. Architect from Brent Sears Architects - said he didn't believe the issue is how much it would cost to move the wall back 12 inches. The remodel is so comprehensive that it's almost to a point where it won't be feasible to do a remodel. The next step is a demolition. When Ms. Perrell said $20,000 that figure is a fair assumption not knowing what will occur when the structure is torn into. The wall in question is a main bearing wall in the house and defines the grade difference between the finished floor elevation inside the house to the finished floor elevation to the garage. Mr. Zahlten drew a diagram on the chalk board explaining further the construction problems. Chairman Fife said he was inclined to approve the Variance for a number of reasons. But in view of the City Attorney's position it isn't crystal clear that changing the orientation of the parking area is really mOdifying the parking area. He said he had difficulty with the concept of Old Town residents rebuilding structures which are grossly short of parking, over density, evading the setbacks and they expand it and that's just fine. But up in the residential low density zone if a person wants to avoid an enormous expense to meet a technical requirement of the municipal Code it can't be done. The Planning commission is so loose in the Old Town area and so exacting in other areas of the City. He felt this Variance qualified, especially when reading the policy-setting preamble to the Variance procedure: When practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent with this Chapter, results of the strict and literal interpretation of enforcement of the provisions the Planning Commission shall have the . . . Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 authori ty to grant, on such conditions, as it may determine a Variance. If the preamble modifies and helps the Commission interpret the implementing restrictions then the Commission can begin to take into consideration practical diff1culties such as substantial costs of moving bearing walls in comparison to the public benefit gained from that substantial cost. When the tracts were built "there were homes that went up. Probably due to the lack of enough staff help at the time but we have homes that were built non-conforming with the ~ that applied at that time. And I think another factor we can consider is the location of the originally built improvement on the property which was apparently built in good faith all around; we are not talking about a bootlegged property. I'd be inclined to think that that's another consideration we should take into account. How was the existing improvement placed on property including its bearing walls and footings. I think I would agree wi th Mr. McCurdy, that if given my choice between an 18 foot driveway or a 19 foot garage length I'd prefer the longer driveway length and the shorter garage. I would be inclined to grant the Variance on condition that you put a roll up door in. Those are my preliminary comments". Charles Antos * 328 17th Street. Seal Beach - Said he wrote this municipal ~ section and wanted to comment on the building of the Hill area houses. He said they were built under ~ 406. At that time the City required tracts 2590, 2591 and 1817 to have one parking space per dwelling unit. To make the houses more sellable the builder put in two parking spaces in most homes. There were some homes, about six, built with a one car garage. That was legal at the time. The houses were built with two types of garages, front and side-entry. The front entry drives were required to be 18 feet back from the front property line. The side-entry garages that were required to be 10 feet back from the property line but went in at anywhere from 10 for 15 feet depending on what the architect, Cremidorius, decided on his plans. He understood that before he was employed at the City of Seal Beach some side entry garages were changed to front entry by Variances. A lot of the houses on the Hill were built with sub-standard garages according to today's 20'x 20' measurement. That's where Section 403 came in --- to allow people to add onto their house without having to modify bearing walls ... it was not to allow someone to take a sub- standard garage and make it sub-standard in some other way and say that's alright. That was not the reason why that ~ section was written nor why the Planning Commission and the City Council put that in the~. Mr. Antos referenced ~ Section 28-2202, Clarification of Ambiguity: If ambiguity arises concerning the appropriate classification of a particular use within this chapter or if ambiguity exists with respect to the interpretation of any provisions within this chapter, it shall be the . . 'e Page 9 - Planning commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 duty of the Planning commission to ascertain all pertinent fats and by resolution of record set forth 1ts findings and its 1nterpretations. Such resolution shall be forwarded to the City Council and the City Council's determination on the matter shall govern. He felt that if the Commission recognized this as a Variance request and wished to deal with it as such fine. But if the interpretation of the ~ is to be changed that should be dealt with as a separate issue. No one wishing to speak further for or against this matter, Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments Chairman Fife asked Mr. Whittenberg what municipal ~ section provides that if you modify a property you must bring it up to current building codes? Mr. Whittenberg said the non-conforming sections of the municipal Codes would cover that issue plus then just the general development standards for the particular zone set forth the current criteria for construction in that zone. Mr. Whittenberg reminded the Commission that this Variance request considers a variance from the setback requirement. It has not been advertised as a Variance to vary from the required depth of the parking spaces. If the Commission w1shes to consider that it would have to be re-advertised and re-Noticed. The present Variance request would be amended and would come back to the Commission