Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1995-08-23 .. .( ~ . . . .. CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA of AUGUST 23, 1995 7'30 P.M. * City Councll Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next ResolutIon: #95-21 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAN.CE ll. ROLL CALL m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to: (a) Notify the public of any changes to the agenda; (b) Rearrange the order of the agenda; and/or (c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or public to request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At thIS time, members of the public may address the Planmng Commission regarding any Items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning commission, provided that NO action or discussion may be undertaken by the Planning Commission unless otherwise authorized by law. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routIne and are enacted by one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planning commISSIon, staff or the public requests that a specIfic Item be removed from Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. Minutes of August 9, 1995 VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS None The City of Seal Beach compiles With the Americans With Dlsabllltles Act of 1990 If you need assistance to attend thiS meetmg, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at least 48 hours prior to the meetmg . . . . 1 ~ Pago 2 - CIty of Seal Beach PIannma CommISSIOII Agonda of August 23. 1995 vu. ~UBLIC HEARINGS 2. Variance 95-4 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: Request: 715 Electric Avenue Douglas and Kathleen Arch Douglas and Kathleen Arch Approval for an after-the-fact variance from the required rear yard setback requirements in conjunction with an approved, inspected addition at 715 Electric A venue. The addition was constructed within one foot (1') of the rear property line, rather than the required three feet (3'). This situation was not detected until construction was complete. VITI. STAFF CONCERNS 3. Planning Commissioners Registration at California Chapter, American Planning Association Planning Commissioners Workshop Saturday, September 16, 1995 * Diamond Bar, CA IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS x. ADJOURNMENT The City of Seal Beach comphes With the Americans With Dlsablhtles Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend thiS meetlDg, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. . . . .; ;; Plge 3 - CI~ of Seal Bc:ach PIamung CoounlSSlon Agenda of August 23, 1995 1995 AGENDA FORECAST SEP 06 HeIght Variation #95-3/240 14th St./CRAS ZTA #95-1 Banners [Tentative] ZT A #95-2 Public Hearing - Notdicatton to Occupants ZTA #95-3 Lot Width Equal to 37.5'. . . . . SEP 20 CUP 94-8/327 Main/Nip 'n Stuff @ 3 mos. DWP SpecIfic Plan (tentative scheduling) . . OCT 04 OCT 18 NOV 08 NOV 22 DEC 06 . CUP 94-8/327 Main/Nip 'n Stuff @ 6 mos. DEC 20 1996: IAN FEB MAR APR MAY CUP 95-111013 PCH/Pietro's 12 mos. hours. CUP 94-11600 MannalRadisson 12 mos. ABC CUP 92-11909 Ocean/EI Burrito 12 mos. ABC CUP 94-8/327 MalO/Nip 'n Stuff 6 mos. 2nd review IUN IUL AUG The City of Seal Beach comphes With the Amencans With Dlsablhtles Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend thiS meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at least 48 hours prior to the meeting . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of AUGUST 23, 1995 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEG~ The City of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, with Chairperson Campbell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ll. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Campbell Commissioners Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Brown Also Present: Department of Development Services Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Absent: Lee Whittenberg, Director ill. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Sharp, Campbell, Law, Brown IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications from the public. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Dahlman requested the Minutes of August 9, 1995 be considered separately. He said the Minutes show the City Council adjourned at 10:00 p.m. and the Planmng Commission adjourned at 10:00 p.m. The Commission had a short discussion on how the August 9th meetmg went. Mr. Steele saId that for clarity, the time should be removed from the reference to the Planning Commission's adjournment and note that the Commission adjourned to August 23rd. .\ . . PIce 2 . CIl1 of Seal Beach PIannJng ComnuBl.OIl MUlUIc8 for August 23, 1995 MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Minutes of August 9, 1995 with the deletion of the time of adjournment for the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Sharp, Campbell, Law, Brown VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no scheduled matters. VU. