Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1991-10-02 . . . .. . , ~ CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OCTOBER 2, 1991 7:30 P. M. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of September 18, 1991 Minutes 2. Resolution No. 1641 Unclassified Use Permit #1-91 Negative Declaration #6-91 2201 Seal Beach Boulevard Applicant: Rockwell International IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Conditional Use Permit #12-91 (Continued from September 4, 1991) 1120 Central Avenue Applicant: Bruce M. Stark and Michelle Brendel Request: After-the-fact modification of floor plan approved through CUP 4-89 to include a recreation area consisting of a wet bar area, recreation room, spa room, office and 2 bathrooms in conjunction with an existing duplex. Resolution No.: 1649 4. Height Variation (MPR) #14-91 1631 Ocean Avenue Applicant: James Mastick Request: Construction of a covered roof access structure in excess of the 25 foot height limit ( 30 foot height proposed) in conjunction with the remodel and addition of an existing single family residence. Resolution No.: 1650 5. Variance No. #7-91 Height Variation (MPR) # 13-91 B-112, Surfside Applicant: David A. Byrnes Request: To allow construction of a new single family residence, 37 feet in height (35 1 , ~ , J .. . . VI. VII. VIII. IX. foot height requirement) and to allow an exterior stairway from the ground level to the second floor. Height variation request to allow the construction of a covered roof access structure in excess of the 35 foot height limit (44 foot height proposed). Both requests made in conjunction with the proposed new construction of a single family residence. Resolut1on No.: 1651 6. Conditional Use Permit No. #16-91 16281 Pacific Coast Highway Applicant: Salvatore Camelia Request: To establish an entertainment cafe in con junction with an existing restaurant (Noel's Restaurant). specifically, the applicants are requesting to provide a single performer playing low volume polynesian type music in the lounge between 7:00 p. m. and 11:00 p. m. nightly. Resolution No.: 1652 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. STAFF CONCERNS COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT 2 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 2, 1991 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of October 2, 1991 was called to order by Chairman Flfe at 7:35 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Orsinl. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Flfe CommlSSloners Dahlman, Law, Orslnl, Sharp Staff Present: Department of Development Services: Lee Whlttenberg, Director Barry curtis, Admlnistrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of September 18, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orslni to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of September 18, 1991 with the following revisions: (1) page 2, paragraph 3, revise second sentence to read: "Staff said the non-bearing wall could easily be removed and the unpermitted conversion of the two hundred square feet of attic space into additional living space was not prevented by any staff restrictions". [Emphasis added] (2) page 2, paragraph 5, revise second sentence to read" Mr. CUrtis explained that if a non-conforming property is not non-conforming as to density it may increase the number of bedrooms" . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Orsini, Fife, Dahlman, Law *** r" ~ Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes of october 2, 1991 2. Unclassified Use Permit 11-91 and Negative Declaration 16-91 Resolution No. 1641 2201 Seal Beach Boulevard * Rockwell International Mr. whittenberg explained that Resolution No. 1641 is A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING UNCLASSIFIED USE PERMIT #1-91, A REQUEST TO RELOCATE A HELIPORT AT 2201 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD [ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL] and 1S before the Plann1ng Commission to review the changes agreed upon at the September 18, 1991 Plann1ng Commission meeting between the C1ty and the applicant. Add1tionally, this corrected resolut1on shows add1tional mod1fications staff recommends be 1ncorporated into the resolution. These are: ~ Pages 1, 2 and 3: Change to word "relocate" to "establ1sh". The current wording suggests relocating an existing heliport but the Commission's action was to allow the existing heliport to remain and establ1sh a new heliport on the south side of Build1ng 81. This 1S not the closing of one heliport and relocating it to another location. It would allow the approved exist1ng location on the north side of Building 80 to remain also. Page 3: Condition 2 was completely rev1sed because staff fel tit was lengthy and confusing. The previous language said that if a review of the Rockwell facility was done due to future development on the Hellman Ranch that this particular issue could come before the Planning Comm1ssion with result1ng reallocation as to flight acti vi ty at the subJect heliport. The new language clarif1es that if Rockwell is required to reduce flights on the south pad they will be able to move those flight operations back to the north pad on a per flight basis not exceed1ng the daily or monthly flight allowance totals. Any other uses requ1re wr1tten Department of Development Services approval. . commissioner Sharp asked why the roof-top helipad was not ment10ned here. Mr. Wh1 ttenberg sa1d that licensed facility and is antic1pated to be used only in extreme emergency situations or only when very important personnel are arriving at BU1ld1ng 80. Flights there are not 1ntensive. The roof-top helipad was not included with the north pad trade off and was mentioned only in regard to the number of dally flight limitations. All normal flight operat1ons from the north hel1pad are being moved to the south helipad, away from Le1sure World. ~ Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 2, 1991 Page 7, Condition 