Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1991-06-19 - ... . .,r 0 . . . t..;) ..~. I. II. III. CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA JUNE 19, 1991 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of June 5, 1991 Minutes IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS V. J 2. Minor Plan Review 18-91 Address: 125 Cottonwood Applicant: Dana Williams Re: Two-story cabana Resolutions To Be Siqned: 3. Resolution No. 1629 - CUP 7-91 4. Resolution No. 1631 - GPA 1A-91 5. Resolution No. 1632 - GPA 1B-91 6. Resolution No. 1633 - ZC 1-91 7. Resolution No. 1634 - Variance 4-91 8. Resolution No. 1635 - Fielding Appeal PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Conditional Use Permit #8-89 Address: 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard Applicant: Corwin Bales Re: ABC License/Indefinite Approval/Baja Bills Resolution No. 1627 10. Conditional Use Permit #8-91 Address: 16281 Pacific Coast Highway Applicant: Salvatore Camelia Re: ABC License Transfer/Noel's Restaurant Resolution No. 1628 Page 2 - Planning Commission Agenda for June 19, 1991 VI. VII. VIII. IX. 11. Tentative Tract Map #91-175 Address: 112 Central Avenue Applicant: Annabelle & Robert Luraschi Re: Subdivision Resolution No. 1636 12. Height Variation #10-91 Address: 247 sixth Street Applicant: Eric Mossman/Henry Ericksen Re: Covered Roof Access Structure Resolution No. 1638 13. Height Variation #11-91 Address: 249 Sixth Street Applicant: Eric Mossman/Henry Ericksen Re: Covered Roof Access Structure Resolution No. 1637 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - At this time members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any item within the subject matters of the Commission provided no action may be taken on Off-Agenda items unless authorized by law. STAFF CONCERNS COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 1991 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, June 19, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in City Councll Chambers. PLEDGE OF AT.T.EGIANCE Commlssioner Dahlman led the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Dahlman, Sharp, Orsini, McCurdy Present: Department of Development Services staff: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Adminlstrative Assistant Michael Cho, Intern Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of June 5, 1991 Minutes MOTION by Fifei SECOND by Sharp to defer consideration for approval of the June 5, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes to the next scheduled meeting to allow the following language to be added: Page 16: Modify paragraph four to read: "Chairman Fife said he recognized Mr. Watson would not recover all of the profit from the lot premiums lost by not being able to build homes on the three lots. numbered 4, 5 and 6. Page 17: Add a sentence before public comments to reflect Commission dialogue on low income housing requirements. For example: because of adding to the number of residential lots in the City, under the General Plan, the developer, Jim Watson, might have a low income housing requirement. The Commission indicated the developer should not look to the Commission if he is required to have low income housing. Page 23: Add, at Commission Concerns, Commissioner Dahlman gave a run-down by percentages of the June 4, 1991 City election results: 43% of the voters said "Yes" to Measure Bi 38% of the voters said "Yes" to Measure A and 19% said "No" to both Measures. He said "It's not a matter of the whole town coming out and saying 'no development at all', they just want it done right". MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Fife, Sharp, Orsini, Mccurdy, Dahlman . . . Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 19, 1991 The Commission discussed low income housing requirements. Chairman Fife lndicated he had reviewed Government Code, section 65-590 and saw no escape from its requirements. He asked Director Whittenberg who's responslbillty it is to enforce the Government Code, the City's or the Coastal Commission's? Mr. Whittenberg replied staff is currently reviewlng this with the City Attorney's Office; it appears it will be the City's responsibility. The matter is scheduled for Public Hearing before the City Council at their June 24th meeting. The Commission asked if a Development Agreement would be necessary to ensure project profits would be applied to cover the City's responsibilities to low income housing? The Government Code states low income housing must be provided wlthin the development itself if feasible, if not, then elsewhere within the City's coastal zone lf feasible, and lf not, then within Orange County's coastal zone or wi thin three miles of it. Chairman Fife lndicated it was not totally clear how much low income housing must be built. In discussing Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 1632, 1633, 1634 and 1635, the Commission indicated the Resolutions require the developer to provide low income housing if the Government Code requires it, and not look to the City to provide it. The Commission discussed Quimby Act fees and what triggers them. This is not a subdl vision of existing parcels, it is a redesignation of the zoning of certain from a commercial to a residential designation. The developer agreed to pay $10,000 per lot for the designation change. This is the same fee amount that would be pald on a subdivision of less than fifty lots. *** SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. Minor Plan Review #8-91 125 Cottonwood Seal Beach Trailer Park Staff Report Mr. Cho delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Dana Williams, requests archltectural reVlew to construct a two-story cabana at 125 Cottonwood Lane. He proposes to add 1200 square feet to an existing 899 square foot mobile home. This Mlnor Plan ReVlew was continued from the May 1 and May 15 Planning Commission meetings to allow the applicant to be present. Staff recommended Plannlng Commission approve Minor Plan Review #8-91 subject to five (5) conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report. Commission Comments sliding Glass Door as Front Entry Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Cho for clarlfication on the use of slidlng glass doors as entry doors. Mr. Cho said staff has determined to leave that decision to the Building Department plan . . . Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 19, 1991 check process. Director Whlttenberg clarified that the California Admlnlstrative Code, Title 25 allows sliding glass doors to be used in mobile homes, specifically for entry doors. Title 25 includes a cabana in the same construction standards as a mobile home. Title 25 standards are established by state law and cities have little interpretlve leeway. These requirements are different from those of the Uniform Building Code. Renting/Subleasing in Trailer Park Commissioner Orsinl commented he could not find CC&R' s for the Trailer Park; he found agreements. Mr. Cho said he was not looking at official CC&R's for the Trailer Park but at a valid agreement between the City and the Traller Park which does allow tenant subleasing. Mr. Orsini said that in the absence of CC&R's, State law supersedes and says 65 units must be reserved as low income units and low income units can't be rented. Director Whittenberg urged the Commlssion to stay to the issue of Minor Plan Review #8-91. The issue of who can rent to whom is not within the City's purview at this tlme. unit Partitioning Possibilities The Commission expressed their concerns that this application appears to be a duplex or could be easily converted into two individual living units sharing a common kitchen. They indicated the Trailer Park was not zoned to allow a duplex. Frustration was expressed regardlng Planning Commission authority in the Trailer Park. Mr. Whittenberg said the Planning Commission has the right to impose whatever conditions or plan modifications it feels are sufficient and necessary to ensure that this structure is not illegally converted into two separate living units. The structural standards are set by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and State of California Administrative Code, Title 25. Chalrman Fife sald that once these plans are to a point that it is truly a two-story cabana then the Commlssion's review authority is limited. But under the Code the Commission is entitled to review a use, not only for what it is stated to be for but what reasonably could be read into that use. This would be broader than mere architectural review. Bruce McVay. Architect [No Address Glven] - Stated he thought the major issue was the sliding glass door issue. It was an original door but could be replaced wlth a solid core wood door. The Commission explained the main issue was the possible conversion of the mobile home into two separate living units. They questloned why the plans showed a living room, a dining room and a master bedroom on the first and second floors, noting there were four bedrooms and four bathrooms total. . . . Page 4 - Planning CommlSSlon Minutes of June 19, 1991 Mr. McVay explalned two brothers will live in this mobile home al though it's owned by one brother. He explained the rooms as shown carry the names as they were designated from the original floor plan, hence two dining rooms etc. Chairman Fife asked Mr. McVay for his suggestions on how to allay Commission concerns about potential conversion of the unit to two independent living units. Mr. McVay suggested the staircase could be turned or reversed and a landing created in front of the slidlng glass door rendering the sliding glass door not useable as an entry. Mr. McVay acknowledged R1 zoning would make a duplex illegal in the Trailer Park. Mr. Whittenberg suggested removing an existing separation wall between the hallway and bathroom stairway area which would create an open area at the front of the unit, making it more difficult to partition later. Mr. McVay agreed to removing the separation wall ln conjunction with turning the stairway and creating a landing. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to continue Minor Plan Review #8-91 for 125 Cottonwood to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of July 17, 1991 to allow the architect time to modify the floor plans to (1) reverse the stairway, (2) remove the interior partition wall. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, McCUrdy, Fife *** RESOLUTIONS TO BE SIGNED Mr. Whittenberg explained the Resolutions had been re-numbered so the Commission would be considering only five Resolutions, Nos. 1629, 1632, 1633, 1634 and 1635. The Fielding appeal, and accompanying Resolution will not be considered tonight because an appeal of the Planning Commission decision has been filed and will be heard at the City Council level at a future date. 3. Resolution No. 1629 * CUP 7-91 MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to approve Resolution No. 1629, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) 7-91, APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF AN EXISTING ON-SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF A DELICATESSEN AT 303 AND 305 MAIN STREET, SEAL BEACH (MAIN STREET DELI). MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Dahlman, Sharp, Fife, McCUrdy, Orsini Page 5 - Planning Commlssion Mlnutes of June 19, 1991 . 