The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Min 1996-01-17 ? \ . , '.~ .\ . I. CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA of JANUARY 17, 1996 7:30 P.M. · City Council Chambers 211 Eagbtb Street, Seal Beach, CA NextRewlution:#9~2 ll. BOLI&ALL m. IV. v. 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. At this time, members of the public may address the Planning 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. 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. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of January 3, 1996. TIae city of SealIeaeb llCIIIIpba wdh die Americl. Wilb Dillbllltlel Act or 1990 If you need .....nee to ItteDd Ibll meeClng, plelse IeIepboDe the CIty CJort'. Oftic:e at (310) 431-2527 at .... 41 boun ID Idv_ of lb. IIIIetini ! ( PIp 2 - Cll)' 1:1 Sell BeIcIa ....... C--'._ AI-- 1:11....., 17. 1996 Receive and File City Council Staff Report, dated January 8, 1996, re: Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station - Installation Restoration Program - Final Remedial Investigation Report/or Operable Units 1, 2, and 3. 3. Receive and File City Council Staff Report, dated January 8, 1996, re: Bolsa Chica - Wetland Restoration Agreement and Bolsa Chica Land Use Plim Amendment 1-95 and Implementing Actions Program - Supplemental Staff Report #2. . 2. VI. 4. Zoning Text Amendment 95-1 [Continued from 11-8-95 and 12-6-95] Applicant: Request: City of Seal Beach To establish City-wide standards for the temporary display of advertising banners in commerciall industrial zones. The proposed regulations would establish a permitting process and set maximum time and size limits for the display of temporary banners. . Recommendation: Recommend to City Council approval of Zoning Text Amendment 95-1, Subject to Additional provisions as determined appropriate, and Adopt Resolution No. 96-_. 5. Variance 95-5 Address: 225 Sixth Street, Seal Beach Applicants: David and Ellen Friedman Property Owners: Same Request: To vary from the required side yard setback requirements in conjunction with a proposed addition of a second story to the front unit at 225 Tbe CIty of SulIJeach c:omp.... Wdb dae AmencalUl Wdb Duabd.tJeI Act of 1990 If you aeecI ....lIaDce to attend dul meeta..,. plelM . teIepboaelbe CIty CIeIt'I Oftice at (310) 431-2527 at Ieut 41 boun m advaaceoftbe meeta.., , ,. ... \ . . "e:1 - CII;y rI... .... ........ C-- Aa" rI J-.y 17, 1996 VDI. IX. 6th Street. The site is non-conforming due to inadequate side and rear setbacks as well as inadequate on-site covered parking and a curb cut, The subject property has two (2) dwelling units and provides four (4) covered parking spaces (one of which is a tandem parking space within a carport). Recommendation: Pleasure of the Planning Commission. 6. Zoning Text Amendment 96-1 Applicant: City of Seal Beach Request: To consider an amendment to the rear yard setback requirements of the Residential Low Density zone, District V, to permit wooden decks to be constructed within the rear yard setback. If approved, the proposed amendment would allow wooden decks up to 10 feet in overall height to be built to the rear property line, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed amendment is intended to address rear yard slope along the rear yards of Crestview Avenue, Catalina Avenue and Surf Place. Recommendation: Recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Text Amendment 96-1, subject to additional provisions as determined appropriate, and adopt Resolution 96-_. x. ~ 'I1Ie C1ty of SoaIIIeacb compbea wiIh the Amen". With Di..btl,t,e. Act of 1990. If you need 1II,lIIanee to attend t1u. meettng, pleaae t&IepboDe the C1ty Clerk'. Office at (310) 431-2527 at Ieaa 48 boun in advance of the meeting ".4 - CIty << SoIl B-aa ....... c-..- ApIda <<J.u117 17. 1996 1996 AGENDA FORECAST j . FED 07 FED 21 MAR 06 MAR 20 APR 03 APR 17 MAY 08 MAY 22 . Main St. Specific Plan [Tentative] . . CUP 94-8/327 Main/Nip 'n Stuff @ 6 mos. CUP 95-111013 PCHlPietro's 12 mos. hours. . CUP 92-11909 Ocean/El Burrito 12 mos. ABC ruN OS ruN 19 . CUP 94-1/600 MarinalRadisson 12 mos. ABC IUL 03 IUL 17 AUG 07 AUG 21 SBP 04 SEP 18 . . CUP 94-8/327 Main/Nip 'n Stuff 6 mos. 2nd review OCT 09 OCT 23 NOV 06 NOV 20 DEe 04 DEe 18 ...... City or Seal IIeacb c:omp1iel WIlb dao Amencallll With Di..b.hllea Act or 1990 If you need ......ne. to attend dua meelU!l. ploalO . teIepboaedao CIty CIerk'a Oftic:e at (310) 431-2527 at _Ill'" boun ia advanceorthe meelU!I , CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION . MINUTES of JANUARY 17, 1996 The CIty of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session in City Council Chambers at 7:30 p.m. Chairperson Campbell called the meeting to order WIth the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Campbell Commissioners Sharp, Dahlman, Law, Brown Also Present: Department of Development Services: Lee WhIttenberg, DIrector Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Flllmann, Executlve Secretary AGENDA APPROVAL . MOTION by Law; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Campbell, Sharp, Law, Brown Dahlman Commissioner Dahlman arrived at 7:32 p.m. ORAL COMMUNlCATIQNS There were no persons wanting to speak at this time and the Chair closed Oral CommuOlcatlons. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Law; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the Consent Calendar items: 1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of January 3, 1996. 2. Receive and File City Council Staff Report, dated January 8, 1996, re: Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station - Installation Restoration Program - Final Remedial Investigation Report for Operable Units 1, 2, and 3. . . . . Plgc 2 - ~ of Seal Beach PIannmg ComnuSSIOll Mmlltcll of Janwuy 17, 1996 3. Receive and Flle City Councll Staff Report, dated January 8, 1996, re: Bolsa Chica - Wetland Restoration Agreement and Bolsa Chica Land Use Plan Amendment 1-95 and Implementing Actions Program - Supplemental Stafl Report #2. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Campbell, Sharp, Law, Brown ~l]BLIC HEARINGS 4. Zoning Text Amendment 95-1 Applicant: City of Seal Beach Staff Re,port Mr. CurtIs presented the staff report, noting the request was to establish CIty-wide standards for the temporary display of advertising banners m commercial/ mdustrial zones. The proposed regulations would establish a permitting process and set maximum time and size hmits for the display of temporary banners. Mr. Curtis noted this Zoning Text Amendment had been continued from the Planning Commission meetings of November 8 and December 6, 1995. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for reference]. Mr. Curtis said the CIty has not been enforcing that sectlon of the municipal Code which deals with banner advertising due to the economy's recessIOn and complamts received from merchants. The City now plans to set forth standards and enforce the municipal Code as it relates to banners. The staff report included commonly reflected themes of banner ordinances from other cities. Most other citles require a permit, a minimal processing fee and an annual hmlt on the total number of days per year a banner can be displayed. Staff's initial recommendation for banner advertising is to allow: (1) Maximum of sixty days per calendar year; (2) Maximum of thirty days in succession; (3) A minimal processing fee; (4) Businesses to post a surety bond/deposit; (5) A maximum size for the banner. Staff is seeking input from the public, the City's business association and the PlanOlng Commission on how to proceed. Based on these recommendations staff w1l1 work WIth the CIty Attorney's Office and offer proposed wording for this Code section. Staff will come back to the Commission at a future meetlng with a draft Resolution. Page 3 - CIty of Seal Beach PIamung ComouaaIOO Mmutca of Janual)' 17, 1996 . Commission Comments on Staff Report Chairperson Campbell asked if any written or oral comments had been received? Mr. Curtis said no. Free 30-day Display Commission Law, referencing the following paragraph (staff report page 5): Temporary Banner Amortization Period. Temporary banners which do not conform to this ordinance shall, within 30 days, be removed or made to conform. asked if this were interpreted to mean that someone could display a banner for thIrty days and nothing would happen? Mr. Curtis said thIS is intended to mean that if you currently have a banner up you have thirty days to get a permit for the banner or remove it. CommissIOner Law said that would allow a merchant to have free banner advertising for thirty days. Mr. CurtIs saId a merchant would be allowed to do this once. CommiSSIoner Sharp clarified that this particular paragraph would only apply the day the ord1Oance goes 1Oto effect. ThIS IS the only time the City would deal with this issue. Everybody would get a free thIrty days. . Banners in Windows Commissioner Dahlman noted the Rancho Palos Verdes ordinance includes banners inside windows and asked if the City of Seal Beach would do this also? Mr. CurtIs saId no, at thIs time staff is not attempting to regulate in tenor advertising other than prior conditions placed on Conditional Use Permits. Banners on ResidentIal Property Chairperson Campbell, referenc10g the following paragraph (staff report page 5): (m) Fees for temporary banner use shall apply to individual busmesses only. A banner, on private property, intended for the promotion of a sale involving an entire shopping center, or for a publiC purpose (I. e. a Red Cross blood drive, etc.) shall be exemptfrom the application and deposit fees set forth above. asked if this meant that anyone putting a banner in front of a pnvate home would be exempt? Mr. Curtis said this paragraph is talking about promotIonal items at a shopping center; pnvate residences cannot have banners. Mr. Whittenberg pointed out these changes only apply to commerCIal zoning areas of the City, not reSIdentIally zoned areas. Mr. Curtis 10dicated he would clarify this language. Public Hearing Chairperson Campbell declared the Public Hearing open and noted that since the CIty IS the applicant the staff report would speak for them. . Paae 4 - Cdy of Seal Beach PIannIIIg Comml8llOll Mmutca of January 17. 1996 . John Baker * Seal Beach Mr. Baker introduced himself as a business owner in Seal Beach and s3.1d he has revIewed a part of the proposed ordinance. He felt the suggested application fee of $50 was too much money as the economy remains recessionary; he suggested a $10 or $15 fee. He felt suggestions from business owners should be included in the Public Hearings, not solely pros and cons. He asked if banners which are painted onto windows would be incorporated into this ordinance? Mr. Curtis said the proposed ordinance does not address banners, painted or otherwise, on the inside of windows. Mr. Baker said he felt banner advertIsing could use some controls, a time lImIt would be important and a penalty after a certain tIme penod would keep things on an orderly basis. He felt more study was in order at this time. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Baker what he felt a reasonable application fee would be? Mr. Baker said $10 or $15. Commissioner Brown indicated the City Council sets fees. Mr. Baker felt the Planning Commission should suggest an applIcatIon fee amount to the CIty CouncIl as it would give them input. Commissioner Brown indicated this issue had been contmued tWice to allow Rossmoor Center time to discuss the matter. He asked if Leonard WIlson was present tomght or If staff had received comments from Rossmoor Center? Mr. CurtiS said no, but they were aware of thIS meeting. . Karen Ketterin~ * Seal Beach Ms. Kettering introduced herself as a property owner and busmess owner of the Angel Connection at 225 Main Street. She noted her store does not dIrectly front on Main Street but is in rear of the Courtyard Nursery complex. Therefore, banners and sandwich board signs are very Important to her. Last year she placed a banner on the front gate and six months later, when business had not picked up as much as she had hoped, she put a sandwich board sign out on the sidewalk. That sign brought a lot of customers to her. She felt the recession was still present because the housing market is stIll bad. She felt this community has an old town feelIng and some of the banners/sandwich board signs are customer-friendly. She felt the banners should stay and people should "turn their heads" because we need them. She felt a time limit on banner advertising would kill her business. She would agree With paying a permIt fee for her billboard. Commissioner Brown asked why a banner IS more important than a permanent sign? Ms. Kettering said that when sh~ attended the Seal Beach Busmessmen' s ASSOCiation meetIng It was her understanding that sandWIch boards were considered banners. Mr. CurtIs said sandwich board signs are a completely different issue and they are currently not allowed by the mumcIpal Code. . . . . Page S . C~ of Seal Beach PIaammg Cmun'BB'OII Mmu1cs of Janwuy 17, 1996 Mr. Curbs said he discussed this issue with Ms. Kettering at the Businessmen's Association meeting last week and indicated to her that through the Main Street Specific Plan, It might allow over-hanging, low-level signs in line with pedestnans on the sidewalk. That would serve the same purpose as a sandwich board sign but would not present the same liability. Ms. Kettering asked if she could still keep her sandwich board sign on the sidewalk fronting Main Street? Mr. Curtis said facetiously 'IYou can still illegally have your sandwich board sign up". Stan Anderson * Seal Beach Mr. Anderson introduced himself as a Seal Beach resident, the owner of Coach's restaurant and President of the Businessmen's Association. Mr. Anderson said many busmess owners are concerned about increasing business and keeping their banner advertismg displayed. On January 16th he talked to many merchants and they were all concerned because this is not the best of time for many businesses. They need exposure. They need to bring people mto town. The customers need to know where the stores are and what the do. Having over-hangmg signs on Main Street, like the signage in the Seal Beach Center, would be good for store IdentIficatIOn. He indicated all the City's shopping centers have differing slgnage restricnons. There is a lot of mix-up and most people want to know where they stand. They specifically want to know what they can do to change things to help themselves, to have professional signs which allow their busmesses to be seen and at the same time be fair to the City. He felt somethmg could be worked out through meeting with Barry Curtis or whoever would be dealmg With the businesses. He said "I don't want to pay anything, I just want people to know I'm there. We've all paid a lot to be in our businesses and we're paying a lot now just to stay there ... so we need help". He said he understood the Planning Commission was not there to put the merchants out of business and said the merchants would like to work with the City. "We are here to support something that could be worked out between us all to help our busmesses". Mr. Whittenberg asked if it would be helpful to the business community for staff to have additional meetings with the Seal Beach Merchants AssociatIon, to try to get further input on what would be good controls for the City and for the businesses to live with? Mr. Anderson said yes, the Business Association could get a group together to work with the City to achieve a greater understanding to co-ordinate something everybody could live With. Commissioner Law asked if the Seal Beach Shopping Center could have a planned sign program? Mr. Whittenberg said a different set of zomng requirements applies to the Rossmoor Center versus the Seal Beach Center. Different provisions apply to each center which IS caused by the zoning, the size of the center and the speed hmlt on the street the center faces. / Chairperson Campbell noted the City of Irvine is conspicuously absent from the staff report findings. She asked if staff knew their stance on banners since that is a planned community? Mr. Whittenberg said he didn't know but cautioned that the design of commercial centers in . . . Paae 6 - CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Minutes of January 17, 1996 Irvine is much different than the design of commercial centers in Seal Beach, particularly along Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street. You might find what appbes in Rossmoor Center would not apply along Pacific Coast Highway; there are major dIfferences in those two areas. Commissioner Dahlman said it sounds as though many people are concerned about the banner ordinance but they are not fully aware and might fully benefit from the meetings Mr. Whittenberg referred to. It might be appropriate to continue thIS issue to the CommIssion's March 20th meeting to allow time for those meetings to take place. Chairperson Campbell agreed, especially in view of the fact that Leonard Wilson from the Rossmoor Shopping Center IS not attendmg this evening. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to continue Zoning Text Amendment 95-1 to March 20, 1996. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Brown, Campbell, Law, Sharp. *** 5. Variance 95-5 Address: 225 Sixth Street, Seal Beach Staff Re,port Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for reference]. The applicants and property owners, David and Ellen Fnedman, request Planning Commission approval to vary from the required SIde yard setback reqUIrements 10 conjunction with a proposed addition of a second story to the front unit at 225 6th Street. The SIte IS non- conforming due to inadequate side and rear setbacks as well as madequate on-SIte covered parking and a curb cut. The subject property has two (2) dwelhng umts and prOVIdes four (4) covered parking spaces (one of WhICh is a tandem parkmg space withm a carport). Mr. Curtis said staff received the following letters 10 favor of this proposal: John and Linda Radzinski, 221 Sixth Street, Seal Beach, CA Bob and Nannette Mann, 224 SIxth Street, Seal Beach, CA1 1 Attached for reference. Plgll 7 . CIty of Seal Beach PIannmg C0l11111188101\ MlI1utll8 of Janll8l)' 17, 1996 . Staff received the following letters in opposition to this proposal: Michelle Brendel, Seal Beach, CA Marvin Kantor, Seal Beach, CA2 Regarding Michelle Brendel's letter, Mr. Curtis said the two-car garage at the rear of the property, underneath the existing apartment, has been converted to a living unit. Conversatlons between Mr. Curtis and the property manager revealed the prior property owner converted the garage so she could stay on the property when she was in town. When Mr. and Mrs. Friedman submitted this application they told staff there was an illegal converSIOn on the property when they purchased the property. They SaId it was theIr intent to remove the garage conversIon through this request. When their plans were drawn, they showed a two-car garage on the plans. The Friedman's stated that unit has not been occupied since they have owned the property. Staff felt the impending removal of the converted garages met the CIty's purposes, whIch was to provide two parking places on site. Regarding the garage conversion, Mr. Curtls said CondItion of Approval #6 addresses the conversion of the garage as the plans show a two-car garage in place of the converSIOn: 6. All constructIOn shall be in substantial compliance wzth the plans approved through Variance 95-5. . However, if the Planning Commission were to approve thIS Variance request but felt stronger Conditions were needed, staff suggested a more stringent condItIons: 8. The garage shall be reconverted to a functioning two-car garage. The garage shall provide a minimum interior clear area of 18' x 20'. Commission Comments on Staff Report Future Third Story CommIssioner Law asked would the approval of this Variance prohIbIt the property owners from building a third story in the future? Mr. Curtis said no. They would have several optlons due to the size of the property and the open back yard. If they chose to forfeit the yard, they could come a long way to makIng the property conforming. Anything they do on a non-conformIng property requires Planning Commission approval. . 2 Attached for reference. . . . PI&~ 8 - Calf of Seal Beach PlaDnmg Camnll881Cl11 Mmulc8 of Janwuy 17, 1996 No Conflict of Interest Commissioner Brown stated for the Record that he is personal fnends with the applicants and has been to the property many times. However, he has not discussed this applicanon since it was submitted and he has no economic interests with the Friedman famIly. Public Hearing Chairperson Campbell declared the Public Hearing open. Discussion ensued on how the applicants should be permitted to build a second story on their home. The problem of allowing the second story to be built on the existing footprint is the proximity to the adjacent property; it creates a tunnel effect on the walkway. Or, does the large back yard make up for the proximity? Ellen Friedman * 225 6th Street. Seal Beach Mrs. Friedman introduced herself and her husband, David, as the applicants and their architect, Michael Porter. Mrs. Friedman recounted that their famIly moved to Seal Beach SIX years ago and they began looking for homes. They purchased their property on Sixth Street and noted the lot measures 60' x 118'. Their open back yard is a wonderful area for famIly entertaining. They knew when they purchased they would have to enlarge the house because the hving areas were very small. They want to keep the original footpnnt of the house to maintaIn their large rear yard and build straight up on the North-facing wall. They don't want to turn the property into two houses, condominiums or apartments. They feel the rear yard is an advantage to everyone, includ10g the neighbors, who derive lIght and sun from the openness. G~ge Conversion by Prior Owner Commissioner Dahlman asked if the conversion of the existing garage was done pnor to the Friedman's purchase of the property? Mrs. Fnedman said she understood the former owner, Dorothy Nesher, built that unit. The Friedman's escrow papers state they are aware that the downstairs garage is an illegal unit. They had always planned on convemng that umt but for economic reasons they wanted to wait until they remodeled. Unique Setback? Commissioner Dahlman asked staff if the applicants were asking to be allowed to continue to have this setback, which many other residences have, claiming that it's a hardship to correct the setback? Is this a unique request? Would it be unique if they were reqUIred to comply? Director Whittenberg explained it is not unusual for eXIsting setbacks in older homes to be at some point other than what the current municipal Code requires, primarIly because the current Code was adopted in the mid-1960's. Many structures, pamcularly 10 the Old Town area, were built before the 1960's and those older structure do not meet the current setbacks. Staff is recommending that the applicants meet the current municipal Code requirements for the second- story addItion because there's really no reason the apphcants can't do this. . . . Plgc 9 - CIly of Seal Beach Plannmg CommISSIon Mmutes of January 17. 