The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Min 1991-11-06 . . . I. II. III. IV. V. CITY OF SEAL BEACH * PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA for NOVEMBER 6, 1991 7:30 P.M. * CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of October 16, 1991 Mlnutes 2. Minor Plan Review #15-91 Address: 132 Cottonwood Lane Applicant: K.S. Designs Owner: Larry Cardwell Request: Two-story cabana Resolution No. 1655 SCHEDULED MATTERS PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Condltlonal Use Permlt #12-91 [Continued from 9-4 and 10-2-91] Address: 1120 Central Avenue Appllcants: Bruce Stark & Michelle Brendel Owners: Bruce Stark & Michelle Brendel I Request: After-the-fact modification of floor plan approved through CUP #4-89 to include a recreation area conslsting of a wet bar area, recreation room, spa room, offlce and two bathrooms in conjunctlon wlth an eXlsting duplex. Resolution No. 1649 4. Conditional Use Permit #17-91 Address: 117 Main Street * Pasta Grotto Appllcants: Vlncenao L. RizZl & Doug A. Maris Propertv Owner: Edward E. Hogard Reauest: On-Sale Beer & Wine License Resolutlon No. 1654 5. Negatlve Declaration 7-91 Appllcant: Clty of Seal Beach Property Owner: City of Seal Beach Address: Main Street at Paciflc Coast Hlghway Request: To construct an entrywaY/ldentiflcation arch across Main Street. Resolution No. 1656 . . . Page 2 - Plannlng Commission Agenda * November 6, 1991 5. General Plan Amendments 2A-91 and 2B-91 Zonlng Text Amendment 4-91 Zone Change 2-91 Applicant: City of Seal Beach Request: To amend the Land Use and Housing Elements of the City's General Plan to establish a Limlted Commercial land-use designation. Amendment of the Zoning Ordlnance to establlsh a Limited Commercial zone and to set forth permltted uses, conditionally permltted uses and development standards for this zone. Addltional amendments to the Zoning Ordinance amending the definltion of "basement" requlrlng that floors located partially above grade have at least 2/3 of the floor's height below grade and providing a deflnitlon of "Floor Area Ratio". To change the zoning along the westerly side of Seal Beach Boulevard between Landing Avenue and the northerly Electrlc Avenue alley from General Commercial (C-2) to Limlted Commerclal (L-C). Resolution Nos.: #1657 - GPA 2A-91 #1658 - GPA 2B-91 #1659 - ZTA 4-91 #1660 - ZC 2-91 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS VII. STAFF CONCERNS VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------ AGENDA FORECAST Meeting Date Submlssion Deadline NOVEMBER 20 OCTOBER 16 Zoning Text Amendments and various staff concerns. DECEMBER 04 OCTOBER 30 Condltional Use Permlt #12-90 for Bonnadonna's Restaurant for extenslon of ABC 11cense. DECEMBER 18 NOVEMBER 13 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of NOVEMBER 6, 1991 MEETING The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of November 6, 1991 was called to order in City Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m. by Chalrman Fife. PLEDGE OF }.. T.T .F-GIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner orsini. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Flfe Commissioners Dahlman, Law, Orsini, Sharp Also Present: Michael Colantuono, City Attorney's Office Staff Present: Department of Development Services: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 16, 1991 MINUTES MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the Planning commission Minutes of October 16, 1991 with the addition of public testimony given by Lee Cambria as requested to be added to the Minutes by Commissioner orsini. The Recording Secretary is to review of the audio tape for accuracy. Lee Cambria: 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 without them. Fourth, regarding Mike Budah' s statements, wi th the CRAS there is more space in the interior because of the location of the stairwell. Fifth, CRAS, on a 19 foot wide house allows for better rain water control. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Fife, Sharp, Dahlman, Law, Orsini commissioner Orsini, responding to Mike Budah's questioning (10/13/91) his votes on previous CRASs, said his research showed he has considered seven CRAS, voted "yes" on six and voted "no" on one which was the CRAS with the view issue. . . . Page 2 - P1anning Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 2. MINOR PLAN REVIEW #15-91 132 COTTONWOOD staff Report Mr. curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Plann1ng Department]. The applicant, Larry Cardwell represented by his architect, KS Designs of Irvine, is requesting an architectural review of a proposed two-story cabana. The existing trailer has approximately 530 square feet and the proposed cabana would add approximately 501 square feet. The proposed two- story cabana is located next to another two-story cabana at 133 Cottonwood Lane but the proposed second-story is not located within twenty (20') feet of the second story of any other second story structure. Staff recommended approval subject to five (5) conditions outlined in the staff report. commission Comments The Commission expressed concerns over lack of City controls in the Trailer Park. Mr. Wh1ttenberg expla1ned Bill Dawson owns the Seal Beach Trailer Park property. He leases or rents land area to individuals who locate mobile homes there. On an application, Mr. Dawson will always be shown as the owner and the applicant will be shown as the trailer owner. There is no Development Agreement between the City and the Trailer Park. Under the terms of certain agreements entered into between the Trailer Park and the City'S Redevelopment Agency some years ago, certain numbers of spaces were agreed upon as reserved for low-moderate income persons. Those agreements do not supersede the City'S zoning provisions allowing for two-story cabanas or Title 25 of the California Administrative Code regarding construction standards in mobile home parks. commissioner Dahlman said there is a cumulative impact similar to the impact of a development on the surrounding area --- such as parking and view, and expressed concern that the State runs the Trailer Park from Sacramento. He questioned whether there are alternatives to this and if the Commission should look at this in the future. If it were no longer designated a trailer park then maybe it could be brought under City Codes and zoning. Mr. Whittenberg said that as long as the physical structures which occupy the spaces are classified as "trailers" or "mobile homes" it is defined as a trailer park no matter what it looks like. Once it meets those definitions it comes under the Title 25 provisions which preempts the City from looking at many areas of concern. The City looks only at areas specified in its ord1nance. . . . Page 3 - P~ann1n9 Commlssion Minutes of November 6, ~991 commissioner orsini asked about the practice of moving the mobile homes over so they be put side-by-side. He said the original Trailer Park map shows 25' lots but those lots don't actually eXlst. He asked can the City ask Mr. Dawson for a map of the Trailer Park? Mr. Whittenberg said the map referenced was considered by the City as part of the relocation of the Trailer Park a few years ago. The lines on the map indicate anticipated lease areas. The agreements do not tie future Park improvements to those specific lease areas. The agreement's provisions are met as long as the total number of lease spaces and parking spaces are maintained within the Park. state law does not require a distance from a property line except for the exterior boundaries of the Park itself. The interior arrangements of the trailers is not determined by lease lines or property lines, it is determined by distance from a trailer to a trailer, or a trailer to a cabana. So those units can be moved on the interior of the Park as long as they meet the State-mandated distance requirements. Commissioner orsini asked if Larry Cardwell planned to live in the unit? He indicated that while it is legal to rent a trailer you own, it must be rented to a low income personjfamlly. The Park must ensure that when the trailers are sold they maintain a balance with 50% of the units being owned by low income persons. commissioner Dahlman wanted to be assured the applicant is aware the agreement with the Park is not indefinite and ends in the year 2040 (50 years) at which time all the property reverts to the ownership of Mr. Dawson or his heirs. Additionally, since the City has invested over $100,000 in moving the Park and its residents to this current location he felt the City should have more control over the Trailer Park as opposed to calling someone in Sacramento and doing what he says. commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Curtis about the City's Code provision which was interpreted by the Orange County Fire Department to be "No two-story cabana shall be located closer than twenty feet from another two-story cabana". Mr. curtis said the Fire Department put that provision in place at the time the provision for two-story cabanas was put in place. In 1989 staff questioned the Fire Department --- did they mean 20' between the two stories or 20' between the structures that have a second story? The Fire Department indlcated the second stories must be 20' apart. The first stories may be the minimum of 6' apart. Ti tIe 25 requirements allow the first floor level of cabana to be 6' apart. commissioner Sharp said he would like to hear from the applicant. Rick Schmidt * KS Designs * Irvine. CA - Said he is the architect representing Larry Cardwell, the trailer owner. Mr. Cardwell is a retired missionary and will be retiring to and living in this mobile home. Mr. Cardwell is aware the Park will revert to Mr. Dawson in 2040. He has already sold his property and plans to move Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 . in this summer. This traller was builtin 1953 and they are requesting permission at this time to leave the frame and remove the walls. The cost of the building will be about $60,000. Chairman Fife asked staff if Mr. Dawson submits income information to the Redevelopment Agency? Mr. Whittenberg said the agreements allow the Clty the option to review the Park's records on a yearly basis to ensure the units are being occupied or rented by persons of the appropriate income levels. A review was done approximately six months ago by then-Finance Director Denis Thomas. Commissioner Orsini said his research showed it has been six years since the ci ty has actually known who was low income. The original agreement called for the Redevelopment Agency to check every application before they moved in. This was not done. It wound up being "If you want to see it you can come down and look at it" but the original agreement called for submission to the Redevelopment Agency for review. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to grant Minor Plan Review #15- 91 with the five (5) Conditions of Approval outlined in the staff report . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, Law, Orsini . *** SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no Scheduled Matters. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #12-91 1120 CENTRAL AVENUE RESOLUTION No. 1649 Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Director Whittenberg said this application was initially consldered by the Planning Commission on September 4, 1991. After extensive discussion the matter was continued to October 2, 1991 with the hope the City Attorney's Office could be present. Prior to that meeting date the applicant informed the City his attorney could not be present that evening. On October 2, 1991 the matter was continued to November 6, 1991. . Mr. Whittenberg reviewed the basic proposal and staff report. The request (CUP #12-91) is for a Conditional Use Permit approval to modify previously approved plans for a two-unit condo project at 1120 Central Avenue. The modifications come before the Commission on an after-the-fact application where certain interior modifications had been made to the ground floor garage and storage . . . Page 5 - p~anninQ Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 areas prevlously approved by the Planning Commission under CUP #4- 89. CUP #4-89 allowed for a remodeling and expansion of the property to construct the two condominium units and a subsequent application, CUP #10-90, allowed a condo conversion and parcel map approval. The initial application (CUP #12-91) indicated the elimination of two tandem parking spaces which had been required under the previous approvals of the Planing Commission and replacement of those two tandem parking spaces and some additional storage areas with a kitchen area, two rest rooms, and rooms which were not specified for any particular use. Those plans were considered on September 4, 1991. After that meeting the applicant then revised his plans and submitted a modification which eliminated certain fixtures from the kitchen area itself. At this meeting the question to the Commission is whether to modify or accept the proposals presented by the applicant to ensure the definitions of a "living unit" are not met by whatever the Commission may determine to grant. Under the City's definitions of "kitchen area" and "living unit" the structure as it is currently configured in accordance with the applicant's plans meets the definition of a "living unit". At a previous meeting the applicant said the area has never been used for a living area, but under the City's Code it meets the definition requirements. The staff report lndicates the modifications presented meet the ~ requirements to not define this area as a living unit by removing certain appliances from the kitchen area. The items proposed for removal are range top, dishwasher, oven and refrigerator. The fixtures remaining in the common area would be a 36" sink with hot water and some cabinets and shelves. Staff felt those types of facilities are appropriate for recreational area --- which is what is proposed. The other main issues that came up before the Planning Commission at the September 4th meeting, are reviewed on pages 3 through 5 of the staff report. Mr. Whittenberg further stated the first question which came up at the previous meeting was, "Is a recreation room a permitted use?" There are two answers to that question. One is yes, it is a permitted use under certain conditions --- for uses which do not require a Conditlonal Use Permit and would be approved through the Development Services Department as part of the normal buildlng permit process. For any type of a use requiring Conditional Use Permit approval a recreation room needs to be part of the application to be approved by the Planning Commission. In this case it was not part of the original submission to the Planning Commission when the original remodeling plans were approved in 1989 and when the condo conversion was approved in 1990. It was work which was done after those approvals had been granted. Al though it . . . Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 may be a use which could be permitted, is not one which is perml tted at this time because the Planning Commission has not granted that approval. The second concern was that the CC&R's delineated and specified the recreation and spa areas. In staff's review of the CC&R's they did not find any clear delineation in the CC&R's as to what constitutes the recreation and spa area. There are some references to exclUSlve common areas and it lists a number of items but it does not list recreation areas specifically. One of the recommended conditions of approval would be that those recreational and spa areas be clearly defined in the CC&R's so future owners of those condominium units are clearly made aware as to what recreation uses are approved by the City and what types of facilities are to be provided in those areas. Thirdly, the applicant's testimony on September 4th was that one of the rooms was going to include a fixed spa. At this point the plans do not indicate the location of the flxed spa area. Staff suggests again, as a condition of approval, the fixed spa area be shown on the plans to ultimately be reviewed by both staff and the City's contracted plan checking firm. Those same plans would then be inspected by the Building Inspectors, as would be requlred for any other person proposing to construct a fixed spa on their property. Director Whittenberg noted one of the other questions which came up is "What's the main issue here? Is it the Conditional Use Permlt? Or is it the Code enforcement action?" The maln issue for Commission consideration is whether or not to grant a Conditional Use Permlt allowing an after-the-fact modification to the originally approved plans for this property. To allow for a recreation room with whatever facilities and amenities the Planning Commission feels are appropriate to the project. The issue is not a Code enforcement action at the Commission's level. Code enforcement is a function of both the City Attorney's Office and ci ty staff. The Commission may provide comments to staff as to how to deal with a Code enforcement issue. Staff will take those comments and then make a decision based on staff's best judgement. Another issue is the requirements of the tandem parking approved under the Condltional Use Permit in 1989 for the remodeling and expansion of the property. Mr. Whittenberg said he was not employed by the City at that time. But in talking to the Assistant Planner, Mr.Curtis, it is his recollection that the original plans did not show tandem parking, it showed a large storage area where the tandem parking spaces were ultimately approved by the Planning Commission. It's his recollection that at the time the plans were submitted the applicant and his architect were advlsed staff felt the Planning Commission would have a concern regarding this large storage area of approximately 840 square feet on the plans and suggested they look at that issue and try to resolve it in some . . . page 7 - p~anning Co~is&ion Hinutes of November 6, 1991 manner. The plans then were submitted to the City indlcating the tandem parking, Public Hearings were held at the Planning Commission level with the tandem parking shown on the plans and the plans were approved by the Planning Commission with the tandem parking spaces being provided. Mr. Whittenberg sald "I think that's about the best response we can give to that issue. The appllcant may disagree with that, but I think that's the best we can give you at this point and time". Lastly, the Planning Commission indicated they would like to see a set of the plans as originally submitted which would have shown that storage area. In talking to the architect, he does not have a set of plans for that original submission. And in looking at some of the material he provided staff, it looks like what they did was take the original set of plans and erased and continued to modify those plans as part of the final submission package to the city. So there is not a clean set of drawings that the architect has that staff can provide. Mr. Whittenberg stated staff feels the project as currently before the Commission eliminates the concern staff initially had regarding the types of facilities proposed which met the definitional requirement of a "living unit". Staff feels the proposed modifications with the elimination of the stove, range and dishwasher remove that area from being classified as a "kitchen" and at that point the matter then is really a policy choice of the Commission as to whether or not they feel it is appropriate to grant the request for modifications after-the-fact. The other option the Commission has would be to deny the request. At that point, that would basically put staff and the applicant back in a posi tion of trying to resolve the Code enforcement issue and requiring the structure to be replaced back in its originally approved condition with the tandem parking spaces. Commission Comments Chairman Fife requested any opening comments or questions from the Commissioners. commissioner Law indicated the area should be taken back to the original, approved plans. As far as putting a fixed spa in the rear room, she wondered how it could be installed wlth a 2~' hallway and an 6'8" door to negotiate around. She said "I don't think his original idea was to ever put a spa in there. I think it should be completely taken out. I'm sorry, I don't approve of it at all". Mr. Whittenberg said it would be approprlate for the Commission to ask questions regarding information in the staff report and to recei ve public testimony. After that would be the appropriate time to discuss any unresolved outstanding issues. . . . Page 8 - P1anning Commission Minutes of November 6, ~991 Chairman Fife asked how would the utility services currently servlcing these bathrooms and the kltchen be removed? Mr. Whittenberg said the proposed conditlons of approval call for the removal of those kitchen facilities deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and removal of any utility services to the those fixtures and appliances. staff felt the physical removal of whatever utility service lines provide service to the removed fixtures should be required. "If it's in the wall of the building, it's our feeling that those lines should be removed. If it's within the concrete floor of the structure, it's our feeling that those lines should be removed, said Mr. Whittenberg". Chairman Fife asked what is staff's feeling about the net loss of the two tandem spaces which were originally part of the approval - there were six off-street enclosed covered parking and now we wind up with four? Mr. Whittenberg said that's an issue of Planning Commission policy. The Code only requires two parking spaces per unit which the property complies with as long as the area under consideration this evening is not used as a residential living area. "It was a requirement of the Planning Commission. You had the rlght then to require it. You still have the right to requlre it to be maintained if that's your decision. You do not violate any provisions of the codes of the City by allowing it to be converted to some other type of a use as long as it's not an additional living unit". Chairman Flfe stated the tandem spaces, though not requlred by the QQgg, were advantageous because they helped mitigate a problem of people uSlng thelr garages for storage with the result the vehicles wind up on the street. He didn't know how the other Commissioner's felt about lt at the time, but to him that was an advantage in the whole equation that weighed toward approval of the project as originally submitted. He requested any other comments or questions to staff about its recommendations. Commissioner Orsini asked Mr. Colantuono if the recreatlon area is legal if it's in the CC&R's? Mr. Colantuono indicated no use of thlS property is legal until there are permits issued by this Commission which authorize the use. until the Conditional Use Permit is amended by granting this application, or some application like this, nothing is legal except what was approved in the previously approved plan. He further clarified the Commisslon does have the authority to approve a recreation room and to impose a condition that it be lncluded in the CC&R's. The Commission has the discretion to do either or both of those things. The Commission is free to do what it believes is necessary to make sure the property is used consistently with the spirit and intent of the City's zoning code and General Plan. commissioner orsini asked if there are any condo projects that would fall into having a rec room in the City? Mr. Whittenberg said the Oakwood Apartments and Riverbeach Condominiums have them. . . . Page 9 - P1anning Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 They were approved as part of the original plans and he assumed they would have been approved as part of the Conditional Use Permit for the condominium development. commissioner orsini asked if the Commission has already approved a condo development with a rec room, has a precedent been set? Mr. Colantuono said not necessarily. He explalned if there are things about this property that suggest to the Commission that a rec room is not an appropriate use of the property the Commission can refuse to permit it. If, for instance, the Commission thinks the rec room is shaped in such a way that it could easily be converted into an illegal unit by a subsequent purchaser of the property that would be a perfectly legitimate basis to deny the rec room, even though there are other condos in town which have rec rooms, because that was not perceived to be a problem at the time. Chairman Fife asked if the CC&R's were before the Commission at the original conversion approval. Mr. Whittenberg didn't believe so. He sald in most cases, the costs of preparing the CC&R's will not be borne by the applicant until they have received the Conditional Use Permit approval. That's the normal situation. He couldn't answer that question for the applicant in this particular case. The City has the CC&R's and they have been reviewed by City staff. Mr. Colantuono said his office commented on the CC&R's in a letter dated October, 1990, which suggests that they were submitted to the City shortly before that date. Chairman Fife asked if the CC&R's, as they currently exist, clearly define a "recreation area" and the respective condo owners rights and duties with respect to it? Mr. Whittenberg said that in staff's reading of the CC&R's, they didn't find any specific reference to the recreation area or to facilities that are provided in a recreation area or where the recreation area is located on the property. Chairman Fife asked if there is a clear definition of the space within the structure which is common area and how common area is shared between the respective units? Mr. Whittenberg indicated staff has the CC&R's and can read back what the CC&R's state, once the Commission has received the public testimony. Public Hearing The Public Hearing was opened by Chairman Fife at 8:25 p.m. Andrew Schwartz, Esq. * 3530 Wilshire Blvd.. Los Angeles Mr. Schwartz stated he is the representative for Mr. Stark. He said Mr. Stark is willing to remove all the utilities as they stated previousl. The definition of a "kitchen" is it's used for . . . page 10 - P~annin9 COmm~ssion Minutes of November 6, 1991 cooking and the preparation of food. So therefore, under those regulations they would not have a kitchen and, therefore, not a dwelling unit. They're also wllllng to, as they said before, place a fixed spa in there and put it on the plans. He felt the CC&R's don't have to be too specific about how each particular room is used, but they would want to add any specific requirements delineating this area as a recreation room. Also if these modifications are approved, then there is no longer a need for six parking spaces. The only time it seems like it was required was for this particular project. "We are certainly willing to cooperate" he said. Chairman Fife asked how Mr. Schwartz assess and allocates maintenance costs, repair costs, and hours usage to the owners of the project? He asked "Is it your intention to address those subjects in the CC&R's"? Mr. Schwartz believed that's been covered in the CC&R's which were approved by the City. Commissioner Dahlman indicated that the CC&R's say the respective interest in the common area to be conveyed with each unit is one- half, and inquired if that is the extent to which this is addressed in the CC&R's. Mr. Schwartz sald that is correct. commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Schwartz to clarify a statement that the city required six parking places, indicating the City did not require six parking places, and that Mr. Stark offered the extra two parklng spaces. The City never required the tandem parking places. Mr. Schwartz said Mr. Stark did not offer to have six spaces; lnitially he was told that he was required to have six. He did not volunteer. Chairman Fife said the correct statement is that when the previous CUP application was considered by the Commission it had two covered and one tandem for each unit. Mr. Schwartz said when the remodel request was originally approved, it was construed as three units, and that's why six parking spaces were required. Chairman Flfe and Commissioner Sharp both indicated that was not their recollection of the previous cases. Mr. Schwartz stated his client is willing to be conciliatory and to remove all the cooking facilities, the microwave, refrigerator, stove. They will specify on the plans where the fixed spa is and if there is any question about the CC&R's we will make any necessary corrections to the CC&R's to make them more specific about the use of the room as a recreation room. In response to a question from Chairman Fife, Mr. Schwartz indicated the necessary venting, electrical, and gas requirements are already available. Chairman Fife asked if hlS client is prepared lf necessary to cut through drywall and take pipes out and sawcut pipes out of the slab. Mr. Schwartz said "No, we're not". Chairman Fife asked what would you propose as an alternative to prevent the immediate re- . . . page 11 - P~anninq commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 connection of these appllances? Mr. Schwartz said the CC&R' s should protect the two owners, and doesn't think it necessary to go to the other extra expense to remove the utility lines. Chalrman Fife asked if the two units have been sold yet? Mr. Schwartz said no, the owner of both units is the applicant. Chalrman Flfe asked