4. Resolution No. 1632 * General Plan Amendment 1A-91 5. Resolution No. 1633 * General Plan Amendment 1B-91 6. Resolution No. 1634 * Zone Change 1-91 7. Resolution No. 1635 * Variance 4-91 Commissioner Dahlman clarified that if Resolutions Nos. 1632, 1633, 1634 and 1635 are approved, the City Council could discuss the need for a Development Agreement with Jim Watson. MOTION by Orsinl; SECOND by Sharp to approve Resolutions No. 1632, 1633, 1634 and 1635: Resolution No. 1632 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1A-91, AMENDING THE SUMMARY TABLE OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USES IN ACRES OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT TO DEPICT THE INCREASE OF APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF ACRE OF RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY LAND AND A SIMILAR DECREASE IN GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND WITHIN THE CITY. . Resolution No. 1633 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1B-91, AMENDING TABLE 16 OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO REPRESENT THE INCREASE OF 0.5 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY LAND WITHIN THE CITY AND A DECREASE OF 0.5 ACRES OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND. Resolution No. 1634 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 1-91, CHANGING THE ZONING OF NINE (9) LOTS FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-2) TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RMD). Resolution No. 1635 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE 4-91, ALLOWING FOR SHARED USE LOADING ZONES/PARKING AREAS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE (3) NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0 Sharp, Fife, Dahlman, McCUrdy, Orsini Page 6 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of June 19, 1991 4It PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Conditional Use Permit #8-89 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard Resolution No. 1627 4It 4It staff Report Mr. curtis dellvered the staff report. [Staff report on file in Planning Department]. This CUP was continued from the June 5th Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to attend the meeting. The applicant, Corwin Bales, is requesting an extension of Condltional Use Permit #8-89 for an on-sale beer and Wlne permit in conjunction with Baja Bills Restaurant. Staff recommended a twelve month extension of Conditional Use Permit #8-89 with 16 condi tions of approval. The twelve month extension versus an indefinite extension was recommended due to the fact there were several violations of the Resolution No. 1576. commission Comments Commlssioner Sharp asked Mr. curtis to elaborate on what the violations were and how staff observed them. Mr. curtis said he inspected the site and asked the employees to go over a general transaction, including the sale of beer, and discuss it with him. He asked if it was possible to purchase a beer only; the answer was affirmative. He asked if there was a requirement for an employee to be outside when patrons were drinking alcohol? The reply was no, the patrons can do as they wished. Mr. Curtis deemed the conditions of approval were not being met because the employees verbally failed this cursory test. Additionally, they did not have employee supervision when serving alcohol, it was sold in a cup to take outside. No employee was present in the eating area when the alcohol was being consumed there. The Commission discussed whether the last condition was too stringent, stating employees could come and go from one area to another and still observe the patio area. The Commission discussed and determined that the ABC requires food to be available but it was not necessary to buy food to buy beer. It was indicated food sales must exceed liquor sales; ABC looks at the overall sales and checks to see if an establishment is becoming a tavern. Mr. curtis said staff was looking for the intent, if not the letter, of the conditions of approval to be met and the employees weren't generally aware of the conditions. Chairman Fife opened the PubllC Hearing. Corwin Bales * Owner. Baja Bills Restaurant - Felt the City was placing conditions of approval on his restaurant that were more stringent than conditions of approval for similar restaurants in the same shopping center. He said he talked to the other restaurant owners and they Just have to have food available and they are not required to sell food to sell alcohol. He felt they were placed on Baja Bills because he was a new owner but he has had no problems and no complaints. He stated the employee Mr. Curtls . . . Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 19, 1991 spoke to is a new employee and may have been confused about certain operations. He and his employees are strict on not allowing alcohol to be sold without purchasing food. The lam1nated board showing Resolution No. 1576 with conditions of approval sent to him by Mr. curtis is posted at the cash register where both customers and staff can see it. He felt he has gone through more probationary periods than any other restaurant owners. Chairman Fife said he was on the Commission when Mr. Bales opened his restaurant and assured him h1s vote had nothing to do with his newness as an owner. Mr. Fife's major concern was the connection between a fast food restaurant and driving, stating the Commission perceived incompatibility between a fast food restaurant and serving alcohol. Chairman Fife indicated the DMV and CHP are ready to impose severe hardships and sanctions for driving under the influence of alcohol and yet the ABC does all it can to make beer readily available. The Commission wanted some restrictions to driving in, drinking two or three beers and jumping back on the freeways. In a non-drive-thru restaurant a patron would sit down, have something to eat and digest alcohol consumed. Two beers could put a person at the .08 limit. Chairman Fife indicated he was in favor of all establishments who sell liquor to prominently post their CUP conditions of approval. Commissioner Dahlman suggested a requirement to post conditions of approval on a City-wide basis. This would not necessarily be for the public to see but definitely for the staff to see. Mr. Curtis said staff could provide the information to restaurants and ask them to post the information but the restaurants are not legally bound to do so because their resolutions did not require them to post them. However, it can be required of all new applications. Chairman Fife suggested to Mr. Curtis that if he accompanied his transmittal letter to an existing CUP with an observation that if they didn't want to post their conditions of approval that staff would not be particularly sympathetic if a violation were reported. No one wishing to speak further for or against this application, Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Sharp: SECOND by Mccurdy to grant a one ( 1) year extension to Conditional Use Permit #8-91 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1627 and subject to the sixteen (16) conditions of approval outlined in the staff report. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Sharp, Mccurdy, Fife, Orsini, Mccurdy . . . Page 8 - Planning Commisslon Minutes of June 19, 1991 10. Conditional Use Permit #8-91 16281 Pacific Coast Highway Noel's Restaurant Resolution No. 1628 staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Salvatore Camelia, is requesting to transfer an eXlsting on-sale general liquor license in conjunction with the transfer of ownershlp of Noel's Restaurant at 16281 Pacific Coast Highway. Planning and Engineerlng staff inspected the site and determined that installing curbs and gutters would decrease the restaurant's on-slte parking from 30 to 17 spaces. This property is legal non-conforming or would be required to have 38 parking spaces. commission Comments The Commlssion asked Mr. Curtls to expand on the curb-gutter requirement. Mr. Curtls explained that staff was originally going to notify Caltrans that the City felt curbs and gutters should be installed at the site and leave the decision to Caltrans. At the June 5th Planning Commission meetlng staff was instructed to mandate the curb and gutter installation unless vetoed by Caltrans. Mr. curtis said his general impression from talking with Caltrans is that they would not require curb and gutter installation but would support either the City's requiring them or the applicant's installing them. Curbs and gutters would delete parking because their installation would include sidewalks and a right-of-way. The installation would also take out the drive aisle necessary to reach other parking spaces so they will be unattainable. The lot is not wide enough to accommodate the curb and gutter system and the parking spaces and an adequate drive aisle. The drive aisle is required to be 24' and it would be cut down to 6' - 10'. There are sidewalks to the South of the restaurant only. Mr. Curtis indicated the applicant could install strategically placed barricades along the highway at certain places that would not affect the parking lot but would prevent cars driving through adjolning propertles. Caltrans allows parklng on Paclfic Coast Highway through Sunset Beach and along the fence in Surfs ide . When the restaurant was successful people used to park on Pacific Coast Highway almost to the Surfside main gate. The staff report stated five parking places may be attainable along PCH but the reallty of having these spaces would wait until after the curb and gutter installation and would depend on safety concerns. It was noted that the installation of curbs and gutters at this site would not affect the blke lane because the installation would push into the existing parking lot. Page 9 - Planning Commlssion Minutes of June 19, 1991 ~ Public Hearing Bob Gilbert. Engineer * 4552 Lincoln Ave.. suite 206. Cypress.CA Mr. Gilbert stated the applicant had retained hlm because of the street situation. His experience was stated as several years with Caltrans and designing street improvements for twelve years in the private sector. Addressing safety issues, Mr. Gilbert stated "The area could use some improvement but it is functioning the way it is and should be allowed to continue that way". He stated he vlslted the site this evening but has not surveyed nor studied the site. He felt there is no major problem getting to the parking lot, parking on either side of the building or the necesslty to back into PCH traffic when exi ting. The purpose of installing curbs and gutters is for drainage or sidewalk protection and that doesn't seem to be the need here. He felt curbs would not keep cars on the road and added he would not park on the street for safety reasons. He