21 has the last sentence stricken Wh1Ch clar1f1ed that if modifications at Rockwell are necessary due to construction on the Hellman property all feasible mit1gation measures available at that time will be cons1dered by the Commission. The stricken language 1S redundant. Mr. Wh1ttenberg asked the appl1cant, Rockwell International, if they had any further changes or corrections. Page 6, Condition 20: Dallas pierce * Facil1ties Manager for Eng1neer1ng. Rockwell International Sa1d he wanted to add the following language to Condition #20: ... and Wh1Ch shall include but not be Ilm1ted to the follow1ng prov1s1ons to the extent they are safe and practical. [Emphas1s added]. . He expla1ned th1S request is for safety reasons due to the possibil1ty of changing extreme weather and/or conditions. The hel1copter pilot has to made certain judgments. Mr. Whittenberg said staff agreed w1th the appl1cant to put the clarifYJng language 1n at the beginn1ng paragraph because safety language should apply to all of these cond1tions. Chairman F1fe suggested placing an add1tion subsection "g" to Cond1tion #20 to read: g. The foregoing restrictions shall be subject to pilot judgement and discretion where unusual conditions create safety considerations. [Emphasis added]. The appl1cant agreed to adding subsection "g" to Condit1on #20. The Commiss1on had no further comments or correct1ons. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve Resolution No. 1641 wi th the corrections as shown in the staff strikeoutjredline version and the additions as indicated above. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Orsini, Fife, Law, Dahlman Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d th1S 1tem does require a Public Hear1ng before the City Council for final approval; that will be October 7, 1991. . *** r" ~ Page 4 - Planning COmmlssion Minutes of October 2, 1991 . . SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no Scheduled Matters on the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Conditional Use Permit #12-91 1120 Central Avenue Staff Report Mr. whittenberg indicated th1S item has been continued from the Planning Comm1ssion meeting of September 4, 1991. Staff received a letter from the applicant, Bruce Stark, requesting a continuance to October 16, 1991 due to a conflict in scheduling by his attorney. The City Attorney's Office indicates 1t is not possible for their office to have a representative present at the October 16th Commiss10n meeting. Staff suggested CUP #12-91 be cont1nued to the Commission meeting of November 6, 1991. Mr. Whittenberg said this 1S an agreeable date with Mr. Stark and his attorney. The Public Hearing was continued to this meeting and will not need to be re-Noticed after a Motion to cont1nue to a date certain. MOTION by Sharp: SECOND by Dahlman to continue the Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit #12-91 to the Planning commission meeting of November 6, 1991. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, Law, Orsini *** 4. Height variation (MPR) #14-91 1631 Ocean Avenue Staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [staff report on file 1n the Planning Department]. The appl1cant, James Mastic, requested to construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in excess of the 25 foot height limit (30 foot height proposed) in conjunction w1th the remodel and addition of an existing single family residence at 1631 Ocean Avenue. Regard1ng the issue of "pr1mary v1ew", the proposed res1dence is similar to others in the neighborhood. It would impair a portion of but not significantly impair the primary view of properties within 300 feet. The commission must determine at what point a loss 1n view is considered signif1cant and e1ther conditionally approve or deny this request based upon that determ1nation. The City rece1ved two letters from residents stating their concerns with the construction of this structure: E. Salegui of A57 Surfside and Ella Rowe of P. O. Box 244, Surfs1de. These were read into the Record by Mr. Curtis and Ms. Fillmann. ~ Page 5 - Planning commission Minutes of October 2, 1991 Commission Comments Chairman F1fe asked if th1S proposed CRAS was similar to any CRAS bU1lt since the new ordinance went into effect? Staff said yes, but th1S is the first CRAS with a view issue. An outright denial could be predicated solely on the loss of view. Staff did not have photographs at this time but could provide them at a later meet1ng. commissioner Dahlman asked staff to describe how much of an arc 1S ocean V1ew. Mr. curtis said the neighbor behind the applicant, Mr. Olson at 1517 Mar1ne, has approximately a 180 - 200 degree ocean V1ew and th1S proposed CRAS would block that view approximately 5%. The respondent's are very concerned with the precedent th1S would set, more than this specific structure. commissioner Dahlman asked if other cities had specific provis1ons with respect to primary view? Mr. Whittenberg said some cities had general requirements, such as those in our municipal Code, but not a set formula. Comm1ssioner Dahlman said he would like to see it more concretely spelled out. . Comm1ssioner Sharp asked staff how extensive a remodel is this? Mr. curtis said 1t's basically a new house; a portion of the first floor is being ma1ntained. Comm1ssioner Sharp asked what was preventing this applicant from designing a roof access without a CRAS? Mr. curtis sa1d nothing was prevent1ng that. Commissioner Sharp said h1S main objections are they are unsightly, they block views but in a complete remodel they could go the other way. Cha1rman Fife said no def1nitive fact-finding procedures have been developed on view 1mpact and this could lead to erratic decisions lacking uniform1ty. Mr. Curtis said it would be helpful to staff to have a means, formula or policy to determine what const1tutes "signif1cant loss" regarding view. Comm1ss1oner Law ind1cated drawings or video tapes would be helpful. Publ1C Hearing James Mastic * 1631 