Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1992-02-19 --'" ~- -- i.... ~- '"' "'---;.. ~ .-...-...: '~~ .. 'tl(" '>""X:l-t"....r7......... ....:.:.-..~.~';:T.,..._ ~,J''i':~ S;~. ...."l"1'~ /I.. -7~~~""-~' ~.r,......!.. '" < ~Ff!' -.r.... 1"f.:....n~ ~J: ~ ~~~"',;. ~,r . .-"l'l.... 1: J.r-..J, i:-.,.."'i\ 1,.... - ~ 1 fl..r.1 ....,......1 b-u~v ~ "~~-i" ~..!- 'I ~ "7,. ~-.. ->--. ~ t'(,-{""-'.,l1..~-~~1"" ~ ~...'-:,;... ~~.;.,...~ :-...;:-~l~~.~Lf tr-':" ~....-..,,~.... , [" t: "'.",. '::":~'!-r-;i.... J""~"'q,,,.,.....r- -'F.:1~~"'... (""':1- -4~~"'''''''~-' ~"~~l;!:irI;1:t.{'~'i:I~'t' ~-....~ _~... \~4<"""~"h-;"'~ ,4'1.,..-- "<~1> ~~"1::;''Ii!e>I-f'l'\1.~l'''~~ .....,"'\,...'\ ...,. ''''.'' N,"'?:{' 'Jt"v',. '!._~'1: ,,'\...... '. ~ ~"cm*'m'?- ~) ",l.l<. ~ s, ,4; ..l~>..'''''i >"-~ra=.~~.?;~~-<-""-;'"~-, 1'..;'~ C;,~,':..;;4Jf,.( ;-<.r,~>_f""",,<~."7~~ l\':"~'" '9_'~-,",:,,: " ',~;1,}'r':-< y.~Nio.A'm~":p,;~--;{,,y.(ft,.;;~. ':;:;~...&?~", _;#1.,.1-J-, i ^,'<t...f,,,a?'-'.- t ",9.'t~ "'~ .$ 1.'t' 'Uo.ti'l,...~'t",~;~<...' ~,...." ", f+.;,~<J~ .:>-J~~q~w.~--r 1~'ll' <) ~I'"" ~ ;:.rt.,~ r~~~it1"...~ fj)' ~-...... ;0 t 1;\ ~ ') f "". .....\r (~A';. J~':,.~'''2~'''''~ ";~-""-'\I''''__~ T'.('<~-';.__ r ~~... ,. / 'ry~:::..'lt:~( ~r) i~ t "".. Q~ it <4."'.., ~ :1.:"''''3.~~1> -- /-. ~,1:1 ~ -," l' P .. >-1' ~ _.j.; J J~b-{I "fi\. ~ ""' .r... ~ t"-. ...., _ ~ bo. ~ t.~l;; /ii;,~'fin. ::_;- 1'" ~ - C~;~I' ? '<Ii !~, () ~""l ~ ~~1'l' f-< 'I.llfj ~.;'>;-l.f, :'~~,'l:1;t f"'" ,~:t1;~lt-~~" ,. ,",' ; ~1I..-,~';<' ~tl'~'"1..""'7"'~':" -:.f~ ..., ~~,,"'0 ",. _..;....?}-;~r....:~"4 D";.:'t:..~ ~~,.f~~"'Z;~,;='~II" s.... i~"'~~..-1~""'~. >;/, - N3tt..{,P~ " . '(":;v ; '0 "';{?~~ 'I ~. It) - ~',.<t " ~"."'( wt>>:r,.' '/{""~?w.. ,"...;,t.~, I J' ~ '" . ~~_,< . ~~ ~".:'::..", '"' ~r-...~~~,..,....,....... _~ ~I.-"-<I;.-- /'~.\.-1\1".'{ ..~.... .1......, ~t: _ .. _ rr-"'I;:' ...1':...... " .,~" '':. -' , '" f. Z" < ..' " . , '''" ' . j, "i-r'" i:' ....p'''' y-.- ~ '4- -" .""r ".,- "" - .i:J.' 'w '__ ~.~~:,~f~'~~"~{iO~~'l,,;~.;;.r.#. '''~1~i-~:1~~'_~ ~;-'~,,~~; :";~~,r' ,.."i'!:; ~~~t:f!;.r;:,/~~fC.~ ',;~~;l;t:;":'/~~':'~~';:'~i~~~il{l]~t;l' , . .!; :!/.~ ,-1"")'" (.>\0:' Q#... j ~...;~~~".~?~ lfp ..'" lr'*>...".. :e.-;;4-<__,..t -",t J- .." 'r- "'-:.5\ ,..fr......,:-...... ,.1...__ ./(I.~~u.~"-. ~_ oJ.... ~..-, r-' ~ "r';.~~ ':J."\'::~"':'i:.,) -~~~~";\i~,~,'i"-::t:, ;:......_ ' ,..;'."'/..J-._' '";..r:.>'":;;-~""'i,-./"'"'l~]t;-<.: >~~_' 0 :::.1r4txA. jk~~~ 'j.$^' 1::"1 .'1.!'...j?Ii~;...;-j~;t6"~q'.,:;*~ ,. ~ ';:..- , ~"'f.t-" :'\ti.":. .:r>' ., _~.r,;.!:~,'~'~:;}~:..'")'\<"'ri ',- ~ "/,,,"' ,-"'i;:; - l.'""'x.;;J':7 i......i'l,;r-P -:;-.\.t,~ ~"""'t~ ",,""l'"~~~ ~~.,/'<-f(h'- ~ -9' ~~ ....~1.....) \. fof"'j't?-lfJ ~ ~ il'...;"""!::'- ~ "';::' ~ -l. ..... n ~ ~ '-t--~~., 1,.~-?',.~" ~"z.'_"'<" <~-' J. - '. d', ..:", '. ~ :.,'r,;; '. ,"~;, ~'_ ,~' '" ^ :'" _ ,rt'i_~' "-~:::f'Y.! ;"^'T.'1i '0- . "' '>>$::, -:i'.'~/.="'',j,.,~~'p 'iil-f_-1iJ:;~,,-li'tt...-'.j!\h 1..;J:<,m' n.'. <?.,.\~ "~'a"'.t<tr l~'~' ./J.'?r,;'y',P'':;-' ,.:~ ' ,,' ...,'V.I. ~;t;.... :t":W~_",;:rk,~fI"'.:"1.,r '.~'! '~\'''''<'/~''':':-'''''<f,.>:'J''~Q~' '<;.t :':0';~;If'..;JS;.f-'J. ~,~'. ~'./ ~.., " ....,...#'~..t~'1~, c):,.." :'f~"" . fJP~.n4.~ ~:: - ;; ~~ ~ l>- ~\.:J _ {I" _ _ CITY OF SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIUPLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION AGENDAe FEBRUARY 19,1992 ADJOURNED MEETING · 700 PM. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE . II ROLL CALL 1 CIty CouncIl 2 Plannmg CommIssIon III PUBLIC HEARING 1. CITY COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT STUDY SESSION RE: ADDITIONS and REMODEL or NON-CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IV ADJOURNMENT . . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FEBRUARY 19, 1992 ADJOURNED MEETING * 6:30 P.M. * CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. 1. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, 1992 SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. CLARIFICATION FOR STAFF REGARDING B-112 SURFSIDE 3. CLARIFICATION FOR STAFF REGARDING 320 MAIN STREET, SUITE A PUBLIC HEARINGS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS STAFF CONCERNS COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT , ~ "- " I I I CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 19, 1992 The adjourned Planning Commission meeting of February 5, 1992 was called to order on February 19, 1992 by Vice Chairman Dahlman at 6:45 p.m. in City Councll Chambers. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife (Arrlved at 6:50 p.m.) Commissioners Law, Dahlman, Orsini Absent: Commissioner Sharp (Excused Absence) Present: Department of Development Services staff: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of February 5, 1992 Minutes MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Law to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of February 5, 1992 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 2 - 0 - 3 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : ORSINI, LAW DAHLMAN FIFE, SHARP SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. CLARIFICATION: HEIGHT VARIATION #13-91 B112 SURFSIDE * DAVID A. BYRNES, HOMEOWNER Staff Report Mr. curtis presented the staff report. the Planning Department]. [Staff report on file in commission Comments Clty Policy/Height Limits & Exceeding Limits The Commission asked about the City'S policy on height limits and exceeding height llmlts. Mr. Curtis explained that in the early 1980's the Clty allowed roof lines to reach 35' maximum and then allowed a 3' to 4' guard rail above the height limit. This policy changed, also in the early 1980's, because staff came to believe the pOlicy to be in error. The corrected policy allowed for a 35' height limit maximum and all safety or guard rails had to stay I I , Page 2 - Planning Commlssion Mlnutes of February 19, 1992 wlthin the 35' height limit. Mr. curtis said he was not sure if there was a formal ruling but it was a staff policy change. Height variation #3-91 for C-24 Surfs ide Commlssioner Dahlman, referencing Mr. Byrnes' January 21, 1992 letter, said he recollected the Commission approved a safety rail about 7 lnches above the height limit and not 3' - 4'for C-24 Surfs ide . Referencing the May 15, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes, he said they showed a 6 5/8" deviation from the height 11mit. Mr. Curtis said the skylights were at 35' and the skylight safety railings were 3' above that. Mr. Curtis said another set of Planning Commission Minutes should have been included in this packet because it was extensively discussed that the skylights were already at 35' so 6" high safety railings wouldn't have made any sense. The Commission discussed going up 3' for those railings. commissioner Orsini asked staff to review the plans for C-24 Surfs ide because he did not remember approving anything at this height. Declinations Chairman Fife asked if subsequent requests for rails over the 35 foot height limit were declined by staff? Mr. Curtis said requests declined by staff are not kept on file. The only requests asking to go above the 35' height limit with a parapet wall have been for C-24 and B-112 Surfside. MOTION by Law; SECOND by Dahlman to allow the applicant, David Byrnes, to give testimony to the Planning Commission although this is not a Public Hearing. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 1 - 0 LAW, DAHLMAN, FIFE, ORSINI SHARP David Byrnes * B-112 Surfside - The owner/applicant spoke on other Surfside properties which exceed the height limit. Explaining his application, he said he originally requested a Variance for two feet in excess of the height limit because he wanted a roof deck with a view. At the Commission's request he changed his blueprints, lowering two ceilings to 7.5' and reducing hlS covered roof access structure. He is now requesting a safety ralling for that roof deck which he will design to please the Commission --- clear plexiglass, cable or stainless steel pipe. Regarding the value of a view, his finance company has estimated the value of the view from his roof deck at $25,000. Since he is a member of Surfside's Board of Directors a decision on his deck and railing was put off until the summer meeting so as not to show favoritlsm to Board members. Mr. Byrnes said Surfs ide Colony has supported I , , Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 19, 1992 all the existing roof decks but could not speculate whether they would support his application. Roof or Roof Deck? Comm1ssioner Orsini asked if a roof or a roof deck was there now? Mr. curtis explained that no building has taken place. But if the applicant is not allowed to construct a railing, then 1t'S a roof. If he's allowed the railing, then it's a roof deck. Begin Joint study Session Chairman Fife indicated the City Council had arrived for the agendized Joint Study Session. Chairman Fife proposed adjourning this matter to the Planning Comm1ssion meeting of March 4, 1992. Mr. Whittenberg sa1d the Commission could choose to hold these two matters over until the end of the Joint Study Session and then reconsider them. Mr. Byrnes said he needed resolution this evening. Chairman Fife agreed to holding this matter over until the end of the Joint Study Session. Mr. Whittenberg suggested holding the agendized matter regarding 320 Main Street till the end of the Joint Study Session. The applicant's father, Mr. Webb, said he would agree to having this item heard at the regularly scheduled March 4, 1992 Planning Commiss1on meeting. MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Orsini to (1) hold over the B-112 Surfs ide item to the end of this evening's Joint Study Session and (2) to re-agendize to March 4, 1992 the item regarding 320 Main Street, suite A. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 FIFE, ORSINI, DAHLMAN, LAW SHARP *** Mr. Whittenberg indicated it was now appropriate to adjourn to the Joint Study Session and asked the Planning Commission to take their seats with the City Council. It was indicated to the audience that 320 Main Street, suite A would be considered this evening, at the applicant's request, at the reconvening of the Planning Commission meeting all members still present. *** Reconsideration of B-112 Surfs ide Applicant's Additional Remarks Cha1rrnan F1fe asked Mr. Byrnes 1f he had completed h1S presentation. (Mr. Byrnes' additional comments could not be heard on the audio tape for transcription). I , , Page 4 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of February 19, 1992 Explain Mis-Communication Chairman Fife asked Mr. curtis to explaln the mis-communications regarding B-112 Surfside. Mr. curtis said originally the applicant requested (1) a Variance from the height limit to build his house to 37' as opposed to the allowed 35'height limit; (2) a Height Variation for a covered roof access structure. Again, staff's policy since the 1980's has been that everything must be built within the height limits. staff assumed Mr. Byrnes' safety/deck railing would be included in the 35' height limit. When the applicant came back lt was clear he had misunderstood. Staff felt the Planning Commission could have mlsunderstood as well, as both items were considered simultaneously. Staff's interpretation was that by denying the Variance for exceeding the 35' height limit that the railing would be at 35'. The applicant believed the house could be at 35' and the deck railing could be above that. Define Parapet The Commission asked for the definition of parapet and asked if a parapet connoted a SOlld structure? A rail? A view-blocking solid wall? Mr. Whittenberg read the definition: Parapet means an