felt the large concrete barricade at the North end of this site would keep cars from veering off Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). He indicated there are several 12" to 14" (diameter) posts protecting the building. He felton-street parking would not be viable if curbing was installed. ~ The curb and gutter would be installed on the North end of thlS site, and it would be physically impossible to install curb, gutter and sidewalk along the front of the site because on the street configuration. The sidewalk would be to the restaurant's front door. The Commission asked if a "Right Turn Only" sign could be installed for exiting? Mr. Gilbert said it "Might be tough to find a place to plant the post ... it is an appropriate requirement". Mr. Gllbert said the applicant would like more liberal hours --- from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Sal Camelia * Applicant [No Address Given] - Said he was gOlng to have a dinner house and the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. were adequate. He felt his outside lighting was adequate. He would re- paint the yellow parking markers on his lot. Re painting a turningjexl ting mark on the asphalt to direct people to "Turn Rlght Only" he said he would have to look at the parking lot again to see where he could put a sign. Mr. Whittenberg said the City has the authority to place a requirement on any shops along PCH to say they exit by making a "Right" or "Left" turn only. Mr. Gilbert said they would appreciate the opportunity to work with staff on the sign lssue. The sign would have to be out of the State right-of- way and placing it further back may make it non-functional. ~ . . . Page 10 - Planning Commiss1on Minutes of June 19, 1991 George Armstrong * Sunset Beach - Spoke in opposition to this application. He stated he did not agree with Bob Gilbert. He has had a lot of experience on that corner and felt the City would be remiss in not requir1ng delineation between the parking lot area and PCH. The site has parking on some Caltrans right-of-way and some straight-in parking requiring them to back out onto PCH to make the turn. He has seen the cars do this. The City at this time has the opportunity now to require curbs and gutters and it may not have another opportunity. He is not opposed to a restaurant but indicated it will now be open seven days a week for more hours. Noel's was open three days a week (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) for eight months of the year. He felt additional engineer1ng opinions were necessary. He stated he has been "... in the service station when a car came right through the parking lot area and plowed into the service station ... when a car went through the parking lot and we are being sued by bicyclists that are going through there and that's because of the lack of delineation - you can't tell the d1fference between that parking lot and the highway. I would ask you to go down and take a look on your own at the sltuation prior to making a decision ...". Jack Haley * 404 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach - Spoke in oppos1tion to this applicat1on. Stated he owns the property next to George Armstrong and the property next to 16281 PCH. Mr. Haley stated he is on the Sunset Beach committee that's handling PCH issues. The commi ttee 1S requiring curbs, gutters and sidewalks on all new structures in Sunset Beach. Mr. Haley suggested the applicant could relocate the entrance to the East side of the building and aid his parking problems. The restaurant has been closed for a long time and needs to be brought up to code standards. It will have to go before the Health Department and there will need to be a new kitchen and more square footage will be needed. When the applicant goes to bring the existing restaurant to Code he will find he has a major jOb to do. He said he would be willing to sell him his lot next door; the property has been for sale for a year and a half. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing with no one wish1ng to speak further for or against this application. Commission Comments The Commission requested site plans and specific Caltrans input regarding safety considerations. The Commission requested Police Department accident reports from the Harbor House, Woodys and other restaurants having angled parking onto PCH. Commissioner Sharp felt that if curbs, gutters and sidewalks were required there might not be a restaurant. He felt it would be best to continue this 1tem until layouts are presented and the Commission could see exactly what is being discussed re Caltrans, . Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 19, 1991 parking, entering, exiting. Cha1rman Fife suggested the Commission needed to 1nvestigate the safety concerns and didn't have enough information to make a decision tonight. Commissioner orsini requested staff report on the effects of chang1ng the main entry door. Commissioner Dahlman asked staff to get the correct numbers on the parking space requirements --- 38 is the required space, 30 1S the current number of spaces and 17 is what he could stripe for plus 5 on-street spaces which do not exist and may never exist. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to re-open the Public Hearing and continue to allow public testimony on the issue. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Sharp, Dahlman, Orsini, McCUrdy, Fife *** MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Dahlman to continue Conditional Use permi t #8-91 to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of July 17, 1991. Additional public testimony will be received. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Orsini, Dahlman, Fife, Sharp, McCUrdy . Staff advised that no additional public Not1ces will be given. . *** 11. Tentative Tract Map #91-175 112 Central Avenue Resolution No. 1636 Staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicants, Annabelle and Robert Luraschi, are requesting to subdivide the subject property from its current one residential lot to four residential lots. In conjunction with the sUbdivis1on, the applicants are proposing to demolish three residential structures containing eight dwelling units and construct four single family homes. Staff recommended the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Parcel Map #91-175 and certification of Negative Declaration #6-91. Approval would be through the adoption of Resolution No. 1636, subject to 13 cond1tions of approval outlined in the staff report. commission Comments Chairman Fife asked if the disposition of the Krenwinkle House to the S-P right-of-way (ROW) along Seal Beach Boulevard was the same right-of-way owned by the Navy and for possible easement for the Seal Beach Boulevard parking? Staff said yes. Mr. Whittenberg . Page 12 - Plann1ng Commission M1nutes of June 19, 1991 clarified that the ROW extends into the residentially zoned areas further to the West of Seal Beach Blvd. The commercially zoned portion may be retained for future parking and the Krenwinkle House could be located on the residentially zoned portion. The Navy owns all of the ROW. Chairman Fife referenced Government Code, Sect10n 65590 which requires that when dwelling units are altered or demolished in the coastal zone that if they are occupied by persons of low and moderate income you are to replace the dwelling units. He asked if staff had made any study of who is currently living in the eX1sting structures and what their income levels are? Staff said no. Staff has discussed this issue with the City Attorney's Office and hopefully will receive a reply with a few days. Chairman Fife said that as was made clear to developer Jim Watson, the Luraschi's must know that the Government Code may dictate a low income housing requirement. Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. . Charles Antos * 328 17th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Antos represented the Luraschi's who were also present. Mr. Antos said the Luraschi's are offering the Krenwinkle House to the city at this time to allow the City the maximum amount of time to review their options. The Krenwinkle House is a one-owner dwelling which has been very well ma1ntained and is on the C1ty'S Historical List. The Luraschi's are offering the house after two new houses are built so they can move into one of the new homes. Clarifying Engineering Department condition of approval #2: 2. Remove existing driveway openings and the parkway 2.5 feet width of concrete along Second Street and Central Avenue and replace with standard curb and gutter Type "0", backfill with suitable materials and sod. Mr. Antos requested that in lieu of "backfill with suitable materials and sod" that the drainage be taken some other way, perhaps into a tree well. Clarifying Fire Department condition of approval #2: 2. Pr10r to issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence that a water supply for fire protect10n is ava1lable shall be subm1tted to and approved by the Fire Chief. Fire hydrants shall be in place and operations to meet requirements and fire-flow prior to commencing combustible materials. (Emphasis added) . . Mr. Antos understood this is a standard condition 1mposed by the Fire Department without a lot of site reconnaissance; there is a . . . Page 13 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 19, 1991 f ire hydrant directly across the street. He requested staff clarify that no additional fire hydrants are needed. Clarify the Negative Declaration, page 13, item 14. Public ServJ.ces: Therefore, as mitigation measure to offset impacts to parkland facJ.lities, the City will require the applicant to pay a fee of $10,000 per residential lot ($30,000 total) as a condition of approval of Tentative Parcel Map 91-175. This mitigation will lower the impact on parks and recreational facilities to a level not considered significant. Mr. Antos requested Planning Commission clarification of ordinance wording because the way the ordinance is written when one lot J.S subdivided into four lots you are paying subdivision fees on four lots instead of the three added lots. CommissJ.on Comments CommJ.ssioner Sharp, referencing Fire Department condition of approval #2 said "evidence that a water supply..." says that if you don't need a water supply/hydrant you won't have to put one in and vice versa. CommJ.ssioner Orsini, referencing the fees specified in the Negative Declaration said his understanding is that the fees are based on newly subdJ.vided lots. Mr. Curtis explained that, in general, a newly subdivided lot has a new house built on it. Staff made an error in the Negative DeclaratJ.on where it mentioned "$ 3 0,000" . Staff's original proposal to the Commission and the Council was the park fees be required for a net J.ncrease in parcels but a reconfiguration would not require fees as that did not add people. However, when the issue went before the Commission and Council, it was changed to require all newly subdivJ.ded parcels to pay the fees. Therefore, according to the City ordinance in effect, this applicant would owe a $40,000 fee. Mr. Antos indicated Coastal Commission approval will be needed but the application cannot be filed until the project has processed by the City's discretionary approvals on the subdivision and the final map approved. Mr. WhJ.ttenberg indicated, regarding the draJ.nage situation, suggested adding the following sentence to Condition #4: 4. The applicants shall remove existing drJ.veway openings and the parkway 2.5 feet width of concrete along Second Street and Central Avenue and replace with standard curb . Page 14 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 19, 1991 and gutter Type "D", backfill with sui table materials and sod. AI ternate methods of drainage may be substituted upon approval of the Engineering Department. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that if the Commission were to approve the project, staff would suggest the placement of the following condition: 14. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Government Code if low income housing or some contribution thereto is mandated. There being no one else wishing to speak for or against this project, Chalrman Fife closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve Tentative Map #91-175 and certification of Negative Declaration #6-91 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1636 subject to conditions as outlined in the staff report and subject to the following additions: 4. The applicants shall remove existing driveway openings and the parkway 2.5 feet width of concrete along Second Street and Central Avenue and replace with standard curb and gutter Type nDn, backfill with suitable materials and sod. Alternate methods of drainage may be substituted upon approval of the Engineering Department. . 14. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Government Code if low income housing or some contribution thereto is mandated. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Sharp, Orsini, Fife, McCUrdy, Dahlman *** Before the vote Commissioner Dahlman asked staff about the soils report approvals and Mr. Whittenberg advised him that soils reports are required and would be taken care of through the normal building permit plan check process. commissioner Dahlman addressed this hlstoric structure, stating he would like to receive input from City residents on how or where they would like their park funds monies spent. Chalrman Fife suggested agendizing this item for a Public Hearlng when more defini te information on moving costs and what to do with the structure is available. Mr. Whittenberg advised wai tlng until after the Public Hearing by the City Councl1 to see if they continue to agree to consider the acceptance of the structure. After that the Commission could begin to consider a location and associated costs. Commissioner Orsini suggested the Department of Water & Power property has six acres which has to be a park. Mr. . . . . Page 15 - Plannlng Commission Mlnutes of June 19, 1991 Whittenberg said there is no specific Plan requirement that the property actually be deeded to the City, it would be a long term lease situation. 12. Height Variation #10-91 247 Sixth street Resolution No. 1638 & Height Variation #11-91 249 Sixth street Resolution No. 1639 Staff Report The Commission permitted Mr. Cho to deliver the staff reports for Height Variations #10-91 and #11-91 concurrently as they are adjoining new single famlly homes and are identical plans. A separate vote was requested. Both applications are from Eric Mossman, Architect for Ericksen Construction Company. He requests a Minor Height Variation for covered roof access structures above the 25 foot height limit at 247 and 249 sixth Street. Staff recommended approval subject to three conditions of approval, the major condition being a reduction in the size of the CRAS, which the applicant has agreed to. Commlsslon Comments The Commission asked how large the roof decks and about the windows in the covered roof access structure. Staff replied the decks are shown at 283 square feet and the CRAS windows are basically skylights. Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearings. Eric Mossman * 326 N. Newport Blvd.. Newport Beach - Agreed to the conditions of approval with the reduction in size of the CRAS to 10\ feet. The skylight is on the lower portion of the roof and lights the stairwell below. The CRAS will be roofed and stuccoed to match the house. No one wishing to speak for or against the two applications, Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsinl. to grant Height Variation #10-91 by adoption of Resolution No. 1638 and subject to the three conditions outlined in the staff report. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Sharp, Orsini, Fife, McCUrdy, Dahlman MOTION by McCUrdy; SECOND by Orsini to grant Height Variation #11- 91 by adoption of Resolution No. 1637 and subject to the three conditions outlined in the staff report. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Sharp, Orsini, Fife, McCurdy, Dahlman Page 16 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 19, 1991 . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications from the audience. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. curtis presented the Commission with a memorandum on amendments to conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit #5-91 for 208 4th Street. It was approved May 1, 1991 by adoption of Resolution No. 1626. The applicants are requesting an amendment to Condition #2 to allow the door to be relocated to the Northerly exterior s1de wall. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCUrdy to find that the requested amendment is not significant enough to require a Public Hearing and to grant an amendment to Condition #2 of Conditional Use Permit #5- 91 to allow the door be relocated to the Northerly exterior side wall of the residence at 208 4th Street. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman, Orsl.ni *** . Mr. Whittenberg provided the Commission a copy of the amended Negative Declaration for Jim Watson's application for Rum Runner's Restaurant on Pacific Coast Highway. This document reflects the discussion of the noise impacts and the required additional noise studies. This will be incorporated into the City Counc11 agenda packet for June 24, 1991. COMMISSION CONCERNS commissioner Dahlman asked staff for fOllow-up on the curb cut on Catalina Avenue. Mr. Curtis said the curb cut was approved by the City'S Engineering Department. The existing curb cut was put in to remedy a mistake made by the Engineering Department. Comm1ssioner Dahlman asked who was 1n charge, the Engineering Department? Mr. Curtis said yes, in this case. The City Engineer makes decisions regarding public facilities; his superiors are the City Manager and the City Council. Because there has been no appeal there is no basis for the Plann1ng Commission to act. Commission Dahlman felt his appeals should be heeded. Mr. Curt1s advised it would be the Engineering Department who would take action. commissioner Dahlman asked staff for fOllow-up on the observadome at 1305 Sandp1per Drive. He asked if that would be torn down as a year has passed. Mr. Whittenberg said the property owners have one year from the date the new development standards went into effect to apply for a Minor Height Variation. If they do not make that application then the C1ty can begin inst1tuting proceedings to have . Page 17 - Plannlng Commission Mlnutes of June 19, 1991 . the structure removed because they have not applied for the necessary review. If they do apply, the Planning Commisslon will review it and make a determination as to what, if any, modlflcations should be made to that structure at that time. commissioner Dahlman asked staff if the survey of all the covered roof access structures (CRAS) had been completed. Mr. curtis sald that study was completed last week and it will be on the Commisslon agenda for July 17. . commissioner orsini indicated that Hennessey's on Main street is delinquent four years ln in-lieu parking fees. A payment schedule was established to start October 1990 (for 1986 - 1989) but to date no payment has been received. Commissloner Orsini requested this item be agendized to initiate revoking Varlance #14-84 which would take away hlS in-Ileu parking and therefore would not qualify for hlS Conditional Use Permit. The Commission noted that all the merchants are current on their in-lieu fees. Two merchants are unusual Hennessey's does not pay and Walt's Wharf makes payments. The Commission agreed something must be done to bring all merchants current. Director Whittenberg said staff has indicated to the operators of the businesses that the Plannlng CommlSSlon has the authority to schedule Public Hearings for revocation of the approvals due to non-payment of in-lieu fees. CommlSSloner Orsini indicated that if the fees are not paid by Monday, June 24, 1991 he would like interest added and compounded from 1986. Chairman Flfe felt the Government Code requires anybody owning money in the state pay 7% simple interest in the absence of any specific agreement. Chairman Fife said the area at Rossmoor Center Way and Seal Beach Blvd. has not been cleaned up and asked staff if Bixby has been contacted about the trash buildup and putting reflectors on the chains? Staff said they have been contacted and there is a single red reflector on the chain. Staff will contact Bixby and require additional reflectors and cleanup. Chairman Fife asked staff for a status of the noise studies to possibly give relief to homeowners backing to major arterlal streets. Mr. Whittenberg said the City has received the report from the Orange County Health Department who did the nOlse measurements. Staff has not gotten to this matter because of the heavy work-load and time schedules that staff is mandated to comply with. Chairman Fife asked if the municipal Code has been amended to allow food marts? He indicated he had looked at the food mart at the Chevron station at Seal Beach Boulevard and felt lt is a food mart. Mr. curtis said the Code has not been amended and has contacted the ABC for their interpretation of the QQgg as it pertains to the sale of food at gasoline service stations and how that it relates to the sale of alcohol. Their report has been received and a staff report . . ,. . Page 18 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 19, 1991 will be prepared for the July 17th Commiss1on meeting. The ABC report stated the two are unrelated and the fact they have food there has no bearing on whether they can sell alcohol; any gas station can apply to the ABC for a permit to sell alcohol at any time. ADJOURNMENT Cha1rman F1fe adjourned the meeting at 10: 25 p.m., noting the Planning Commiss1on will not meet on July 3, 1991. Respectfully Submitted, ~~:...~~ J an Fillmann Executive Secretary Planning Department Note: These Minutes are tentative and are subject to approval by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission Minutes of June 19, I~J91_ were approved by the Planning Commission on July 17, 1991. ~