Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1991-10-16 ~~ <,) c~, ~sv~ (J ~ IMAM, 0 :;;00 @I@MU'IXJ ~ ~ ~,~~IIA _(@ <<~O;j)i 4:!lM~W CITY OF SEAL BEACH * PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA for OCTOBER 16, 1991 7:30 P.M. * CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of October 2, 1991 Minutes IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS . V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Height Variation #14-91 [Continued from 10-2-91] 1631 Ocean Avenue VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS VII. STAFF CONCERNS VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT . . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING of OCTOBER 16, 1991 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of October 16, 1991 was called to order by Chairman Fife at 7:32 p.m. in City council Chambers. PLEDGE OF AT.T.EGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Law. ROLL CAT.T. Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Dahlman, Law, Orsini, Sharp Staff Present: Department of Development Services: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CAT.ENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 16, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of October 16, 1991 with the following corrections: (1) Page 1, add "not~ to read "... property is not non-conforming. . . "; (2) Page 4, add to the motion 0... to continue the Public Hearing on ...0; (3) Page 5, add owaso to read "... proposed CRAS was similar to ...0; (4) Page 6, add oCRASo to read 0... the non-conforming CRAS should be ..."; (5) Page 6, add "or should be denied with" and (6) Page 6, add "CRASO to read "... existing CRAS structures ...0. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, Law, Orsini SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no Scheduled Matters. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. HEIGHT VARIATION #14-91 1631 OCEAN AVENUE Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on flle in the Planning Department]. This item has been continued from the Planning Commission's October 2, 1991 meeting. Mr. Curtis supplemented the staff report by displaying a color-coded exhibit map of the neighborhood bounded by 14th Street, Seal Way, Seal . Page 2 - Planning commission Minutes of October 16, 1991 Beach Blvd. and Electric Avenue. The map outlined the subject property, and indicated all one-story, two-story and three-story houses with CRAS's shown by red dots. Additionally, Mr. Curtis played a video tape of the subject area, showing views from various angles and roof decks. Commission Comments Regarding City Council Ordinance No. 1322, granted January 28, 1991, Chairman Fife said the language is vague on whether a significant impairment of any property's primary view is fatal to the granting of a Height Variation. He asked for Commission comments on how the Planning Commission should go about the analysis of this view impairment issue. Commission Dahlman said prlmary view is just one of several factors to consider. Chairman Fife agreed, saying there is nothing in Ordinance No. 1322 indicating a 'bad answer' on any factor is alone enough to deny the application. Mr. Whittenberg said he was present at the City Council meeting when Ordinance No. 1322 was adopted and there was no detailed discussion on the weighting of each factor but it appeared a total analysis was preferred with a feel as to how all the factors worked together. Commissioner Orsini said that if the Commission approves this application it couldn't deny the surrounding neighbors. Commissioner Sharp said he felt more study needs to be done on the issue of "primary view"; Commissioner Law agreed. . Public Hearing The following persons spoke in favor of this application: James Mastick. Applicant * 1631 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach - Said that after viewing the videotape he feels he would not be impairing the primary view of the Olson's at 1514 Marine Avenue. He has no objection to Alternative 1, reduction in CRAS size to the minimum size necessary to provide 6'8" head clearance. His contractor said Alternative 1 would cost the same as his present plan. Lee Cambria * Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach - Said she felt the applicant should be allowed to build a reduced-size CRAS because Ordinance No. 1322 allows it. She referenced Mr. Jerry Anderson's petition regarding opposition to CRAS, noting the 300 signatures were mostly Marina Hill residents with few signatures and little opposition from Old Town residents. She said Mr. Olson was aware of the situation before he purchased his home a year ago, during the moratorium because she informed him of it and requested his support during the Public Hearings. . (This paragraph was added at the request of Lee Cambria to Commissioner Joseph Orsini): On the equity issue - that by not granting Mr. Mastick the Variance for the CRAS, since there was 120 granted we have shown special privileges. Secondly, Mr. Olson was granted a special privilege because he has one of the largest in town. Third, houses with CRASs have a higher value than those . Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 16, 1991 without them. Fourth, regarding Mike Budah's statements, with ~he CRAS there is more space for the interior because of the 10cat1on of the stairwell. Fifth, CRAS, on a 19 foot wide house allows for better water control. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Fife, Sharp, Dahlman, Law, Orsini For the Record - Director Whittenberg presented supporting letters from Thomas Hall of 1606 Ocean Avenue and Sam Parrott, owner of two lots at 1601 and 1603 Ocean Avenue. [These letters are attached to these Minutes for reference]. The following persons spoke in opposition to this application: Michael Olson * 1514 Marine Avenue. Seal Beach - Said by denying this application the Mastic's can still enjoy an ocean view, a roof deck and a beautiful home. By approving the application, the Commission is denying him his existing view. Review of the videotape shows it is the CRAS portion of the houses that block h1S V1ew. An additional nine to eleven lots could develop CRAS with a potential 80% loss of his view. The Commission should be obligated to support the ~ provisions. His primary views are Anaheim Bay, Catalina Island and the Seal Beach pier. . Mike Budah * 1514 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach - Requested to speak in favor of the application, explaining he had arrived late. Mr. Budah questioned Commissioner Ors1ni 's votes on previous CRAS before the Planning Commission. Mr. Budah specifically asked if Commissioner Orsini had voted to approve a CRAS for Councilperson Marilyn Hastings son's home (Height Variation #12-91 for 127 12th Street). Commissioner Orsini said he voted in favor of a CRAS for Mrs. Hastings' son but this application, Height Variation #14-91, is the first CRAS with a view issue. Commissioner Orsini said he has requested a reduction to minimum size for every CRAS application coming before the Commission. Commissioner Orsini said when Mrs. Hastings' son's application was first presented it had two CRAS. One CRAS was removed immediately and the other was reduced in size. Mr. Budah asked why Commissioner Orsini was against CRAS? Commissioner Orsini said that in talking to Old Town residents the input has been they don't favor more CRAS in Old Town. Mr. Budah questioned the rationale of allowing three-story homes on 37~ foot lots. He favors CRAS as long as it is the minimum necessary to cover the stairway. Commissioner Law asked the applicant, Mr. Mastick, about an open stairway from the second porch to the roof deck. Mr. Mastic said his son is six years old and for safety reasons would not consider exterior stairs. . . . . Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 16, 1991 Marilyn Hastings * Old Town - Mrs. Hastings requested staff clarification regarding her son's CRAS application. She ~as concerned some people might think her son had some sort of spec1al privilege. Mr. curtis said no special treatment was given to Mrs. Hastings' son when he built his house; the Commission agreed. Commissioner Sharp said he was very disturbed to hear Mr. Budah present the impression that Commission orsini might have voted improperly on any application. Commission Sharp said he felt Commissioner orsini was above reproach in his Commission votes. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp said it would be ideal if all house heights were required to be the same but that's not the way we live --- we have a mix of everything. The only consideration is the amount of view that is being lost. He said a 5% loss of view for a neighbor was not substantial enough to turn down a plan that has been in the works for over two years and is legal now. The applicant has agreed to reduce it to the minimum size. Commissioner Dahlman agreed generally with Commissioner Sharp. Although the view issue has not been raised, the ~ requires the Commission to be more strict in finding an optimum location on the roof and minimizing the size to compensate for blocking views. He again asked staff for information on whether other cities have precise figures or precise mathematical ways to compute view or assess view loss. He said he was inclined to approve this application subject to making the CRAS the minimum size. Commissioner Orsini said a 6% view loss could result in the other 13 homes building CRAS which would result in an 80% view loss to Mr. Olson at 1514 Marine. He asked the Commission if they would approve something which blocked 80% of an owner's view and where will the Commission draw the line at view loss? If this application is approved the other 13 nearby houses should be approved if they apply for CRAS. He said if the Commission is setting a policy, it should follow it. Chairman Fife said he felt the Commission is setting a policy. He felt if this CRAS is approved there are no grounds to deny similar structures when the other homes build. Then Mr. Mastic could lose a portion of his view due to those other homes building. "I fully agree, it would be an outrage to grant this and then deny others and also someone comes in and says 'this is the straw that breaks the camel's back, this 5% wipes out the last of my view', the answer is 'too bad' because the emphasis is on covered roof accesses and not on view". . . . Page 5 - Planning commission Minutes of October 16, 1991 Commissioner Orsini said he felt this application should be denied. "The view issue should stay intact and those who have a view should not lose it... we're going to end up with one street with a view". He indicated that when it comes to the standard of view, the application should be passed onto the City Council for reVlew. Chairman Fife agreed with Commissioner Orsini, stating the view is more important than the roof access convenience. If the view and the view opportunity is consistently preserved there is something left to look forward to for other homeowners. Otherwise, future builders wlll just be looking at CRAS. The roof deck becomes a sun tanning deck not a view deck. Chairman Fife said that although he understands the arguments set forth by Commissioners Dahlman and Sharp, he was inclined to opt for that fork-in-the-road which protects views. Chairman Fife felt the Commission is taking a fork-in-the-road ... if this is approved the Commission is saying that any homeowner who wishes to build upward on that street is entitled to at least a similar sized CRAS with the net result belng no one will have a view when they're all completed. Commissioner Sharp said that as long as the ordinance is in place and the structure is legal he didn't see how the Commlssion could go on an assumption of what's going to happen in the future. We have to go on what the facts are now and this one is only blocking 5% of the view. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Height Variation #14-91 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1650 with a reduction in the size of the proposed eRAS to limit the structure to the minimum size necessary to provide the required 6'8" head clearance. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 3 - 2 - 0 Sharp, Dahlman, Law Fife, Orsini None After the Second, but before the vote, the Commission further discussed the issues. Commissioner Dahlman, referring to the question he asked Mr. Olson and the analogy he constructed at the last meeting, said because the CRAS is such a controversial issue he looked to some other comparable situation. He painted the picture of a person who buys a home in a neighborhood that is all one-story homes but the whole area is zoned for two-stories. One by one each person builds two stories around him and he's got no view until he goes to two stories. He has no right to prevent the people around him from building to two stories because the ~ permits it, even though he loses 100% of his view. He said the way in which building codes address the problem of view best is by setting a height limit and sticking to it. Commissioner Orsini said a second story is a necessity --- a family grows and needs the room. But a CRAS is not a necessity because you can get to your deck without it. There's a big difference between what is a . . . Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 16, 1991 necessi ty and what is not a necessity. commissioner Sharp said the City went through hearings on this issue and Ordinance No., 1322 was put in place with public input indicating they were J.n favor. CommJ.ssioner Sharp continued, saying "The view issue is a problem. I'll grant you, if I had a view I'd be madder than hops if someone blocked it. But a lot of times there isn't anything that can be done about that. And over the years it's happened and happened and happened. But to say because this one house here has a view and nobody around him can build because of that to me is ridiculous ... I feel everyone should have the rights accorded by the Ordinance and our Ordinance allows this man to put one up". Chairman Fife said he goes back to the proposition that the view is not the issue. The view is determined by the existence of a second story WJ.th a roof deck. The real issue is the convenience of covered access versus non-covered access and whether that convenience justifies the destruction of surrounding views. Commissioner Law asked if there should be no more CRAS? Chairman Fife said he wouldn't go that far. He separated ocean views from views of surrounding clusters of houses. People generally pay more to get closer to the ocean to have some access to the ocean vJ.ew however small it may be. He said he looks at that as a semi-pristine area. And that if those homeowners are allowed to consistently build to two stories, as they have the right, then the Commission should emphasize trying to preserve the view they'll have when they get there. Mr. Fife said Mr. Olson's view did not concern him as much as the homeowners who wJ.ll build from one story to two stories. Those homes will have a view as long as they also don't proliferate with CRAS; they will destroy each other's view. Commissioner Sharp reminded the Commission Mr. Mastic had his plans drawn for quite some time and they are in concurrence with City codes. He said he would vote for no CRAS at all if he thought it could be done but the Public Hearings and Council review resulted in Ordinance No. 1322. Commissioner Law asked if there was a rule stating that if you have a Variance you cannot apply for building permits until the Variance is granted? Mr. Whittenberg explained that as long as an application for a permit is requested for items that do not need Planning Commission approval and there's a portion of the structure that does require an approval of the Commission, the Building Department may issue the permit for that portion of the structure that does not require Planning Commission approval at any time once the plans have been approved by the City's plan check engineers and appropriate City departments. The applicants are made aware that there are portions of the structure not covered by that permit and they have the option to proceed under that permit if they desire or not. SummarJ.zing, Director Whittenberg said the Commission is considering a request that's under a new area of concern, blockage of a view. Ordinance No. 1322 addresses blockage of view as one of the several areas of concern the Commission needs to consider for a Minor Height Variation. What is considered for one request need not be held as determinants to subsequent requests. The view issue . . . Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of October 16, 1991 is one of three concerns the Commission is required to review when considering CRAS. staff has done some preliminary checking but to date has not found any other cities that have set formulas. Commissioner Dahlman felt the City's municipal Code addresses view by setting height limits. Mr. Whittenberg said there as several reasons cities set height limits, one is to eliminate massive shadows cast, another is for view purposes to prevent blockage. The issue is how do you define, under the Code, what "significantly impairs the primary view"? What's the definition of a "primary view"? "What is a significant impairment"? staff would be glad to try to derive some guidelines or policies for future Commission consideration. Chairman Fife called a recess from 9:30 p.m. to 9:45 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Seretta Fie1din<] * 223 Seal Beach Boulevard - Mrs. Fielding presented a letter, dated October 16, 1991, from herself to the City Manager [Attached to these Minutes for reference]. She asked that her pre-school be a permitted use instead of having to go through a Conditional Use Permit for permission. The Seal Beach Boulevard Zone Text Amendment will be considered by the Planning commission on November 6, 1991. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg noted there are three weeks, not the usual two weeks, between this meeting and the next Planning commission meeting. COMMISSION CONCERNS There were no Commission concerns. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, C\-o~o--,~ Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary These Minutes are tentative and subject to Planning commission approval. The Planning commission Minutes of October 16, 1991 were approved by the Planning commission on November 6, 1991. ~