if the CC&R's can be amended at the approval of the owners of the units, without City oversight? Mr. Schwartz said the CC&R's provide for prior City approval of amendments. commissioner Law asked if there are separate laundry facilities in the two living units. Mr. Schwartz stated yes. Commissioner Orsini asked if the applicant is willing to agree to yearly inspectlons wlth reasonable notice. Mr. Schwartz stated yes. Chalrman Flfe asked what are you prepared to do to ensure that at some later time someone doesn't move a range back in there and reconnect it to the service line? Mr. Schwartz stated they are willlng to cap it off. Chairman Fife stated that with a pipe wrench he could quickly uncap it and reconnect it, and that is tougher when there is no pipe in the wall. Mr. Schwartz indicated that people anywhere in the city can do that, and that the range is electric, not gas. Plus it's an extra added expense. commissioner Dahlman stated again he would like to see a clean plan get approved here that doesn't require a City staff person looking in the window or knocking on the door on a frequent basis. "I just don't think that's the right way to do things. This could be reduced to the point where it would require a building permit to reconvert it into a unit, and then we would have some assurance that it won't be converted after Mr. Stark sells to somebody who doesn't know of all our concerns". Mr. Schwartz stated there are bootlegs throughout the City and he didn't think a person could really ensure in perpetuity that there won't be an improper use on the property. Commlssioner Fife stated one way of solving the problem would be to unplug the range, leaving the 220 volt, three prong connector in the wall to be easily reconnected. Another way is to pull the circuit breaker out so there's no voltage going into that line to the wall. The thlrd way is to go into the wall and rip the unnecessary wiring out. Staff is recommending you take the line out of the wall from the circuit breaker box back to the wall. You are saying, no, we're just gOlng to take the range out. Is there any in-between position? Mr. Schwartz indicated his client is trying to be conciliatory, by taking out all these other appliances, agreeing to modify the CC&R's to make sure that the spa's in there, and agreeing to an annual review of the facilitles. . . . Page 12 - P1ann~ng Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 Chairman Fife stated he tends to share Commissioner Dahlman's point of view, saYlng he doesn' t think we need to have the staff periodically inspecting units. What the Commission is looking for is a means by which we don't have to do that. The clearest means to accomplish that would be to remove these lines so you don't have pipes to the gas meter, you don't have llnes in the wall to the electric junction box and the least effective method, the method which seems to guarantee the City would have to have inspections would be simply to just take the range out but leave everything ready to hook it right back up again. Mr. Schwartz indicated that by taking all these things out and putting in the spa it's going to be very hard to use this facility for any other kind of other use, particularly as his client has agreed to the annual inspection. Chairman Fife generally stated when people have gotten CUPs approved through the Commission with conditions, they have adhered to the conditions and on occasion they have come back and requested modifications. The Planning Commission is at this problem because the original conditlons of approval were deviated from and so it isn't entirely some meanness on the part of this Commission that it's in this quandary. Mr. Schwartz indicated that there is no way anyone can possibly ensure that all the living units, including this one, are gOlng to be used in a conforming manner and that there won't be changes or alterations that are unapproved. Chairman Fife, to clarify for the record, indicated that the applicant does not propose to do anything beyond unplugging the electrical appliances and capping off the gas line. Mr. Schwartz stated it's their position that it's a very expensive action and the city has enough guarantees Wl th the CC&R' s and the annual inspections to insure compliance. Mr. Schwartz indicated his client wants to speak to the Commission. Bruce Stark * 204 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach - Mr. Stark, the applicant, distributed file folders to each one of the Planning Commissioners and the City Attorney. These file folders contained 31 exhibits to which Mr. Stark referred for his presentation. Mr. Stark stated that at the last Commission meeting he supported Commissioners orsini and Dahlman in having this continued over to where we could have an attorney present. He wants to address legal issues and said "I am not here to tolerate the emotional outbursts that occurred last time. And I want to lead you through this entire process because some of you were not here on the Commission at the time. And indeed, Mr. Whittenberg wasn't even employed by the City when this whole thing started". Mr. Stark indicated he has long opposed special favors and has spoken out before this Commission numerous times about the special favors being glven by staff. "I am not a hypocrite and am not asking for a special favor now. It seems as though we are sufferlng -~ . page 13 - P~annln9 Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 from a great deal of staff paranoia as to what might happen or what could poss1bly happen. As Mr. Schwartz said last meeting, we could speculate all night. It could be turned into a crack house. Does that mean we no longer build houses in Seal Beach? Of course not". Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 2 which is a handout that the City Development Services Department gives out. The Code of the City of Seal Beach clearly identifies the uses for which a Cond1tional Use Permit is required and gives some examples: large family daycare center, churches, structural modifications in Surfs ide , conversions of apartments into condos. He said he accepted that one. Hotels, alcohol sales, take-out restaurants. 1120 Central is none of those. Therefore, the question is why was a Conditional Use Permit required in the first place. . Mr. Stark then referred to his exhibit 3, section 28-2503, "Condit1onal Use Permits are required to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses in the community in general and the General Plan". Certainly those two units have been compatible since time immemorial and they have not changed today and they are surrounded by apartment houses larger and denser than 1120 Central. The next section, 28-2504, is the only City provisions dealing with CUPs and again the purpose is to determine that the uses are compatible with the surrounding uses and not detrimental to the neighborhood. Now that's how it is clearly identified in the City Code when a CUP 1S required. Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 4. Nothing has been more controversial since the dome in Dr. Dahlman's district than covered roof accesses. If anything should have whetted this Commiss1on's interest it was those CRASs. Why a Minor Plan Review? Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 5. This was a matter that came up on Eighth Street and on Ocean Avenue. A remodel and addition of an eX1sting non-conforming use. Again, it's a Minor Plan ReV1ew. Why a Minor Plan Review and not for 1120 Central? "At least I provided the parking which 1S more than these two Minor Plan Reviews provided". Mr. Stark further stated that in the staff report staff says that they never could find the original plans. "Well I think it's obvious from the staff report they trashed the plans. The complete set of architectural plans were brought in in the required number of copies and submitted to the City. Those plans were rejected out of hand by the City. They would not process them. They were disapproved at the counter. At item 5, page 5 of the staff report there was no "probably" about it". . Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 6, a copy of the plans that he has. "And interestingly, in staff's endeavor to try to find them they never once asked me for a copy of the plans. We were told, my architect Mr. Geijer, that you'll have to draw new plans. You'll have to provide six parking spaces, two of which are tandem. Not probably, that was a demand on the part of the City. Mr. Geijer Page 14 - p~anninq commission Minutes of NoveMber 6, 1991 . went back and redrew the plans at no small expense. He had to re- eng1neer the stairways. He had to have the building calcs done aga1n in order to satisfy the staff. At this point they had never once reached the Commission". Mr. Stark also stated that he felt sure the City Attorney will advise the Commission that the CC&R's do not spell out the use of each individual room, bathroom, den, kitchen, nor does the parcel map. The CC&R's provide for the individual condos ownership of space and the common areas that are shared by the condo owners. The first thing that the city Attorney insisted upon was a revision in the CC&R's to provide two parking spaces per unit, since tandem parking is illegal in the City of Seal Beach. It was absolutely impossible for the City to say they were taken by surprise and something was done in the dead of night that they d1dn' t know anything about. "You had the CC&R's and you had the parcel map which showed exactly what was being done on that property and what was required by the City Attorney". . Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 7, a letter indicating that those CC&R's were approved in December of 1990 by the City of Seal Beach. "Now for the City staff to say they do not understand the CC&R's may be understandable since they are not attorneys but certainly Chairman Fife, who is an attorney, and the City Attorney, both of them --- the one that 1S advising you tonight and the one that reviewed the CC&R's and approved them, know that those comport with the law. The CC&R's provide for the inspection by the City at any time. I have no objections to that". Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 8, a copy of the permit issued to Freddy Leonard, Mr. Cox's foreman and the date that it was issued of April 2, 1990. Mr. Stark referred to his exhib1t 9, an article in the Seal Beach Journal regarding attendance by city staff at a Christmas party that Mr. Cox gave. "It makes you wonder does the C1ty have any ethics? Do they have any conflict of interest? And what's the significance of all this? The significance is that I had continuing problems with Mr. Cox on following the blueprints. I had continuing problems with him bU11ding the structure as 1 t should have been built". . Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 10, a letter of January 2nd Wh1Ch "I think the City staff's already showed you. I get a letter saying that there's an illegal garage unit and we want to inspect. Exhibit 10 is the second letter of February 5th, signed by Mr. Cho, Administrative Intern Planning, again saying that there's an illegal unit that he wants to inspect and at the top of the letter you'll see the notation from my secretary that she called the C1ty and advised them I was out of the country. You'll note the address on that letter, to my office address sent certified mail knowing my secretary would sign for it and accept it and that is not the page 15 - Planning Commission Hinutes of November 6, 1991 ~ address that's on the CUP application nor is it the address on the building permit". ~ ~ Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 11, his response to the City letters. Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 12, an applicat10n for an inspection warrant. Mr. Stark quest10ned when Mr. Cho become a Code Enforcement Officer? "We've never hired a Code Enforcement Officer. It's been discussed many times". Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 13, the return of the inspection warrant. "The inspection warrant was never served on me, it was never served on anyone. Note page 2 of that exhibit. On the 1st day of July 1991, Mr. Cho signs again as the Code Enforcement Officer under penalty of perjury. Mr. Cho was not even working for the City on July 1, 1991". Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 14, a copy of the City Code that only the civil Service Board shall give appropriate titles. "I've checked with the civil Service Board and in June of this past year there was no designat10n of a Code Enforcement Officer. I had to have three water meters. No other condo in town has had to have three water meters. I couldn' t put in decorative cement with cutouts for trees in a very narrow strip of the parking strip. It had to be planted. Meanwhile down the street at 12th and Landing the man was cementing in his parking strip at the same time I was planting. Mr. Stark indicated he 1S not the first person to have problems with a contractor and is sure I'm not the last. But on the front page of that contract you'll see that Mr. Cox agreed to get the appropriate building permits and whatever was required to carry out the terms of that contract. I did not learn until last July in a meeting in the City Manager's Office with Mr. Whittenberg that there weren't any permits. I wasn't too sure Mr. Whittenberg was correct. But last meeting when this matter came up Mr. Cox admitted he d1dn't get permits. So I suppose I will have to go to the Contractor's License Board over that one. It was also brought up at the last meeting --- and look at the last two pages of that exhib1t 15 you'll see the bills from Cox Construction for putt1ng in the kitchen, the kitchen cabinets et cetera that was an extra over and above. Now let's talk about that k1tchen for a m1nute". Chairman Fife asked Mr. Stark regarding exhibit 15 concern1ng 1tem 3 which 1ndicates "Exclusions in the first contract apply to this contract". Mr. Stark indicated that the original contract was to bU1ld the condo. "The second contract was for the amenities because at that point, we did not know whether we could use that space for the recreation room or not. It wasn't until after the City Attorney had approved the CC&R's and the parcel map had been approved showing that common area that we went ahead with it. So . . . PAge ~6 - P1anninq commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 the exclusions that are referred to in paragraph 3 refer to the selection of sinks, toilets, appliances. Those were to be provlded by the owner rather than the contractor. That was the exclusion". Chairman Fife clarified with Mr. Stark that the excluslons did not have anything to do with obtaining permits. commissioner orsini stated that he remembered that Mr. Cox stated that he