Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1991-04-17 . ., . I. CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA APRIL 17, 1991 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. SCHEDULED MATTERS 1. Discussion re Appeals Ordinance. 2. Report re Seal Beach Boulevard IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Approval of April 3, 1991 Minutes 4. Minor Plan Review #15-88 125 Surf Place (Amend Condition) V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. CUP #4-90 Soup Exchange (Liquor Renewal) Resolution No. 1617 6. Minor Plan Review #6-91 114 First Street Resolution No. 1619 7. Minor Plan Review #7-91 112 First Street Resolution No. 1618 8. CUP #2-91 Breitburn Energy Corp. Resolution No. 1620 9. Variance #2-91 163 Electric Resolution No. 1621 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - At this time members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any item wi thin the subject matters of the commission provided no action may be taken on off-Agenda items unless authorized by law. VII. STAFF CONCERNS IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS X. ADJOURNMENT . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of APRIL 17, 1991 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of April 17, 1991 was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in city council Chambers by Chairman FJ.fe. PLEDGE OF AT.T.F.GIAHCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sharp. ROLL CAT.T. Present: ChaJ.rman Fife CommJ.ssioners Orsini, Sharp, Dahlman Absent: Commissioner McCurdy Note: Commissioner McCurdy's excused absence was due to family illness. staff: Department of Development Services staff present: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Michael Cho, Intern SCHEDULED MATTERS 1. Discussion re Appeals Ordinance Staff Report Director Whittenberg presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. In November 1990, the City Council adopted urgency Ordinance No. 1320 to allow all determinations of the Department of Development Services and the Planning Commission to be appealed to the City CouncJ.l. Staff proposed a new recommended ordinance, Ordinance No. 1333 which implements the desires of the Planning Commission and City Council. Ordinance 1333 repeals Ordinance 1320. In March 1991 the City Council introduced the recommended Ordinance and referred it to the Planning Commission for review and comment prior to Council action. Staff presented three suggested Commission actions. Commission Comments Chairman Fife suggested the following corrections to draft Ordinance 1333 should be made: . Section A. AuthorJ.zatJ.on: Change "or" to "on" to read "Any aggrieved person may appeal a decision on ...". . . . Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 1991 . Section A. Time for Conducting . . .: Change "held" to "heard" to read "Appeals to the Planning Commission shall be heard within ..." . Section B. Time for Conducting ...: Change "held" to "heard" to read "Appeals to the City Council shall be heard ...". . Section 28-2943: Add subparagraph C to state "All hearings on appeals shall be agendized and conducted as Public Hearings" to negate any ambiguity that they are Public Hearings. . Section 28-2945. Findings on Appeal: Change "appellant.. to "appellate" to read "The appellate body shall make ...". . Section 28-2945. Findings on APpeal: Add subparagraph C to specify what's the outcome if the appellate body does not announce its decision is that an affirmance of the appeal or a denial of the appeal? Commissioner Sharp suggested the time limitations throughout the Ordinance be clarified from, for example, "a forty day period" to something specifJ.c, like "forty business days" or "forty calendar days". Mr. Whittenberg said the intent is for all the days to refer to calendar days. Chairman Fife noted this process expands the categories of decisions that can be appealed. He indicated the draft Ordinance does not contain a definition of 'an aggrieved person' and he felt that definition should include a connection with the property where they are aggrieved in some real sense. The question being who should be able to file --- not wanting to have anybody any place in a position of being able to appeal any decision you make. Mr. Whittenberg said the current City policy is to allow anyone to file an appeal with no restrictions. Most cities do not have restrictions on appeals but they are open only to city residents. He suggested staff could review this question with the City Attorney's Office and could report back to the City Council as part of the Commission's report. The ~ provides for appeals to the decisions of the Department of Development Services and its Director; that process is still in place. The Minor Plan Review process did not have an appeals process. This became a major issue when two projects were discussed in October 1990. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman for Planning Department staff to refer draft Ordinance No. 1333 to the city Council with comments on the definition of an 'aggrieved person', indicating that all time periods refer to calendar days, clarification that all hearings on . '. . Page 3 - Planning commission Minutes of April 17, 1991 appeals will be agendized as Public Hearings, at Section 28-2945 indicating what the impact of no decision within that specific time period would be. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Fife, Orsini, Sharp, Dahlman McCUrdy 2. Report re Seal Beach Boulevard staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Staff recommended the Planning Commission instruct staff to proceed to reinstitute the process to consider General Plan and ~ amendments allowing for mixed-use developments and prepare a tentative schedule for consideration at next meeting. Staff outlined two basic options: (1) Place into the existing commercial zoning an allowance for residential construction under certain circumstances. The current commercial zoning in that area carries a very intense designation, for example allowing car washes, service stations ..., which is not totally compatible with that area; (2) Develop a mix of both residential, office and service commercial uses in that area. This would be more in line with the existing development pattern in the area. Staff would need to present the Commission with a time schedule showing how this can be fit into the present work schedule. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp stated he felt the Seal Beach Boulevard project would be too time consuming for consideration at this point. The Planning Department currently is processing two major projects plus has six or more work-study projects to complete. Until some of these other studies are completed it would be best to hold this project in abeyance until at least the June 4th election regarding the Mola Development Co. proposal is settled. Chairman Fife agreed with the concept but felt the Commission should take public input at this time. Director Whittenberg said he would prepare a listing of all projects given to staff and perhaps the Commission could prioritize that list. Comm1ssioner Orsini stated the city should move forward in some way to improve Seal Beach Boulevard and asked what would be needed to get 45 degree parking on Seal Beach Boulevard? Director Whittenberg said the parking reconfiguration would be dec1ded by the City Council. That would entail a Public Works Department study to complete the necessary r1ght-of-way and traff1c studies for safety issues. Commissioner Dahlman asked how Main Street was zoned? Staff said C-1, Service-Commercial; this is a less intense zoning. Seal Beach Boulevard is zoned C-2, General-Commercial, the most intense commercial zoning. Pacific Coast Highway is zoned C-2. Therefore, Seal Beach Boulevard has the same allowed uses as Pacific Coast . . . Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 1991 Highway. People cannot live above the stores on Main street; new residential uses on commercial lots are not currently allowed. Chairman Fife asked if there were residential uses on Seal Beach Boulevard now? Staff said yes and they are classif~ed legal non- conforming. Chairman Fife said this might impede refinancing, improvement or sale of that kind of property. Staff felt the main concern was, for any new development to occur, the required parking. Parking for new commercial uses would force surface level parking with a raised building housing retail or office uses above that. Subterranean parking was discussed briefly, with Mr. Whittenberg mentioning the high costs of that parking being ventilation and the problems associated with a high water table in Seal Beach. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to hold a limited (30 minutes) Public Hearing on the issue of Seal Beach Boulevard improvements. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Orsini, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman McCUrdy Serata Fielding * 223 Seal Beach Boulevard - Ms. Fielding said she is the owner of Growing Tree Pre-School at 223 Seal Beach Boulevard. She stated the financial aspects of buying mixed-use property is the mixed-use loans which are refinanced very five years. She could not find a thirty year loan. She favors residential/commercial zoning as it would help improve the block which is now 80% residential/20% commercial. She felt the improvements are needed because the area has been neglected yet is the gateway to the city. She acknowledged the City's heavy work schedule yet felt that she had waited through the Mola proposal, rezoning and reconditioning of Zoeter School and urged the Commission to go forward with the process to improve that block on Seal Beach Boulevard as the property owners have been very patient. She noted the water table is five feet. She felt the traffic was excessively fast and a stop s~gn would slow drivers down by having to brake. She noted the children, while waiting for the school bus at Electric and Ocean Avenues, run across the street to the park. She felt relocating the bus stop's location would be beneficial. Chairman Fife asked if she would favor an ownership linkage between residents usage and commercial useage? She said she was not sure, stating you take a chance on who your neighbors will be when you purchase a house. She felt rezon~ng was the ~mportant issue, to allow the area to open up and improve through better financing and more opportunity. That would help the area problems. Dave Bartlett * B93 Surfside - Said he has been a City resident for six years and was the project manager for Van Dell Corporation from 1984 - 1986 when this project was studied. He favored staff- recommended Option 2 as a solid approach. . . . Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 1991 The residential/commercial use was studied extensively by Van Dell and City staff and the intent was to have the combined use include the same people both living and working in the same building to achieve compatibility with the residential neighborhood, thus ensurJ.ng adequate parking. He urged the Commission to move forward with Option 2 and, in addition, have the ultimate disposition of the Pacific-Electric Right-of-Way (ROW) be taken care of simultaneously. He felt the City's budget was the bottom line and noted the City Council had allocated HCD funds for this project. He said over one million cars pass through Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard weekly; it's the gateway to the City. He suggested including the Hanshaw property and Rum Runner's in the zoning possibilities --- carrying the use around the corner, including entry statements. The City and Navy discussed the subject of widening Seal Beach Boulevard by five feet, allowing for 45 degree parking on the residential/commercial side and to increase parking by 40% - 50% on the street. The Navy was adamant about not giving up any additional property. The City can still widen by five feet, that is still withJ.n City property. Diagonal parking and a proposed median were assumed to slow traffic. He felt that the Mola proposal would soon be put to the voters and the City could get on with regular business and let people have a say in the ultimate dJ.sposition of their property. He felt the City should budget funds for improvement of the roadway as it couldn't come strictly from the private sector. Commissioner Sharp expanded on the election and the Mola proposal, saying that even though there's a general election on June 4th, the Mola re-application is still in the process in the Planning Department and some work is being done daily on that project. It's still a big jOb for the Planning Department. Regarding the Seal Beach Boulevard issue, a major problem has always been financing -- - it was going to be very expensive. (Mr. Bartlett suggesting $500,000). From listening to the City Council, we would be talking about money the City doesn't have. This is a complex issue, involving J.nput from City staff, the City Council and the people involved. It will be necessary to get other issues off the calendar so there is time to handle this project properly. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Bartlett if the rezoning he was proposing would be less lucrative to the City? Mr. Bartlett said the commercial use is not being taken away, rezoning would be allowing residential uses as well. Funds would not be taken away from the City because that property has been zoned C-2 for a very long time and nothing has happened. Commissioner Dahlman said the area has not moved forward and developed commercially because of lack of parkJ.ng; it has not moved forward and developed resJ.dentially because of the zoning. Mr. Bartlett agreed. . . . Page 6 - Plann1ng Commission Minutes of April 17, 1991 Walt Miller * 229 and 231 Seal Beach Boulevard - Said he felt this is a simple matter, the street does not need big improvements but needs parking. There are fifteen properties involved which are serviced by a twelve foot wide alley which cannot accommodate parking requirements. He felt the City should stripe for diagonal parking and place a boulevard stop sign at Landing. Main Street has boulevard stops on Main Street at Central, Ocean, Electric. This would not require studies --- they have already been done. He suggested a tram between Main Street and Seal Beach Boulevard. Frank Prior * 233 Seal Beach Boulevard Agreed that the improvement of Seal Beach Boulevard should be a simple matter. The property owners aren't looking for the City to re-do the center of the street, they felt striping for parking would be good. The zoning change for mixed use was what the owners are waiting for. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. Chairman Fife asked staff what would be involved in getting the Public Works and Engineering Departments to figure out the re- striping of the street, resolve safety issues and cost issues? Mr. Whittenberg said the Commission should recommend to the Council that they consider requesting staff to prepare a report back to Council what would be involved. Chairman Fife asked that if restriping occurred, would existing zoning still require Walt Miller to provide a certain number of on- site parking spaces? Staff said yes; they are subject to the current zoning requirements which do not allow credit for any additional on-street parking that would be provided. It would be a policy decision by the Council and Commission if they would feel that type of a trade-off would make sense. Chairman Fife said he felt it would be worthwhile to recommend to the Council that they direct the Engineering Department and Public Works Department to study what's involved in re-striping Seal Beach Boulevard and to address the issue of whether or not, if it were re-striped, credits for parking places could be given to at least promote the further commercial development under the existing usage. Otherwise nothing is being accomplished, we get lots of parking but the property owner has to use half his lot to get on-site parking. Commissioner Sharp requested to ask the Council if monies would be available or would this project be turned down immediately because of financing. Chairman Fife said he understood moving the street southward, toward the Navy property to be the chief expense. He didn't envision this would be done. What would be done is re-striping the North side of Seal Beach Boulevard to allow diagonal parking, working out something that (if rezoning doesn't occur) would allow existing zoning to take credit for that available park1ng. Commissioner Orsini said he wanted to see something go forward on this project and felt putting the rezoning together with the restriping could hold one or both up at Council level. He suggested sending the issues separately. Director Whittenberg . . . Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 1991 suggested the Commission recommend to the Council that they request a report from the Public Works Department regarding re-striping of the street and at the same time refer to the Plannlng Department the issue of crediting any increased parking created by a future re-striping as meeting parking requirements for new construction in that area. Staff will take that into account as new development standards are created for the area for a mix of residential and commercial uses. The Public Works Department report would go to City Council and staff suggested requesting Council report back to the Commission re the lssues involved in implementing re-striping. staff is to prepare a list of special studies for the May 1st Commission meeting at which time the Commission will prioritize that list. staff could then give the Commission a tlme line on all projects. MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Dahlman to recommend to the City Council Option 1 for consideration and as part of staff consideration of Option 2 that they consider provisions for a credit for any addition on-street angled parking as part of new development proposals for Zone Text Amendments relative to Seal Beach Boulevard. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Dahlman, Fife, Sharp, Orsini McCUrdy *** CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Approval of April 3, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1991 with the following corrections: page 7, edit to reflect Commissioner Dahlman saying "... to fill those hours with police personnel who would be very effective." and page 8, put a period (.) after "hands". MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Orsini, Dahlman, Fife, Sharp McCUrdy *** . Page 8 - Planning Comm1ssion Minutes of April 17, 1991 4. Minor Plan Review 115-88 125 Surf Place Reconsideration of Condition of Approval 14 staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [staff report on file in the Planning Department]. In December 1998 the Planning Commission approved Minor Plan Review #15-88 allowing the addition of 226 square feet to an existing non-conforming garage. The applicant completed the garage add1tion and is in the process