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Variance 95-4 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: 715 Electric A venue Douglas and Kathleen Arch Douglas and Kathleen Arch Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicants, Douglas and Kathleen Arch, requested Planning Commission approval for an after- the-fact Variance from the required rear yard setback requirements in conjunction WIth an approved, inspected addition at 715 Electric Avenue. The addition was constructed within one foot (1') of the rear property line, rather than the required three feet (3'). This situation was not detected until construction was complete. On July 2, 1992, the applicant applied for a permit to add a garage with a second story addition above to an existing single-story residence. The approved plans called for a rear yard setback of three feet as required by the municipal ~. In late July 1992, the Building Department inspected and approved the location of the foundation, establishing the setbacks for the addItion. The staff report noted the property is irregularly shaped with the structure sitting askew in relation to the property lines. The property lines were not, at the time of inspection, marked with a fence or any other physical demarcatIon. The applicant subsequently completed construction by April 1993. In early 1994, while the applicant was preparing for the final inspection, the neighbonng residence to the rear constructed a new wall along the common property line. At this point it became obvious the new addition did not meet setback requirements. Construction was halted and the applicant was advised he must either correct the situation or apply for and receive a Variance. The property currently contaIns a two-story single family residence. The CIty has received no responses, written or oral, regarding thIS Variance. Mr. Curtis indIcated it is the practIce of the CIty to recognize and address errors at any step in the construction process. In this instance, the City discovered the inspection error near the completion of the construction process, at a point when the addItIon was already being inhabited. . . . Plgll 3 - City or Seal Beach PIannm& COIlUUISSIOII MlDutes for August 23, 1995 Commission Ouestions on Staff Report Commissioner Dahlman asked if this plan came before the Planning Commission m 1992? Mr. Curtis said no. Commissioner Dahlman asked if staff had known they were planning to build on the setback it would have come to the Commission in 1992? Mr. Curtis Sald yes, it would have. But the approved plans show a three foot (3 ') setback and the existing structure With proposed addition bemg square with property lines. Commissioner Dahlman asked if It was the applicant who supplied plans that inaccurately depicted the property line? Mr. Curtis said the actual plans depict the property lines correctly. They depict the reSidence sitting on the property improperly. The property lines are correct but the old house sitting square to the rear property line IS incorrect. Commissioner Dahlman indicated It was the architect who made an error m 1992. Commissioner Dahlman asked how do you decide whether to do a surveyor not and was a survey done for thiS apphcation? Mr. Curtis replied that a survey was done and was included as attachment #4 with the staff report. The survey was done three weeks ago, not prior to laying the foundation. The survey was done to determine exactly what type of non-conformity eXisted. Commissioner Dahlman asked how staff determines ahead of time whether to do a surveyor not? Mr. Curtis said staff normally requests a survey be done when the property is bemg subdiVided and/or the property lines are unknown. In this instance, the City's plan check Engineer and Bulldmg Officials felt they had adequate knowledge of where the property lmes were. The City did know where the side property line was along the alley, but apparently the rear property line was mistaken. Commissioner Dahlman asked If there would be an adequate turning radIUS if this Variance were to be approved? Mr. Curtis said yes, the turnmg radius would not be affected at all. Commissioner Dahlman asked staff if there was any reason to believe any of this was intentional? He recalled one instance when there was a plan for a house in the Marina Hill area which was at variance with what was later constructed. He added thiS doesn't happen very often. He asked if the Commission could expect to see more of these? Mr. Curtis said "No, it was a simple mistake that didn't get caught until too late in the process". Commissioner Dahlman asked if there is a way we now have in effect to avoid making these mistakes? Mr. Curtis said the inspectors are routinely measuring the setbacks from property lines rather than taking the plans for granted. That was their practice in 1992 also, the measurements may have been rushed in this instance. They may have taken the fact that there was an eXisting building there for granted, and assuming the plans were correct, went off those plans. He indicated that until the wall was bullt next door, everything looked normal. . . . PIce 4 - Cdy of Seal Beach PIamuog CommaIllOIl Mmulcl for August 23, 1995 Commissioner Brown asked why the wall was built and did it have anything to do with the Arch's addition? Mr. Curtis said the neighbor probably wanted a new wall since the old wall had deteriorated. Commissioner Sharp said he felt this just one of those glitches that slips through the crack and he didn't think the CommIssion would have any right to hold the property owners liable for it. CommIssIoner Law agreed, then asked how high was the wall that was built? Mr. Curtis satd he believed it is 5' or 6' . Public Hearing Douglas Arch * 715 Electric Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. Arch said he and his wife hired an architect