1996 PI'Qject Plans Mrs. Friedman asked the Commission to look at the plans and the Commission said they didn't receive any. Mr. Curtis provided the plans. Michael Porter. Architect * No Address Given At Commissioner Brown's request, Mr. Porter commented on meeting the setback on the second story as opposed to building up straight from the first floor. Mr. Porter said the applicants would incur additional expense as they could not use the eXlstmg bearing walls. They would have to create some other post and beam condition 3' back of the bearing points, and set some additional footings or footing pads at points further back inside the building. Additionally, the existing bedrooms would be cut back to 9' in Width. The Umform Building Code mimmum for space is about 7' and this would be only 2' wider than the minimum. The additional expenses would be created in eng10eering and actual construction. Commissioner Dahlman asked what would be that additional expenses compared to what it would cost to comply with the City's required setbacks and re-doing the ground floor? Do you spend as much money complying with CondIDon #2 as in not need10g the Variance 10 the first place? Mr. Porter said the applicants would spend money m demolItIOn to take out existing walls and losing square footage in the lower level and in re-configuring the second floor. It's not just moving the wall in on the first floor, it's re-configuring the downstairs program. It would be significantly more expensive than complying with Condition #2. Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Porter if the addition were constructed using the eXlst10g walls could the work be done safely per earthquake consideratIOns? Mr. Porter replIed anyth10g he would do would be required to be safe. It would require posts, beams and footing pads to carry the load. Commissioner Dahlman asked if Mr. Porter had seen the letter from Dr. Kantor? Mr. Porter said yes, he had seen the letter. Mrs. Friedman said she had spoken with Dr. Kantor last Thursday to clarify their plans. Dr. Kantor does not live in the apartments next doors, he rents them out. Her interpretation of their conversation was that Dr. Kantor does not want them any closer than they are. Dr. Kantor told her he could not control anything that happened in the future but today he didn't want them any closer than they were. PBae 10 - Cd)' of Seal Beach 1'IaDnmg ConunIIIIOll Mmules of Janwuy 17, 1996 . David Friedman * 225 6th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Friedman said the proposed plans are well-conceived and maintain open space and light for Dr. Kantor's rear apartment living room windows. An 8' setback IS ma1Ota1Oed from the comer front of the main house which correlates to the tenant's 8' lIVing room windows; this is mindful of their property. Joan Lewis * Realtor for Century 21 - Beach Properties. Seal Beach Ms. Lewis introduced herself as the property manager for 229 6th Street. She represented Dr. Kantor, the property owner, who was out of town and unable to attend thIs meeting. She said she also had been the property manager at 225 6th Street prior to the Friedman's purchase. She recommended the Planning CommIssion go see the walkway between the apartment house at 229 6th Street and the applicant's house at 225 6th Street. . The applicants are leaving two of Dr. Kantor's apartment umts 10 the back without blocking their light but the apartment units in the front will be very impacted, and become very dark, If the applicants do not conform to the present buIlding code and maintain a 6' setback from the property line. Mrs. Friedman alluded to a telephone conversation with Dr. Kantor on Thursday, January 11, 1996. Immediately following that conversation Dr. Kantor telephoned Ms. Lewis. The only thing Dr. Kantor understood from the entIre conversatIon was the park10g spaces. After speaking with Dr. Kantor and after checking WIth the CIty's BuIlding Department, she and Dr. Kantor urge the Commission not to grant that portion of the Variance request which would allow the present 31h' side yard setback on the North side to rema1O, versus the 6' SIde yard setback required by Code for a double lot. Commissioner Brown asked Ms. Lewis if she was referring to both the first and second stories or just the second? Ms. Lewis said she and Dr. Kantor would recommend the first story be moved in also. She would definitely recommend the second story meet the required setback. She felt that whatever building is done now should be done strIctly accord1Og to the mumclpal Code. Bruce Stark * rNo Address Given) * Seal Beach Mr. Stark said he was one of the first persons to take advantage of modIfications to non- conforming structures on his First Street property. One of the first th10gs to take place was for the building to be inspected to be sure it would be brought into conformity during the remodeling process. This staff report does not show that thIS was done for this application. Otherwise the illegal garage would have been found. On page 4 of the staff report It says "In effect the property is providing the four (4) required parlang spaces" and thIS IS false. He stated he owned property across the street from thIS property and met the tenant who was liv10g 10 the illegal umt and It is not providing any parking. The Vanance process is at odds with the . . . . PIce 11 - CIty of Seal Bc4ch Plannmg CommISSion Mmutcs of January 17, 1996 municipal Code. The City passed the Code requinng the setbacks. If the City is 10 error it IS for the City Council to change the Code and not for the Planning Commission to constantly be grant10g exceptions. He agreed with Ms. Lewis 10 asking the Commission to go look at the property to see that there is very httle access to the rear unit and very little access to