of a major addition to his house. During building plan check and construction, the applicant modified the plans slightly so the garage (all three bays) has a depth of 19'8". The 4" deficit in garage depth is the property's sole non-conformity. staff's main concern is maintaining existing levels of on-street parking on the cul-de-sac. Staff recommended the Commission approve by minute order an amendment to the fourth condition of approval of Minor Plan Review #15-88. Staff recommends the applicant be required to maintain two on-street parking spaces with minimum lengths of 16 feet. Mr. Curtis read, for the Record, letters received from residents Timothy R. Myer of 105 Surf Place and H. E. Wulf of 115 Surf Place [Attached]. . commission Comments Matt Mikkelsen * 125 Surf Place - Mr. Mikkelsen introduced himself as the applicant/homeowner. He said one neighbor has continually complained throughout the entire project but that neighbor will be mov1ng in six months. He stated a resident around the corner with a three car garage just poured a thirty-one (31') foot wide driveway. Mr. Mikkelsen came to City Hall and informed staff of th1S driveway as it was yet unpoured. He said wants a driveway wide enough to get in all three of his garages and a centered twelve (12') foot driveway would not allow this. He thought he could do this with a sixteen (16') foot centered driveway. He felt there's enough parking on the cul-de-sac at the curbs. He felt the letter from Mr. Wulf contained misleading statements; he has a table saw because he is doing all the work on his own house himself and needs the tools. Additionally, the truck Mr. Wulf complained about is Mr. Mikkelsen's work truck and when the house is competed the truck will be gone. He admitted the truck takes up a lot of space now. He stated that everyone in Seal Beach should be treated in the same manner and get the same pri vI edges and that's not happening. He felt that was why the 'doghouse' issue became such a big problem. . commissioner Dahlman stated he was not happy about the 31 foot driveway and asked for an explanation as to how this happened? Mr. Curtis explained the approved plans for 940 Catalina called for a 16 foot driveway. They went through plan check, permits were . . . Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 1991 issued and the house was built. When it was time to do the actual curb cut someone in the Engineering Department required the applicant to put two driveways on the property instead of one. This required a huge curb cut. To rectify the situation the Director of Engineering allowed the applicant the maximum size for a two car garage --- which is 31 feet. Orange County places specific provisions for driveway widths and requires a certain number of feet between the driveway and property lines but doesn't address on-street parking. staff is supposed to look after and protect this but that did not happen in this instance. Chairman Fife asked if the Commissioners wanted to open this to a Public Hearing but received a negative response. Commissioner Dahlman restated his concern for large curb cuts and asked for the complete assurance of the City that what happened on Catalina will not happen here on Surf Place. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to approve the reconsideration of Condition of Approval #4 for Minor Plan Review #15-88 to allow a drive apron of sixteen to eighteen feet (16' - 18'). MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Orsini, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman McCUrdy Chairman Fife asked Mr. Curtis "Barry, keying off the 31' curb cut we've just been discussing, how does it happen that something gets fairly well approved according to a set of plans that the Commission and the Department understands and is familiar with and all of a sudden it gets changed without any recycling back?" Mr. Curtis said "Lee might be able to answer better than me but I'll give it a try. We're working with three different departments each time an application comes in for a house like this. You have the Building Department, the Planning Department and the Engineering Department. What is supposed to happen is that things come into both Engineering and Planning at the same time, are approved or looked at and sent on to the Building Department. And that's what happened in this instance. It was approved through the Building Department. At that point everything is supposed to meet Planning and supposedly meets Engineering and once it gets approved by the Building plan check it's ready to be built. It's up to the Building Inspectors to go out and inspect the house. They are not really too involved in looking at the driveway cut but they go inspect the house. And it's up to them to make sure that the Planning issues are met and the Engineer1ng Department will inspect to make sure the Engineering issues --- like curb cuts and other public improvements --- are met. In this instance the ~ was interpreted differently later on down the road after it had already been through all three Departments and a requirement was put on the . . . Page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 1991 applicant to do a certain type of curb cut --- a double curb cut --- which County standards don't allow for on the same property either on this width of a lot. What happened was the applicant went out in good faith and cut this double entrance into his yard which actually took up more space than the actual driveway takes up now and came back in when we said "What are you doing? You can't do this". He came into the Engineering Department upset. And what was agreed upon was that he would reduce it to the maximum width allowable for a two car garage --- which is the 31 feet. Those sort of things are not supposed to happen, the don't generally happen but occasionally something gets misinterpreted along the way when things go between several Departments. It was discussed at length at that time and hopefully, at least for the near future, things like that won't occur again. And that's something staff strives for but occasionally things like that may happen". Chairman Fife asked if there was any procedure or protocol within the various Departments of the City to resolve conflicting interpretations of the~? Mr. Curtis said the City Manager's Office has an automatic over-ride over all the