Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1991-12-04 ',e e . ~ . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DECEMBER 4, 1991 7:30 P. M. CITI' COUNCIL CHAMBERS I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II ROLL CALL III CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Approval of November 6, 1991 Mmutes 2 Approval of November 20, 1991 Mmutes 3 Mmor Plan RevIew # 16-91 (Two Story Cabana) 27 Welcome Lane Apphcant James Vmkler IV SCHEDULED MATTERS pP 4 CondItIOnal Use PermIt # 12-91 [ContInued from 9-4 and 11-6-91] Address 1120 Central Avenue Apphcants Bruce Stark & MIchelle Brendel Owners Bruce Stark & MIchelle Brendel Request After-the-fact modIficatIOn of floor plan approved through CUP #4-89 to mclude a recreatIOn area conslstmg of a wet bar area, recreatIon room, spa room, offIce and two bathrooms m conjunctIon \Vlth an eXlstmg duplex ResolutIon 1\;0 1649 v PUBLIC HEARINGS 5 Zomng Text Amendment # 5-91 (ContInued from 11-20-91) Applicant CIty of Seal Beach Request ConSIderatIon of amendments to the 01)'s Zonmg OrdInance (Chapter 28 of the Code of the CIty of Seal Beach) 'te . NOTE. 1 Amend SectIon 28-2002(1) to specifically Include open space and parks as permItted uses WlthlD the PublIc Land Use (PLU) zone 2 Amend SectIon 28-2313 to allow the constructIon of low- level wooden decks WlthlD the front yard setback 3 Amend Section 28-2405 to allow the Plannmg CommissIOn to set or vary amortIzatIon penods for nonconformlDg uses whIch do not relate to structures 4 Amend SectIon 28-2407 whIch sets forth standards for the remodel of and addItIon to nonconformlDg reSIdentIal structures and uses 5 Amend Section 28-1300(7) to requITe the Issuance of a CondItIOnal Use PermIt In conjunctIOn WIth the operation of any commercIa] actIVIty between the hours of 2 00 a m and 6 00 a m 6 Amend SectIons 28-401,28-701 and 28-801 changlDg the mlDImUm corner lot sIze m all reSIdentIal zones of Dlstnct 1 (Old Town) from 27 5' x 100' to 25' x 100 ThIs amendment would make the mInImum lot sIze lD Old Town the same for all propertIes . . 7 Amend the CIty's SIgn Ordmance (Article 18 of Chapter 28 of the Code) to set forth speclhc standards for the short-term placement and use of advertISlDg banners m the CIty'S commercIa] zones Items 4 and 7 ~i11 be considered at future public hearings and will be re-ad\frtised. THESE ITEMS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING 6 Zonmg Text Amendment # 6-91 Applicant Request - CIty of Seal Beach ConsideratIOn of amendments to the CIty's Zomng OrdInance (Chapter 28 of tbe Code of tbe CIty of Seal Beach) to amend SectIon 28-2317(4) re]atmg to Covered Roof Access Stanways, to eIther further refme and set forth speCIfic prOVIsions regardlDg the all 0\\ able SItuatIOns for provIsIon of a covered roof access stan"\', ay or to elimInate covered roof access stall"\\ays from the Ie e e VI allowable non-habItable archItectural features subject to a mmor heIght vanatJon THIS ITEM 'NlLL NOT BE CONSIDERED BY TH9 PLANNING COMMISSION, BASED ON CITI' COUNCIL DIRECTION OF NOVEMBER 25, 1991 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NOTE: VII STAFF CONCERNS I. VIII COMMISSION CONCERNS IX ADJOURNMENT \,\ . e e . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF DECEMBER 4, 1991 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetlng of December 4, 1991 was called to order in City Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Fife. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner orsini led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Dahlman, Law, Orsini Absent: commissioner sharp (Excused absence due to accident) staff Present: Department of Development Services: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 6, 1991 MINUTES MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Orsini to approve the Planning commission Minutes of November 6, 1991 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 DAHLMAN, ORSINI, FIFE, LAW SHARP 2. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 20, 1991 MINUTES MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Orsini to approve the Planning commission Minutes of November 20, 1991 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : ABSTAIN: 3 - 0 - 2 FIFE, ORSINI, LAW SHARP DAHLMAN 3. MINOR PLAN REVIEW #16-91 27 WELCOME LANE Staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, James Vlnkier, requests architectural review of a two-story cabana at 27 Welcome Lane. The proposed structure will provide 1462 square feet of living area. e commission Comments The Commission expressed concerns of possibly creating a duplex condition because of the relation of the entry to the stairs. Chairman Fife asked the applicant to speak to the Commission, noting this is not a Public Hearing. James Vinkier * 27 Welcome Lane. Seal Beach Said the stairway design was not to create a duplex situation but to give more spac10us 