the property. He said the South side of the property dqes not have 11h' setbacks, but more like 1'. Rebuttal David Friedman Mr. Friedman said currently they are providing 30% more open space than is required by the municipal Code and this is a plus for the City. While the walkway is narrow, it is not on hiS property. His neighbor has five apartment units with four parking spaces on a 40' wide lot; this is an existing condition. To penalize his property based on these facts IS not a valid argument. If the house were demohshed and two houses were built, they would be 3' to 31h' from the neighbor. The proposed second story addition will have an average of 7' having 31h' on one side and 111h' on the other. If 2%' were removed from the plans that would take out the shower, the closet and half t~e bathroom. The house is askew on the lot and they are trying to improve the situation, mainta10 the open space and ma10tam the lot's integrity on a property that has existed for many years. More Construction Later Commissioner Dahlman said a potential objectIOn could be that having received the requested Variance and completed this project that the apphcants would come back 10 a few years and do more constructlon. Mr. Friedman said if they were to want to build again they would have to take down the second story unit and down the garage because it's pre-existing and the entlre project would have to be brought into conformity for setbacks. They have no interest 10 do1Og that. Their goal IS to IS to maintain the property as their house. Inhabiting Illegal Unit? Commissioner Brown asked if anyone is currently living in the illegal unit? Mr. Friedman said no, and there has been no one living in that unit since they purchased the house. The garage will be made available for parking cars. There is one tenant over the garage but that is a legal unit. Parking Spaces Chairman Campbell asked who would be us10g what park10g spaces? Mr. Friedman said he and his wife would be usmg the tandem parking. He has a third car which would go 10 the garage. His tenant would also park in the garage. The garage IS accessed off the alley and there is a gate which gives direct access to the upstairs unit. He . . . Page 12 - Cdy of Seal Beacb PlaDnmg ConumSSllIIl Mmutes of Janual)' 17, 1996 added that when they have guests, the guests don't use street parking. They can park three cars across the back of their property in the setbacks. Mr. Friedman said the beauty of the property is Its open space 10 the back yard. He said they were trying to avoid doing what everyone else seems to be doing --- tearing down an old house and building two new ones with no yards. They want to achIeve a property where people will say "What a great property. Why would we ever want to tear thIS down? It's great. It's got a great yard. We can raise kids in it". Chairperson Campbell said the Planning Commission must look ahead and consider what the property may become in the future when It makes decisions. While the applIcant has one tenant now in the one unit, eventually there may be two tenants and that would be two cars. At that point, would both of those cars be parked in the garage? Where would the applIcant's thIrd car be parked? Mr. Friedman replied the carport is being used for three cars now. It's very convenient to use the carport. He indicated that many garages 10 town don't house cars. WIth a carport, you can see it's used for parking. The applIcants have no intention of demolishmg the carport and it won't be touched in the remodel. Number of Bedrooms Commissioner Brown asked staff about the number of bedrooms calculaoon. Mr. Curtls that that calculation doesn't matter at all under a Vanance. That calculatIon falls mto play when you're addmg to a non-conforming property whIch exceeds the denSIty. ThIS property IS under density. All sides having been heard, Chairperson Campbell closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments Continue to Visit Site? Chairperson Campbell asked the Commission if they would lIke to contmue this matter so they may have a chance, mdividually, to see the site? CommiSSIOner Sharp said no. Not a Reasonable Objecoon Commissioner Dahlman said they would not want to violate the Brown Act and should all visit individually. He commented that the letter from Dr. Kantor said the proposed construcoon would block out light, VIew and breeze from his tenants. "I think the light, view, sun and breeze belongs to the Friedman's and not to the Kantor's. I thmk we need to be reasonable. I don't think that's a reasonable objection. It is a valid concern that any new addIoon conform with existing setback regulations and if thIS is to be passed I would want to see Condloon #2 included". 1 . . . PIce 13 - CIty of Seal Beach PIanmng ComnusSIOII Mmutcs of Janual)' 17. 1996 Excessive Construction Costs Commissioner Sharp said that due to the tremendous amount of work requlfed to build the second story inward he would recommend the applicant be allowed to build straight up. He had no objections to anything else. Condition #2 Commissioner Law said she would like to see Condition #2 included. Conformance with Current Municipal Code Commissioner Brown commented that past applicants have never been required to tear down an existing structure on the first floor and never one that existed before the muniCIpal Code was enacted. The main issue is whether the second story should have the required 6' setbacks versus building up from the existing wall. On the one hand, the Commission should require that new structures meet the existing setbacks. But this lot is unusual as it is WIde. The apphcants could have spht the lot and had two houses with 3' setbacks. He felt the CommiSSIOn should want to reward applicants who are not building out to the full density. "I'm not real WIld about not having them go