from Huntington Beach and he told them everything was taken care of, that everything had gone through the City. The Building Inspector had caught a setback requirement on the alley when the footing was dug and they had to move that footing back about 3'. They then assumed that everything else was correct. There was an old, deteriorating wall between the houses that didn't extend as far out as the new wall does and it wasn't until the new wall went up that anybody realized how close the building is to the wall. He said he thought the new wall is on his property because he had to sign a waiver. They just didn't realize any of this until after-the-fact. Chairperson Campbell told him that if he had not signed that waiver, the neIghbor would have had to build the wall back a foot or two. Commissioner Dahlman jokingly asked Mr. Arch "You're not the plan checker or the Building Inspector's cousin or husband or something hke that are you?" He then asked Mr. Arch and Mr. Curtis if there are alternatives to having non-opening Windows and If the apphcant was interested in those alternatives? Mr. Arch said he has no problems with the garage window not being able to open, but upstairs there are two windows whIch permIt a cross-breeze. By eliminating those two windows, it would make that room quite hot. CommIssioner Dahlman asked if it would be possible to have a reversed bay Window? Mr. Curtis said yes, that would be one alternative. He suggested that where the current windows are currently, any replacement would have to be I-hour rated and non-openable. A caveat could be placed at the end of that condition which would say "or other solution acceptable to the City's Building Department". Commissioner Dahlman suggested "or other solution in keeping with the requirements of the Uniform Buildmg Code". Mr. Arch indicated the two upstairs windows measure 18" high by 36" long. There were no other persons wishing to speak in favor of this application. . . . PBgc 5 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg CommISSIOO Mmulc8 for August 23. 1995 Ginger Howard * 301 8th Street. Seal Beach Ms. Howard introduced herself as the property owner next door to Mr. and Mrs. Arch and spoke against this application. Ms. Howard said she had two concerns, the frrst being an easement for her utility lines and the second being an easement to the alley so her tenants can place their six trash cans in the alley for trash pickup. She said that when she purchased her property, It was her understanding that she had a 3' easement which extended from behind 715 Electric Avenue to the alley amd is concerned that if this easement were built on what it would do to her property value. She said the easement is not reflected in her deed and said she has not been able to obtain a copy of the Arch's deed. She asked if someone could check the Arch's deed and see if there is an easement and let her know. She indicated some of her service lines may run underneath this easement and she asked staff to research both these Items for her. If she were to have problems with her services it would mean digging through the Arch's garage. Secondly, she had a concern about her tenant's six trash cans, WhICh are kept on the three foot easement. Ms. Howard explained her concern IS to have a legal right to place her tenant's trash cans in the alley so they can get trash pickup. While she and the Arch's have a harmonious, neighborly agreement she IS worried about the future sale of either property and what might result. New owners could object. Her renters had always placeed their trash cans m the easement, which now has a garage butlt on it. Chairperson Campbell asked Ms. Howard if she had a copy of the title insurance to her home? Ms. Howard said yes but there is nothing mentioned about an easement on her deed. The title company said the easement would be recorded on Mr. Arch's deed. Mr. Arch told her the CIty had deeds. Chairperson Campbell explained the City does not have deeds, they would be recorded at the Santa Ana courthouse. The Chair expl3.1ned to Ms. Howard that she would have to research the matter of an easement herself at the County Recorder's Office in Santa Ana. Ms. Howard said she hoped that the Planning Commission would research that before grantIng a Variance for a building to be on top of an easement where, perhaps, her services are and where her garbage pickup is supposed to be. Ms. Howard Satd she is willing to compromise and has ltved next to Doug Arch for twelve years but she also has to pay attention to the future resale value of her home. Commissioner Brown asked Ms. Howard if she had brought her concerns to staffs attention before the meeting tonight? Ms. Howard said yes. And when she questioned the easement staff told her they dIdn't have a copy of the deed. Regardmg her trash concerns, she said Mr. Curtis suggested the City could make an exception and she could be the only homeowner who has therr trash picked up on Electric Avenue. She told Mr. Curtis she would need thIS in writing because that would mean her trash cans would be sitting outside, across from the entrance to Mary Wilson Library. It would also mean her trash cans would be sitting two feet from the applicant's front door, WhICh would not be healthy. Whtle the applicant may agree to any placement of her trash cans because he doesn't want to tear down his garage, a new owner may object totally. . . . PBce 