Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1992-02-05 . . . :. 2 CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA - FEBRUARY 5, 1992 7:30 P.M., CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of December 18, 1991 Minutes IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Variance #8-91 Address: Applicant: Owner: Request: 320 Main street, suite D Laura Webb for Tanning by Tiffany Douglas Michaelson After-the-fact approval of an illegally constructed 144 square foot addition ln suite D. Height Variation #1-92 Applicant: Numerous Property Owners Request: Approval of a height variation for 60 existing covered roof access structures made non-conforming through the City'S adoption of Ordinance 1322. All 60 structures are non-conforming solely due to location on exterior side wall of structure. 3. Addresses: 206 Third Street- 240 Fifth Street- 242 Fifth Street- 242 sixth Street- 244 sixth Street- 253 sixth Street- 255 sixth Street- 228 Seventh Street- 124 Eighth Street- 126 Elghth Street- 308 Eighth Street- 318 Tenth Street- 320 Tenth Street ~ 112 Eleventh Street 114 Eleventh Street . . . ~ Page 2 - Plannlng Commission Agenda for February 5, 1992 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS VII. STAFF CONCERNS VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT 112 Twelfth Street- 216 Thirteenth Street- 211 Fourteenth Street- 307 Sixteenth Street- 1407 Electric Avenue- 1701 Electric Avenue - 1703 Electric Avenue- 1705 Electric Avenue_ 1707 Electric Avenue- 1709 Electric Avenue- 1711 Electric Avenue- 1713 Electric Avenue~ 1715 Electric Avenue- 105 Ocean Avenue- 107 Ocean Avenue- 301 Ocean Avenue- 311 Ocean Avenue - 1637 Ocean Avenue- 1601 Seal Way- A-6 Surfs ide - A-52 Surfside - A-63 Surfside- A-96 Surfslde_ B-44 Surfside_ B-49 Surfslde- B-73 Surfslde- B-76 Surfside- B-81 Surfslde- B-83 Surfside.,.. B-100 Surfside- B-101 Surfs ide B-102 Surfside- B-113 Surfside C-3 Surfside- C-7 Surfside- C-8 SurfSlde"" C-9 SurfSlde- C-14 Surfside- C-18 Surfside- C-23 SurfSlde- C-24 Surfside- . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, 1992 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of February 5, 1992 was called to order in City Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m. by Chalrman Fife. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Alleglance was led by Commissioner Law. ROLL C~T.T. Present: Chalrman Fife. Commissloners Law, orslni, Sharp Absent: commissioner Dahlman Also Present: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Chairman Fife orders Commissioner Dahlman's absence excused due to belng called for emergency surgery. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 18, 1991 MINUTES MOTION by Orsini: SECOND by Law to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of December 18, 1991 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 ORSINI, LAW, FIFE, SHARP DAHLMAN SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no Scheduled Matters. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. VARIANCE #8-91 320 MAIN STREET, SUITE D RESOLUTION No. 92-1 Staff Report The applicant, Laura Webb, requested an after-the-fact approval of a non-permitted 144 square foot addition (12' x 12' room) to an eXlsting multi-tenant commercial building located at 320 Main Street, Suite D. Prior to the non-permitted addition, the subject . . . Page 2 - P1anning Commission Minutes of February 5, 1992 property minimally met parking requ1rements due to the provision of 26 in-I1eu parking spaces. The subject property no longer meets parking requirements due to the non-permitted addition. [Staff report on f1le 1n the Planning Department]. Commission Comments commissioner Sharp asked staff what is the status of the shared parking study. Mr. Whittenberg estimated the study would be before the Planning Commission in three to six months. Mr. Curt1s read, for the Record, a letter in opposition to Variance #8-91 from John B. Jones, dated February 3, 1992 (attached). Variance #11-84, allowing construction of the 5,295 square foot commercial building at 320 Main Street, requ1red 31 parking spaces. Twenty-six (26) of the thirty-one (31) spaces are provided at st. Anne's Church (10th Street and Pac1fic Coast Highway) and five (5) spaces are provided on site. Chairman Fife indicated that the 26 spaces exist only if a customer wished to walk from the church to 320 Main Street. The Commission discussed other Planning Commission actions regarding Main Street properties, such as Variance #2-89 granted for 143 and 144 Main Street (John's Food King and Papillion' s Restaurant). This applicant 1S request1ng consideration of a shared parking arrangement between Tanning By Tiffany and Bayou st. John's Restaurant plus use of tandem parking. The Commission discussed what mechan1sms would be required for a shared parking arrangement; such as Commission resolution or covenant placed on the properties. Commissioner Fife asked staff if their recommendation(s) would be differen t if this Variance request was coming before the Planning Commission with no construction having been done? Mr. Curtis said no. Comm1ssioner Orsini asked staff if the applicant could block off the 48 square feet and use only the 96 square feet? Mr. Curtis said theoretically that could