1nterior living areas. There 1S only one kitchen. He is not going to destroy his mobile home, he is adding to what he has. He agreed to staff's proposed Condition of Approval #3 which proposes front entries "A" and "B" be sealed and a new front entry, "C", be 1nstalled. The entry would be just from the front. Janice vinkier * 27 Welcome Lane, Seal Beach Introduced herself as the applicant's wife. Mrs. Vink1er explained that when they designed plans with their architect it was dec1ded to put the stairwell on the side so 1t wouldn't cut up the living space. She wanted open rooms on the first floor. Commissioner Law asked how many parking spaces this home had for four bedrooms? Mr. V1nkier said two spaces are provided. e Comm1ssioner Dahlman suggested sliding the sta1rway back so the foot of the stairs empties directly into the living room rather than onto the porch. Mr. Vinkier said this would involve modification of the upstairs floor plan. Pushing the sta1rs back would necessitate tearing up the corner of the mobile home which is the bearing wall. This would involve a new header which would have to be inspected by the State of California and would be a lengthy process. commissioner Dahlman discussed the possibility of placing a covenant on the property stating the home would be used as a single fam1ly unit. Chairman Fife said the integr1ty of the orig1nal trailer is being maintained and the staff's recommended plan of sealing doors "A" and "B" minimizes dual unit usage. Regarding recording a covenant on a trailer, the problem is a trailer 1S not a separable, titled, platted piece of real property and he didn't see how a covenant could be recorded against that one trailer. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Orsini to approve Minor Plan Review #16-91 subject to the six (6) Conditions of Approval outlined in the staff report. MOTION CARRIED: AYES; ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 DAHLMAN, ORSINI, LAW, FIFE SHARP e Director Whittenberg noted Condition of Approval #3 called for the revised plans incorporating the amendments should be submitted for Page 3 - P1anninq Commission Minutes of DeceMber 4, 1991 e commission review prior to submission for Building Plan Check and permits being issued. The commission said they would trust the applicant to build in substantial compliance with the approved plans and would not require their review again. SURPRISE GUEST Chairman Fife introduced Santa Claus, who wished everyone a happy holiday. SCHEDULED MATTERS 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #12-91 1120 CENTRAL AVENUE RESOLUTION No. 1651 Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff report on f1le in the Planning Department). The applicants, Bruce Stark and Michelle Brendel, are requesting an after-the-fact modification of floor plans approved through CUP #4-89. This item has been continued from the Planning Comm1ssion meetings of September 4 and November 6, 1991. e The staff report presented a draft set of Conditions of Approval prepared and based on the discussion at the November 6, 1991 Commission meeting. Mr. Whittenberg said staff found a copy of the original floor plans for the area in quest10n in the original CUP packet. It is reduced in size but shows the entire area. Mr. Whittenberg reviewed the attachment to the current staff report: Attachment A: Draft Conditions of Approval prepared by staff, based upon Commission direction of November 6, 1991. Attachment B: Shows a floor plan for the first floor area from the initial submission under CUP #4-89. It shows a large storage area with a washer, dryer and water heater which is now the proposed recreation area. Attachment C: Plans for the project as submitted under CUP #4-89, which allowed for the reconstruction and enlargement of this property. The plans show a separate laundry area, two tandem parking spaces and two storage areas. Attachment D: Copy of the approved building plans, dated 4/2/90. The approval is stamped and dated. e Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes or December 4, 1991 e Attachment E: Initial request for modifications as submitted by Mr. Stark, indicating the kitchen, two bathrooms, and separate rooms areas. Attachment F: What staff felt the Planning Commission was leaning toward approving based on the 11/6/91 meeting. Mr. Whittenberg sald copies of the staff report were mailed to Mr. Stark and his attorney on November 27, 1991. Commission Comments Commlssioner Dahlman, referencing the Condltlons of Approval which calls for the removal of a downstairs bathroom said he favored removing the qualifying language. Mr. Whlttenberg said staff has had telephone conversations and a meetlng with the Orange County Heal th Inspector. The Health Department does not require a restroom to be provlded in this recreation area at all because there are restrooms available within 300' of the location --- in the