Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1992-04-01 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA APRIL 1, 1992 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of March 18, 1992 2. Minor Plan Review 113-90 Address: 123 Eighth Street Applicant: Mitchell Sheltraw, Architect Property OWner: Al Brown Request: Reduce size of proposed remodel from 801 square feet to 695~ square feet. IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. Minor Plan Review #92-4 (Continued from 3-18-92 Planning Commission Meeting) Address: 1017 & 1017~ Seal Way Applicant: Freddie Leonard Owner: Aram & Margarita Keusawan Request: Reconsideration of carport addition 4. Seal Beach General Plan Comprehensive Update Process 5. city Council Policy Statement #101 "Commercial/Industrial Developments, Off-Street Parking Requirements". V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Minor Plan Review 192-7 Address: A-36 Surfside Applicant: Sears. Young Architects Property OWner: Reed & Hernandez Request: New three-story single family residence with covered roof access structure. 7. Negative Declaration 192-1 and General Plan Amendment 192-1 (continued from 3-18-92 Planning commission Meeting) Applicant: City of Seal Beach Request: Archaeological Element VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS VII. STAFF CONCERNS . VIII. IX. Page 2 of 2 Planning Commission Agenda April 1, 1992 COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT Agenda Forecast: APR 15 MAY 06 MAY 20 JON 03 JON 17 . JUL 01 AUG 05 AUG 19 SEP 02 SEP 16 OCT 07 OCT 21 NOV 04 NOV 18 DEC 02 DEC 16 . CUP #92-1 (701 Ocean/Tootsie's/ABC Beer & Wine) MPR #17-91 (1621 Seal Way/patio cover) CUP #92-2 (101 Main, suite 0, new restaurant) CUP #12-89 (Super Saver Cinema Seven/CUP review) Covered Roof Access (Review on Certain Addresses) CUP #6-91 (Los Cabos Restaurant/ABC renewal) New Standards: Expansions to Non-Conforming Bldgs. Election: Chairman & Vice Chairman CUP #8-89 (Baja Bills Restaurant/ABC renewal) CUP #8-91 (Noel's Restaurant/ABC renewal) CUP #14-91 (Spaghettini Rest./Entertainment) CUP #15-91 (Cafe Lafayette/ABC renewal) CUP 116-92 (Noel's Restaurant/Entertainment) CUP #17-91 (Pasta Grotto/ABC renewal) CUP #12-90 (Bonadonnas/ABC renewal) . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of APRIL 1, 1992 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of April 1, 1992 was called to order by Chairman Fife at 7:32 p.m. in City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was said. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife Commlssioners Dahlman, orsini, Sharp Absent: commissioner Law (absence excused) Staff Present: Department of Development Services: Barry curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of March 18, 1992 MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Planning commission Minutes of March 18, 1992 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Dahlman, Sharp, Fife, Orsini Law *** 2. Minor Plan Review #13-90 123 Eighth Street Resolution #92-4 Staff Report Mr. Curtis dellvered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The architect, Mi tchell Shel traw , requests approval for a revision to prevlously approved plans, calling for 106 square foot reduction allowing the second story to be scaled back and the proposed dens to be replaced with lofts. A third floor loft is now proposed for the new second floor unit, wlth a small roof deck over the existlng second floor unit. Staff is concerned with the proposed exterior of the structure due to its hlgh pitched roofs and recommends a flat roof or lower pitched design. commission Comments commissioner Dahlman asked staff if the reduction in square footage resulted from the third floor loft area not being counted? Mr. curtis said no, the loft area was counted as square footage. . page 2 - Planning commission Minutes of April 1, 1992 A full second story had been proposed. The new proposal has a lot of open volume ceil1ngs thus reducing the second story substantially in living area. The third story is a new proposal. Commissioners Sharp and Orsini said they did not care for the exterior appearance of the bU1lding. Mitchell Sheltraw. Architect * 299 st. Joseph. Long Beach Mr. Sheltraw said the front of the building is nondescript, the view would be the bottom end of the eave line. He presented the Commission a display of approximately twenty photographs of neighboring buildings with similarly pitched roofs. This roof will be constructed of kortan, a rolled sheet metal with a standing seam. Chairman Fife asked if th1S is the one-time expansion allowed by Code? Mr. curtis said they are allowed a maximum expansion of 817 square feet and the new proposal is 695 square feet; they are using up a large percentage of their 10%. Theoretically they can come back for an addit10nal 122 square feet at a later date. The ~ says you can have a one-time or cumulative enlargement up to that ten percent. . Chairman Fife asked if any special fire exit problems would be caused by construction of lofts at a third story level? Mr. curtis said no, the applicant 1S required to meet all building and fire codes. Commiss1oner Dahlman asked the applicant about the number of units and the number of parking spaces. Mr. Shel traw responded there are five units and three parking spaces now and the same number will remain after the remodel. Mr. Curt1s reminded the Commission they do not have architectural review authority but can make recommendations to the applicant. One choice would be for the Commission to say it feels these plans do not substantially meet what was approved and would like to have a new hearing. The appl1cant would have to come back with a full new request and chance the possibility of having that request denied. Staff's discussions w1th the City Attorney's Office revealed that as the municipal ~ is currently written the Commission would not have the authority to deny this request based solely on the architectural styling. MOTION by Sharp: SECOND by Orsini to approve Resolution #92-4, approving the request for Amendment to approved plans for Minor Plan Review #13-90. . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, orsini, Fife, Dahlman Law . . . Page 3 - P1anning Commission Minutes of Apri1 1, 1992 Before the vote, Commissioner Dahlman noted this request is a slgnificant change from the original plan. He would agree on this only if it did not set a precedent whereby other plans would come back to the Commlssion, radically remodeled, until "... they find the point at which the Planning Commission is no longer going to allow it ...". *** SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. Minor Plan Review #92-4 1017 and 1017~ Seal Way Staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [staff report on file in the Planning Department]. This action was carried forward from the March 18, 1992 Commisslon meeting as the Commission directed staff to work with the architect (Paul Gel jer) to design a carport wi thout a negati ve aesthetic impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Commlssion Comments commissioner Sharp asked for an explanation of the deck railing. Chairman Fife asked the architect to speak to the Commission. Paul Geijer. Archltect * San Clemente, CA Mr. Geijer explained the deck rail will be 8' tempered glass and will completely surround the deck. Underneath will be 18" wooden louvers for ventilation. The glass square blocks of the carport will be 6' 8" tall. Commissioner Sharp said the explanatlon satisfied his questlon and thought it was a beautiful Job. Mr. Geijer said the design has pllasters to break up the elevation. Chairman Fife asked if the carport is open on two sides as required? Mr. Geijer said the open sldes would be at 11th Street and the opposite side. Mr. curtis said staff feels this satisfies the requirements for a carport. However, if the building plan check reveals this does not meet carport requirements the applicant would (1) not be allowed to build the carport or (2) come back to the Commission to alter the approved plans. The Commission asked if the wooden street barrlcades are removed how will the wall be protected? Sergio Keusayan * 1713 Electric Ave.. Seal Beach Mr. Keusayan said the present fence is a thin wooden fence that is leaning. He felt the new block wall would do as well as the wooden barricades. Commissloner Sharp said that parking was not allowed in the stub streets and the traffic would only be residents pulling into their own garages. . . . page 4 - P1anning commission Minutes of Apri~ 1, ~992 commissioner orsini asked Mr. Keusayan if he had a car detailing business? Mr. Keusayan explained his family owns seven cars and he likes to keep them in condition by waxing them. He does not have a detailing business. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve Minor Plan Review #92-4. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Orsini, Fife, Dahlman Law *** 4. Seal Beach General Plan Comprehensive Update staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. the Planning Department]. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to receive and file the staff report on "Seal Beach General Plan - Comprehensive Update". [staff report on file in MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, Orsini Law commissioner Dahlman said the listlng of proposed issue papers was good but did not state what the City's going to do with the General Plan. The General Plan needs to state what the City is planning to do and then how to achieve it in a comprehensive manner and not to revise it piecemeal. Mr. curtis explained the City's General Plan is about twenty years old, written in 1975. Some piecemeal amendments have been done --- the Housing Element was updated in 1990. The Land Use Element has been updated periodically to take account of amendments through zone changes and Specific Plan amendments. The City is looking at updating the entire General Plan, achieving consistency within the entire document. Commissioner Dahlman said many of the issues are closely related and felt it would be best to consider them in groups. Chairman Fife asked if the summary of issues was exhaustive because he didn't see the issues of housing, low/moderate income houslng stock listed. Mr. Curtis said it was not exhaustive and items could be added. *** 5. City Council Policy Statement #101 "Commercial/Industrial Developments, Off-Street Parking Requirements". . . . Page 5 - P1anning Commission Minutes of April 1, 1992 staff Report [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to receive and file the staff report entitled City Council policy Statement #101" commercial/Industrial Developments, Off-Street Parking Requirements". MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Orsini, Fife, Dahlman Law *** PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Minor Plan Review #92-7 A-36 Surfside Applicant: Sears. Young Architects Property OWner: Reed & Hernandez Staff Report Mr. Curtis explalned there would be no staff report because this item had to be held over to the Planning Commission's April 15, 1992 meeting. The applicant provided mailing labels for his Notice. The Post Office returned many of the Notices, addressed to "occupant", saying they were undeliverable. City staff didn't know if the Notice had been carried out properly so it was held off. Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to continue Minor Plan Review #92-7 over to the Planning Commission meeting of April 15, 1992. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4 - 0 - 1 Dahlman, Sharp, Orsini, Fife Law Mr. Curtis said staff has re-Noticed the newspaper but will not be remailing Notices. *** 7. Negative Declaration 192-1 and General Plan Amendment #92-1 Archaeological Element of General Plan Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Mr. Curtis said "When this was discussed before the Commission last summer there was some concern raised over why this version of the Archaeological Element was put forth. . . . Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 1, 1992 At that t1me we 1ndicated that both would be considered, the one from the Committee that was not recommended by the City Council and also the one by Committee member Hahn that was recommended by the C1ty Council. Basically, staff's opinion is that the Letter of Transmittal that Ms. Hahn put together for the Council explaining the differences between the Archaeological Element before you tonight and the one done by the Committee --- the letter she put together adequately addresses the differences between the two. And we feel, unless the Commission feels otherwise, this as recommended by the Council, is adequate. If the Commission has grave concerns about not hav1ng the other one before you it can be brought before the Commission at a later date for review simultaneously with this proposed Element". commission Comments Commissioner Sharp said he has been aga1nst this from the beginning because he feels that the State and Federal regulations cover all th1s. He said "I think it's been a complete waste of staff's time and everybody else's time drawing this Element up it was handled very poorly 1n the Committee and they can rationalize all they want that it wasn't". commission Dahlman complimented the Committee for painstaking work that was carefully and thoroughly done. He was concerned that the Appendix B - Nondisclosure statement was not very b1nding. commissioner Orsini said page 2 said the Archaeological Element consultant will be "selected" by the City Council. On page 9 at paragraph 4.B.1 it says the consultant will be "approved". Mr. curtis sa1d the word 1S "approved". Page 2 of the staff report will be changed. Chairman F1fe asked if the central purpose of the Nondisclosure agreement was to protect sites from defilement? Mr. Curtis said yes. D1Scussion followed on State, Federal and local laws regarding site protection. Chairman Fife was concerned if the end purpose was better served by keeping a newly discovered site a closely guarded secret or whether to designate it as such, invoking the protection of Federal and State laws. He said he would like to see a penalty applied for someone violating the nondisclosure agreement. He would rather see the City examine what steps clothe ~the site with maximum Federal and State protection and provide a \procedure stating that's this is a disclosed and protected site or no, that's not a site that merits protection. The Public Hear1ng was opened. Mark Hodgekiss * Old Town Mr. Hodgekiss urged the Commission to adopt Negative Declaration #92-1 and General Plan Amendment #92-1. He gave five reasons why, noting there's a crisis 1n archaeology with 95% of the S1 tes . . . Page 7 - Planning commission Minutes of Aprl~ 1, 1992 destroyed by uncontrolled development, that 'the buck is passed' continually and nobody else will protect the sites, that archaeological sites should be put in sC1entific hands, not to political uses. M01ra Hahn * [No Address Given]. Seal Beach Ms. Hahn said public access to information is necessary but protection 1S needed. There should be no opportunity to allow professionals to cloud information with secrecy using the same laws that were set up to protect it to destroy it before the City even knows it has something to protect. citizens would have access to a Research Design and would have an idea what has been found and they could keep an eye on what's being done and if that's appropriate. She felt the Archaeological Element is written to provide for Research Designs which should answer the problem of a ci ty-apPo1nted archaeologist knowlingly glossing over something important. The Element provides that the Research Design and the final report be posted and approved by the City Council before project entitlements can be granted. The Public Hearing was closed. commission Comments commissioner Dahlman said he still had concerns as to when everybody knows where a site is, how is that protected? Ms. Hahn said sites are not described in a Research Design; there is no site map. It says how important the site is, what sorts of things were found. Ms. Hahn said arrowheads, obvious pots and chards are not being found in this area --- what is of value to the scientists are pollen, human hair, charred bone fragments. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Orsini to accept Negative Declaration #92-1 and General Plan Amendment #92-1 with the request that the Nondisclosure appendix be reviewed again. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: NOE: ABSENT : 3 - 1 - 1 Dahlman, Orsini, Fife Sharp Law Comm1ssioner Dahlman restated that the city Attorney will review the Nondisclosure agreement with the Commission's recommendation this will be carried to the City Council. *** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications from the audience. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Curtis introduced Beth Partridge and Jason Tobias, part-time volunteer interns in the Planning Department. . . . Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 1, 1992 COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Orsini congratulated Frank Laszlo on his re-electlon to the City Council. commission Dahlman said he has received many telephone calls on plotting the Seal Beach Trailer Park. He read from Title 25: All mobile home lots shall be numbered or designated by street number or other approved means and the lot lines defined. Lot designations shall be in a conspicuous location facing the roadway lot lines shall be defined by corner markers or other approved means. Mobile home accessory building or structure shall not be located closer than three feet from any lot line. Application and Scope. The Department shall administer and enforce all the provisions of this Article as they relate to mobile home parks except within a city ... which has assumed responsibility for enforcement of division 13, part 2.1 of the Health and Safety Code. He said this tells him quite clearly lot lines are needed and the City can assume responsibility to assume control of the Trailer Park. Mr. Curtis said the Planning Department and City Manager's Office have met with the Clty Attorney's Office to discuss the possibility of retroactively requiring lot lines for the Trailer Park. When the Park was originally relocated, the City's position on lot lines was that they refer to the Park in general and not each specific space; perhaps that was not the proper interpretation, but that has been the Clty's policy since the Park was relocated. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, C\o~~ - Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary , The April 1, 1992 Planning commi~ion Minutes were approved by the 0 Planning Commission on April f~ _ 1992. ~