be done but it would be very difficult for staff to enforce their not coming back and opening it up. Comm1ssioner Law asked if the work was completed? Mr. Curtis said the work was framed, drywalled and the roof was on when the Building Inspectors put the stop Work Order on; no work has been done since then. The Commission discussed the plans submitted with the Planning Commission packet, noting the parking was not clearly shown. Mr. Curt1s said the overlay is the new addition and the larger rectangle under it was the open-air atrium. . . . page 3 - P1annlng Commission Minutes of February 5, 1992 Public Hear1ng Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. Laura Webb * 320 Ma1n street. suite "0". Seal Beach Ms. Webb introduced herself as the owner of Tann1ng By T1ffany. Chairman Fife asked if an engineer or an architect prepared the plans? Ms. Webb said her father probably designed the plans, she didn't do them; she was not exactly sure. Chairman Fife asked if the work done thus far had been done by a contractor? Ms. Webb said she didn't know and could not answer. She preferred to wait for her father to return to the podium. Douglas Michaelson * No Address Given Mr. M1chaelson introduced himself as the owner of the building at 320 Main Street, Seal Beach. He stated the build1ng is about 6 - 7 years old and he has owned it for 5 years. He said the plans before the Commiss1on were xeroxed from plans in the C1ty'S files. They were drawn by the original contractor who built the building. It was designed as an open air atrium. He thought the City f1rst approved it with a roof on top with skylights. Later on it was decided the roof should not be put on. The addition under considerat1on was done by a contractor. Bill Webb * No Address Given Mr. Webb said the word "non-permitted" was mentioned many times in the staff's report and "I just very simply did not know that I needed a perm1t and never gave it any thought whatsoever. The people who did it were young contractors, a friend of my son, from Huntington Beach". Mr. Webb thought he was a licensed contractor but was not certain. Mr. Webb said "... we are talking about a small 12' x 12' room. And this 1S another reason why I didn't apply for a permit. Because all we thought we were doing was adding a 12' x 12' room. We had no idea at the time that we were getting involved with something like this. It seemed like such a m1nor thing that we were doing for it to blow into something like this just amazes us. Again this is a 12' x 12' room that we added on an existing atrium that you cannot see from the street and you cannot see from the alley". Mr. Webb said he had talked to the build1ng owner, Mr. Michaelson, about the construction and the subject of building permits never came up. Chairman Fife advised that the permit requirements do not apply as a function of the size of the space being added. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Webb for his thoughts on scaling the 144 square feet back to 96 square feet. Mr. Webb said it would add more expense. They have several thousand dollars tied up in this room. He said the staff's suggested option to tear the construction down was "insensitive" because "... to get right to the point, for me to take the financial obligation to tear this Page 4 - P~annin9 Commission Minutes of February 5, 1992 . down would ruin us. It's not a minor thing at this point. ... when I realize this is over .032 percent of one parking space ...". Regarding the tandem parking, Mr. Webb said that was not tandem parking when he moved in. He created that tandem space four years ago. It was one space which he extended. Mr. Webb said the new construction will not result in more people or more equipment. Chairman Fife advised the applicant on restrictive state law applYlng to Variances. Mr. Webb felt the 1989 Variance granted for 143 and 144 Main street set a precedent and lt would be unfalr to grant that Varlance when it dealt with 7 - 10 spaces and to deny his application when it dealt with less than a third parking space. Chairman Fife asked if the tandem space would hold more than one car on a regular basis? Mr. Webb sald yes, they have been doing it for four years with no problems. . The Commlssion discussed a shared parklng arrangement with Bayou st. John. The Commission asked what would happen if Bayou st. John's Restaurant was sold? Also, during the current recession, they may declde they have to open during the day; they currently have very restricted hours. The restaurant would have to agree to the shared parking/restricted hour arrangement. Mr. Michaelson said Bayou st. John's has been the original tenant since he has owned the building and they signed a seven year lease two months ago. The hours have not changed in the six years they've been operating. The restaurant owners both have separate daytime jobs and come in at 5:00 p.m. to operate the restaurant. Commissioner Sharp said the Planning Commission doesn't have the right to do anything involving the restaurant without the restaurant's approval with all partles. Regarding the time overlap, Laura Webb corrected the staff report stating she works to 5:00 p.m., not 7:00 p.m. Mr. Whittenberg clarified the beauty area works till 5:00 p.m. and the tanning