as an alternative proposal to grant a Variance (1) on the setback or (2) on the garage size or (3) grant no Variance. Mr. Whittenberg said the staff report has sufficient information for the Commission to grant the Variance if they desire to do so. The staff report also indicates staff does not necessarily agree that that's the best choice to make in regard to the current QQgg provisions, but the Commission is the authority to interpret the~. Mr. Curtis advised it would be re-scheduled for the Commission's March 6th meeting. commissioner Sharp added that he would like to see the driveways longer and have the garage the shorter dimension. He noted the economic factors cannot be considered in granting a Variance. commissioner Orsini and Chairman Fife discussed certain differences between Old Town and other areas in the City. Chairman Fife indicated the was too much difference between how the Old Town area is treated. Chairman Fife said he felt Variance #6-90 would not be detrimental to this community and the Commission is almost forced by the laws to deny it. Chairman Fife asked the applicant if they had a preference would they want a shorter garage and a standard driveway length? . Page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 Mr. Treece said they would go either way. This amended Variance would be heard on March 6, 1991. MOTION by Dahlman: SECOND by McCUrdy to request Variance #6-90 be amended to a Variance on the garage depth and re- advertised for that request. To be agendized for the March 6, 1991 meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, McCUrdy Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the Public Hearing will be continued and staff will re-Notice the purpose for that hearing. Chairman Fife called a recess from 8:50 p.m. to 9:05 p.m. STUDY SESSION 5. CONSIDERATION OF MUNICIPAL ~ SECTION 28-2407, ENLARGEMENTS OR STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS TO NON- CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES staff Report ~ Mr. Fife inqu1red if during the 1984 - 1985 consideration, there was discussion regarding the immpact of Section 28-210 on the proosed changes to the Code. Mr. Wh1ttenberg presented the staff report [Staff report on file in the Planning Department], saying the issue of expansions of existing non-conforming mUlti-family residential structures came to further examination during the processing of Minor Plan Reviews for 123 Eighth Street and 601 Ocean Avenue. Mr. Whittenberg said there is currently no formal appeal proces under the Code for the Minor Plan Review process. He discussed the two urgency ordinances adopted by the City Council. The purpose of the Study Sessions is to provide the Planning commission and the interested public an opportunity to review with City staff the current ~ provisions, their prior history and development and to decide if added research or amendments to the Code are necessary to make the process more reasonable to the Council and Commission and allow for a better review process. Mr. Whittenberg described the formulation process the City went through in mid-1984 through late 1985. Commission Comments ~ Mr. Whittenberg said there was no interpretation of "bedroom" because there was simply no discussion found in the minutes. He researched all the past staff reports, minutes, ordinances and no . . . Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 reference was found on the interplay of the definition of "bedroom" as to how the ~ interpreted the provisions at that time. There was just no discussion about it. What was adopted in 1974 was a Conditional Use Permit process which allowed expansions as to what rooms could be added. Charles Antos * 328 17th street, Seal Beach - Said that in 1972 the parking requirement was not two parking spaces per dwelling unit. It was one space for a bachelor apartment and 1~ spaces for a two bedroom unit. The definition of "bedroom" came about because owners of multiple family units were trying to achieve a lower parking requirement by calling certain rooms "music rooms", "studies" etc. The Planning Commission and City Council said a distinction must be made and therefore a definition came forward. Labeling rooms differently on the plans clearly didn't matter and those rooms were counted as "bedrooms". Subsequently, the requirement was changed to two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Mr. Whittenberg said that major issues tonight are (1) how do we deal with Minor Plan Reviews and (2) what types of criteria are used to judge the proposals for remodels. Mr. Whittenberg said he had spoken with Planning Commission and City Council members who worked on this issue in 1984 - 1985. Their feeling was that the 10% criteria was changed from size to allowable building area but a cap was still in place. Mr. Whittenberg suggested the Commission take testimony from persons in tonight's audience and instruct staff to proceed as deemed appropriate. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Whittenberg if review of the previous minutes had raised conflict between the density goals of the Old Town area --- extending the life of the older non-conforming structures and moving toward single family dwelling. Was there a philosophical discussion or a decision made? Mr. Whittenberg replied that the conflict was resolved by the existence of the present Ordinance. The present Ordinance says we would like single family dwellings but on those non-conforming properties, rather than letting them deteriorate because we will not allow rehabilitation a policy decision was made that the City recognize they are non-conforming and that's not the long term intent of the General Plan, but we don't want them to deteriorate to a tear down situation. There were about fifteen to twenty meetings over nine months with lots of discussion. The issues have not changed over time, other than bringing more attention to the ultimate size buildings that they may be changed to. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Whittenberg if his review of prior minutes showed discussion of property tax implications to the City? To allow properties to be substantially rebuilt in place at a tax ~ . . . Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 increment of $30 per square foot added and how that compared to having the property torn down and rebuilt? Mr. Whittenberg said there was no discussion in the minutes. Chairman Fife gave an example: a 1500 square foot property in Old Town is torn down and rebuilt to 2000 square feet. That property would be taxed on the fair market value by Orange County. However, if a 1500 square foot property in Old Town was rehabilitated by 500 square feet to 2000 square feet, the Orange County Tax Assessor would tax only on the 500 square feet added. Mr. Whittenberg said he was not sure that was correct and would check with the Tax Assessor's Office as their practices have changed over the years. Proposition 13's value is based on a sales price. If there's no sale, the tax is on estimated value. Staff will report back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sharp said he was concerned that the public audience was small tonight and he had expected to see certain people who would want to participate in this Study Session. He suggested staff re-advertise a continuation of this Study Session by placing a large ad in all the newspapers, not something small in for formal legal notices. Mr. Whittenberg said this would be done. He did indicate a notice was FAX'd to all major newspapers regarding tonight's meeting. Commissioner Dahlman asked if the ~ sections apply City-wide. Mr. Whittenberg said yes, all ~ sections apply City-w~de but most non-conforming provisions apply in the Old Time area, due to the type of existing units. Chairman Fife said the Commission will take what public testimony is available tonight and continue the Study Session to another meeting when the meeting has been more thoroughly advertised. Public Hearing Charles Antos * 328 17th Street. Seal Beach Agreed with commissioner Sharp, that many more people, those most affected, will want to get involved in this issue and that staff should get a news article out and not a paid advertisement. He noted six years have elapsed with that time to evaluate what the current municipal ~ provisions are and what you have experienced from them. He indicated that although the City has a Disaster Clause it ignores that there should be a provision allowing properties in flood zones to place their properties on raised foundations without any penalty. This effects properties from 12th Street to Seal Beach Boulevard and from Pacific Coast Highway to the beach as these are the low areas of town. Secondly, Mr. Antos said that the City Council will be discussing Urgency Ordinance 837 Monday, February 25th. There used to be a provision in the Code prohibiting expansions of non-conforming buildings that are non- conforming solely due to substandard yards and open space. He favored not prohibiting the expansion of these buildings provided the expansions meet the current ~ setback requirements. . Page 13 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Antos questions on flood levels and noted Surfside Colony was not in declared to be in a flood zone. Mr. Antos said some properties in town lie below the high flood marks --- that's why there's a twenty-five foot sand berm between the pier and Seal Beach Boulevard. The city has records on public property that has been flood damaged. These records were prepared for the Federal Government. Mr. Whittenberg said staff will provide additional information to the Commission on FEMA maps, which will include areas subject to 100 Year Floods, 500 Year Floods and Outside 500 Year Flood levels. They will discuss where the heights are measured from. Riva Olson * Seal Beach - Said she hopes the Comm~ssion and City is not going back to Zoning Text Amendment #2-84. Ms. Olson said she worked on that committee and has tapes of the meetings for assistance to the Commission. She said she was against blight but felt there should be a limit to expansions and density. She felt people should be allowed to rehabilitate their non-conforming properties. Ms. Olson indicated that when owners purchased their properties they may not have wanted to tear them down in thirty years and may want to rehabilitate those buildings and that should be their right. . The Commission discussed the evolutionary process that took place in those meetings to arrive at a final decision. Commissioner Dahlman indicated that zoning should be consistent and fair for all neighbors. Mitzie Morton * 153 13th Street. Seal Beach - Said she favors low density. As an owner of a tri-plex on two lots plus four units on a double lot she stated she had newly poured foundations removed when she realized the density that would create. Ms. Morton stated she participated in the workshops on this issue and said the project was overwhelming. They did not discuss setbacks, and wanted minimum expansion. She said alleys should conform to width to enable service trucks to get through. She felt no third stories should be built in the Old Town area even if the lot is wide enough. She indicated that many mUlti-family properties were purchased as income properties but now will be sold for the value of the land. Ms. Morton said the Old Town area provides apartments for young people, pensioners et cetera and if the multi- family properties are torn down and single family houses are built it will result in a wealthy, hi-class ghetto without yards and sun. She said the low density zoning was preferred because it allowed yards and sun. with the types of houses being built now, you might as well have duplexes. Dave Potter * 1007 Seal Way. Seal Beach - said he too participated in the 1980 hearings. He owns a duplex and is satisfied with the . way things are. He urged the Commission to set a def ini te . Page 14 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 timetable for this issue to be resolved so property owners could make their plans. . Charles Antos * 328 17th street. Seal Beach - Said he supported Mitzie Morton's statements, especially on economics. He felt some of the larger mUlti-family properties, like the 23 units on 7th Street