did not have a building permit exclusion signed off. Chalrman Flfe referred to item 6, indicating it says "Work on this contract to begin immediately following the final inspection on the first contract". Why did you pick that commencement date? Mr. Stark indicated" ... because Mr. Cox had also done a remodel for my wife's apartment over on Twelfth Street and it was an agony keeping him on the job. He would work for awhile and then he'd disappear for a couple of weeks. In the mean time we've got the property all torn up. This provision was put in there was to keep him on the job and not run off and start worklng on his spec houses again and disappear in the night and leave us hanging. That's why lt was put in there". Chairman Fife asked if the first contract was a contract between Mr. Stark and Mr. Cox. Mr. Stark stated there were two contracts. The initial contract that was for the original remodel. There was a second contract when it appeared that the Clty Attorney and the englneering reports and everything that had been approved by the Clty was gOlng to allow for the recreation room. Chairman Fife asked if the two contracts were necessarily hooked together, or a coincidence. Mr. Stark indlcated the two weren't hooked together. "The parcel map and the CC&R' s were approved quite a ways before the final approval of the condo itself. Mr. Stark further indicated that there was a dispute all through thlS whole project of getting Mr. Cox to comport to the plans. One of the thlngs that came up as a dispute, which you addressed obliquely a moment ago, was storage space. In the condo there is a separate storage space in the attic for each unit. And the requirement was that there would be one of these pull-down stairways that you could walk up and store stuff. And Mr. Cox had failed to frame that in and to provide for the stairway and we got after him on that. That that was part of the plans. That pull-down stairway was to be there. He conveniently overlooked that. So there is a great deal of storage space in those two units". Mr. Stark stated that "Mr. O'Sullivan, who lives down on Second Street, came in opposing this and saying that I was opposed to Mola, which is no secret. And therefore it shouldn't be approved. Well I thought to myself, 'Boy this sure takes a lot of hutzpah'. Because everybody in town knows that Mr. O'Sulllvan has got an lllegal unit. Here are the photographs of it. Now there is nothing hidden about my complaint. I'm making it rlght now. I'm filing a complaint with the city". Mr. Stark referred to the last . page 17 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 page of that exhiblt, which is on PCH at 13th street right next to the gas station, and on the ground level where you see those roll up doors was an open parking space and they could be closed and shut off. Mr. Stark referred to hlS exhibit 18, regarding the spa, indicating that it can be carried in, set down in a room, filled with hot water, plugged into the wall, and turned on. No permits are required. Mr. Stark referred to the next exhibit, Government Code 65852 regarding uniformity of zoning regulations and equal protection under the law. Mr. Stark referred to hlS exhibit 19, an advertisement for a condo for sale. "Note the amenities. There's a common area, sWlmming pool, jacuzzl, men's and women' gym. Turn the page and there are some photographs. And guess what we find? We find a kitchen, barstools, refrigerator and a counter. The next page shows a beautiful living room area with some rooms off to the side that could be used as bedrooms. And flnally in that exhibit you'll see ladies and mens rest rooms. Now according to the City's letter, the eXlstence of a kitchen presumes that you have a livlng unlt. Well, do we have a living unit here"? ~ Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 20, an ad for the Bixby condo's showing a pool, spa and a clubhouse. "And if you turn the page you'll see an outside stairway which has long been forbidden. There is a kitchen, breakfast table, and it looks like a living room and concel vably a bedroom and mens and womens rest rooms. Are we going to tear those out"? Mr. Stark referred to his exhiblt 21, regarding 163 Electric which came before the Commission because it conflicted with the Fire Code. "It didn't conflict with anything else, just the Fire Code. Otherwise it would have been perfectly legitimate". Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 22, a copy of section 65915.6 of the Government Code pertaining to the conversion of apartments into condominiums. Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 23, section 65589.5 of the Government Code regarding the findings. Mr. Stark referred to hlS exhibit 24, indicating the burden of proof is on the City to show that they complied with that previous section. . Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 25, regarding the Housing Element. Chairman Fife asked if Mr. Stark was indicating that this partlcular condominium project qualifies as low and moderate income housing. Mr. Stark indlcated it certainly does. Chairman Fife . . . Page 18 - p1anning Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 asked if it was proposed as that type of proJect. Mr. stark indicated he was not sure whether it was discussed with them or not. "I don't think the Housing Element had become an issue back then because we're going back to 1989. If you take a look at the date on those plans that were submitted --- that was March 2, 1989. Now according to your housing plan that you adopted, you're gOlng to facilitate the development of a variety of housing. You're going to ass1st 1n and facilitate the development of housing affording to low and moderate income households". Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 26, indicating the City will develop guidelines for the implementation of the dens1 ty bonus provisions dur1ng 1990 and that hasn't been forthcoming. Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 27, the City's program to require the replacement of all low and moderate income housing un1 ts removed or demolished in the local coastal zone or the payment of a fee. "Mr. Cox just removed four low income housing units on Twelfth Street and replaced them with one of these large homes. Did he pay a fee? The C1ty was going to develop procedures for this during 1990, we're yet to see them". Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 28, providing for the dut1es and requirements of your staff to the Planning Department and to the Plann1ng Comm1ssion. "They shall investigate and report to the Planning Commission all facts. That doesn't say they write ed1torials and that's all we get out of the Developer Services branch". Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 29, regarding "accessory use". "This is a xerox copy right out of the Ci ty ~ as to what an 'accessory' is. Mr. Antos 1S here, who was the author of Ordinance No. 948 as to what that 'accessory' is". Mr. Stark referred to his exhib1t 30, indicating that accessory buildings are specifically allowed under Residential Low Density. This is right out of the City ~. Mr. Stark referred to his exhibit 31, indicating the permitted uses under Residential Low Density and Residential High Density. He further indicated this is a condo project with a recreation room just like every other condo in town. This one here satisf1es the low and moderate income requirements. This one here is covered by your own Housing Element. It's not a third living unit, it never will be rented out. Commissioner Dahlman ind1cated that on one hand you've sa1d this 1S low or moderate income housing and on the other it seems to have this large common area to be shared with only one other household that is extremely luxurious including kitchen facilities. "I suppose my home could be bought low income if they paid 90% down. How can this be low income property? Or moderate even"? Mr. Stark stated these condos are not going to sell for $800,000 as some of the houses on these lots, the spec . Page ~9 - P1anning Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 houses that have been built, are selling for. "I don't know as there's anything that prohibits a low to moderate income family who buys a condo from having a nice common area that they can share elther with one or a hundred other people. Are we to say the future owners are not entitled to that because he's low or moderate lncome? The selling price is what's going to dictate whether it's low or moderate income". . Chairman Fife asked what the project will be selling at. Mr. Stark indicated he hasn't reached that point yet. Mr. Fife questioned "How can you say at this point that they qualify for purchase by people of low to moderate income"? Mr. Stark stated "Because the price would have to be in that range". He further stated that staff is putting words in his mouth by saying he claims the accessory uses didn't even need a bui lding permit and they lmmedlately checked with the City Attorney and they found out they were right. "That lsn't what I said. I said 'Under your zoning regulation, a person can come in and ask to build an accessory use and get a permit over the counter and a CUP is not required, nor is a Minor Plan Review required under the City'S Code'. I suggest that the complaints that they received were from Mr. Curtis and Mr. Whittenberg and nobody else. If somebody's going to make a complaint they should have the guts to stand up and say 'I'm making a complaint'. Just as I have tonight about Mr. O'Sullivan. I'm not concealing it". Chairman Fife indicated to Mr. Stark that if we're ever going to have any hope of getting through this we've got to at some point finish your presentation. Mr. Stark stated "Well, I've got $500 invested in this evening. And I wouldn't even be here if your staff was doing their job and had acted halfway decent and intelligent about this whole thing which they have not done, lndicating about ten minutes of time would be sufficient". Mr. Stark stated that staff talks about related improvements as though that was something brand new to them. "And they say that the common areas are not described in the CC&R's. I think that just shows their ignorance of what a CC&R is. Those documents are to spell out the areas that belong to each condo owner and WhlCh areas are common areas. That's what it's there for. And for them to say that the common area is to be a spa or whatever is not in the CC&R's. All they had to do was call the City Attorney and ask him. He'd have told them. And then they talk about recommendations that as stated previously approval of this request as originally presented would require a Variance. It was never orlginally presented as anythlng other than what lt actually is today. No one is asking for a third unit where only two are allowed. We sat down with Mr. Orsini, Mr. Bankston, Ms. Hastings, Mr. Colantuono, Mr. Whittenberg, Mr. Curtis, and Mr. Feenstra". . Mr. Stark further indicated that at this meeting it was the position of the City that this has been a big misunderstanding. . . . Page 20 - P1anning commission Hinutes of November 6, 1991 "What we have found is that the tract map and the bUllding permit and the CC&R's don't quite match. The problem could be solved by applying for a modification to the CUP to bring these into conformity. And you don't have to take my word for it, ask Mr. Orsini, he was there. This was a simple house keeping chore. Mr. Whittenberg also lndicated that Mr. Cox didn't get a building permit and that we'll have to have it inspected and you'll have to pay a penalty on your building permit. I wasn't too happy but I figure I'm going after Cox on this one. I have done everything the city has asked. You've pushed me as far as I'm going to go. I am not going to destroy what has been built and I don't think any court will order me to destroy it. Now at this pOlnt gentlemen, you have my offer. You have my complete presentation as to where we are. I hope it's been enlightening because I know some of you weren't here. If you have any questions for me I'll be glad to try and answer them". In response to a question of Commissloner Orsini, Mr. Stark stated the units of Mr. Cox which were torn down are across the street from Marilyn Hastings' house on 12th Street. Commissloner Law stated that what is being telecast to the people of Seal Beach that you do not need a permit of any kind. You may build whatever you want, whenever you want and as you want. And if we don't like it, the city is going to be sued. Mr. Stark stated he did not understand how she could have reached that conclusion after all that has been said and done and the documentary evidence that has been submitted. Commlssloner Law stated a permit was never obtained and she would not leave such particulars to her contractor without checking. "And I'm sure, Mr. Stark, you're a very brilliant man and you wouldn't either. I don't believe that you did this blindly". Mr. Stark stated he did know why she was so bitter against him. Commlssioner Law stated she is not bitter against Mr. Stark. "I'm bitter against anybody that breaks the law". Mr. Stark stated he watched Mr. Colantuono's earlier presentation to the Planning Commission for the need to maintain their objectivity and lack of bias. "If you'll view the tape from the last meetlng you'll find Mr. Cho carne up here and gave a very emotional speech, and when he was completed, Ms. Law applauded vigorously. Therefore, I'd ask that Ms. Law disqualify herself from voting on this matter". Commissioner Law stated she would not. Chalrman Fife declared a recess at 9:50 p.m. At 10:06 p.m. the Commission resumed with all members present. . . . Page 21 - p~ann1ng Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 Mr. Stark stated the range top is electric. The oven is electric and can be disconnected and plated off at the wall. Which he is willing to do. "I am not going to tear the place apart and pull out wiring however. Thank you". Charles Antos * 328 17th Street. Seal Beach reviewed other condominlum complexes, indicating Rossmoor Park Apartments, Rossmoor Regency and Rossmoor Chateau in the Rossmoor Center all have recreation facilities. In response to a question from Chairman Fife, Mr. Antos indicated he did not know of any two unit condominium projects having facilities of this type and that the smallest condominium project that has a similar recreation area is a three-unit project. He then reviewed the condominium conversion process and where the CC&R's come in. The City requires on the lnitlal application that CC&R's be submltted to staff for approval and those CC&R's have to be approved prior to consideration of the final tract map. Typically the CC&R's are sent to the City Attorney_ The City Attorney then reviews them and requires the