area closes at 10:00 p.m. at Tanning By Tiffany. Barble Meyer * 1400 Catallna. Seal Beach - Spoke in favor of approving Variance #8-91. She expressed disappointment with staff for leading Mr. Webb to believe his Variance application would be approved. She sald Mr. Webb told her he has been assured by Barry Curtls that staff would recommend this Variance for approval. Mr. curtis was going to speak with Mr. Whittenberg and also recommend approval. Mr. Webb was shocked when he read the staff report. She was also concerned that four establishments have gone out of business on Maln Street. She felt denial of Variance #8-91 would be sad because Tanning By Tiffany is only making their business more convenient, not adding anything to it. . Beth Webb - 2530 East 14th Street. Long Beach - Introduced herself as Bill Webb's daughter. She explained the 12' x 12' room was not Page 5 - P~anning commission Minutes of February 5, ~992 . an expansion of the facil1ty and questioned why additional parking would be needed. This new room makes Laura Webb's business more visible to the tann1ng patrons. T1ffany Webb * No Address Given - Introduced herself as Bill Webb's grand daughter. Tiffany said she was proud the salon was named after her, expressed concern her grandfather worked long hours, was worried about denial of this application and worried about people laughing while she was talking. The Commission assured her no one was laughing and she had done a very good job. Roger West * 1201 Electric Avenue. Seal Beach - Spoke on behalf of Geraldine West, who was unable to be at this meeting. He read a prepared statement against variance #8-91 (attached). The opposi tion was based on the fact the property does not meet mun1cipal Code section 28-2502, lack of parking and building permits. He stated in-lieu parking is parking by mirrors. . Michael Cho * Hunt1ngton Beach - Spoke against Variance #8-91 stating this situation would not have occurred had the property owner, the contractor or the applicant/tenant come to the City for information the law provides on property restrictions. Mr. Cho felt the applicant assumed a r1sk when he started construction and was not fully informed. The fact that additional costs could be incurred should not be a consideration; the applicant should not be allowed to claim poverty after-the-fact. At a minimum the space should be reduced down to the allowable 96 square feet. Mr. Cho suggested the applicant look to his contractor to bear the expenses of reducing the room. If the contractor did not do the job right he should be held accountable. Another tenant, Bayou st. John, should not become a part to the parking situation. There must be some kind of regulation or guidance in the municipal Code on what can be done on this issue. Appl1cant's Rebuttal - Mr. Webb restated his previous comments, noting the 1ssue revolves around one-third of one parking space. Going after the contractor or ignoring the fact of what altering the construction would do to the business financially is not humane. These considerations should be included. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. . Director Whittenberg rev1ewed the three specific State-mandated conditions to be met in granting a Variance. He reviewed the two staff report options plus a third option. Option one is denial of the request; the applicant would have the right to subm1t new plans to the Planning Department to build a 96 square foot room which would need to be inspected et cetera. The second option is to grant the Var1ance for the building area w1thout any modifications to the City's standard parking requirements; staff would recommend hours of operation restrict10ns to ensure there 1S not an extensive overlap of hours of operation between the Tanning Salon and the . . . Page 6 - P~anning Commission Minutes of February 5, 1992 Bayou st. John. The third option would be to not deal with the Varlance for the size of the structure but to focus on the Variance request for the shared or tandem parking. Chairman Fife asked staff if grantlng this Variance with tandem parking would open the door for Variance #6-91 to come back for reapplicatlon. Mr. Whittenberg said they would have the opportuni ty to reapply. Mr. Whittenberg said "Just because a number of years ago the City either granted or denied a request does not mean from that point on the City is bound to make that same determinatlon on every similar request that comes to it in the future. You look at each case on the individual circumstances and conditions that apply to that property ...". Chairman Fife said the applicant's in-lieu parking is not sufficiently close for patrons use and that creates a parking problem. Mr. Whittenberg said 85% - 90% of the customers who would frequent 320 Main street are probably not aware of where those 26 spaces are at 10th and PCH. There is a built-in inequity on Main street between the propertles got the rlght to use in-lieu parking and those that did not. Mr. Curtis said the last in-lieu parklng approved was for Paplllion's Restaurant in 1989. After that the Coastal Commission requires physical spaces be provided and there are no more to be provided. Commissioner Sharp said the municipal laws cannot be ignored. He felt the 144 square foot area