back 6' on the second story but I think that It would be an addItional expense and hardship and I would be in favor of allowing them to just maintain the eXIsting wall and go straight up from the existing wall." But he would also understand If other CommIssIoners wanted to have the 6' setback on the proposed second story. Chairperson Campbell said she agreed with Commissioners Dahlman and Law that the required setbacks must be met on the addItion. ThIS requirement is put in place for everyone and the Commission should not deviate. "Unfortunately when you bought the house you bought the problems that came WIth it. If in a few years the property were sold, and the setbacks had been approved to go straight up from the first floor, then some owner could butld on beyond that " ... and now we've got a real problem". She satd she was thinking in terms of the future. She said she would like to see the setbacks at 6' and yet not incur additional expenses and there seems to be no way around this. Commissioner Dahlman said the expense of moving the first story Into conformIty with the setbacks would be more than what we're proposing. He asked if thIS VarIance could be made to automatically expire should additional expansIOn be proposed on the sIte? Mr. Whittenberg said a Public Hearing would be reqUIred at the PlannIng CommiSSIOn to consider another request for expansion of existing structures that might be proposed In the future. If this Variance were to be granted it would run with the land and would remaIn in existence as long as the structure subject to that Vanance remaIn on the property. Commissioner Brown asked what would happen If they took down the rental unit above the garage? Mr. Whittenberg said the Planning Commission would need to revIew the apphcatlon. . . . "'0 14 - City of Seat Beach PIannmg CoouwSSIOll Mmulc8 of January 17. 1996 Commissioner Brown asked the same questIon about the carport. Mr. Whittenberg said they would need to come before the Planning Commission to dIsmantle the carport and build In the back because they have a legal non-conforming setback, the 3.45' setback on the other side of the property. Require a Covenant Mr. Whittenberg said he and the City Attorney were considering the question of can the Commission make a finding to allow the second story addition to match the lIne of the downstairs area, the 31h' setback, and not have to set it back at 6'? TheIr first recommendation is that they strongly urge the Commission to grant the request for new construction In conformance with the current municipal Code. If the Commission were to consider granting a Variance for the second story addition to match the existing line of the structure, staff felt the CommiSSIOn could make that type of a findIng gIven the circumstances of this property. An addItional conditIon should be included that would require a covenant be placed on the property to maIntain the eXIstIng open space In the rear yard. This would serve as a trade off for allowing the proposed structure to come out to the existing residential building line. That would maIntain the open space in the rear yard as long as the structure would be In existence. Nothing would prohibIt the thud story. Chairperson Campbell noted the property meets the required setbacks on one side, the carport side. Commissioners Sharp and Law briefly discussed the size of rooms in correlation to the setback requirements. Mr. Whittenberg said it's not the purpose of the Planning CommiSSIon to attempt to redesign a house. The CommiSSIOn needs to base its decision on whether It feels prOVIding the 6' setback, as required by Code is the approprIate decision? Or, IS the approprIate decISIon to allow the second story addition to be set at the 3th' setback WIth a covenant to be recorded to maintain the existing open space on the rear of the property? Or to deny the VarIance entIrely the appropriate decision? Staff's standard recommendation to the Planning Commission in the past, when they have dealt with a proposal to modify a structure that was built years ago and doesn't meet today's Code requirements, has never been to tear down portions of the eXIsting structure. ThIS structure was legally permitted when built. Staff's position has been that th~ existIng structure should be allowed to remain but that the additions should, as much as practical, meet current Code requirements. The Covenant Commissioner Brown asked staff to explain how the covenant would work. Mr. Steele explained the covenant would note that the problem of allOWIng the second story to be built on the existing footprint is the proximity to the adjacent property; It creates a tunnel effect on the walkway. If the Planmng Commission feels the large back yard makes up for the . . . PB,e 15 - City of Seal Beach PIanJunB CclmmIS8I011 Mmutes of Jaowuy 17, 1996 problem with the proximity caused by the additIon then the Commission would make its Vanance findings on the condition that it to be built to the eXisting footprint. Plus It would have a condition that the property owner enter mto a covenant restrIcting buIlding on the property to the eXisting footprint so the large back yard is maintained. The covenant would remain in effect as long as the Variance stays in effect; it runs with the land. If the property was sold the Variance and the covenant would remain in effect. Commissioner Brown asked if this covenant could be over-ndden by another Variance? Mr. Steele said he didn't think so. Commissioner Brown suggested the covenant could be wntten to say that as long as the Variance is in place they would have to tear down the entire structure to build on the back. Then the Variance would no longer exist and the new municipal Code requirements would apply. The covenant would be an additional Condition of Approval. He noted that to be fair this covenant