6 . C1l.y of Seal Beach PIaauuDg CommwIOO Mmulel for August 23, 1995 Chairperson Campbell said she was more concerned about the easement for utility lines and asked Mr. Steele for advice. Ms. Howard said the applicant discovered her water line because it was punctured and he discovered her sewer line because It went through the middle of his garage. Apparently her house was built first when it was one piece of property. Then the applicant's house was buIlt. Mr. Steele saId he was still researching. Commissioner Dahlman asked Ms. Howard if she had an objection to approval of a Variance as long as the issues of trash can placement and the existence of an easement are solved and provided for? Ms. Howard said she would not object if her concerns were resolved. Commissioner Dahlman suggested an alternative might be to redraw the lot lines and settle the difference in property between the two property owners. Ms. Howard explained she was not the neighbor near the garage [Shown as Lot #1], she was the other neighbor by the applicant's living room [Shown as Lot #3]. Ms. Howard said it was her understanding when she purchased the house that the 3' easement provided her access to the alley for her house as she is the only house in the area without access to the alley. Now she doesn't have access to the alley because there's a structure on it. Therefore, her tenants have to put their trash cans in front of the garage door of Lot #1 which doesn't work because that person can't enter/exit their garage. Or, the applicant has allowed her to put the cans in his side yard. Mr. Steele asked who performed the survey? Mr. Curtis said it was R. V. Pearsol. Mr. Steele said the easement is not reflected on the survey but you would think that if a licensed surveyor did a survey with this much detail he would reflect an easement. He suggested to the Chair that a condition be added, If it's the intention of the Commission to approve the request, which states that before the Variance takes effect the applicant must provide evidence to the Department of Development Services that (a) there is no easement or (b) if there is an easement, that the rights granted under the easement have been negotIated between the parties somehow to provide access for whatever the easement covers. Chairperson Campbell suggested tabling this matter to the September 9th meetIng. Commissioner Dahlman saId the applicant, Ms. Howard and the BuIlding Department were all in agreement there would be no problem tonight, but they are not 10 agreement. Mr. Steele said the CommiSSIOn could continue the matter and ask the applicant to provide a deed because It's not the Building Department or Planning Commission's responsibility to research the title between the two parties to determine whether there's a deed --- it's the applIcant's responsibility to provide that information. Commissioner Dahlman asked the applicant if he would suffer any hardship If a two week delay were granted? The applicant said no. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Campbell to continue the Public Hearing on Variance 95-4 to the September 9th meeting and ask the applicant to provide forthwith a copy of the deed to staff. Page 7 . CtIy of Seal Beach l'Iannmc CommISSIOII Mmutca for August 23, 1995 . Before the vote the applicant discussed the deed. Mr. Steele explained he had a Deed of Trust which does not reflect an easement. He needs a Grant Deed which contains the full legal description of the property. He indicated there would be a Grant Deed for the easement as well. Mr. Steele said that in many cases the deeds to the properties WIll reflect easements to the utIlIty companies for the water and sewer lInes. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Campbell, Sharp, Law, Brown VID. STAFF CONCERNS 3. Planning Commissioners Registration at California Chapter, American Planning Association Planning Commissioners Workshop Saturday, September 16, 1995 * Diamond Bar, CA . Mr. Curtis said each Commissioner was provided WIth a registration handout for the Planning Commissioner's Workshop on September 16th. Ms. Fillmann confirmed the Planning CommIssion's budget would pay for each Commissioner desiring to attend. The registration deadline is September 12th. IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS Parking Meters on Main Street Commissioner Dahlman saId last week a local newspapers, the Sun, carried two articles about the City's Planning Commission - City Council joint workshop on the Main Street SpecIfic Plan. Both articles were strongly in favor of parking meters based on the abilIty to raIse funds from the parking meters to bail the City out of its budget needs. It was his understanding that parking meter revenues could not be applied to anything other than parking matters. Mr. Steele said the intent of the parking meter portions of the MaIn Street Specific Plan were specifically dIrected at mitigating the parking needs created by development in the MaIn Street area. There are other ways of finanCIng and providIng parking meters in certain areas of town. But the Specific Plan process for Main Street provides that the revenues from those meters be used for parking on Main Street. Commissioner Sharp said the parkIng meter revenues would take over monies coming out of the General Fund for personnel to patrol and do the work on Main Street --- so that would be one savings to the