should be brought down to the 96 square feet. He absolutely felt the Planning Commission has no right to tie any of this to the hours of Bayou st. John Restaurant unless they are wllllng to come in on their own and sign a statement or covenant that they will not open before 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Law said there must be a cut off pOlnt on the parking. If this application is short on parking they could comply by reducing the Slze of the room and there would be no problem. Commissioner orsini said he would like Variance application #8-91 continued to allow thlS applicant time to talk to the restaurant owner to see lf the owner would agree. He said he would have to vote against this because of the parking situation. Shared parking would be the only solution. Chairman Fife said he could not see making the State findings numbered two and three. Regarding shared parking, if there were a general policy to allow the sharlng of parking as a device to create parking that otherwise would have to be physically separate parking, that principal could be applied to this property. At this time there is no such policy. Chairman Fife, noting nobody wants a half built room on his property for any length of time, asked if there was a way to grant a long continuance until the Commisslon finds out if the City . . . Page 7 - P~annin9 Commission Minutes of February 5, 1992 adopts a policy on shared parking. Mr. Whittenberg said that's a Commission policy decision. Commlssioner Orsini asked Mr. Michaelson if there were anywhere else in the building to remove 48 square feet? He said no. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to adopt Resolution No. 92-1, denying Variance #8-91 with a stipulation that the applicant be glven the opportunity to redesign the area in question to ninety- six (96) square feet. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 SHARP, LAW, FIFE, ORSINI DAHLMAN The applicant was advised of her appeal rights to the City Council. *** 2. HEIGHT VARIATION #92-1 RESOLUTION No. 92-2 ADDRESSES: 206 Third Street 240 Fifth Street 242 Fifth Street 242 Sixth Street 244 Sixth Street 253 Sixth Street 255 Sixth Street 228 Seventh Street 124 Eighth Street 126 Eighth Street 308 Eighth Street 318 Tenth Street 320 Tenth Street 112 Eleventh Street 114 Eleventh Street 112 Twelfth Street 216 Thirteenth Street 211 Fourteenth Street 307 sixteenth Street 1407 Electric Avenue 1701 Electric Avenue 1703 Electric Avenue 1705 Electric Avenue 1707 Electric Avenue 1709 Electric Avenue 1711 Electric Avenue 1713 Electric Avenue 1715 Electric Avenue 105 Ocean Avenue Page 8 - P~annin9 Commission Minutes of February 5, 1992 . 107 Ocean Avenue 301 Ocean Avenue 311 Ocean Avenue 1637 Ocean Avenue 1601 Seal Way A-6 Surfside A-52 Surfside A-63 Surfs ide A-96 Surfs ide B-42 Surfs ide B-44 Surfs ide B-49 Surfs ide B-73 Surfs ide B-76 Surfs ide B-81 Surfs ide B-83 Surfs ide B-90 Surfside B-91 Surfs ide B-99 Surfside B-100 Surfs ide B-101 Surfs ide B-102 Surfside B-113 Surfside C-3 Surfs ide C-7 Surfside C-8 Surfs ide C-9 Surfside C-14 Surfs ide C-18 Surfside C-23 Surfside C-24 Surfside . Staff Report Mr. curtis presented the staff report which is a request by the City on behalf of the property owners of the above-listed address for approval of a height variation for 60 existing covered roof access structures made non-conforming through the City's adoption of Ordinance 1322. All 60 structures are non-conforming solely due to location on exterior side wall of structure. [Staff report on file in the Plannlng Department]. Mr. Curtis and Mr. Whittenberg read the following letters into the Record: (1) Vincent Ammirato, 1707 Electric Avenue, dated 1/27/92; (2) Gary Einstein, 211 14th Street, dated 1/23/92; (3) Bob Montgomery, President/Board of Directors, Surfside Colony, Ltd., dated 2/4/92; (4) Alan Shields, 1300 Catalina Avenue, dated 2/3/92. [Attached]. Commission Comments . commissioner Orsini said "I really fight for the standards of the doghouses in the sense of making them as small as possible. But on Page 9 - P~anning COmmission Minutes of February 5, 1992 . the other hand, anything that's been built in the past, with plans, with approvals I don't think anybody should ever have to change. If they were approved at the time they were built they complied with the law, they bU1lt what was approved. Why can you come 5 years, 6 years, 10 years later and tell them to change 1t. That doesn't even make sense. So that's the way I feel about the doghouse issue. No only these sixty or sixty-three but every single one that's been built before I was here. If they were built with approvals, plans and everything else I can't see where we have the right to make them change them or tear them down. ... " Public Hear1ng Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. The members of the aud1ence all together voiced their "Yes" to approve the s1xty covered roof access structures. No one spoke 1n opposition. commission Comments MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to adopt Resolution No. 92-2, approving Height variation #92-1 for the covered roof access structures at the following addresses: . 