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach - Introduced himself as the applicant, stating he only wanted to build a nice house for his fam1ly and was not ask1ng for a spec1al privilege. He offered photographs he took from his neighbor's single-story roof deck. He stated his plans were drawn in 1988 and approved by the City in 1989. . Lee Cambr1a * Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach - Spoke in favor of th1S project because she felt it is not equitable to deny this applicant when many of his adJacent neighbors have CRAS. ~ Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 2, 1991 In response to the Planning Comm1ssion, Mr. curtis spoke on the non-conforming CRAS. He expla1ned the new ordinance, as 1 t applies to existing non-conforming covered roof access structures, says they have one year from the date the ordinance was passed changing the Code section to apply to the Planning Commission for a height variation. After consideration, the Planning Commission will determine whether the non-conforming CRAS should be approved for a height variation, should be condit10nally approved, or should be denied with the structure either being removed or amortized out of use. The point being that existing CRAS structures are not there in perpetuity. ~ ~ Michael Cho * 17022 Marina Bay Drive. Huntington Beach - Spoke in favor of the application but felt the size should be reduced to the m1nimum size. Address1ng the "formula for view loss", Mr. Cho said this ventures on the creation of a view easement Wh1Ch he didn't th1nk the C1ty should get into. It would be inequitable to deny the use of a CRAS simply because that particular homeowner had not built yet and everyone else has. Mr. Cho suggested that if CRAS's are not wanted the ord1nance should be changed. But, because CRAS are allowed under the Code someone who follows the letter of the law should be allowed to take advantage of the law, that's what it's there for. Jerry Anderson * 1301 Sandpiper Drive. Seal Beach - Spoke aga1nst this application, stating the City should stick w1th the established height limit. He asked if CRAS could be built on per1pheral walls? Mr. Whittenberg said the Planning Comm1ssion determinat10ns take into consideration whether being on a peripheral wall is appropriate; it's not prohibited. Addressing equity, he sa1d he was concerned about the people who are abiding by the height limit. He felt that just because mistakes were made 1n the past does not justify continuing them in the future. Roger Elliot * 206 11th Street. Seal Beach - Said he purchased his home one year ago with an 8' xIS' CRAS which was approved by the ci ty. He sa1d CRAS should be allowed if they have been approved by the C1ty. Mr. Elliot wanted to discuss what would happen to his home in this situation and Mr. Whittenberg suggested he contact him at his office. He felt there will be a lot of legal opposition from the 118 homeowners if the City attempts to remove CRAS's retroactively. M1ke Olson * 1514 Marine. Seal Beach - Said he subm1tted one of the letters in opposition. He explained he bought a new house 1n December 1990, it was already constructed and had a CRAS. He felt this 1S a textbook case of a CRAS that will block an ocean V1ew. DenY1ng a CRAS would not deny the appl1cant a chance to build a nice home for his family nor access to a roof deck. It would be denying the existing houses a portion of what they purchased - an ocean view. He stated he could see the ocean over single story houses but could see only house on those two-story houses. ~ Page 7 - Planning commission Minutes of October 2, 1991 Cha1rman F1fe closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Whittenberg 1ndicated he received a letter 1n Oppos1t10n from Denn1S D1cksen at 1516 Marine, Seal Beach. It was not read 1nto the Record but 1S attached to these M1nutes. The applicant requested to speak aga1n and Chairman Fife reopened the Publ1C Hearing. James Mast1c * 1631 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach - Said he subm1tted the plans in 1989 and they were approved by the City. He didn't go forward w1th the bU1lding at that time because he just couldn't afford to. The identical plans were submitted again at this time and he was not aware of the controversy that has come out tonight. He sa1d he gets the Seal Beach Journal and glances through it but did not read any art1cles on CRAS so this is all new to h1m. He said he didn't want to negatively impact the City or block anyone's view. But 1f view 1S the 1ssue, Seal Way has three story homes. The rules state that they can go that high and that's a r1sk I have to take. Regarding his CRAS, his contractor, Steve Jones, went over his plans and Mr. Jones sa1d the closet at the top of the stairway could be elim1nated at wh1ch point the CRAS would just enclose the CRAS. ~ Cha1rman F1fe asked Mr. Mastic if he had considered reorienting the sta1rs to run parallel to the long dimension of the house as opposed to being transverse to it because the size of the CRAS increases is when the stairs go at right angles to the long d1mension of the house and have to have an interim landing. Mr. Mastick advised his contractor was present. Steve Jones * Contractor for Mr. Mast1c [No address given]. Mr. Jones discussed modification and reorientation of the sta1rs with the Commission. He sa1d he would have to talk to the engineer but 1t looked like the shear wall would have to be cut through by the sta1rs and would not be structurally sound because that wall carries the weight of the building. It would have to be re- eng1neered. The re-engineering could result 1n a small CRAS. Chairman F1fe ind1cated he was not suggesting the necessity of re- eng1neer1ng the ent1re house but that more thought could be given on how access to the roof could be accomplished with modification of the sta1r or1entation up to the CRAS to produce a minimum profile CRAS. Michael Budah * 1513 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach - Spoke 1n favor of this plan saying the present orientation is best because Mr. Mast1c's house is on the curve of Ocean Avenue near the Navy base. If he changes the plan he w111 block more views because his house runs perpend1cular to most of the views now and faces the Naval Station. Mr. Budah said he has a single story house. ~ 4It Page 8 - Planning Commiss1on Minutes of October 2, 1991 James Mastic said he could not afford additional expenses and changes. He indicated his plans were drawn in 1988 and all expenses were carefully calculated. He has a build1ng permit and demolition has been started on his house. . . commissioner Sharp asked Mr. whittenberg to clarify the issue further. Mr. Whittenberg said Mr. Mastic is requesting a Minor Height variation in accordance with Code provisions which allow up to a 7' increase over the permitted height in the zone. This zone has a 25' height limit, so they would be allowed a maximum height of 32' to the roof of a CRAS. That would conform to the limits of the ~ as it exists at this tlme as long as it is the minimum dlstance both horizontally and vertically to cover the area. This stalr could be covered at a 30' height limit and that's what's been requested. Commissioner Sharp said Mr. Mastic is not asking for something above what the Code allows. commissioner orsini noted the applicant had hlS bUllding permit and approved plans, asked Mr. Mastic if he had been notified that the CRAS might not be approved? Mr. Mastic said "That was an issue, yes ... I was told that we could go ahead and start construction and that this had to come before the Planning Commission but not to worry about it too much". Commissioner Orslni sald "Staff told you not to worry about something you have to apply for a Variance on?" Mr. Whittenberg said staff indicated to the applicant that he could proceed with construction of the main residence but that approval of the CRAS does require Planning Commission approval. Commissioner sharp indicated that most CRAS applications, without view considerations like this application, have been approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Whittenberg said the CRAS applications have been granted in most cases with modifications to the size of the structure. Mr. Whittenberg sald "On the plans it was very clearly indicated that the permit did not include the doghouse". Mr. Mastic said "However, I felt reasonably safe in proceeding just from possibly a misinterpretation that I was recei ving . It may have been a complete misunderstanding on my part. I am not saying that the Planning Department assured me that the doghouse would be permitted. I may have read I can guarantee you they didn't assure me that. But I may have read in over confidence on my part that lt would be approved". Mr. whittenberg sald Mr. curtis had been speaking with the contractor and there may be a way to reorient the CRAS so the length will run parallel to the length of the house. Mr. Whittenberg suggested a continuance for two weeks. commissioner Sharp asked if that's what was wanted, consldering Mr. Budah's testimony? Mr. Whittenberg said a continuance would allow staff to prepare an area plan of that area, locating this property, showing the configuration of the proposed home, locating the other homes having CRAS. That would gi ve the Commission a visual overlay. ~ Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 2, 1991 Comm1SS10ner Orsini said he didn't think anyone should lose any part of their view. He asked to see plans submitted without a CRAS. Mr. Mastic said resubm1tting plans would require additional architect's fees which would be difficult to afford. Commissioner orsini explained his view that a CRAS was not a necessity because you can st1ll get to a roof deck without a CRAS. He said he has trouble with taking away a view with something that is not a necessity. Mr. Mast1c said he spent $10,000 on h1S plans and if he would have known that CRAS had limitations he would have had the plans drawn that way. Mr. curtis said these plans were approved by the city's BU1lding Department in December 1988 at which time CRAS's d1d not require Planning Comm1SS10n approval so it was approved administratively by staff. Commissioner Sharp agreed with Commiss10ner Orsini, saY1ng he would not like to see anyone's view blocked. But, at the present time, unless an ordinance is passed saY1ng there are to be absolutely no new CRAS to be built the Commission would be doing Mr. Mastic a disservice because everything else is 1n accordance with the Code. The Comm1ssion has no right to deny this CRAS. Commissioner Ors1ni said the Commission has not considered a CRAS that has obstructed a view. Chairman F1fe closed the PUblic Hearing for the second time. ~ Cha1rman Fife said the new ordinance d1rects the Commission to take into account the view issue. The Commission does not have enough eV1dence to take that issue 1nto account other than individual subjective reactions and opinions. Factual eV1dence of what the view 1mpa1rment is needed before further consideration. Chairman Fife reopened the Public Hearing for the purpose of continuing the Public Hearing for Height Variat10n #14-91 to October 16, 1991. MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Dahlman to reopen the Public Hearing and to continue Height Variation 114-91 to the Planning commission meeting of October 16, 1991, to direct staff to work with the applicant and his architect to achieve feasible alternative designs for the CRAS, to have staff present photographs taken from roof decks of arguably affected properties and a produce diagram that could be imposed on the photographs to better evaluate the view issue. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Fife, Dahlman, Sharp, Law, Orsini *** Chairman Fife called a recess to 9:35 p.m. ~ Cha1rman Fife 1ndicated he had received a request during the break to move Agenda 1tem #6 ahead of item #5 in the interest of time. After polling the applicants it was decided to take the Agenda 1tems 1n order. 