extension of the structural walls, screening from view on all sides of a building, the rooftop equipment or other unaesthetic features not extending in height above that required for the purpose of screening. Chairman Fife Chairman Fife said when this was previously considered, he believed the applicant would have a 35' high roof with the railing above the 35'. He didn't view the railing as part of the structure or as blocklng a view. Chairman Fife said "I'd be inclined to give you what you want". commissioner Dahlman Commissioner Dahlman asked what would be the ramifications of approving this request to Surfs ide and Old Town? Would this be raising the height limit 4'? It would allow a four-story structure in Surfside. commissioner Dahlman said to allow the applicant to build to 35' and then on top of that put the parapet would be in conflict with the Code provisions; the ~ would have to be modified to allow this. Mr. Whittenberg sald that under the Code the Commission has the authority, under the Height Variation process, to allow a variation if acceptable to the Commission. commissioner Dahlman stated he felt more study is needed to discern what impacts approving this application would have on Old Town and Surfside. He stated this cannot be approved in isolation. , , , Page 5 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of February 19, 1992 Director Whlttenberg Director Whittenberg said the Commission is not in a position to approve this tonight. If the Commission desires, the Planning Department will reschedule the Height Variation for the purpose of the railing only because a CRAS has been approved. commissioner orsini Commissioner orsini said he agreed with Commissioner Dahlman because this structure is not bUllt yet; the height limit must be stopped somewhere. commissioner Law Commissioner Law said she would like him to have it because everyone around him has a view. CRAS Measurements Commissioner Dahlman, referencing the CRAS discussed at the February 5, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, asked what their railings measured at? Mr. Curtis said, lf built according to plans, the house and roof deck railings are at the 25' height limit. They do not exceed the height limit. Commissioner Dahlman sald then this would constitute special privilege in Surfside. Financing Chairman Fife asked Mr. Byrnes what his deadline was on his financing. Mr. Byrnes said he bought a 90-day commitment. without the deck he's down $25,000 on the value. If the value doesn't hold he cannot build his house. He is presently living with his wife and daughter in 500 square feet. Mr. Byrnes said Surfs ide is very different than Old Town; he is building on a 25' x 35' lot. He has a 3' setback on three sides. Mr. Whittenberg asked Mr. Byrnes if there was some way in which the City might assist him in getting an extension on his loan commitment since the City is reconsidering this issue? Mr. Byrnes said he is with a private lender who would not renegotiate. Waive Fees & Reschedule Mr. Whittenberg asked for instruction from the Commission to waive the application fee for the Height Variation. MOTION by Law; SECOND by Dahlman to waive the fees for Height Variation #13-91 and re-Notice and re-schedule it for the Planning commission meeting of March 4, 1992. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 LAW, DAHLMAN, FIFE, ORSINI SHARP *** , , , . Page 6 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of February 19, 1992 3. CLARIFICATION FOR STAFF REGARDING 320 MAIN STREET, SUITE A Chairman Fife clarified that this issue lS whether the floor area taken up by the interior walls is to be excluded in determining the net floor area for the purpose of determining additions. staff Report Mr. Whittenberg reported that Variance #8-91 was reviewed and denied at the February 5, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. The application was .32 parking