206 Third Street 240 Fifth Street 242 Fifth Street 242 Sixth Street 244 Sixth Street 253 Sixth Street 255 Sixth Street 228 Seventh Street 124 Eighth Street 126 Eighth Street 308 Eighth Street 318 Tenth Street 320 Tenth Street 112 Eleventh Street 114 Eleventh Street 112 Twelfth Street 216 Thirteenth Street 211 Fourteenth Street 307 sixteenth Street 1407 Electric Avenue 1701 Electric Avenue 1703 Electric Avenue 1705 Electric Avenue 1707 Electric Avenue 1709 Electric Avenue 1711 Electric Avenue 1713 Electric Avenue 1715 Electric Avenue 105 Ocean Avenue . Page 10 - Planning CommiBB~on Minutes of February 5, 1992 . 107 Ocean Avenue 301 Ocean Avenue 311 Ocean Avenue 1637 Ocean Avenue 1601 Seal Way A-6 Surfside A-52 Surfside A-63 Surfs ide A-96 Surfside B-42 Surfs ide B-44 Surfs ide B-49 Surfside B-73 Surfside B-76 Surfs ide B-81 Surfs ide B-83 Surfside B-90 Surfs ide B-91 Surfside B-99 Surfside B-l00 Surfs ide B-l0l Surfside B-l02 Surfs ide B-113 Surfside C-3 Surfs ide C-7 Surfs ide C-8 Surfs ide C-9 Surfs ide C-14 Surfs ide C-18 Surfs ide C-23 Surfside C-24 Surfs ide . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4 - 0 - 1 FIFE, LAW, SHARP, ORSINI DAHLMAN Mr. Whittenberg said staff would be prepar1ng Resolut1on No. 92-2 for Commission adoption. *** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS . Bruce Stark * Seal Beach - Mr. Stark said on December 18, 1991 the Planning Commission discussed a set-back at 114 First Street, Seal Beach. Th1S discussion closed with a comment that Mr. Stark misinformed the Comm1ssion. He said "I notice that when I don't attend the Plann1ng Commission someone always takes a cheap shot at me. On that occasion it was Mr. Sharp. And I did pick up a copy of the supposedly staff report but I found out as usual that if you want to see what the Commission 1S look1ng at you have to go beg, borrow and steal 1t after-the-fact up on the second floor. And I . . . Page 11 - P~anning Commission Minutes of Pebruary 5, 1992 was dazzled by the computations and the arithmetic of A through I as to how they were com1ng up w1th front yard setback. Well, it seems that the front yard setback isn't in the front yard at all. It's along the side of the house and it extends back two-th1rds of the depth of the lot, almost to the garage which you are counting into your square footage as front yard setback. Now, let's take a look at what the City Code has to say. I'm looking at section 28- 801 ... (reads from Code) ... and if you follow the City Code and you eliminate everything that's alongside of the house that's excluded from a front yard setback, it's too close. Now I don't remember a Variance coming through for that. And note, Mr. Sharp, I did not bring that up to divert attention from myself because I have no reason to divert attention from myself. And you say that I am 99% wrong. Well, nobody's perfect. But I'll say this Mr. Sharp, I think the c1tizens of the City of Seal Beach confirmed the fact that I and many others were dead right on Mola and you were dead wrong, along w1th Mr. Fife. Mr. Stark left abruptly. Chairman Fife sa1d "Do you feel better Mr. Stark?" Apropos to Mr. Stark's comments, the front yard setback requirement has to do with the nearest p01nt or average point that the structure can be to the front lot line. Mr. Curtis said what staff interprets the front yard setback to be 1S those port1ons of the building which have uninterrupted direct facing on the front property lines. That differs from open space. Open space and setbacks are not synonymous. Commissioner Orsini questioned 112 and 114 First Street, saying the house entry is at the side of the house with a stairway at 112 First Street that is less than one foot from the house next door. Mr. Curtis said staff would go look at the site to check the required three foot required setback from the property line. Mr. Curtis will prov1de the Commission with a memo on his findings at the next meeting. commissioner Sharp indicated Mr. Stark didn't stay long enough to give any Commiss1oners a chance to reply to his comments. "It's certainly nice to have him pick on me because then he's leaving everybody else alone". Commissioner Law said "Well, it's too bad that, you know, Mola is buried, why don't we leave it alone?" Commissioners Fife and OrS1n1 said "It's not buried". Commissioner Law said "I mean as far as what we can do about it". Mike Cho * Huntington Beach - Said when he spoke against Variance #92-1 he felt quite sympathetic to the applicant's condit1ons but reiterated that there are standards which must be met and he felt the Commission made the r1ght decision in following those standards. Mr. Cho indicated that Bruce Stark says "Oh staff is wrong about th1S, you guys are doing this, you guys are picking on me" . Mr. Cho said there were quite a number of City citizens opposed to Mola, not just Bruce Stark. He felt the City was not pick1ng on the ci ti zens and he said he didn't know where Mr. . . . Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 5, 1992 Stark's persecution comes from. Mr. Cho said Mr. stark was " . . . Just trying to divert attentlon from his own development and he got caught with his pants down. And he, like the person who came in for his Variance after-the-fact has to pay the price. You build without a permit you pay the price. You can't come ln later pleading poverty". He urged anyone who wants to build anythlng to call the Clty, talk to staff, get a permit. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whlttenberg asked the Commission if they would like staff to prepare an informational brochure for staff to mail to all Clty business owners. It would summarize the different types of actl vi ties they might want to do to thelr buildings that would require City approval or permlts prior to undertaking that work. Mr. Whittenberg felt this would be helpful and could be done without a maJor amount of staff time being devoted to that effort. Chalrman Fife said he thought that would be a good idea. Additionally, each time a business license was renewed he should get one of those brochures in the mail along with his recelpt. Commissioner orsini said many tlmes people don't realize one permit doesn't cover another item. Commissloner orsini indicated the Clty of Costa Mesa is writing 179 municipal QQQg violations per month. He felt the more knowledge the City could put out now, on telling people what they have to do, would be getting ahead of the game. Mr. Whittenberg requested Chairman Fife adjourn this meeting to February 19, 1992 at 6:30 p.m. for the next regularly scheduled meeting. staff has an item to consider wlth the Commlssion before the 7:00 p.m. study Session with the Clty Council on the non- conforming expansion issue. commissioner Sharp advised he would be in Hawail on hlS honeymoon for that meeting. Chairman Fife indicated it has been so notlced. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner orsini said he wanted to correct a rumor that he will not run against Marilyn Hastings in the next City Council election. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., February 19, 1992. Respectfully Submltted, ~o~ Jo n Fillmann Recording Secretary .- . . Page 13 - p~anning commission Minutes of February S, 1992 These Mlnutes approval. *** are tentative and subject to Plannlng Commlssion The Plannlng Commission Minutes of February 6, 1992 were approved on ....~ru~ I 9 1992..l.1t\- /'"\ , ~~t1~ \ 11/ ./ J't,// y~ ~~J 2u Clt of Seal Beach Planning Coftlmlssillf\ Y SUBMITTED FOR RECORD S ~ Date FEB - 5 199'l Y Dniyor1&f~ POBOX 235 SURFSIDE, CALIFORNIA 90743 (213) 592-2352 February 4, 1992 HAND DELIVERY Mr. Barry C. Curt1s, Jr. Adm1n1strat1ve Ass1stant (Plann1ng) C1ty of Seal Beach 211 E1ghth Street Seal Beach, Ca. 90740 Dear Barry: SubJect: PUBLIC HEARING FOR HEIGHT VARIATION 1-92 W1th regard to the hear1ng scheduled for Wednesday, February 5th, at 7:30 p.m. In the Seal Beach Counc11 Chambers on the subJect of "doghouses" / please be adv1sed that the Board of DIrectors of Surfs1de Colony has no obJect1on to the grantIng of a var1ance for ~ all such structures, as presently bU1lt withIn the Colony. It 1S understood that any such future constructIon WIll be treated 1n accordance wIth the new standards adopted by the CIty In 1991 and that 1nd1v1dual heIght var1ances WIll have to be applIed for wIth the CIty. I w1ll make every attempt to be In attendance at the meetIng. In the meantIme, 1f there are any questIons, please do not hesItate to call the Colony OffIce. Relj;2 ~ Montgomery, P Board of DIrectors cc: ~Joanne Yeo, CJty Clerk Members of the Board ~ . . SlATIEMIE~lIBIEIFORIE lfr-DIE PlANN~N6 COMMiSS~ON FIEBRUARV 5'h D992 CommISSion City of Seal Beac l'ranrll'lg SUBMITTED 1-0:\ Rl:."ORD GENTLEMEN BY~! ~LD~te I"EB - 5 1992 _ THIS IS THE STATEMENT OF GERALDINE WEST OF 1201 ELECTRIC AVENUE SHE IS UNABLE TO BE HERE IN PERSON THIS EVENING BECAUSE OF A PRIOR COMMITMENT SO I, ROGER WEST, HER HUSBAND WILL READ THIS STATEMENT TO YOU AT HER REQUEST. I SPEAK THIS EVENING IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE 8-91, AN AFTER THE FACT REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A NON PERMITTED 144 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE BUILDING AT 320 MAIN STREET STAFF STATES THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE MINIMALLY MET DUE TO THE PROVISION OF 26 IN LIEU PARKING SPACES OF COURSE THESE IN LIEU PARKING SPACES DO NOT EXIST AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL. $2,600 PER YEAR IS PAID INTO THE IN LIEU PARKING FUND BY THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING. WITH THE COST OF LAND YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE EINSTEIN TO SEE THAT MATHEMATICALLY IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. SO IN REALITY AND EFFECTIVELY THE PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND NEVER WILL. . THIS IS THE PROPERTY BRYAN KYLE BUILT AND ATTEMPTED TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY USING ST. ANN'S CHURCH PARKING LOT BUT HE NEGLECTED TO GET THE APPROVAL OF THE DIOCESE SO THE THEN PLANNING COMMISSION ALLOWED HIM TO BUILD UNDER THE "PROVIDING PARKING WITH MIRRORS SCHEME" OF IN LIEU PARKING MY OPPOSITION IS BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY UNDER SECTION 28-2502 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT (A) THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY WHICH, THROUGH APPLICATION OF THE ZONING CODE, DEPRIVE THE PROPERTY OF PRIVILEGES ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE, AND (B) THAT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE THE GRANTING OF