4It Page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 2, 1991 4It 4It 5. Variance #7-91 Height variation #13-91 B-112 Surfs ide staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file 1n the Planning Department]. The applicant, David Byrnes, 1S requesting (1) construction of a new single fam1ly residence 37 feet in height in a 35 foot height zone; (2) allowing an exterior stairway from ground level to the second floor; (3) construction of a covered roof access structure (CRAS) to 44 feet, in excess of the 35 foot height lim1t. staff 1S concerned there are inadequate find1ngs to substantiate the requested Variance from the height requirements and that the approval of this request would set a precedent within the Colony. Staff recommended conditional approval of Variance #7-91 through the adoption of Resolution No. 1651 subject to these conditions: 1. Variance #7-91 is approved for the construction of an exterior stairway within the side yard setback at B-112 SurfS1de. 2. The requested two foot (2') variance from the height requirements for the structure and f1ve foot (5') variance for the parapet is den1ed. 3. All construction of the exterior stairway shall be in substantial compliance with the plan approved through Variance #7-91. Staff recommended approval of He1ght Variation #13-91 through the adoption of Resolution No. 1653 sUbject to these conditions: 1. Height Variation (MPR) #13-91 is approved for a covered roof access structure (CRAS) at B-112 Surfside. 2. The appl1cant shall submit a specific floor plan for the CRAS and staff shall reduce the area of the CRS to the minimum area necessary to provide the required 6'8" head clearance for the stairway. This will ensure the proposed CRAS will be the minimum horizontal size necessary to cover the sta1rwell. 3. All construct1on shall be in substantial compliance w1th the plans approved through Height Variation (MPR) #13-91. Staff received two letters opposing th1S applicat10n Wh1Ch were read into the Record by staff, from E. Salegu1 at A-57 and Ella ~ Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 2, 1991 Rowe, P.O. Box 244, Surfside. Both letters are attached to these Minutes for the Record. . . commission Comments There were no Commission comments at this time. Public Hearing Chairman F1fe opened the Public Hearing. David Byrne * B-112 Surfs1de Mr. Byrne reviewed his need for a Var1ance and addressed the state mandated findings. He said the special circumstances" for B-112 regard the pr10r measuring method used to determine the height elevation. Previously the method was averaging the middle of the street with the height of the sand berm in front of A row. That average determined the base height 11mit. The most current example being the Blake residence at A-I02 which, given the current measuring requirement using the middle of the street, the Blake's home 1S 37 feet. A-112 and A-113 were built by D1Ck Moody using the old measurement guidel1nesi these houses are directly across the street from B-112. Mr. Byrne presented plot maps showing B-112 is landlocked by A-112 and A-113. He stated that in applying for a Var1ance of 24 inches he is look1ng to achieve parity w1th his neighbors. The other special circumstance applicable to B-112 is the safety need for an exterior stairway. His flood plain eng1neer indicated the need for an exterior stairway because the west end of Surfside 1S prone to flood1ng and he's seven houses from the end. It's difficult to get out from an interior stairway. Mr. Byrne discussed the height measurement in Surfside. He said Mr. Curtis had 1nd1cated the prior height measurement method was unsu1table to A row but he d1sagreed because the A row houses are getting four floors with 8 foot ceilings. The Commission and the applicant d1scussed the phys1cal orientation of Rows A, Band C 1n Surfs1de. commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Whittenberg if A-112 and A-113 are 37 feet h1gh? Mr. Whittenberg said they are approximately that height when measuring from the street level itself. Mr. Whittenberg expla1ned that prior to the current change in the Code the grade level where measuring started was based on the average height of the area covered by the building which in most cases resulted in a 1 to 2 foot automatic granting of a he1ght increase due to the difference 1n grade from the street frontage of the lot to the ocean frontage building area of the lot. There are several homes on A row that are higher than 35 feet from the street because of the preV10US measuring method. In this case, two of those homes are directly in front of this applicant's home. A-I02 was the last home built in Surfside that was built under that method. As the home was being constructed there was a controversy over the structure exceed1ng even that height and that 1ssue was resolved at the City Counc11 level through Executive Sessions during conversations w1th the City Attorney's Office as the best way to ~ Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 2, 1991 proceed at that time. A-I02 is close to 38 feet above street level; the City approved plans were 37 feet. ~ ~ The Commission discussed the history of the A-I02 residence and the measuring methods in Surfside. Chairman F1fe asked Mr. curtis that if this height variance were granted the City would face a similar argument with the homes on B row? Mr. curtis said he thought yes, at least on a signif icant portion of the B row homes that are behind similar structures; about 30% to 40% of the B row homes. Additionally, there are several B row homes built over he1ght and the City may get requests from C row homes. He indicated that for each home built over height it significantly affects the views of three or four homes behind it. It was discussed with Surfside Colony at Planning Commission level when the zoning text amendment came before the Commission. Comm1ss10ner Sharp asked Mr. Byrne if he had been gi ven the 1mpression