lmposltion of a variety of provislons wlthin the CC&R's to protect the City, such as the CC&R's may not be amended without written permission of the City prior to the amendment, that the City have an absolute right at any time to go in and inspect the common area. He also stated there is a requirement for a condominium plan that must clearly delineate what is the unit, what is the parking, what is the balcony element, if you have basements, what is the basement element and all the common areas. They have to be delineated on the condominium plan which is recorded with the map and the CC&R's. He further stated that the City also has a partner in the future owners because the future owners are not going to stand by since they own half of an undivided common interest in this area and watch the other owner or somebody off the street come in and convert this area to a separate and distinct unlt. In response to a question from Chalrman Fife, Mr. Antos stated that if a City employee went to inspect a property that has a common area, that employee would not be trespasslng, but the employee would have to go at a normal time when somebody might be there. In response to a question from Commissioner Dahlman, Mr. Colantuono indicated the letter the City Attorney's Office wrote in October of 1990 reflected conditions very much like the ones Mr. Antos is describing. Mr. Colantuono said the CC&R's that are in front of him now do not reflect the changes that our office requested. He was not sure if we're looklng at the most recent draft however. Mr. Antos further stated work done without benefit of buildlng permits is the responsibllity of the property owner. Even if the property owner has a contract which said the contractor was to get permits, the ultimate responsibility is with the property owner. In addition, for any work done there is going to have to be a building permit and there's going to have to be inspections and after-the- . . ., Page 22 - P1anning Commies ion Minutes of November 6, 1991 fact permits pulled. There is no getting around that. His assumption is that Mr. Stark is correct and suggested that he not be judged by the actions of a contractor. The assumption is the general contractor is responsible for getting subs, arranging for the inspections, re-inspections, corrections, etc. If they fail to do what they were supposed to do then that is between the property owner and the contractor based upon their contract and contractor licensing laws. Mr. Antos also stated he didn't see any reason why it should not be approved. And he didn't see any probability that the area will end up as a third unit because of the guarantees the City has with the CC&R's. An amendment requires a written concurrence by the City pr10r to amendment. commissioner Dahlman asked if it would be possible for the two condo owners to decide they would just like to rent this recreation area out. If they agree on it and they agree to split the rent, the City is not involved. Mr. Antos stated that could happen. But then, they're in violation of their CC&R's and the state and City gets involved. commissioner Dahlman ind1cated the Commission has to take into account what someone might do at some future time. Chairman Fife asked if an owner feels conditions are onerously imposed, does he have the right to ignore them or over-ride those conditions or do you think he should corne back to the Commission and plead his case? Mr. Antos said he thought the matter should have corne back to the Planning commission. He also thought that at the point when the City Attorney ruled the tandem parking was 11legal and required the CC&R's to be modified, it probably should have been brought back to the Commission. Chairman Fife asked if there was a ruling by the City Attorney that the tandem spaces were illegal and had to be removed? Mr. Antos stated there has been testimony that the City Attorney said you have to modify the CC&R's and get rid of the tandem parking because the tandem parking isn't legal. Now at that point there is a conflict between what the Planning Commission did and a contrary action of the City Attorney, that has to be resolved. Chairman Fife asked if tandem parking is illegal if it 1S proposed to be used to supply required parking? Or is it Just illegal to have a garage that's forty feet deep? Mr. Antos stated tandem parking initially was allowed in the City and then it was ruled illegal, and could not supply required parking. Tandem spaces can be provided as excess spaces. Mr. Antos again stated the City Attorney said you can't have tandem spaces in a condo and have it in the CC&R's, get rid of it. At that point the condition had to be resolved some way. And the matter should have probably been brought back to the Planning Commission and there should have been something done about it. . . . Page 23 - P1anninq Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 Mr. Colantuono stated Mr. Antos is substantially correct in reporting what has been sa1d. Unfortunately what has been said is not correct. The City Attorney's Office never opined that the cond1tion for tandem parking was illegal. Paragraph five of a letter dated October 16, 1990, signed by Daryl Teshima, an attorney in Mr. Colantuono's office sets forth what the City Attorney's Office considered necessary to bring the draft CC&R's into consistancy with City policy. And I would like to read that paragraph: "Resolution No. 2966 (which I believe 1S the resolution of approval on the project) requires that the declaration establish specific parking rights. This detail is lacking in the declaration most notably in section 6 of Article 10 entitled "Parking". Specific parking rights may be accomplished by stating, for example, "Each owner shall be entitled to two parking spaces 1n the garage attached to each unit". Mr. Colantuono further stated his understanding was to say the CC&R's are not specific about who owns the parking spaces, put something needs to clarify who owns what. "I think that to somebody trying to comply with the City Attorney's condit10ns might well have literally taken the quoted language because that's what you do. The City Attorney gives you something, you take it, why think about it. There is an unfortunate misinterpretation there. But it was never the opinion of our office and is not the opinion of our office now that the requirement for tandem parking was beyond the ci ty' s powers. The City had the power to impose appropriate cond1tions to make sure that a very large storage space that could have easily been converted to an illegal use was not so converted. And the tandem parking was one effective way to do that, there was no reason the City couldn't impose that condition". Commissioner Orsin1 asked if tandem parking can be provided if 1t is not required parking? Mr. Colantuono ind1cated that was correct, unless your Conditional Use Permit approval requires that you build pursuant to a set of plans which call for tandem parking. In that case you are requ1red to build according to those plans and no other. Commissioner orsini asked how do you force someone to have tandem parking if tandem park1ng isn't allowed? Mr. Colantuono indicated the phrase "tandem parking is not allowed" means "tandem parking is not sufficient to meet your obligat10n to provide required parking". But if you've already met your requirement for required parking with spaces that are not tandem there is no reason you can't have additional spaces which are tandem. Comm1ss10ner Orsini asked how do you make someone have extra parking? Mr. Colantuono stated when somebody comes in for a Cond1tional Use Permit approval the Commission has the power to impose conditions on the permit which are designed to make sure . . . Page 24 - P~annin9 Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 it's compatible with the goals of the General Plan and the goals of the zoning ordinance. In this case the Commission apparently concluded that unless tandem parking or some other use for that area was provided, it would easily lend itself to an illegal conversion. The Commission could have required a storage area. The Commission exercised its discretion to require tandem parking and there's nothing in the law that says that was inappropriate. Norma Strohmeier * No Address Given. Seal Beach inquired on the employment status and job classification of Michael Cho. She felt his slgnature on any documents should be voided 1f there was no legi timate designation for him to serve in that capacity. She further inquired 1f a portion of Mr. Antos's comments from a previous meeting had been left out of Planning Commission Minutes. commissioner Orsin1 asked for a clarification on what Mr. Cho's actual title was at the time. Mr. Whittenberg stated Mr. Cho was initially hired as a "Planning Intern" and some time later the title was modif1ed to "Code Enforcement Officer" after discussion between the Planning Department and the City Manager's Off ice. Chairman Fife stated that even if Mr. Cho had signed a letter "President of the united States of America" that is very peripheral to this issue. "Whether he exceeded his authority in applying a t1tle to himself 1S really not the crucial question. The crucial question is did the applicant follow the plans that were approved for the conversion? And if he didn't, is there a fix to that that we can all live with"? Michael Cho * No Street Address Given. Huntington Beach, generally stated he was pleased at the conciliatory attitude of the applicant and his attorney in terms of making certain changes to the plans. He did not agree the recommended changes fully address the issue of the potential for this particular part of the building to be converted into a possible illegal use. Mr. Cho felt the Commission must focus on the potential for this area being used for purposes other than a common area recreation room. Mr. Cho indicated Mr. Stark has tried to compare this to some of the condos on Montecito Road or in the Marina area, but he felt those could be distinguished because those are very large developments. Not one person is going to own all those condos and be able to take that clubhouse, change it and then rent it out. "I'm not saying Mr. Stark would do this but someone else in the future who does happen to own both of those units could eas1ly convert it". Mr. Stark and Mr. Antos are entirely correct. Mr. Cho felt if those two separate units are owned by two different individuals who Just happen to be neighbors, the th1rd unit or room is not likely to be converted. They both have an 1nterest in that room and he didn't think they would conspire to convert it. "But as long as you have a single owner, the poss1b1lity eX1sts". Mr. Cho further stated removal of a lot of the kitchen facilities would be appropriate and removed from inside the walls. He also . . . Page 25 - P~annin9 Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 believed the first wall closest to the door should be removed to reduce three smaller rooms so there would be a room with a spa and a larger common area. He stated there are certain requirements that a commercial spa must meet. Mr. Cho asked if Mr. Stark wanted a spa in the first place, why were the walls put in place flrst? He lndicated that the spa and its plumbing should have gone in first with the walls put up afterward. Mr. Cho referenced Mr. Schwartz' statement that this would be a considerable expense. Mr. Cho noted it was a conslderable expense ripping up the walls to tap into the lines and wires to put in the kitchen unit and the bathrooms et cetera in. The applicant ripped up the concrete floor of the foundation to find the sewer lines to run their bathrooms. Mr. Cho felt that Mr. Stark presented extraneous information about him and " a lot of the things that he said in particular about me were very inaccurate". Mr. Stark, speaking in rebuttal, stated that while a condo is pendlng final approval and rented out there must be an acknowledgement signed by the lessee that he understands he is leasing a unit and that a condo conversion is taking place, which he has done. He further stated Mr. Cho was used by the City improperly in obtalning the warrant from the Superior Court. Mr. Cho stated the warrant was not obtained from Superior Court. It was obtained from Municipal Court in Westminster. This kind of warrant, which is an administrative warrant, can be obtained by any person duly appointed within a department. Mr. Cho's position as Planning Intern and his job description included not only preparing staff reports, but also included .QQQg enforcement. He wasn't outside the authority granted to him by the city. "And I just wanted to make that clear because he's trying to make this sound llke I was out there doing something completely outside the law. No, everythlng was done wi thin the law. And I think that clarification should be made". Chairman Fife declared the Public Hearing closed and asked for comments or questions from the Commissioners. commissioner Law stated everything should be taken out. Indicating that if you don't take it out, you turn your back, tomorrow it'll be back in. It tells anybody in Seal Beach, do anything you want to do and then threaten to sue if we don't let you have your way. "I just think it's terrible". Mr. Whittenberg, in response to comments made durlng public testimony, generally stated this particular application came before the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit in 1989 for the remodeling and addition of living and non-living area under the provislons of the City Code, Section 28-2407.3. That particular Section indicates those types of modifications may be made but they must be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the . . . Page 26 - P~ann1ng Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 approval of a Cond1tional Use Permit provided all the requirements of this chapter, excluding density, are satisfied. And the types of requests that apply under that particular section of the Code are one-time or cumulative enlargements or expansions greater than 10% of the allowable floor area. And the second category is one- time or cumulat1ve inter10r wall modifications and remodeling which involves removal of or structural alteration of greater than 50% of the structure's interior bearing walls. The staff report for Conditional Use Permit case #4-89, which was the request for the 1nit1al remodeling and enlargement of the structure, cites this QQdg. Requests that are less than 10% of the allowable floor area and requests that involve less than 50% of the 1nterior wall modifications are allowed to be reviewed under the Minor Plan Review process and that is the baS1C difference in the two types of requests. Secondly, Mr. Stark indicated he was surpr1sed staff was not able to provide an original