A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE INCONSISTENT WITH THE LIMITATIONS UPON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE I ASK THAT YOU DENY THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE 8-91 FOR THE ABOVE LEGAL REASONS AND FOR THE REASON THAT A PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED FOR POSSIBLY ATTEMPTING TO CIRCUMVENT THE LAW . THANK YOU . Bruce Palumbo John C Now Jeffrey L Milam Michael A Burn, Robert H Baroman Steven J Banner Vincent A Ammlrato Normand A Ayotte William D Dodson Justine L Gran.!, Thomas L Halliwell Catherine T Jame, Valene Jullen-Peto Susan E Luhring Joseph F 0 Hara' Colleen Clark Phegley Mlch.!el P Vlcencl.! Michael E Wenzel 'Also Admitted Maryland D"trlct of Columbia Professlon.!1 Consultant, Finer Kim & Stearn, (Real Estate Bu'lnes, Probate & Tax Matters) WlIlIam R H.!rmon (Subrog.!tlon Matte,,) . Pasadena Office 65 N Raymond Ave Superior BUIlding 2nd Floor Pas.!dena CA 91103 3919 (818) 796-5053 . (213)258 8282 Fax(818)7923078 BuRNs, AMMIRATO, PALUMBO, MILAM & BARONIAN A ProfessIOnal Law Corporauon ,~Ity of Se2J1 Be2ch Planning Commlssidh SUBMIlTED FOR RECORD ~y,Anm~oare~- ~.;z.9-~~ Reply to Long Beach January 27, 1992 CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION City Hall 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, Cahforrua 90740 Re Ordinance No. 1322 Dear Gentlepersons I am the property owner of 1707 Electnc Avenue, Seal Beach, California, and have receIved a letter from the City of Seal Beach regarding the construction and maintenance of our covered roof access structure. I purchased the above-referenced reSIdence on September 1, 1989 The structure contained the same roofing matenals and stucco as did the remaining portion of the home However, the structure is located along the exterior wall of the structure because it was not feaSIble to place it in any other location than where it presently exists because of the narrowness of the lot upon which it stands Furthermore, it IS my contention that the structure IS limIted to the area of the stairwell and the necessary access to the roof. For all of the foregoing reasons, It is respectfully requested that the CIty of Seal Beach approve the covered roof-access structure at 1707 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach, California, as conforming to the standards Respectfully yours, Vmcent A Ammrrato VMtw One World Trade Center, SUIte 1200, Long Beach, California 90831-1200 Telephone(31O)436-8338 . (714)952-1047 . Fax (310) 432-6049 . . . GARY EINSTEIN STEPHEN SPIEGEL EmsteIn & SpIegel ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5243 EAST BEVERLY BOULEVARD Los Angeles GalJorIlld 90022 City of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon SUBMITTED FOR RECORD !':l.\1 ~n~ell''''' ~D8re~ ~-'5 -90-, e1a. FoR. AREA CODE 213 685-8191 722-4155 FAX (213) 6859179 January 23, 1992 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Re: February 5, 1992, Public Hearing for Height Variation 1-92 My Property: 211 14th Street, Seal Beach, CA Gentlemen: I am in receipt of the letter dated January 8, 1992, from Barry C. Curtis, Jr., regarding the public hearing for he1ght var1at1on which includes my residence at 211 14th Street. By way of background, when I purchased my residence, construction was just completed and had been built pursuant to plans approved and permitted by the City of Seal Beach, includ1ng that for the roof access. I now find myself, some five years plus down the road, in essence, being told by the City that I have one year to remove or replace the roof access. As an attorney, it is my opinion that the amortization period given by the City 1S too short. Putting the attorney 1n me aside, which most times is difficult to do, I have no objection to being included 1n the variation, provided that the same does not jeopardize any rights that I may have. GEjmls Seal Beach Planning Commission % Joanne Yeo 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 City of Seal Beach Planning CommIssion SUBMITTED FOR RECORD -a -It LA:~ _OateFot<.- 4-5 ~9d.. Y~SHI5 s ~ '6J / ..\~~i/ q V ~ ".." ~ WORLD ~~J!tllloc~l!_ ___ ___ .---- February 3, 1992 Members of the Planning Commission: As one homeowner adversely affected by the Top DogHouse...the Mechanical Observatory Dome - I believe the tighter the Planning Commission stays, not strays, from the new criteria for Covered Roof Access Structures the better. It has been just one year since the new standards were established, and it has been painfully obvious, by observing people applying before the Planning Commission that every single element of the variance will be pushed, prodded, or just plain ignored as though they or their builder had not read the rules. . The fact that these are CRAS in Sunset Beach, and Old Town an argument is being rationalized that with minimum width lots, having them on the side makes more sense. So, here we are, ready to grandfather in (63) doghouses, because they are only out of standard by one of the three primary qualifying criteria i.e. they're located on the side of the home, rather than towards the middle of the home. However, in fairness, I vote for these structures to be approved -- But not a vote for the concept of future non-compliance on