that his application would be automatically passed by the Planning Comm1ssion? Mr. Byrne said no. He said his plans are drawn but he has not started construction. Michael Cho * Huntington Beach Mr. Cho said this may be the test case because it raises 1mportant issues of parity. He indicated the ordinance which redefined the height limit and measuring reference point is unfair. He questioned how far is the city willing to go to make sure everyone has the same opportunity? Are the B row homes, and subsequently the C row homes, going to be denied a view of the ocean because Surfside homeowners had taken advantage of a prior, different grade measuring system which gave certain homes a height advantage? View doesn't become an issue when all the homes are bU1lt at the same height. In most neighborhoods all the streets are basically level and at the same elevation. Surfside has a large sand berm which is averaged 1nto the grade and allows the houses on A row to be four feet higher than the homes across the street. The B row homes don't get the benefit of averaging in the berm of rocks and sand. By passing th1S the Commission will have to set a pOlicy allowing everyone in Surfs1de to come up to some sort of equitable level; you shouldn't be three feet below your neighbor because they can average in a sand berm. Chairman Fife said it seemed to him that if this application is approached from the Variance point of view, 1f granted, the Commission would be in no position to deny any other Variance applications along B row and the Commission could be overturning the City Council. Mr. Cho said he didn't think the commun1ty understood, especially the B row residents, that they would be short-changed two to three feet compared to their neighbors. They thought they were getting a uniform system of measuring. Chairman Fife indicated that if equity is to be achieved for B row residents then the ordinance needs to be overturned. Mr. Cho felt this is the starting p01nt to ach1eve public awareness. Chairman Fife felt Mr. Cho was talking about a view easement or a right to maintain a view or view opportunity. ~ Page 13 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 2, 1991 Mr. Cho said he was not saying you have a right to a view that cannot be d1srupted. Where someone goes above what the law has provided they have now taken away from a view. Lee Cambria * Old Town She said she wanted consistency and equity --- 1f CRAS are allowed then allow them for everyone. If CRAS are not allowed, then have everyone take them down. No spec1al privileges. Jerry Anderson * 1301 Sandpiper Drive Said the system 1S not working. The City has a he1ght limit which is not being observed. He noted that most of the homes on the Hill are the same, most of the homes in Surfside are the same --- so the Variances are not being granted on special circumstances but on greed. He said the C1ty should maintain the height limit or ra1se the height limit ent1rely. That would eliminate special circumstances and people would know exactly what the height lim1t was before starting to draw plans. . Commiss1oner Dahlman asked Mr. Curt1s if all the Surfside homes were measured by the currently enforced measuring method to what height could they all build? What's the current highest home? Mr. Curt1s said the tallest home is 40 feet tall measured from the center of the street. Mr. curtis said the tallest structure on A row is 38 feet and there are a couple of homes taller than that on Brow. Chairman F1fe closed the Public Hear1ng. commission Comments commissioner Sharp asked staff how much of a reduction staff was asking for this CRAS? Mr. curtis said that at this time staff does not have the spec1fic floor plan for the CRAS. Staff would like the commission to direct staff to make this CRAS the minimum size. Prior to approving the CRAS it would be brought back before the Commission for its review. commissioner Sharp said he thought 1 t would be nice to have terraced building to allow everyone to have an ocean view but that's not real1stic. After considerable Public Hearings at the Commission and Council level on this issue the consensus was to st1ck to the 35 foot height limit measured from the street. He said he saw no reason, according to State law, to grant this to go to 37 feet. He had no objections to the outs1de stairwell or the CRAS if brought down to the minimum size. . The commission discussed Commissioner Sharp's Motl.on. Commissioner Dahlman, after hear1ng Commissioner Sharp frame the Motion, said he was having doubts about approving the CRAS without having the full information usually provided. Mr. curtis explained the information staff does have. Commissioner Sharp said he had no objection to 4It Page 14 - Planning commission Minutes of October 2, 1991 the applicant's bringing the plans back. Mr. curtis said staff should have asked for more specific plans for the roof deck/CRASe Commissioner Dahlman asked if it would be possible to omit approving the CRAS until the plans were submitted and staff said yes. Commissioner Dahlman questioned Condition of Approval #3 of MPR #13-91, asking why it read "substantial compliance" instead of "full compliance"? Mr. curtis said the verbiage allows an applicant to have flexib1lity without violating the Conditions of Approval of the Planning commission, primarily to take into account any minor changes necessary to comply wi th "plan check" correct1ons. Comm1ssioner Dahlman said he would second Commissioner Sharp's Motion if approval of the CRAS were deleted. commissioner Sharp said he felt that would be a disservice to the applicant, to have to redraw plans, and chance it not being approved. Commissioner Dahlman sa1d the Code requires the Commission to consider the CRAS. Chairman F1fe said he agreed with Commissioner Dahlman, not seeing where the two feet drop (from 37' to 35') would come out or whether an entire redesign is necessary which would involve many things. Mr. Whittenberg said the Commission could take action on the Variance request, continue the hearing on the Height Variation for the CRAS to allow those plans to be resubm1 tted for further Commission consideration and continue the Public Hearing. 