and the 13 units on 1st Street, would continue to be operated as apartments but smaller mUlti-family properties would be sold for land values. He urged ~ provJ.sions that would allow for safe and sanitary units and the owners being allowed to re- roof, put in new plumbing but perhaps not expand. Chi Kredell * 1633 Seal Way. Seal Beach - Said he felt the Planning Commission was "out of line totally". He said the Commission kept approving small additions until they were no longer minor. He agreed that the proposals for 123 8th Street and 601 Ocean Avenue were not minor additions. He said there were zoning laws and ordinances passed previously, so when the Commission approves new expansions that obliterates those prior rulings. He told CommJ.ssioner Dahlman that people in Old Town don't want to expand on 25 foot lots. People want down zoning, with air space --- an area where you could move to and not have apartments. He suggested allowing mUlti-family units to upgrade, like redoing a kitchen. He felt the lack of parking was unreasonable. He strongly suggested the City hired a full-time municipal ~ enforcer because they are "spinning their wheels" without one. He described City properties that he knows of that have obvious ~ enforcement problems but gave no addresses. He mentioned developers that build single family dwellings only to add granny flats and they are now duplexes. Commissioner McCurdy said the ~ has loopholes stemming from 1984 and this Commission is trying to plug those loopholes. commissioner orsini indicated there's a "Catch 22" here. He felt a cap should be placed but felt the cap hurts the small owner. It's the large expansions that are giving the problems. He said it may come down to separating what can be done to properties and how should the caps be calculated for the various properties. He said some Minor Plan Reviews are "minor" in word only and are actually major expansions --- but that they are still minor legally. On a major plan review parking is not mandatory. A Conditional Use Permit is required and allows the builder to go over the 10%. the Planning Commission has some authority over parking J.f findings can be made but it is not a requirement of the CUP application. Commissioner OrsJ.ni noted that in Simi Valley they have strong code enforcement which is handled by fines and sentencing. The code enforcement officer prosecutes the cases. . . . . Page 15 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 Mr. Whittenberg said he 1S hearing the Planning Commission say (1) allow minor expansions up to a certain limit and go ahead without a long review process and (2) once an expansion is above the cap the builder must provide one parking space per unit on that lot. Chairman Fife called a five minute recess. Mitzie Morton * Seal Beach - Said we should encourage one garage per unit. Staff could research how many properties this would effect. We don't want high density --- like a second story being added to four units on a 25 foot lot with only two garages. commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Whittenberg if he would provide him with a copy of the (referenced) Apartment Owners Association of Orange County report. Ms. Morton said some of the apartment owners called in the Apartment Owners Association of Orange County because at that time you couldn't do anything to remodel. That forced the City to work with the apartment owners for changes. It was brought to a head because the Apartment Owners Association would have sued the City for the apartment owners. There was no formal report submitted by the Property Owners Association. RESULT: It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to schedule another Study Session to re-consider municipal QQgg Section 28-2407, Enlargements or Structural Alterations to Non- Conforming Residential Buildings and Uses. The Study Session is to receive wider press coverage. Mr. Whittenberg said he would summarize tonight's general comments and make an outline. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one in the audience wished to speak. VII. STAFF CONCERNS *. Proposed Sign at Zoeter Place Center for "Just Us for Hair". Mr. Curtis delivered a short staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. MOTION by McCUrdy: SECOND by Orsini to approve the request for "Just Us For Hair" for a pink sign backlit with a red neon tube. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman . . . Page 16 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 *. Planning Commissioner's Institute. Monterey, CA Mr. Whittenberg asked the Commissioners to let staff know if they wished to attend this conference. To date, Mr. Orsini and Mr. curtis are attending. VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS *. Power Lines Along Balsa Avenue *. commissioner Orsini said the power lines would be removed from pri vate property if the Mola Development Co. proposal is passed for the Hellman Ranch property. He suggested that if that proposal is not passed, perhaps Rockwell could remove those lines as a condition when Rockwell wants a project approved. Mr. Whittenberg said staff could look into that idea if or when Rockwell makes an application for something. ~laininq Remarks at Februa:r:y 6, 1991 Meeting Commissioner Dahlman referenced the Planning commission Minutes of February 6, 1991 which reflected comments from one city citizen questioning Commissioner Dahlman's reasoning on variance #5-90. Commissioner Dahlman quoted from Henry David Thoreau's 1849 writings on civil disobedience, noting that the government that governs best governs least. He noted that Thoreau was the first anti-war protestor and Thoreau argued that disobedience in certain conditions is a high form of patriotism in certain situations. IX. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meetirtg at 11:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~o~~a J an Fillmann Secretary, Planning ~ Department . . . Page 17 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 *** THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. *** Planning Commission Minutes of February 20, 1991 approved on March 6, 1991.~