General Fund. Mr. Steele said the Main Street SpecIfic Plan is talking about an Increase in the number of parking spaces available for Main Street and it's budget dollars that are over and above what are already being spent by the City. So, it wouldn't be replacing anything in the current City budget, he couldn't recall the exact figure, but noted it's an over-and-above figure for parking mItigation that's proposed by the Specific Plan. . Commissioner Brown, referencing CommIssioner Dahlman's comments, said he was asking if . . . Paco 8 - Cd:y of SW Beach PIannm& CommISSIon Mmulc8 for August 23, 1995 parking meter fees could be used for anything the City wishes to use them for? Mr. Steele said the answer to that is it depends on how they're created. If there's a financing district that's created to pay for them and put them in, the answer then is no. Because the revenues are used to pay for the meters and their upkeep. If the CIty makes the capital expenditure itself and doesn't have any type of specific financing arrangements on them, then in those cases, yes, you can use the parking meter revenue for General Fund purposes. In this case, if you go through the Specific Plan process, there's a process in that Plan for parking mitigauon which says that the revenues from these parking meters will only be used for the three-phase parking program in the Specific Plan. That would be a legislative decision by the City Council that we're gOIng to use this revenue only for Main Street parking. CommIssioner Dahlman said his views on parking meters were going to be explained in a letter to the Sun newspaper this week. Commissioner Law said she is not in favor of parking meters for Main Street and would rather see signs put up saying "Beach-goers are prohibited from parking except in beach lotsll. She felt it would be bad to have to put money in a parking meter to go to the Post Office. Alcohol on Main Street Chairperson Campbell said she had a concern regarding the closing hours for estabhshments selling alcohol. This was not addressed in the eXIsting draft of the Main Street Specific Plan. She asked if this issue will be addressed in the Plan? WIll there be a lid put on addluonal on- site and off-site sales? Mr. Curtis said that would be a choice of the City Council and Planning Commission. He did not believe that either issue was addressed In the Specific Plan at thIS time. Chairperson Campbell asked how would the Commission go about having these issues addressed? Mr. Steele said the Main Street Specific Plan will come before the PlannIng Commission for Public Hearings at the time the final draft is proposed. The Commission WIll have an advisory role because there are legislative matters in the draft. At the time it comes before the Commission for revIew and Public Hearings, that would be the appropriate time to recommend to the City Council that It include whatever other proVIsions the CommIssIon mIght feel are missing. The cap was a subject of discussion at the last meeting but he did not recall that the hours question generated as much diSCUSSIOn. Commissioner Brown SaId Chairperson Campbell was saying that the matters of (1) a maximum number of on-sale and off-sale liquor- selling establishments on Main Street and (2) the matter of closing hours for hquor-selling estabhshments on Main Street be secured in the final draft, before the final draft is dIscussed at the Planning Commission level. Mr. Steele said he understood but the purpose of the workshop sessions was to get input. And, he did not believe the consultant, Zucker Associates, took from the last two workshops that he should Include either of those two things. If this is somethIng the Commission feels strongly about having in the final draft, then staff should place this on the next, or future, agenda and discuss It. It would be discussed to determine whether the Commission wants to give that direction to Zucker Associates. He was not sure where the consultant was in the process but felt it was fairly close to coming back to the CommiSSIOn. Commissioner Brown asked about the Chairperson writing a letter to the consultant with copIes to the Council and Commission members? Mr. CurtIs said staff would still be looking for dIrection from the Commission rather than the imuative of one person. Mr. CurtIs said the . . . J, .... PIce 9 - CIty of Seal IkKh Plannmg ComnuSSlllD Mmu1c8 for August 23, 1995 Commission should be reviewing the Main Street Specific Plan the first meeting in October. Commissioner Dahlman said he did not see how the Commission could avoid talking about the number of liquor-selhng estabhshments and their hours when doing the Main Street SpecIfic Plan --- "We might as well just face up to it and put it in the draft II . Mr. Curtis said staff will follow Mr. Steele's recommendation and put it on the agenda. After discussion by the Commission, the recommendation will be forwarded to the consultant for inclusion in the final draft. Chairperson Campbell directed that this matter be placed on the Agenda for the next Commission meeting; there were no Commission objections. x. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned to Wednesday, September 6, 1995 at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, qoo-.~~~ Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary APPROVAL: The Planning ~mmission Minutes of August 23, 1995 were approved on September ~ 1995. ~