set of the plans since Mr. Stark had those plans. He was at the meeting the night when those plans were requested and did not offer to provide anything to the Commission at the time of the meeting and did not offer to provide them to us at any point in time after that meeting. Thirdly, we've gone through an extens1ve amount of detail on the ~ enforcement issue. Again, the matter before you th1S evening 1S not a Code enforcement issue. The matter before you this evening 1S whether or not the proposed modifications to that portion of the structure which were orig1nally approved for tandem parking and storage areas are acceptable to the Commission for conversion to a recreation room use and under what terms and conditions you feel that modificat1on to the previously approved plans would be appropriate. Fourthly, Mr. Stark 1ndicated that on the parcel map that there were no areas delineated on the parcel map itself for the recreation area. We have a copy of the parcel map here. Parcel Map 90-332 provided by R. V. Pearsall. Mr. Whittenberg read one of the notes on the plan so you're aware of what the parcel map approval was for. The first note is "That the proposal is the conversion of two existing dwelling units to condominium units. There is one one-bedroom unit and one two-bedroom unit". And the second note indicates "There is a covered garage for each un1t on the first level, each garage has two regular Slze parking spaces and one tandem parking space. Access is from the alley". So the parcel map that was approved by the Planning Commission clearly indicated that you d1d have tandem parking spaces provided. It did not indicate at that point and time that the tandem parking spaces had been eliminated. Chairman Fife asked if the language in that parcel map ass1gns to a particular unit a tandem parking space? Mr. Whittenberg stated . . . Page 27 - Planning commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 that would be staff's interpretation of the particular wording on the parcel map. In response to a question from Chairman Fife, Mr. Colantuono stated there are two terms in the CC&R' s regarding common areas. There is "Common Area" and "Exclusive Use Common Area". All the common area is owned by the community which is both of the units together. But exclusive use common area is exclusively for the use of one party. And then there are the units which are actually owned by the indi viduals. Chairman Fife asked how are the legal spaces classified. Mr. Colantuono restated the language of section 11 of the CC&R's, noting this may not be the final draft, indicating some parking spaces are exclusive use common area. To determine precisely, he would have to look at the deeds, which he didn't think he had with him tonight. They may not have yet been drawn. Mr. Whittenberg further stated the Clty will be happy to look at those ~ enforcement propertles mentioned by Mr. Stark and respond to those. In regard to the spa, if you refer back to the Planning Commission minutes on page 4 of the September 4th meeting, we specifically asked if the spa was to be a portable or a fixed spa. At that tlme the attorney for Mr. Stark indicated the spa would be a fixed spa. It was staff's understanding that term involves an in-ground fixed structure facility, not a spa that is able to be moved around and plugged into a wall outlet. He also indicated there are a number of Government Code sections requiring certain conditions to be present to approve a condo conversion. Those particular sections of the Government Code relate to conversion of rental units to condominiums. It does not relate to whether or not the Commission feels recreation facilities are appropriate or inappropriate. "I think we need just to clarify that point. As far as accessory uses, I think we've addressed that both in the staff report, on page 3 of the staff report and again on page 5 of the minutes of the September 4th meeting we've clearly lndicated in both places that accessory uses are permitted uses under the provisions of the ~ however, and if you go to the staff report on page 3, this particular issue regarding accessory uses is specifically addressed. It says "During the Planning Commission meeting of September 4, 1991, the applicant and applicant's representatives, both indicated that the recreation room is an accessory use and therefore is permitted and does not require Planning Commisslon approval" . We did not lndicate anything at all regarding whether permits were necessary or not. Staff has reviewed the matter with the Office of the City Attorney and verified that the staff posltion presented on September 4th was correct. And the position is and was at the September 4th, 1991 meeting that any substantive plan amendment to a project approved by the Planning Commission through the Conditional Use Permit process must be reviewed and approved by the Plannlng Commission through a subsequent Conditional Use Permit application. That type of a use is an allowed use. However, on particular pieces of property which are governed by a Conditional Use Permit in order to . . . PagB 28 - P~anning Commission Minutes of November 6, ~991 change the plans that have been approved previously, whether or not the use that he's requesting is permitted or not, it requires a Planning Commission approval to effectuate that change. In this particular case that was not done and that's the reason that this matter is before you this evening. I think that basically summarizes our comments, other than the fact that I understand that Mr. Stark does not agree with out position on thlS matter and he has obviously some animosities towards myself and members of my staff. I think we'll just let those lie at the point they're at and not respond to those". Commlssloner Sharp said the Commission has heard a lot of testimony and accusations but the Commission is not a court of law. "We're Just a simple Planning Commission trying to make an honest decision. I'm real disturbed that Mr. Stark did not come back to the Planning Commission if he wanted to put in this common area. I don't think there would have been any problem at all putting in a spa. Maybe a little counter for a sink and so forth. But when you come back with the amount of modifications that was done --- two full bathrooms, two separate rooms, complete kitchen, to me it's just absolutely unbelievable that someone would do this. There's no way ln the world that I could approve this without it being cut down to where it is anything but a rec room for the two apartments". commissioner orsini asked if these units qualify under low income housing? He reminded the Commission 601 Ocean was the same lssue of future potential use, and the Cl ty Council overturned the Commission. "If we are going to start looking at everything into the future then anything that's even close to being redone you just can't approve. I'm going to go back to something that was told to us by the City Attorney, one thing we should do and one thing we have to do is start being more consistent. Where we don't start leaning one one way one way and then get another issue in front of us going another. And what I will bring up on that is the deck on Crestview which had no permits, which is still there, which has nothing being done about it. That's over a year and yet that's going to sit there. And they say "rezoning" but are we really going to have something bUllt all the way to the end of the property line"? Commissloner Orsini further stated "If I'm going to turn this down because there wasn't permits, then I feel they should carry the conslstency through with the other enforcements. I also feel that eventually Seal Beach is going to have to go to QQgg enforcement officers. The other thing I look at is the 220 volt which you brought up. That's only pulling a wire and you can convert it to 110 and you can put a wire through ln two seconds and convert any 110 to 220. That's not difficult. It's only running a snake through the line. So I don't see where that's going to make any difference. So we're kind of agreeing to pullout the range top, the dishwasher, the ovens and everything else. I wasn't going to . paqe 29 - Planning commission Xinutes of November 6, 1991 get into this but, where is this cons1stency going to start? 601 Ocean was approved, which was supposed to be a bedroom. He got it eventually just the way he or1ginally wanted it. Because of that I'm in favor of approv1ng it with removal of the range top, dishwasher, oven, and refrigerator. We have inspection any time we want it. All I really want is consistency". Commiss1oner Sharp stated his comment referred to by Commissioner orsini was about whether six, thirteen or fourteen people were going to remodel their homes and put decks and doghouses on them. "I think if you go back over my record, when any apartment or any conversion has corne before this Comm1ssion, that if there has been any way it could be made 1nto a second unit, I have fought 1t to see that the walls were changed, the stairways were changed, the doorways were changed. Whatever had to be done to assure that it would not be made into an illegal unit later". . Chairman Fife stated the City's Code does require the Commission to consider the uses to which property may be put. It does not require the Commission to attempt to search the subjective intent of an owner. "I don't think the Code says that if we can imagine a one chance in a mill10n that you could use property in a manner that's 1mpermissible that we should fix on that. But it's certainly the degree with which it can be used for an improper purpose or something that we weight into our overall decision process". commissioner orsini said the issue isn't 1S the rec room allowed? The question that's been raised is he has no building permits. If the Commission considers not having building permits in Old Town we're in deep trouble because " ... we can walk allover the streets and f1nd tons of stuff without building permits. So, I mean, I'm just having trouble with the issue in general, not actually Stark's project alone, but the way it's being handled doesn't make sense to me". . commissioner Dahlman asked Commissioner Sharp what should be done with the existing plumbing and wiring. commissioner Sharp said it has to be brought back to a point where when you walk away from it and three weeks later they can't go 1n and plug the electrical back in. I don't know what they need the 220 for, but you need 220 for an electric range. Commissioner Sharp said "I'm at a loss to say where the cutoff is but I just feel we have to corne up with some kind of a medium whereby we can be assured that it isn't going to be converted to an apartment. I'm just trY1ng to guess what the property is going to be like so somebody else that comes along can't do it later. And that's all I've ever tried to do with any of these properties that have corne before us that have been doing a remodeling or a rebuilding and they are putting it in in such a way that there's a second story and the sta1rway is so that 1t can be converted so that you've got an upstairs and a downstairs real easy or other things to make sure that that doesn't happen. And I . . . Page 30 - p~anning Commission Minutes of November 6, ~99~ just want to make sure that this doesn't happen. And I don't know where we can draw the 11ne that's the least resistance". Chairman Fife stated that if the focus is on the 220 circuitry there are three options: (a) issue a permit, because it's there and it has not yet been permitted in which case you have to ask yourself "Why are you 1ssu1ng a permit to put 220 into this space?"; (b) pull it out so it doesn't exist; (c) ignore it. If we perm1t it, on what basis do we permit it? If we ignore it, are we know1ngly letting non-permitted work stand? Comm1ssioner Orsini stated that on the electr1cal subpanel you can restrict the breaker size and pull the 220 line out of the wall. That's not r1pping the wall apart. You actually pull the 11ne from the breaker to the socket. Chairman Fife called that a medium fix. Commiss10ner Orsini further stated the amount of electricity going to that area can be controlled with the electrical subpanel. Only so much amperage can be run to a subpanel. When a permit is pulled the City can control the amount of electricity that actually is allowed into that unit. Comm1ss10ner Law asked Mr. Stark if Romex was used or condu1t? Mr. Stark said Romex. Commissioner Law said Romex cannot be pulled out of the walls. Mr. Stark sa1d he was present when the Romex was inspected. Chairman Fife asked how was it inspected without a permit? Mr. Wh1ttenberg stated as part of the original approvals for the project, there was a laundry area indicated in basically the area that 1S now commonly called the kitchen. And so you would have had wiring and other utility services in that area for the laundry facilities and that would have been inspected by the Building Inspector based on the plans that were submitted for a laundry area, not for the current kitchen facility. Mr. Stark stated "Mr. Whittenberg has obviously never looked at the prints or he can't read them. After staff made me re-work the stairways and do new engineering calcs we had to move the laundry room over on the side and it shows right there on the prints, Mr. Whittenberg, if you can read them. It'll show you the laundry room is on the south side of the building because we had to move things. Isn't that right? Take a look at it. Mr. Whittenberg stated the approved building plans indicate the laundry area immed1ately next to the entrance door into the ground floor area off of the garages". Mr. Stark stated "You don't have the r1ght set of pr1nts. These are not the set of prints that Cox worked from. The water heaters are over here next to the alley. And this is changed into a laundry room because you put in all this stuff. And I know Geijer gave you the right set of prints". . page 31 - P~anning commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 commissioner Dahlman said if the Commission doesn't have the right plans, doesn't know where the water heaters are they can't make any decisions tonight. Mr. Colantuono stated the legal question before the Commission is whether to modify the conditional use permit that was previously issued. "It is nearly 1rresistible, if not impossible, to set out of your mind the fact that there now exists physical structures created by Mr. Cox which deviate from the existing plans. That's true, but we need to set that aside. The question before you 1S do you wish to mod1fy the conditional use permit that now exists? That permit entitles Mr. Stark and Ms. Brendell to build the first floor of their property to this set of plans. There is an appl1cat1on before you for a right to build that first floor pursuant to