Clty departments. If there's a problem between departments that's where they get resolved. Traditionally, they get resolved between the departments before it gets that far along. However, there is still human error. Commissioner Dahlman said whoever stamped the approval for this did not think about what he was doing. If every house on Catalina were allowed to cut away 80% of their curb parking wouldn' t be possible. This violates common sense. Mr. Whittenberg said that when mired in looking at details a person can overlook what that does to the entire area. staff will be very careful in the future that when changes to an already approved set of plans come up that a look is taken by all departments involved to make sure that what one department feels needs to be changed doesn't impact a requirement of someone else's department. Chairman Fife called a recess at 9:25 p.m. for five minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Conditional Use Permit #4-90 3001 Old Ranch Parkway Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. (Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Soup and Salad Systems, Inc., requested an indefinite extension of Conditional Use Permit #4-90, an on-sale beer and wine license. Commlssion Comments It was noted the restaurant has a take-out food 11 cense;- Thel r beer and Wlne stays on-slte as a requlrement of their State ABC licens'eCind thelr Clty Condltlonal Use Permlt. . . . Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 1991 Public Hearing The Public Hearing was opened. The applicant was not present and no one in the audience wished to speak for or against this application. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve an indefinite extension of Conditional Use Permit #4-90 for an on-sale beer and wine license by the adoption of Resolution No. 1617. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Fife, Dahlman, Sharp, Orsini Mccurdy *** 6. Minor Plan Review #6-91 114 First Street staff Report Mr. Cho delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department.] The applicant, Donald Cox, requests approval for a covered roof access structure (CRAS) above the height limit of 25 feet. The proposed CRAS brings the house to 31 feet in height and is 10'4" x 14' in size. Additionally, the proposed roofing material is different. Staff found the requested application to be in substantial compliance with Section 28-2317 of the municipal ~ but placed a caveat in its report asking for Commission direction. Mr. Cho read, for the Record, letters from City residents Carol Llewellyn of 201 Second Street and Fern Henryson of 120 Second Street [Attached]. commission Comments Commissioner Orsini asked if all neighbors within 300 feet were notified of the meeting? Mr. Cho replied yes. Commissioner Sharp asked why the sta1rcase was in excess of nine feet (9') in width? Mr. Cho replied the Commission should ask the applicant why it was so designed as there are no technical requirements for staircase sizes. Each flight of stairs is four feet in width. Chairman Fife felt the objective of the many discussions on CRAS was to allow access to the roof, but minimize the size. Perhaps the wording should have been changed from "necessary to cover the stairwell" say "necessary to provide reasonable access to the roof deck". Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Whittenberg about the CRAS moratorium. Mr. Whittenberg said the moratorium was lifted when the new development standards were approved by adoption of the new . . . Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 1991 ordinance. The standards are listed on page two of the staff report. Commissioner Sharp said the public testimony weighed heavily on the side of not exceeding the height limits. This is a full sized room and exceeds the height limit. Pubic Hearing Don Cox * 114 First Street. Seal Beach Mr. Cox said he has been building in Seal Beach for sixteen years and now plans to have this house as his personal residence. He explained he felt this house was built within the guidelines of the ~ and it would be a modern-style home. The staircase is designed to d1splay a Dale Evers bronze statue of six foot whales plus water. The glass block in the stairway illuminates the house interior. The average stair width proposed is three feet wide, the four foot width makes it more comfortable for two people to walk side-by-side. Commissioner Dahlman detailed three issues where any flexibility was left in the ruling: (1) height limit, (2) roofing material, (3) location. There are already many CRAS in Old Town exceeding the height limit which posed the problem of taking them down or compromising. This is a wonderful design but should end at 25 feet. Mr. Cox said he had a hard time getting with the spirit of the CRAS issue when the CRAS issue surfaced when the observadome on Sandpiper Drive slipped through the cracks. That occurrence caused the ~ to be changed. Mr. Cox stated he was not trying to stretch things but felt he was within the bounds of the ~. Commissioner Dahlman said he felt a person could choose personal designs as long as they kept within the height limits but when exceeding the height limit the CRAS must be kept to a minimum. Commissioner Dahlman advised Mr. Cox that people who have large doghouses/CRAS, during the com1ng review, are going to have to make them smaller or take them down --- it was intended CRAS be the minimum. The rule says they must bring the CRAS for review within a year and they have to qualify. The second issue is the roofing material. Mr. Cox explained the roof deck 1S going to be a waterproof decking material. The flat roof on the CRAS will be a 90 pound roof or a rock roof. The pitched roof would be tile. The third issue is the location, when building on a 25 foot wide lot it becomes hard to build anything on a roof that isn't on one side or the other. Commissioner Orsini, noting Mr. Cox was building in such a way to obtain interior light, was taking away light from his neighbors. Mr. Cox agreed that it might be possible for them to lose their light earlier but that was happening allover Old Town. The Commission discussed the re-or1entation of the staircase in some detail. Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Cox what the 140 square feet of floor area contained at the top of the stairwell besides the treads? Mr. Cox said it was a landing area to get out to the roof deck. . . . Page 13 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 1991 Paul Geyer * Architect * San Clemente Mr. Geyer introduced himself as the architect for 112 and 114 First Street. He said the minimum headroom height is 6'8". Turning the stair would not be suitable for this plan and would necessitate an entire plan change. He indicated the plans had been through plan check and approved. Chairman Fife said the sense of the Commission so far has been that this is not what all the meetings have been about. If the CRAS were to remain this large, it might as well be a three-story house. He suggested Mr. Geyer re-orient the stairs or use another stairwell. Jim Cook * 330 8th Street - Spoke in favor of this CRAS because it's an open stairway with no extra living space, it has architectural deslgn, concern over blocking light should be met with lowering the height limit. He said maybe 90% of the people didn't have any problem with CRAS but only 10% complained they did. pierce Ostrander * 116 First Street - Said he felt it was important the Planning commission understand the unique situation on First Street which is the beautiful view. He said that if Mr. Cox did not get his CRAS approved he (Mr. Ostrander) would lose 30% of his angular view which included his view of Catalina Island. Mr. Cox is allowed to put a large circular stairwell on his front patio but this would force him to look through the iron stairwell to get his view. Mr. Curtis clarlfied that the stairway would not be located in the front yard setback. The front setback is a minimum of 6 feet with a 12 foot average. The stairway would be located outside the 6 foot setback. The access would not be from ground level, it would be from within the house at the second story level going to the roof. Mitzie Morton * Seal Beach - Spoke against going over the height limit as the spirit and intent of what the citizens wanted and depended on staff to protect. She read the Ordinance regarding CRAS and thought it was very clear that the roof access shall be limited horizontally and vertically to a minimum area to cover the stairwell --- it was assumed a 3 foot wide structure. She feels the Commission and staff should take a firm stand to not force the citizens to come to City Hall every time a CRAS is applied for. No one wishing to speak further Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. commission Comments Commissioner Orsini expressed his opposition to CRAS entirely but if compromlsing, felt CRAS must be a minimal structure for roof access. He asked if they could limlt the CRAS size? Chairman Fife said the Commission was interpretlng the Ordinance because "... I . . . Page 14 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 1991 th1nk in terms of the letter of the law, he meets it. He's got something that minimally covers his stairwell. The problem is, his stairwell is a lot bigger than what we think the intent was ... we could consider recommending to the Council they consider a further amendment to the Ordinance to address this kind of problem". Mr. Wh1ttenberg 1ndicated that if specific dimensions are requ1red for a CRAS, that would require every CRAS to have the same type of stairway. MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Sharp to continue the Public Hearing and application to the May 15, 1991 Planning commission for the purpose of allowing the owner to submit revised plans that are more in keeping with the spirit and intent of the covered roof access Ordinance. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Fife, Dahlman, Sharp, Orsini McCUrdy **** 7. 112 First Street Minor Plan Review #7-91 staff Report Mr. Cho delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in Planning Department]. The applicant, Don Cox, requests a Minor He1ght Variation for a covered roof access structure above the 25 foot height limit at a new house at 112 First Street. This is a circular stairway. Staff found the requested application to be in substantial compliance with Section 28-2317 of the municipal ~ but placed a caveat in its report asking for Commission direction. Mr. Cho read, for the Record, letters from City residents Carol Llewellyn and Fern Henryson [Attached]. Commission Comments Commissioner Orsini asked why there was a phone jack and electrical outlet inside the CRAS? Mr. Cho said this should be reviewed and decided upon by the Commission but the ~ does not have specific language regulating phone jacks. Mr. Curtis said he would recommend this condition be approved similarly to the CRAS looked at two weeks ago, the portion containing the phone jack and electrical outlet could be exterior and the CRAS wall would be brought in to the stud wall at the edge of the spiral stairwell. Public Hearing Donald Cox * 114 First Street - Mr. Cox said he felt he followed the City's guidelines closely. The CRAS roof is tile which is consistent with the rest of the house. He stated he would agree to a slight reduction of the 9 foot dimension in the CRAS to an 8 foot dimension. Page 15 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 1991 . Mitz1e Morton * Seal Beach Spoke in opposition to the CRAS/doghouses. She urged maintaining a 25 foot height limit saying "Unless you have a height limit of 25 feet, the planning Commissioners are constantly going to have a headache about doghouses. You have already established the fact (from two weeks ago) that you're willing to accept an 8'x 6' room on top of a house. We haven't accomplished anything ... I have a 50 foot wide lot and I can build 3 stories. I'm conscientious about Old Town and what we're trying to get at in this area here. Some day we're going to have another staff and something is going to slip by because it's still not going to be clear. It's still a matter of staff interpretat10n ... you've had it on a curb cut and other problems in town. I think we should go for a 25 foot height limit. They can still have a stair access to a roof without going beyond the 25 feet ... the whole intent is to go up on a roof - you don't need windows up there ... " . Commissioner Orsin1 noted the Commission fought the doghouses/CRAS through the whole process but it went to the Council and it passed through the Council --- they are allowed. The only control we have now is that they are used as a covered roof access structure. The Commission has to go by the Ordinance and keep them as small as possible. Chairman Fife, agreeing with Mr. Orsini, said this is the Council's latest expression. . Nancy Kredell * 1633 Seal Way - Said she agreed with Ms. Morton's comments on the height limits and appreciates the Commission's keeping them smaller but there are uncovered roof accesses. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing with no one wishing to speak further. MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Sharp to approve Resolution No. 1618 approving Minor Plan Review #7-91 at 112 First Street with the condi tion that the covered roof access structure is reduced in size and the access structure's roof tiled to be consistent with the rest of the house. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Fife, Dahlman, Sharp, Orsini McCurdy Commissioner Dahlman said the commission's motion neglected to state the exact reduction of covered roof access. Mr. Whittenberg said the ~ will specify the requ1rements. He added staff would word the condition using the same wording the Commission used on its approval of the last doghouse at the April 3rd meeting. . *** . Page 16 - Plannlng Commisslon Minutes of April 17, 1991 8. Conditional Use Permit 12-91 Breitburn Energy Corporation oil Island - 2001 Pacific Coast Highway staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Breitburn Energy corporation, is requesting to install a gas drying unit at the oil Island oil extraction facility located within the Alamitos Lease, Seal Beach. The gas drying unit will filter out precipitates present in the natural gas produced on site. The dried gas will be piped directly into the Southern California Gas Company's system via existing gas lines for consumption by consumers. Staff recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit #2-91 and certify Negative Declaration #3-91 through the adoption of Resolution #1620 subject to five conditions outlined in the staff report. commission Comments Chairman Fife asked what the net habitat gain would be for that area? Mr. Curtis said currently many vehicles travel the road. This would add a couple of extra truck trips per day. . Chairman Fife asked if the precipitates are classified as toxic waste? Mr. Curtis said he thought so because they're natural gasoline, water and petroleum byproducts. They would have to be removed in accordance with the transporting rules for toxic waste. Public Hearing Randy Breitenbach. President of Breitburn Energy Corp. Mr.Breitenbach said the staff's presentation was very complete and he would happy to answer any questions. commissioner Dahlman said the gas has currently been piped to Lomita where it gets converted into a more useable form. It is then sold to the Southern California Gas Company. The idea is to shorten that process by drying the gas at the site. Mr. Brei tenbach said the product of drying the gas is not more flammable or explosive than wet gas. The gas will be stored longer at the site. The dry gas will be removed every 3 to 4 days. Hal Washburn, Breltburn Energy Corp. Said they are currently storing in excess of 1000 barrels of crude oil at all times on the site. They are asking now to store another 20% of natural gasolines. Three employees will supervlse the site 24-hours per day. Natural wet gas is powering the motors on site. They will convert to all electric motors. . No one wishing to speak further, the Public Hearing was closed. . . . Page 17 - Plannlng CommlSSlon Minutes of Aprll 17, 1991 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Condi tional Use Permit #2-91 through the adoption of Resolution No. 1620 and with the addition of Condition #6 that the applicant's pay the Department of Fish and Game fees for the Negative Declaration recording. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Orsini, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman McCUrdy *** 9. Variance #2-91 163 Electric Avenue staff Re-port Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Ron Molinari, requested a variance from the required parking dimensions in conjunction with the remodel of his single family residence at 163 Electric Avenue. Mr. curtis noted the appllcant has a three-car garage but is only required to have a two-car garage and so is allowed to convert one of his garages to some other type of use. Eleven days after the Building Permit was issued, Building Inspector Chuck Feenstra inspected the site and informed the applicant that the permit had been issued in error because the Fire Code prohibits a bedroom having a direct exit into the garage; the approved bedroom could not be used for sleeping purposes. The main garage is non- conforming due to spa equipment being located there which takes up 2'8" of the requlred 20' garage width. Staff provided the applicant with three alternatives and attempted to work with the applicant to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution which staff believes is the third option, the construction of a corridor between the proposed bedroom and the existing den. Staff recommended approval of Variance #2-91 subject to four conditions outlined in the staff report. Commission Comments The Planning Commission reviewed the floor plans and discussed them at length. Public Hearing Ron Molinare * 163 Electrlc Avenue Mr. Molinare requested the removal of Condltion #2, from a liability standpoint, from his Conditions of Approval on the advice of his legal counsel. Mr. Curtis said staff imposed Condition #2, because staff wanted to be sure the converted bedroom is incorporated lnto the rest of the house and not become a bootlegged unit. If the exterior door is eliminated there would be no reason to impose Condltlon #2. . . . Page 18 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 1991 No one wishing to speak further on this issue, Chairman Fife closed the Pubic Hearing. commission Comments MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to grant Variance 12-91 through the adoption of Resolution No. 1623 and (1) removing Condition 12 and (2) removing the door between the den and the corridor and (3) and squaring up the wall coming out from the corridor to meet ~. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Fife, Dahlman, Sharp, Orsini Mccurdy *** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jim Cook * 330 8th street. Seal Beach - Requested Comm1ssion help in mitigating Jack-1n-the Box problems. Mr. Cook stated that when he purchased his house the restaurant was open until 11:00 p.m. Recently they changed their hours to stay open 24-hours per day. Therefore, 24-hours a day the outside speakers blare, the large, overhead lights illuminate the whole area and patrons leaving bars use his wall and garage door as a urinal. Additionally, a large industrial trash can, which abuts his neighbor's wall, is causing a cockroach problem. He and his neighbor not1f1ed Orange County Health to no avail. Staff is to research the license for Jack-in-the Box and any Conditional Use Permit restrictins and report back to the Commission. STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS There were no Commission concerns. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 12:20 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, Q o~ ~c.....--....-.. J6an Fillmann Executive Secretary Department of Development Services *** . . . Page 19 - Planning Commission M1nutes of April 17, 1991 These Minutes are tentative and subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. *** The Planning Commission Minutes of April 17, 1991 wer~l~roved by the Planning Commission on ~ J} 1991. ~ LY of Seal Beach Planning Commission L,J SUBMITTED FOR tltRD t By ~~1L'I1i9a~"Y IJ:. "I ;; iJ . Apr 11 179 1991 Mr. Lee W1ttenberg D1rector Department of Development Serv1ces 211 E1ghth Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Dear Mr. W1ttenberg: Re: He1ght Var1at1on Request at 112, 114 F1rst Street . NeIther my husband, RIch Kempster, nor I wIll be able to attend ton1ght's publ1C hearIng regardIng the request by Mr. Cox for constructIon of a covered, roof-access structure 1n excess of the 25 foot he1ght Ilm1t 1n conJUnct1on wIth the constructIon of new slngle- famIly dwellIngs at 112 and 114 FIrst Street. US1ng thIs letter as a vehIcle, we declare our Oppos1tlon to th1S request. WhIle we understand the des1re to utIlIze as much of a valuable lot as poss1ble, we bel1eve the Ilm1ts have been more than generous and leave no room for further extensIon eIther In heIght or area. We feel that prevIous exemptIons from the he1ght Ilmlt 1n our ImmedIate ne1ghborhood (and 1n the rest of Old Town as well) have devalued the aesthet1c qualIty of our ne1ghborhood and town. Very truly yours, ~ Carol Llewellyn 201 Second Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 . . , II jig GummlSSlon ~Ut5IYd rIl:O FOR RECORD By He(r"'t'l~@/~ , Date ~/rtJ ~ n ~ ! '1 ;" ~ ,I >-Y:.-!-U ~J.>>'a.kJ, G alv; ar~ IS, I 'jiJI t ~ y i\ /, (-.) _ 1/f7vf) JA CV7:/UiJ \0 Cr/;J?/J'/U-{1/L../...-t^--U,' V1h t~ er1 ~J!.- ~~t /}{-{f c-)0 . ~ (y;J r~ 'J " ~~~t l~' aejlo, G' CL-h-J! );: l/j cf:' (/ . Dn' L^ I 11 / e ,) ) ) , lD~--a :./f'?7;A2 '7.) (n~d' lG {} 7,t~LU{k u--J j /':/'7Jt ~ /.xl ~ J-.- 7/ ~ J- I vr-- ,)' af'J~~ ( )V1 J~) 1- 9 / - //2 t ~i ~ f ./ ' L - 9/ . I)L) L~c d , ! k afvbJ~t1!t7Jt 'f671-..I.I! ~l, J'tti41/(Y-i.<-lf Ji L 1 _ J ,~ I'jl) ( ): f I vtl?Jj /t..,-:~-cv; ~/~J ~d ~ J~&IVI, On.p""..-i-C!,J--1u LT::J--j" A--~/ {f71/ tJv~ ib /~ f-o~~-GGah'VJ ~FU_A_:c;l7-tv'7--,LA.'ct:-L/~ dl- ruffiu;;,<&, /(, '(,fLu) A!4-lAj'-<-u-A ~ t;f4if' t::/~t/!,I~ /..;i I r tI Jtl .A.,j~-<J<1~ l~{..l/n!'L "') c).) /(' ~.Yv~v-ti) -?~-- {(/U-U4J '~b'f/'~~/.t 7!/~.# !: o./J i #.,y 1Jr;; < 0' lv-A-ui,U ~kJ to ~, #~J ~s ~ ~1"1 ,j '?J:,.tlJ/~//jj J~ ~0'-;w,' t tJff--:"'1 JU,y./dP7~L.J' J:iU'U-fHJ) J +~1; j;- 9141U77l-j t/U.dJ //;:--0 ~t211.--~) .;J v v ~~"~i2j~J ) J .,&tV (f"9)/ /'JV:~ ) c20 JJ.,{l~~-1 ~~t J /} P /19- /.lJ6' - O~--[).Jf Cf?'l4t - 0 S- . . . . Cltv of Seal Beach Planning CommIssIon SUBMITTED FOR RECO~ hi. ay=-~~ ~ ,_Ollte=~ ~ f;;i!Li 18 Apr 91 Tlmothy R. Myer 105 Surf Place Seal Beach Ca 90740 213/431-0018 Plannlng CommlSSlon Clty of Seal Beach 211 8th st Seal Beach Ca 90740 Dear Slrs: Re: Mlnor Plan ReVlew 15-88 App1lcant: Matthew Mlkkelsen I have recelved not1f1cat1on of the amendment to the Mlnor Plan ReVlew 15-88. It is my understand1ng that the appllcant w1shes to 1ncrease the w1dth of the dr1veway approach to hlS property to 16 feet. In the process, 1t 1S my understanding that some curbslde park1ng on Surf Place will be lost. I have spoken to the app 1 1 cant and have been assured that, In fact, the parklng problem wlll be ameliorated. The two vehlc1es he owns wl11 no longer be parked In the street but In h1s dr1ve way or garage. I am satlsf1ed that the appearance of the street (fewer cars parked), more space avallable for Vlsltors and better access for the app1lcant to hlS extended garages wl1l be forthcomlng wlth the acceptance of the amendment to the Mlnor Plan ReVlew. As a ne1ghbor (one house removed), I have no obJectlons ~o Mr. M~kkelsen's appll~.~lon. - ---- 14 fZ ~ Tlmothy R. Myer '-. ---e .~ CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommIssIOn SUBMITTED fDR_ RECZD L 8y.iJJp ~F ~f)atD~ t ~J ~ Apnl 16, 1991 Oppos1t1on to M1nor Plan Rev1ew 15-88 (125 Surf Place) TO: THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION. We oppose the proposed change to 1ncrease the eX1stlng drlve apron w1dth (Cond1t1on of approval No.4) for the follow1ng reasons: 1. Any less than 18' of unobstructed length w1ll be useless as a park1ng space for any but the smallest veh1cles. Our ne1ghbors and the1r V1s1tors have many full Slze veh1cles. 2. We part1cularly obJect to staff1s reason1ng that Slnce the street park1ng spaces w1ll be substandard anyway, applicant should be allowed even further dev1ation from the public requ1rements and from the decis10n of the Plann1ng Comm1ss1on which granted h1S orig1nal variance. 3. We bel1eve 1t would be more reasonable, since 1t 1S a var1ance, to reduce the w1dth of the 3 foot XiS on both sides of the dr1veway 1n order to malntain two street parking spaces of at least 181 each. Th1S would allow appl1cant the dr1veway w1dth he has agreed to and still ma1nta1n two sorely needed parking spaces for the ne1ghborhood. 4. As we stated at the or1g1nal hear1ng, it 1S ObVl0US that appllcant lS plannlngto use the garage as a woodwork1ng shop and therefore has made no prov1s1on to park h1S own overslzed p1ck-up truck ln the new garage or on the new dr1veway, someth1ng he could have done easlly lf he had consldered h1S ne1ghbors 1nstead of only h1S own use of the publ1C parking areas iliff WllLr //6 .,5t:7Rr ~~(P~