spaces short of the required parking. After the meeting it was brought to staff's attentlon that in at least one sltuation where parking was very close to being met the City did exclude the lnterior wall area from the gross square footage calculation to determine the parking. The question was asked would that interpretation fit this request? Commission Comments The Commission discussed adopting an alternative measuring pOlicy. staff suggested allowing the policy to be handled administratively by the Director of Development Services and the action would not come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Dahlman sald he had reviewed the tape of the last Planning Commlssion and had a feel for this issue. He felt it is an excellent idea, when the parking requirement is ~ space short, to use this alternative measuring method. Calculating the area of the interior walls takes more staff time than calculating the exterior dimensions of a building. Commissioner Dahlman suggested charging an applicant $50 additional on the application to compensate for staff time. Also, he suggested staff be careful in calculating the interior walls to be sure the walls are a reasonable thickness. Mr. Whittenberg said the policy should indicate the area to be excluded would be the minimum Slze of the walls as required under the Uniform Building Code. The Commission indicated Variance #8-91 would have to have the addition inspected and some portions of the walls may have to be removed to inspect the studs are spaced properly. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Orsini to adopt the following policy to read: It is the policy of the City of Seal Beach to adopt an alternative measuring policy to determine parking requirements . This alternative measuring policy would apply only in situations where the property is wi thin less than onejhalf of one parking space of meeting the required parking. In those cases, the City would count the interior walls subject to the interior walls only counting for that area which meets the minimum requirements under the Uniform Building Code. This will be an administrative waiver issue by the Planning Department and not require Planning Commission approval. There will be a reasonable fee, such as $50, - . I I , . Page 7 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of February 19, 1992 charged to the applicant to cover City staff costs for the additional calculation time. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 DAHLMAN, ORSINI, LAW, FIFE SHARP Chairman Fife said Mr. Webb of Tanning by Tlffany will not need a Variance. Chairman Fife sald he had read a letter in a newspaper stating the Commission laughed at his grand daughter while she was testifying. Chairman Fife said he did not recall anyone laughing at his grand daughter but heard a few chuckles from the audience which he lnterpreted as being supportive chuckles. Everyone admired her and her pluck, found her articulate and a loveable child. He hoped the Mr. Webb would convey to Tiffany that no one was laughing derisively at her. Commissioner Law agreed. *** Mr. curtis indicated he had read the case file re C-24 Surfs ide and said it was 38' tall. This was in the staff report and photos and was approved by the Planning Commission. The Commlssion asked this information be put in the packets for the next meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications from the audience. STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS There were no Commission concerns. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully SUbmitted, ~~:. J an Fillmann Recordlng Secretary -- Note: Secretary was not present at this meeting. Minutes were transcribed from an audio tape. Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Planning Commission. Approval: The Planning Commission Mlnutes of Febr~ry 19, 1992 were approved by the Planning Commission on March ~ 1992. ~