4It MOTION by Sharp [NO SECOND] to approve Variance #7-91 through the adoption of Resolution No. 1651 subject to the three following conditions: 1. Variance #7-91 is approved for the construction of an exterior stairway within the side yard setback at B-112 Surfside. 2. The requested two foot ( 2') variance requirements for the structure and variance for the parapet is denied. from the height five foot (5') 3. All construction of the exterior stairway shall be in substantial compliance with the plan approved through Variance #7-91. and approval of Height Variation #13-91 through the adoption of Resolution No. 1653 subject to these conditions: 1. Height Variation (MPR) #13-91 is approved for a covered roof access structure (CRAS) at B-112 Surfside. 2. The applicant shall submit a specific floor plan for the CRAS and staff shall reduce the area of the CRS to the minimum area necessary to provl.de the required 6' 8 n head . ~ Page 15 - Planning Commission Minutes of october 2, 1991 ~ . clearance for the stairway. This proposed CRAS will be the Dllnl.mum necessary to cover the stairwell. will ensure horizontal the size 3. All construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans approved through Height variation (MPR) #13-91. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND. *** Mr. Byrne introduced his architect, Carol Tink, who explained and discussed the plans with the Commission. Ms. Tink said the shape of the CRAS is shown on the plans, it measures 7.5' x 12.5', it is shaped the same was as the stairs throughout the house. The landing is included in this space. Commissioner Orsin1 stated he is against anyone losing any view and this applicant is applying for a Variance because he lost his view and this is the reverse of the previous application --- he has lost his view and wants to go higher to get his view. Loss of ocean view is a serious situation. Chairman Fife said this was discussed in depth when the zone text amendment to limit the height to 35' was adopted. Commiss10ner Orsini said he was not in favor of granting any variances for he1ght because if the Commission grants one for a B row homeowner they must grant for all B row homeowners. Commissioners Sharp and Orsin1 discussed the d1fference between Mr. Mastick' sand Mr. Byrnes' applications. Commissioner orsini asked the Commission to please remember this 1ssue when in comes to Old Town because you're look1ng at issues regarding view. MOTION by Sharp: SECOND by Dahlman to approve Variance #7-91 through the adoption of Resolution No. 1651 subject to the three following conditions: 1. Variance #7-91 is approved for the construction of an exterior stairway within the side yard setback at B-112 Surfside. 2. The requested two foot ( 2') variance from the height requirements for the structure and five foot (5') variance for the parapet is denied. 3. All construction of the exterior stairway shall be in substantial compliance Wl. th the plan approved through Variance #7-91. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Fife, Law, Orsini, Sharp, Dahlman *** 4It Page 16 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of October 2, 1991 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to grant Height variation #13-91 through the adoption of Resolution No. 1653 Subject to these conditions: 1. Helght variation (MPR) #13-91 is approved for a covered roof access structure (CRAS) at B-112 Surfside. 2. The applicant shall submit a specific floor plan for the CRAS and staff shall reduce the area of the CRS to the minimum area necessary to provide the required 6' 8 II head clearance for the stairway. This will ensure the proposed CRAS will be the minimum horizontal size necessary to cover the stairwell. 3. All construction shall be in substantlal compliance with the plans approved through Height variation (MPR) #13-91. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits that the final design plans for the covered roof access structure come back to the Planning commission for review to ensure it's in conformance with the commission's determination tonight. . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Orsini, Fife *** 6. Conditional Use Permit #16-91 16281 Pacific Coast Highway Noel's Restaurant staff Report Mr. Curtls delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The appllcant, Salvatore Camelia, is requesting to establish an entertainment cafe in conjunction with an existing restaurant at 16281 Pacific Coast highway. The request lncludes provlding a single entertainer provlding polynesian music ln the lounge Wednesday through Sunday evenings from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Staff recommends approval, subject to ten Conditions of Approval, through the adoption of Resolution No. 1652. . Commisslon Comments Commissioner orsini requested a continuance of this entertainment cafe request to allow the City Councll time to establish rules on entertalnment cafes backing to residential areas. Mr. Whlttenberg said the matter has gone to Council and Council has instructed staff to proceed with attempting to develop standards. But at this time there is no prohibition to allow the matter to be considered, that's a matter of policy by the Commission as to whether you decide to proceed or not. Commissioner orsini asked if there was an apartment/residence above the restaurant? Staff said yes. He ~ Page 11 - Planning commission Minutes of October 2, 1991 asked what was the distance between Noel's Cafe and the res1dences 1n Surfs ide behind it? Mr. Curtis said about 40 feet. The applicant indicated the residence above the cafe is rented to the pr10r owner. Chairman Fife said the three month review allowance would take into account any standards that have been developed. He said he was concerned with dictating the