any of the hard fought, and finally compromised standards set a year ago. Sincerely, Cf1~ Alan Shields 1300 Catalina Ave Seal Beach . I 'ill PJU!JrII10 "UIl~ 2- 2 (mlJ 'It 'J (JhformJ 91616 -I~ (,(,2 (HOh F\L" 'It mhl r of (,oldt n \\t'..! FinanCIal Corporation .,.. '. - " .J that the lub- em- the lhth ~Io :ms , t IYS. )flh the lof or ~ss on. res ~ Ilpl 16, I . III If Ie IY SEAL BEACU New 'Doghouses' to Dc r-r1Jillgs ufthe J'ast Thr\"yr IIf'r'lI (.,III'd plllll'lr'q, 11111111'<<:, Illll)(.llIr"l OIl,J Ilor,lwusrl'l. hill wh,llrYe'r I hrll nillllr e'uvrl rd ruor - nrr"rq !':l rur- lllrrc; ril\l~cd 0 !':llr In the Senl Hralh ell)' COllllrll d1:1IIII'rl <<: I hlR wr{'k A f!llgholl<:r, nq It "/,pllc'I tu rrc:hlf'11I rc: III RE'illlJcildl, 1'1 n Flrurturr thnl f'1Ir10C:1''! lhe lop (lr Oil IIIlrl lor AI nit, l1'lr lhlll 11...,1'1 Lo nl1 f'xlrrlor rno(lop "rlk. Al l'lc:ue 'J 1I('~r1n,V '\nq whrlll('r 10 nll"w JOIIIl'll Mnqllck 10 hllild Ruch n Illrullmf' Oil hl'l (lrenll A Velllll' hOl',r 'I hI' Jl.IIlIiln ""1'0- fllllul1 WDq rrol11 Mlchal'l OIC:"JI, 11 Jldr.h- hllr whn rlorq 1101 Willll hlq 1',llIul.lllllc yll'w hlor krrl ('oLJnrllwoln:1I1 MillllJ 11111 1II'r IIJ<<:llllne; pOlnler! oul I"nl OIC:IJIl \I.(Hl/d 1101 hnve f;\It h a mnn e/ollo; view H he dlrlll'L ha ve a "do~"ouf;e" h/rllo;('lf "I ndl1\lI I hill nl rlr sl I he IC:~lIr Ie: n " .11 pllnlcr," Ol'illll Mid "Why !:huuld I have Olll' nlld why !'hoLJldll'l he' ""l lhe sllfHlr,rr l~cHlr Ie: Ihe vlr'w" , , Whrlhcr 0:\11 h II ,:111111111 I' "CiIp,IIJrH .1111. I" IrIlP"" ~ IlIr 1'1 hllnl y view" II (1111 I" 111'- rrllr's wllhln :mo Ir('1 or Nil II olll('r Ie; Olll' 01 Ihr ('rllrrln rll) oHldalq '"11<;1 cUII<<:lder hrfore gl nllll,,~ 1I1'!llovol ()I~(l" :::nld IImt Mu~llr'k t; (11J~lIuuc;e wO\lld hlllrk tlC'1 Wf'r'1l fi% nllll 7 ~~ ur hi, vlpw, y. hlr h o;lI elchr'l r. (1111 thr :''''01 ftrilch l'lrr lu Ihe Novol Wrnl'oll'l HI:!- 11011 If ulhrlO; 111 lhr 01 "n nl<;l) "'IIId (11lr.h"lIc:r~, '* yl('w w/ll hr IlIIlher llIlpl1lr rd. hr' Rn\ll III lH,.. ('lid, I h,.. rlllll)!" 'olr" 1 tn I to O/l'lv.' Ihr c:trudulr hilI hl'illllclrd It'l Flnrr to plepnl(, Ihr wnrdhlR ror n IIIo.n- lorlurn 011 rUlure rOllslr uclloll 01 dug- houe;('q Coullcll WOIIIOII U well Fo. RY lhe lIls- t...J'\,li'1E..s 11/1~/41 J- · ~l/l'II~I""" BelCh . Sell IkllCh . ~,-. . 8 LJl'f11 r ertI . 51,.,10" . II rei",. . Lo. AllWtlllot . RM~1Tl'101 . 511'1101 BelICh 41elll",1 w/lh Lhr maJorlly, sayhlR the prulHrl nllon or dUR'muo;e" III O'd TowlI hnq r'llh'lI Lo n point whcre peoplc', vir. W'I II r(' a rr rrLf'I' "'n..lIck hnd rerrlved city approvul lor hill fl')Rho\lce fll JflRR bul Mid he WOq tlllnhle to flo the work thC'1J Whrn he 1I1\:'IlIy flUIlf{hL n hufldlllR prnull, he 'rnrllcl' 'hnl thr wlt'R hnd rhnllRf'r1 'I hI' drrl'lloll Inllflrr! III I he council" Inp I hie; wrck oft('r Olo;un o",){'alrc! the Plalllllllg CnIllIl1IO:l)loII'S nl''''o\ 01 or the :::lrllrllllr Ilr~"lrlllq ilwl CUlIIICIJ me,"lJer 1; ~alr.J Ih:)l lh" t.Ioghouo:rs wrrr OIlC(' a n/lvrllt hill have bccome qulle commollplace "" w AllhollRh the r"IIIH'1I rO\l1r1 1101 voIr 011 ('<:1 i1"II~hlll~ 0 "'ol:llorlll'" he-Cilllo;(' lhe' 1I1:111"r Willi lIot 011 the ogellda. ml'lJllJerr !;rrlllcrl 10 favor II "I Ihlllk \I. e ~"()III" e;clllC' lhls Ic:<:ue ollce Dill.! for nil," Filld M3)Or Flank l.n<<:711) lle.m!I.[I1Lull~r!.W! f.' III11R Lhr _fllt.IICIIl!..(,_~ t'_ r'!~'_('!.!I!.Imtt) !'J."l ~~ J!!Q!..~J!ll!~.! ..En! .!!En _ "JI r[_a _W!!1 :II.!.!' l!.ulLv.rol.'W!..~~__~ allulhrr rOlll,uv('Ij';I.I'. coveled ruol-ac- rr~q qj rurliirc --ni5fCliiiiil)vrrllv FIArlrll \\ hrll IIrU'JI- IlOrs liilhr-Jlllrn,rnrllll!jIJiiiiirtI,,'I('r a rllllplrtjulll-g -3 r: '~or jl!R liliiCiB I t10rne ~iop Ifi~lLjl_!l!~CitqJl ~~nie(].JLDjliij- I!.UI!'l~_J!.' . l.r'.L!~I!!"I.!I"A. ,!)lli!I!'l'l'!.I.!~J). H rolale's wllh 8 ~ky"~hl thol ..llIfeR open. 811 810118 rnwer-t1kc IJrlck column litH cr I he I'll) code, doS houQc8 sr e QUfJl)()!lcd to lJe non - IInhllabJe 'Ilaccs Lila I rxrrrd Lhe clly 8 slnndard 2')-1001 hrlghl IlInll bv 110 more thilll -:rvcn reel Berore they can he buill. thC' PfnnlllnR COIl1Jnlll- !lIon musl deLermllle that lhey meel various requlremcnlR -SHANNON SANJ>R .;: . ~ ~ JOHN B JONES 1207 Sheppard Drive Fullerton, California 92631 ~~~ February 3, 1992 CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommissIon SUBMITTED FOR RECORD py~hn ~Doe~Date ~ - 4- - '{ ~ ~ Mr. Lee Whlttenberg Dlrector of Development Clty of Seal Beach SerVlces SubJect: Notlce of Publlc Hearlng Varlance 8-91 320 Maln st. SUlte D . Dear Mr. Whlttenberg: We are the owners of the bUlldlng at 318 Maln Street occupled by the Pet Shop. We are vlgorously opposed to the grantlng of a varlance of the Clty'S parklng regulatlons for the lllegal addltlon at 320 Maln st. The denslty of that property and ltS present use have exacerbated park- lng problems In the 300 block of Maln st. We belleve that In lleu parklng orlglnally granted them has been abused wlth few uSlng the In lleu spaces thereby tYlng up all street parklng and addlng to lllegal parklng In adJacent prlvate property. We would therefore request that the Clty do all In ltS power to cause all present and future con- structlon to be In compllance wlth the eXlstlng parklng code. Cordlally, Jk~N~ John B. Jones .