a different set of plans. And the question before you is whether that different set of plans ought to be approved and displace the or1ginal set of plans because it is, in the judgement of the Commission, more likely to protect the interests of the ci ty, serve the goals of the zoning ordinance of the General Plan". . commissioner Dahlman stated there's been a lot of talk about things that is not within Commission purview. There seems to be disputes and differences of opinion which is not what the Planning commission needs to address. The Comm1ssion needs to look at whether the common area in this condominium conversion should be approved. Mr. Colantuono said another question before the Commission was, is a 220 line needed? The answer to that question initially was "yes" because there were going to be laundry facilities; those laundry facili ties have now been provided in the upstairs units. The plans before the Commission tonight do not call for laundry facilities in th1S common area. The question remains, does a rec room require a 220 line? That's a judgement Mr. Colantuono said he will leave to the Commission. Chairman Fife indicated staff has proposed the removal of certain fixtures and appliances but also the elimination of the utility services that feed them. He focused on the varY1ng ways that issue can be resolved. The Commission identified a dispute as to what set of plans was approved. The staff has their approved plans, and Mr. Stark is referring to a different set of plans. . Chairman Fife asked if the laundry area on those plans is in the same place as the 220 which feeds the range is now? Mr. Whittenberg stated the City doesn't know whether the 220 line comes down through the exterior wall or an interior wall, since the k1tchen area has never been inspected. The plans indicate the washer and drier along an exterior wall of the building. Mr. Whittenberg said "I'd be happy to pass the approved set of plans down to you for you to look at. Again, I'm not sure that's a really necessary 1ssue to deal with because the issue really before . . . Page 32 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 you is whether or not you wish to approve modifications to that ground floor area to allow for a recreation use. And if so, under what conditions do you feel it's appropriate to grant those types of approvals"? Commiss10ner Dahlman stated the Commission should consider the suggestion that certain walls be removed to make it a larger area and thus less likely to be converted. Chairman F1fe agreed and further stated he would like to see the final set of CC&R's and a final floor plan for the common area, as a recreation area. "And I'd also like to see whether a set of drawings he contends the C1ty approved, 1n fact, and as his contractor built to because otherwise I'm theorizing about conditions in the blind, I'm inviting further confusion later on with me th1nking I've approved one thing and the applicant thinking I've approved another. I'd be inclined we say we put this thing over for the limited purpose of considering those issues to an appropriate time when we have this additional information". Mr. Colantuono stated 1t 1S presumed the applicant will be will1ng to come in with another set of plans. "And I would suggest that it might be preferable to reach a decision, and you could issue a modification to the CUP upon the condition that the plans be reviewed and approved by the Commission when they can be prepared. So, your condition would describe the general parameters that those plans should meet but would reserve to yourself the right to review them later". Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Commission has taken that action in the past on several different occasions. Mr. Whittenberg felt the applicant and the staff are seeking Commission direction. Commissioner Sharp stated according to the plans, there's a complete set of kitchen cabinets. Mr. Wh1ttenberg ind1cted both upper and lower cabinets. Commissioner Sharp stated "If we ask him to come back with plans that the kitchen area should be really eliminated down to a little snack bar of some kind with a sink and hot and cold water. They don't need that many cupboards for two apartments. I think one of those walls ought to come out and then make a room big enough for a spa and put one in if they want to. I think they need to eliminate one bathroom. I absolutely see no reason for two full bathrooms, two showers and everything in a two- unit place where you've got a one-bedroom and a two-bedroom liv1ng unit, so you're talking about five or six people living there. And the chances of all six of them using the units at once and needing all those bathrooms I think is outlandish". Chairman Fife said the Commission has to figure out a modification of the existing CUP while we're here and then in effect dictate that to the applicant, or we need to study it some more and get some input from staff as to some of the areas that we have concern wi th. It seems to me if our purpose if to try to reduce the chances of this becoming an unlawful third dwelling unit at some . . . Page 33 - P1anning Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 later time we have to do more than simply remove these fixtures. And I think Mr. Sharp is correct. One bathroom may be consistent with a recreation area usage of the common area but I certainly don't see two bathrooms, and it would seem to me that even the one bathroom ought to have a changing area. But it would have some degree of logic that you'd come down from your unit, you've changed, you're wet and you want to change into dry clothes and not traipse water up the stairs. But Just two regular baths seems more to lend itself toward extra living units than a spa area. But I don't know that we can do that remaking tonight. commissioner Sharp stated he doesn't think we can do any remaking anyway. I think all we can do 1S pass this with conditions. It's going to be up to Mr. Stark. He's flatly already said that he will not go any farther than just taking out the tops. So that's going to have to be someone else's problem, not ours. I think all we have to do is make our best decision on what is right. Chairman Fife indicated what is on the table thus far is the applicant's position he'll take these fixtures out and I think that's it. Commissioner Sharp indicated he felt that's not enough, and I don't th1nk some of the rest of you feel the same way. If he doesn't want to go along with it then he'll have to go to the City Council with an appeal. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Commission may wish to clarify this with the applicant. On pages 7 and 8 of the staff report we have suggested some condit10ns which we feel would be appropriate to approve the request with modifications in accordance with the applicant's already stated position of removing, and I'll specify the specific items he's proposed to remove are the range top, dishwasher, oven and refrigerator. Based on that, our staff report indicates that we feel there are conditions which we think should be considered. I'll try to restate what I understood the applicant and his representative's agreements with and disagreements to, so we hopefully have a common understanding of what their position is. My understanding is that they agree with condition A except for the removal of the utility services to the removed fixtures and appliances. I would understand that they disagree with condition B. I would understand that they agree with condition C. I think they stated that during their testimony. They would agree with conditions 0, E and F. Condition G was really not discussed. I'm really not sure what their position is on condition G. They indicated in their testimony that they would agree to an annual inspection, I think that issue has been adequately addressed that there's provisions 1n the CC&R's that allow the C1ty, and I'm not sure that particular condition would need to be included since it's one that's already included 1n the CC&R's. But I hope that's a fair statement of what I understand the applicant's position is. I think it would be helpful to ask if they have any disagreements . . . Page 34 - p~anning COhmission Minutes of November 6, ~99~ with that, so we understand clearly what their position is and then at least you have an understanding of where you might differ from their position. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Stark or Mr. Schwartz to go through proposed conditions A through G and state your position. Mr. Stark spoke regarding the proposed condltions: A) Removal of those kitchen facilities deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and removal of any utili ty services to the removed fixtures and appliances. We have already sald we would take out the appliances that Mr. Whittenberg just enumerated. We are not going to tear out the walls. Because that's what would be required to tear out wiring all the way back to the panel. It's already been inspected and approved anyway. B) Removal of those portions of either or both of the rest rooms as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. We are not agreeable to tearing out rest rooms. We feel we are entltled to men's and women's rest rooms Just like everybody else. C) The CC&R's for the proposed condominium conversion be amended to clearly describe the remodeled first floor recreation area, including the facilities provided within the recreation area, and clearly indicate that the first floor recreation area is not to be utilized for residential living purposes. The CC&R's shall be resubmi tted to the ci ty Attorney for review and is subject to the approval of the city Attorney. This condition is superfluous. It's already covered in the CC&R's. And I'm sure if you get your hands on a copy and read them over you'll see that that's already covered in the CC&R's. D) Revised building plans to be submitted for plan check and building permit review in accordance with the determination of the Planning Commission. All appropriate Building Code Investigation Fees, Permit Fees, and Plan Review Fees as set forth in Section 304 of the Building ~, as amended by City Council Resolution No. 3960, shall be paid. I thought I'd submitted some revised plans to the City. If they want something else, well we'll try and work with them. Just as we always have. . Page 35 - P~anning Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 E) Plans to be revised to include the indicated fixed spa installation in the rear room of the recreation area. I'm afrald there's a little bit of misconception about what a fixed or a mobile spa is. I've never seen a spa on wheels, maybe Mr. Whittenberg has. What we're talking about is a spa which is fixed in one place and when you fill it with water you're not going to move lt very easily. But it is a unit that you can pick up and put on a dolly and move. You can stand them on end. You can move them down a hallway. You can move them through a door. And when you set them down you plug them in. And all you need to do is fill them with hot water and climb in. So I'm not too sure what he's talking about this plans for revised fixed spa. No plans are requlred for a spa of that sort. There's no speclal requirement for those types of spas any more than there is for a water bed. . commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Stark lf you can do it when there's more than one family involved because of the Health Department and the inspections they have to make to make sure that it's being used properly when there's more than one unit of people using it. Mr. Stark stated there's two ways of doing that. The slmplest one is to treat it like a bath tub and empty the water out when you're finished with it. Just like you do a water bed. You just run the hose out the window and it goes down the drain. The other one is, of course, to put in chlorine. commissioner Dahlman stated if we are to try to hammer out a resolution tonight to approve this, there are gOlng to be so many uncertainties that there's going to be continuing disagreement over what was really required of Mr. Stark. I would rather wait until the next meeting so that we can have a succinct list. If Mr. Stark is not going to agree to the list then we ask the staff to prepare a list for consideration. I would like to have it written down specifically what we're voting on rather than subjected to this type of glve-and-take after four and a half hours or more, I just don't think it's wise. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the final determination of the Planning Commission will come back to you in a resolution format which will set forth the findings and the conditions. Now we will be happy to try and prepare what we think your desires are for those condltlons. And you will have a chance to review that and modify that before you finally approve it. . commissioner Dahlman stated the usual practice is to make two or three changes. But here we've just heard the statement "I'm not taking out any walls". Now the statement was made in the context of what are you going to remove electrical flxtures. But it also . . . Page 36 - p~anning commission Minutes of November 6, ~99~ applies to whether or not walls should be removed, which is another lssue. ThlS is becoming so confused that nobody is going to know who was held to what. I think we need a nice, well written out list of what it is that is being required here. Mr. Whittenberg indicated what we need to do to prepare that list is have a general indication from the Commission as to what items they think need to be resolved so we can prepare that list for you. I can put together a list now that may be different from this one but it still may not be what you're wanting. And you're still wantlng them to make major changes to it. And we can go through that process. It would be extremely helpful to us and the applicant both to get a feel from the members of the Commisslon as to which i terns you feel are important that need to be resolved. If the Commission feels two bathrooms are acceptable, that's flne. We'll spell out two bathrooms to be provided. And, you know, it's that type of just an indication that we're looking for at this point as to which items you feel are necessary. The applicant has the opportunity to agree or disagree with those conditions and he has an appeal process to the City Council based on whatever decision the Commisslon makes, as does any other person. The focus of the Commission should be to determine what modifications, if any, you feel need to be made to what the applicant is proposing. At this point he is proposing to remove four basic pieces of equipment in the kitchen area. That's basically what he's agreed to do. And you need to determine if those things are acceptable. And if they