type of music but Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Condition is at the applicant's request. Publ1c Hearing ~ Tony Gerlock * B16 Surfside Mr. Gerlock said Noel's Seafood has had a long tradit10n of good quality food at extremely affordable prices and also entertainment. The entertainment is a necessary component of the restaurant' s success because the wait on a Friday or Saturday nights 45 minutes and the entertainment helps. without entertainment people get up and walk out so they are losing business. He said he has walked beh1nd the restaurant many times on many Saturday nights and he could not hear anything over the noise of Pacific Coast Highway because the noise there is "incredible". He said he lives w1thin 100 feet of the restaurant and he can't hear anything over the n01se of Pacif ic Coast Highway. The music proposed is lounge music, no country or rock bands. It will be similar to what the previous only. Mr. Gerlock said he would like to open the entertainment concept up to having more than one entertainer --- perhaps two. Michael Cho * Huntington Beach Mr. Cho spoke in favor of this entertainment request. Condi tion #4 should be opened up to allow for more entertainer, perhaps five entertainers. Also Condition be limited to no dancing by the customers but entertainer(s) to dance. He felt than one #1 should allow the commissioner Dahlman asked the d1mensions of the stage. Commissioner Law said the stage was about six inches h1gh and was about 6' x 8'. The applicant said the lounge door is usually left open but it opens to the side lot. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. commissioner Sharp agreed with Mr. Cho, saying two or three enterta1ners would be nice and would probably not increase the noise level. The entertainer would not drown out the Pac1fic Coast Highway noise. . commissioner Ors1ni said he d1d not see much difference between the Renaissance Cafe application and this application. He didn' t think 1t would be fair to the Renaissance if the Noel's appl1cation was approved when they're in the same situation, asking for the same 4It Page 18 - Planning commission Minutes of october 2, 1991 type of music and same type of entertainment and both back to residential. Commissioner Sharp said there are dlfferences between the two applications --- the Renalssance application included an outdoor patio, with only an alley between the commercial and residential. Chairman Fife sald he saw a number of distinctions between the Renaissance application and this application. MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Sharp to approve Conditional Use Permit #16-91 through the adoption of Resolution No. 1652 with ten (10) Condi tions of Approval stated in the staff report. Changes are to Conditions #4, #7 and #10: 4. Entertainment acts shall consist of no more than five (5) entertainers playing and/or singing music . Alteration of these standards shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning commission. 7. There shall be no customer dancing permitted on the premises. . 10. [Add at the end of Condition #10] No signif1cant disturbance of nearby residents has arisen that cannot be mitigated. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Fife, Sharp, Dahlman, Law Orsini *** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg said that if the height llmits ln the Surfside area are of concern to the Planning Commission, the commission may want to consider making a recommendation to the City Council that a further reVlew of the height limits in that area be considered only for those properties on the B row that are impacted by a higher structure immediately in front of them on the A row. The commission lndicated that this issue was discussed ln detail at a previous commission meeting and was well attended by many Surfside residents. The testimony was predominantly in favor of the 35 foot height limlt. . " Chalrman Fife asked the Commission if they wanted to entertain a motion to make a recommendation to the Council to direct the Commisslon to restudy the problem? Commissioner Sharp said the ~ Page 19 - Plann1ng Commission Minutes of October 2, 1991 ~ . commission went through it enough then and should only restudy if there are appeals to the City council and the Council requests another study. Chairman Fife agreed. Commissioner Dahlman said the appl1cant has the opportunity to appeal the commission's decision to the Council and if he does appeal then Mr. whittenberg could take the Commission's feeling to the Council. Mr. Whi ttenberg said if that were to become the case, the Planning Comm1ssion m1nutes would be part of that information packet. COMMISSION CONCERNS commissioner Sharp asked for clarification on certain aspects of the Brown Act. Chairman Fife said indi vidual Planning Commissioners could meet and talk with people, it's that the Commission, as a quorum group, cannot approach. Chairman Fife asked if the Soup Plantation is out of business? Mr. curtis said yes, the operating company has closed the business. Mr. Whittenberg said it's his understanding they filed bankruptcy. Comm1ssioner Law said there are so many signs at Rossmoor Shopping Center and asked 1f they are approved signage? Mr. whittenberg said the signs are approved under the sign program a year ago. Mr. Curt1s sa1d the brown signs were built some time ago and approved after-the-fact V1a a sign program in 1985. Techn1cally they are legal because the planned sign program allows the Commission leeway because they look at them and approve them. They don't meet the stringent Code requ1rements. The pylon signs were built fifteen to twenty years ago. ADJOURNMENT Chairman F1fe adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, go~a--,~ Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary These Minutes are tentative and subject to Planning Commission approval. *** The Planning Commission Minutes of October 2, 1991 were approved by the Commission on October I~, 1991. ~ ~ ~