units themselves. Chairman Fife requested the applicant to comment on the draft Conditions of Approval. e Bruce Stark * 204 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. Stark said he and his attorney did not receive complete staff reports; they did not receive Attachments B through F. At Chairman Fife's request Mr. Whittenberg reviewed again Attachments B through F. commission Dahlman said testimony two meetings ago indicated that the water heaters are located in a place labeled "storage" on all copies of the plans. He asked Mr. Stark if that was correct? Mr. Stark said yes. Commissioner Dahlman said then these plans still don't represent exactly what is there. Mr. Stark said "That of necessity there were changes made on the south side of the property --- architects belng what they are --- had the vents for the water heaters going through the bedroom and that doesn't go too well. So the water heaters had to be moved and a wash room was put in and that was all inspected and approved. And I assumed that Cox had made arrangements with the city in some way, shape or form for that amendment. Ei ther that of it falls wi thin constructed substantially as per the plans. There was nothing major. There was just some movements of the water heaters, the electrical panel and laundry facilities". e Mr. Stark stated he had three objections which he has continued to express: ( 1 ) Condition of Approval B. Removal of the bathroom is not in compliance with State law. He said State law preempts City and County jurisdiction over restroom requirements for public facilities and it is clear that a mens and womans restroom must be . e . Page 5 - P1~nning Commission Minutes of December 4, 1991 provided. He felt the City staff should not rely on the hearsay statements of somebody in Orange County. [POWER LOSS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS; FIVE MINUTE RECESS]. (2) Condition of Approval G. Mr. Stark felt the center wall should not be removed because it's a partition wall, not a bearing wall. He felt "People have a right to divide up their living space as they see flt". He said this room will be a needed office for the condominium association. (3) Condition of Approval A. Removal of the appliances and cabinetry "I believe that's contrary to state law in that like propertles are to be treated the same. And since you're treating my condo differently than everybody else's condo in town I don't think that's appropriate". He particularly objected to (A) (5) which called for the removal of existing island cabinets as being vindictive. Mr. Stark made the following comments: (1) Mr. Cox had removed four low income housing units on 12th Street and there has been no staff comment on fees pald. (2) At the November 20th Commission meeting Chairman Fife said if you want something you have to sweet talk the Commisslon. Mr. Stark said he is not a "blg valued developer, also known as a BVD". (3) Since the City is pointing fingers and treating him differently than other people he noted that Mr. Cox has not met the setback requirements on his spec house on First street. (4) Commissloner Sharp slngled hlm out as being comparable to Mola Development Corporation. He wondered how a two unit condo could be compared to Mola. (4) At the November 20th meeting a City citizen said "Oh you don't have to worry about the noisy children (at the pre-school on Seal Beach Boulevard) the only property next door is Stark's and who cares about him". (5) He objected to a comment allegedly made by Commissioner Sharp "Maybe we ought to let the kids out earlier then, that would disturb Stark". (6) He wondered if anyone followed up on Mr. Cox because he didn't get permits and he allegedly revised the building without going through the City. Mr. Stark sald "Mr. Fife, what do I have to do to sweet talk the Commission? How many strokes does it take?" Chairman Fife said "About $100,000 in a brown paper bag under my car". (7) One of Barry curtis' friends commented to the Commission that Mr. Stark's condo was a terrible situation. Mr. Stark said then that 123 Second Street has an illegal unit on it and asked if the City had a "smash and grab" warrant on that matter? commissioner Orsini said that on the matter of Mr. Cox paying a fee for the four units of low income housing being removed. He discussed this with Mr. curtis and Mr. Cox never did pay fees on their removal but Mr. Orsini was told it was the State's job to collect those fees. Mr. Stark said the City's Housing Element indicates the city is going to collect the fees. Mr. Whittenberg remlnded the Commission that the purpose of this testimony is to listen to Mr. Stark's comments regarding the proposed Conditions of Approval. The purpose is not to conduct a e e . Page 6 - Planninq commission Minutes of December 4, 1991 Public Hearing again. Mr. Stark said the Commission has then heard his feelings on the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Stark where he stood on the proposed Conditions of Approval? Mr. Stark said he objected to three of the eight Conditlons. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Stark WhlCh way he would lean in case the Commission was not in favor of changing the Conditions? To an outright denial of the application with resultant rights of appeal to the Council? Take what you can get with the Conditions and get some of them carved out at the Councl1 level? Mr. Stark said he wished to appeal it to the City Council regardless of which way the Plannlng Commission goes. Mr. Whittenberg asked Mr. Stark if he was willing to remove (A)(1-4) as had originally been proposed by the appllcant? Mr. Stark said that agreement was reached between his attorney and the Mike Colantuono with "... the assurance that lf we would remove those four items then the CUP would be approved without staff obJection". The question arose of the City Attorney's capacity to speak for the City. Mr. Stark said "The City has not 11ved up to its agreement that my attorney worked out with Mr. Colantuono, I say it's a rejected offer and therefore I object to removing them Slnce you are not requiring it of any other condos". Mr. Fife said "In any event the City Attorney didn't have the authority to speak for the City and the representations he made were not binding on the City so all bets are off. It was just so much conversation". Chairman Fife said "Bottom line. You are currently indisposed to agree to any part of Item A?" Mr. Stark sald yes. His strongest objection was to #5 because there are several thousand dollars invested in cabinetry and he didn't want to tear it out and throw it away. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Stark if both restrooms were allowed to remain would he object to labeling the bathrooms as "Mens", "Womens"? Mr. Stark said he would not object. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Stark why he objected to the removal of the one wall? Mr. Stark said "Because it provides an office space. There is a homeowners assoclation which has books and records to keep, has business to transact. It's a corporation. And it's a small office for that purpose. It does not detract from the rest of the bUllding". Commissloner Law made a Motion (below). She sald Mr. Stark disagrees to everything. She said the alterations were done without permits for any of the work. She felt it should be taken back to Attachment C and then corrected it to Attachment D. She said she managed a 150 unit condominium project without an offlce. Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of December 4, 1991 41 Mr. Whittenberg commented that at the last Public Hearing staff included a letter from Mr. Colantuono's office re the issue of "working out of the deal". Mr. Wh1 ttenberg had a copy of the letter with him from Mike Colantuono's office which ind1cated that the intent was not to work out a settlement but to indicate that there are certain provisions they could propose and it was up to the Planning Commission to make that determination. Mr. Whittenberg further stated that Orange County is the agency that inspects and approves the plans for all public spa and swimming pool facilities in Orange County. Their informat1on sheet clearly indicates that restrooms are not required if there are restrooms within a 300' distance from the spa or pool area itself. Commissioner Fife said his inclination was to second the Motion because the Commission has discussed this issue and worked it over thoroughly. It's going to be appealed to the City Council at any rate. The Council would be better able to wrestle with it 1f they started with a clean slate rather than a part1al compromise from the Commission. e Comm1ssioner Dahlman said he would prefer to approve something, such as the elimination of sub-item #5 from Condition A and to find middle ground on Cond1tion G, like a partial wall. Condit1on B is totally unresolved. But since Mr. Stark has ind1cated that he would not accept that type of a recommendation from the Commission he would also support the Motion. Commissioner Ors1ni said he would recommend approval of the application the way it stands because the Commission has spent a lot of time on this applicat1on. Now there are only three of eight Condit1ons that are in question. Then Mr. Stark could appeal to the City Council and argue the three points with the Council. Chairman Fife said the applicant started with an approved CUP. The applicant changed that CUP and did construction without building permits and now there's an after-the-fact CUP before the Commission. With a lot of effort the Commission's came up with a compromise. The appl1cant is not agreeable to that compromise. The Commission's work 1S not scrapped because the City Council will have the benefit of all this work. Mr. Stark's objections" ... go beyond something sufficiently minor that it could be corrected tonight in some sort of spirit of compromise and I think we should slmply deny the application, granted the fact he has the right of appeal...". e Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes of December 4, 1991 e MOTION by Law; SECOND by Fife to deny Conditional Use Permit #12-91 through Resolution No. 1651. This means restoring the building to the specifications on Attachment D, the plans approved on April 2, 1990. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT : 3 - 1 - 1 LAW, FIFE, DAHLMAN ORSINI SHARP Mr. Whittenberg said Resolution No. 1651 will reflect the denlal of CUP #12-91. The appllcant's appeal period will start running once the resolution's been signed. The resolution will be sent to the address on the application at the applicant's request. 6. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT #5-91 staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. This Zoning Text Amendment is comprised of five components. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Mr. Curtis noted two amendments to the staff report: (1) Revised Attachment D and (2) Attachment C, page 13, at (B) the word "natural" should be removed. e Commission Comments The Commlssion discussed item #2, the definition of "grade" and bringing in fill dirt to change "grade", item #4, notification of surrounding residents of 24-hour operations and item #6 regarding redeflning what's the front of a lot. Public Hearing The Public Hearlng was opened and closed with no one in the audience wlshing to comment. MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Fife to approve Zoning Text Amendment #5-91, as recommended by staff, through the adoption of Resolution No. 1652. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 ORSINI, FIFE, LAW, DAHLMAN SHARP 6. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT #6-91 Staff Report This item was not consldered by the Planning Commission based on City Council direction of November 25, 1991. e Page 9 - p~anning Commission Minutes of December 4, 1991 e ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Michael Cho * No Address * Huntington Beach Mr. Cho said a Code Enforcement Officer should become part of the City's budget and the position should be full time. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg indicated the flrst scheduled meeting in January was January 1st which is a holiday for the City staff. The Commission said they would rather not hold the meeting on January 2nd. Mr. curtis said he had recelved a letter from Santo and Mary Dimare of 204 Third Street which he wanted entered for the Record. This letter is intended to go with additions to non-conforming structures and since this ltem will not be considered tonight the letter will be read into the Record when that item is considered. e Mr. Curtis said in conjunction wlth Mr. Stark's complaint against the property at 123 Second Street, Mr. Terence O'Sullivan initiated a Code enforcement. Ci ty records indicate it's one, not two, units. There is a response from Mr. O'Sullivan and it is provided to keep the Commission current on the Code enforcement since it was brought before the City during a Commission meeting. Staff has not contacted Joan Lewis of Bay town Realty. The City's position is it's one unit with a rumpus room. It is being occupied by two families. Staff has not inspected the unit. Staff does not plan to take strong legal action until such time as they have a reasonable period of time for them to try to provide their informatlon to the City. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Orsini structures on Eighth because they were 70% said he looked at covered roof access Street which he thought looked quite nice to 80% glass. Commissioner Orsini asked staff to report back on Mr. Cox's setbacks on First Street. e Commissioner Orslni questioned the In-Iieu parking for Hennessey's Tavern. Resolution 1351 calls for six tandem parking spaces provided at 136 and 136~ Main Street. There's two sheds back there so there's only four spaces. There was supposed to be posted signage saying "Restaurant Parking". Fi ve parking places are missing. Also the 10% landscaping is not there. Mr. Whittenberg asked if there was an appeal to the City Council which may have modified some of those conditions. Mr. Orsini said the Council resolution was #1484. Staff will provide a brief detalled report for the next meeting. e e . Page 10 - Planninq Commission Minutes of December 4, 1991 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, <rlo~~~ J an Fillmann Recording Secretary The Planning Cornrnisslon ~u~es of December 4, 1991 were approved on December J ~ , 1991. Attachments to Minutes: (1) December 2, 1991 letter from Santo Dimare and Mary Dimare of 204 Thlrd Street, Seal Beach, CA. (2) November 28, 1991 letter from Terence P. O'Sullivan, LBS #3, Tampines, South P.O., Singapore 9152