are, that's fine. Then we can prepare a resolution for you ln that format. If those items are not acceptable we need some direction from you as to which additional items would still need to be imposed on the project to warrant approval from the Planning Commission. Mr. Stark clarified when I said I wasn't going to tear out walls, what I was referring to was the wiring that runs to the range and oven would require tearing out all the walls to get the wire out of the wall. So that's what I'm referring to when I say "No, I'm not going to do that" because that's tantamount to destruction and I'm not going to do that. I'm willing to remove the appliances and put a cover plate over the outlets. I really think that's all you need because you can come in and take a look any time you want under the CC&R's. F) Necessary after-the-fact inspections to be conducted by the Building Department, and all additional ~ violations, if any, to be corrected as part of the remodeling process approved by the Planning Commission. I've already agreed to that. I agreed to that last July when we met. . Page 37 - P~annin9 Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 G) An Encroachment Permit to be obtained from the Public Works Department for the existing block planter which encroaches onto City right-of-way adjacent to Central Avenue prior to final inspection of all building modifications approved through Conditional Use Permit #12-91. . I don't know what you have in mind. I'll get the Encroachment Permit just as soon as you get the other people ln town to get the Encroachment Permit. Commlssioner Dahlman stated many of us remember that discussion. I was surprised to see it here because you previously agreed to obtain the Encroachment Permit and Mr. curtis agreed to unearth the process, find out what the insurance premium was or whatever, and also see that everybody else was informed about its availabllity. Did none of that happen? Mr. curtis indicated that what was stated at that time was that staff would look into the process and Mr. Stark would contact the Public Works Department, because that is who the process is done through. However, I have discussed this with the Public Works Department and what the PubllC Works Department would like to do is turn over this one foot to two foot of right-of-way which exists, for instance in front of Mr. Stark's property, over to those property owners in a manner that it would become their property. Because it' s surplus City property. And that's what at that time the Public Works Director indlcated to me he was going to proceed with. I don't know what the status of it is at this tlme. We haven't done any QQQg enforcements nor at this time have we required anything of Mr. Stark because hopefully ln the near future there won't be a problem and that will be his property. But that's why nothing has been done to this point. Chairman Fife stated it would seem the logical thing to sell it to the property owners that it abuts to at a reasonable price and if they don't buy it tell them to move thelr stuff off the City property. Mr. Whittenberg stated the city has contacted Newport Beach and have some of their information. In that case it not only involved the City it also involved the Coastal Commission because it was within the Coastal Zone and they had some other concerns because it involved construction of patios and other types of structures but we have that information and it's been reviewed. commissioner Orsini stated if you have a common area and you have a spa or a jacuzzi the Health Department is going to require two rest rooms. . . . . page 38 - P~anning Commission Minutes of NoveMber 6, 1991 MOTION by Sharp; that the Commission have: The kitchen equipment that has been offered to be removed, removed. Have the sewer lines and water lines that are not needed capped off. Have the electrical sealed off, the ones that are not needed because of the stove and so forth being removed. Have the cabinet area cut down to the minimum that would be needed with the sink for a wet bar and some storage. If it is possible with the City and City ordinances and Heal th Department, have one of the bathrooms removed. Have the center wall removed and the room left for the spa, if that's what they want to put in that corner for the spa area. Chairman Fife asked if the intent of the motion is to include those addi tional condi tions, such as "C" invol v1ng the CC&R' s? Commissioner Sharp indicated yes. Chairman Fife asked if the motion basically would replace cond1tions A and B, and otherwise adopt C through G. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that regarding Condition E, the discussion has indicated that the spa that 1S being proposed is a portable spa, so that condition would really not apply. In regards to Condition G, I think that one you may to delete based the previous discussion. Mr. Colantuono suggested the following additional condition: That the conditions of the original CUP #4-89, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the conditions of this permit, be carried forward. In case there were some technical details relevant to the conversion and the expansion Wh1Ch we do not want to eliminate. Motion by Commissioner Sharp, Second by Commissioner Dahlman to instruct staff to prepare a proposed set of conditions and draft resolution with the conditions as discussed above. Commissioner Sharp indicated he wants to see it all written out before we do any final vote on it. Comm1ssioner OrS1n1 asked if we're going to get a set of plans the way it really looks? Mr. Colantuono indicated that's a condition you didn't state, which is that. you want an opportunity for plan . . . Page 39 - P1annin9 COmmission Minutes of November 6, 1991 review before the Commission. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that plans would be submitted to the Commission before they would be processed through the plan check process. Comm1ssioner Law stated it should be taken back the way 1 t originally was. Because you give him any time and it's going to be back. And as far as the Health Department on a private thing you do not have to have two rest rooms. Cha1rman Fife indicated Mr. Sharp's motion calls for the elimination of one of the bathrooms unless the Health Department adv1ses that the use of this area as a common area for two condominiums requires two bathrooms. If it's not required by law then under his motion it has to go. And the applicant, in turn, has the chance to say I'm not accepting that and I'm going to appeal. commissioner Law asked is he ever gOlng to apply for permits? Chairman Fife indicated that's covered by condition F which is necessary after-the-fact inspections to be conducted by the Building Department and all additional ~ violations corrected as part of the remodeling process. Mr. Whittenberg stated it 1S also covered under condition D which requires Building Code investigation fees, permit fees and plan review fees. It requires submission of plans to the satisfaction of the Building Department which will need to show all plumbing, electrical service, walls that will remain based on the approved modifications to the structure as approved by the Planning Commission. Those will be reviewed by the Planning Department and by our plan check engineers. They will then be inspected by our Building Department and that may involve removal of portions of walls or other portions of the structure to ensure that the way it is built complies w1th ~ requirements. I can't answer specifically what would need to be done. That's going to be based on the inspector's d1scretion at the time he's out on the job looking at it. Chairman F1fe asked if it is possible to have plans as the area of concern was originally approved, as it is now and as it is proposed to be. Mr. Whittenberg indicated yes. MOTION CARIES: 4 - 1 - 0 AYES: NOES: SHARP, FIFE, DAHLMAN, and ORSINI LAW Mr. Whittenberg 1ndicated the revised three sets of plans requested and a draft of the resolution will be back before the Commission at your next meet1ng which w1II be November 20th for consideration. Mr. Colantuono stated the legal effect of what the Commission has done is to instruct staff to prepare an appropr1ate resolution. The Public Hearing has been closed but the matter is not finally Page 40 - p~anning Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 ~ decided until such time as the Commission approves a resolution. When a resolution is approved, at that time appeal r1ghts will begin to run. Mr. Stark indicated he will be in Washington, D.C. on November 20th and requested the matter be held over to the next meeting in December. Mr. Whittenberg stated the date of that meeting is December 4th. Mr. Colantuono requested the secretary to reflect in the minutes that the date of the renewed consideration of this matter was establ1shed at the request of the applicant. Chairman Fife declared a recess at 12:05 a.m. and reconvened the meeting with all Commissioner's present at 12:15 a.m. The Comm1SS1on discussed the remaining items on the Agenda and the fact that the t1me 1S 12:30 a.m. They discussed the fact that the people concerned with Seal Beach Boulevard have been waiting five hours. They discussed continuation to allow for thorough consideration of the issue. . MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman; AMENDED by Fife to continue the Public Hearing on Agenda item #5, General Pan Amendments 2A-91 and 2B-91, Zoning Text Amendment 14-91 and Zone Change 2-91 to the Planning Commission meeting of November 20, 1991 and it will be the first Agenda item at that meeting. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: NOES: 4 - 1 - 0 SHARP, DAHLMAN, ORSINI, FIFE LAW *** 4. Conditional Use Permit #15-91 117 Main Street * Pasta Grotto Resolution No. 1654 Abstain commissioner Orsin1 stated he had to abstain because he lives within 300 feet of 117 Main street. He left the Council chambers for the duration of this item. staff Report . Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file 1n the Plann1ng Department]. The applicants, Doug Maris and Vincenzo Ricci, are requesting an on-sale beer and wine license in conjunction with an existing restaurant located at 117 Main street . page 41 - p~annlng Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 (Pasta Grotto formerly Seal Beach Smorgasbord). Mr. Curtls corrected the staff report on page two to say "The subject restaurant contains 1,675 square feet of floor area and requires seventeen (17) parking spaces". The property provides no parking spaces and is therefore deficient by seventeen parking spaces. Staff recommends approval subject to ten conditions of approval, outlined in the staff report, through the adoption of Resolution No. 1654 Commlssion Comments Chairman Fife asked if the in-lieu parking fees had been raised? Staff explained the in-lieu parking fees have not been raised but the Commission requested Council authorization to look at increasing that fees. The Council has given their permission and staff will start working on the issue and present the Commission with reports at a later time. This restaurant is not required to have to have in-lieu parking. Public Hearing Chalrman Flfe opened the Public Hearing. . vincenzo Ricci * 4583 Wheeler. La Verne. CA - Mr. Ricci introduced himself as a part-owner and chef for Pasta Grotto restaurant. He said he will have a service bar, not a bar. He felt Italian food needs to have wine served with it. There being no other person desiring to speak, Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Conditional Use Permit #17-91, subject to the ten conditions outlined in the staff report and with an additional condition #11: #11. The applicant will pay in-lieu parking fees of $1700 per year to be paid annually to the City of Seal Beach. This is calculated at $100 per parking space times the 17 required parking spaces. This should be through the adoption of Resolution No. 1661. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 4 - 0 - 1 SHARP, LAW, FIFE, DAHLMAN NONE ORSINI *** Commissloner Dahlman asked Mr. curtis about the obJection to thlS ABC license. Mr. curtis explained that ABC indlcated that a citizen had filed an objection regarding this license because the citizen felt Main Street is already saturated with alcohol and this ~ would contrlbute to drunkenness ln the city. . . . Page 42 - P1anning Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 5. NEGATIVE DECLARATION #7-91 MAIN STREET @ PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY commissioner orsini stated he would like to send this item to the City council because the Clty is not truly the applicant, it was proposed by the Seal Beach Merchant's Association. Mr. Whittenberg explained the Clty Council, on September 10, 1990, by Motion and a Second referred the matter to the Planning Commission for review at a Pubic Hearing. The purpose for the Hearing is to consider the environmental consequences of the proposal to construct the slgn. MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Dahlman to forward Negative Declaration #7-91 to the City Council with request for clarification, if the Council still wishes the Planning Commission to consider this matter at a future scheduled Public Hearing. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 ORSINI, DAHLMAN, LAW, FIFE, SHARP commissioner orsini said he reviewed the video tape of the City council meeting. The request came from the Seal Beach Merchants Associatlon. The comments he received were "Why lS the City looking at building archways?". He said "As I got further information that basically the City council did not say to go forward with this". His impression is that that is not what was wanted. Commissioner Dahlman said he remembered that meeting and it did sound like the Councll wanted the Merchants Association process an application through the Planning Department. Mr. Whi ttenberg said staff was going off the City Council Minutes. Mr. Whittenberg sald the document to Council will be prepared for the next Commission Agenda packet. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communlcations from the audience. STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS commissioner Orsini asked for a report on the fees paid for the four units built by Cox Construction on 12th Street at the next meetlng. . . . Page 43 - p~anning Co~~ission Minutes of November 6, 1991 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 12:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, ~L ~ ~ oa.--, J J an Fillmann Recording secretary --J These Minutes are tentative and subject to the approval of the Seal Beach Planning Commission. The Planning Commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 were approved by the Planning Commission on December 4, 1991_. ~