is something the CommiSSion IS sprmgmg on the applicant. The applicant should have time to diSCUSS this as it's a slgmficant option which has onginated during Commission discussion tomght. Commissioner Dahlman said that is why he asked the applIcant how he felt about future building. The applicant indicated the covenant would probably be alnght With him and Ius Wife. Commissioner Dahlman said he would be in favor of makmg a Motion to ask the City Attorney and staff to return with a Resolution at the next meeting to mclude Condition of Approval #8 and to include ConditIon of Approval #2 as it appears 10 the staff report. Mr. Steele explained that Condition #2 says the additIOn wIll be built to existing setbacks and wIll move the second wall in. There would then be no reason to have ConditIon #8 If #2 is in place. Commissioner Sharp said there is no reason to require that. He asked Mr. Steele if there were a consensus of the Commission, could they ask the applicant how he feels about If the Commission allowed him to build straight up to put a conditIon on there that he could not build into the open space, until the property is completely demolished and no third story. Mr. Steele said the Chair could re-open the Public Hearing for purposes of talking to the applicant. Commissioner Dahlman said the applicant's statement on that Issue would not apply and he could not be held to it after he sold the property and yet the Variance would remam in force as passed tonight. Chairperson Campbell indicated the Commission is asking for a covenant which would run with the land. The Commission is considering eliminating ConditIon #2, which would require the setbacks on the one side of the house for the second story and replace it with a condition which would allow the applicants to buIld straight up on that side and require that they mamtaIn the back yard as open space; this covenant would run with the land. . . . ....., 16 - City of ScaI Beach PIamung CommI88IOD MlDules of JIIRWIJ')' 17. 1996 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND Dahlman to open the Public Hearing to allow the applicant to respond to the Commission on this covenant only. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Dahlman, Campbell, Law, Brown The Chair called a recess at 9: 15 p.m. to allow the applIcants time to dIscuss thIS issue. The meeting reconvened at 9:22 p.m. Public Hearine Re-Ojlened The Chair said her concern is that this applicant can sell thIS property and a new owner could build into the open space. As the PublIc Hearing has been re-opened, the CommIssIon would like to hear the applicants' concerns on the optIons. The Commission discussed the scope of the PublIc Hearing, WIth the ChaIr feelIng thIS IS a new issue and should include any public testImony versus the maker of the MotIon saying it is a limited Public Hearing. The Chair called for another MotIon to re-open the Public Heanng. There was no Motion. Mr. Steele said he dId not vIew thIS as a new issue, feeling It was a Motion to open the Public Heanng to ask the applicant one question on the covenant. The Chair indicated she dId not want to deny someone the right to speak. Mrs. Friedman said she is heSItant about a covenant because it backs them mto a comer. After their children are grown they may want to move. The covenant may make It dIfficult for them to sell this house. "As much as I would love to go straIght up, because I thmk It'S the right thmg to do for the house and the bedrooms ... a covenant would be an undue hardship for us and for any potential person commg in to buy it. And I would hate to see that on that pIece of land because it's a great pIece of land WIthout thIS thing hanging over it". Commissioner Dahlman said he understood the applIcant to be saymg she didn't lIke eIther Condition #2 or #8 but if she has to live with one of them it WIll be Condition #2. Mr. Friedman agreed and added he hoped the Commission is aware that any buIldmg on the rear half of the lot would also have to come before the Planning Commission. He felt that 10 years to come the land would be worth more than the dwelling units and a future buyer would most likely demolish whatever structures are on the property and buIld two new straIght and narrow houses, like "boxes". He felt the main issue was to use existing footIngs. The Idea of building back over the patio area is not an Issue because that's a roof support that's not a structural footing. They would have to put in footings to buIld 10 the back. liThe covenant IS somethmg we would have grave concern about". . . . PIce 17 - City of Seal Beach Plannlll& Comnu881011 Mmule8 of JanualY 17. 1996 Mr. Curtis added that if the covenant were put in place and someone purchased the property at a later date, nothing about the covenant would preclude the new owner from buildmg two large, box-like houses on the property. Mr. Steele clarified that if someone were to purchase thiS house, the covenant would be m effect and they would not add onto the structure. If they wanted to buIld those two box-like houses nothing would preclude th'at and the covenant would be gone. Commissioner Brown asked if the conditions of the covenant could be changed by a future Variance. Mr. Steele said no. Commissioner Dahlman said he understood the Fnedman's to opt for #2 over #8. The Friedman's agreed. Commissioner Brown asked the Fnedman's If they needed additional time to discuss thiS issue with a real estate attorney'? Mr. Steele suggested the Public Hearing be continued for two weeks and the CommiSSIOn direct staff to come back with an "either/or" resolution. Commissioner Sharp stressed that if a vote IS taken tomght, the Commission will have to make a decision and vote for Condition #2 or ConditIon #8. CommiSSioner Brown said the Commission could vote to leave the "either/or" option m. Commissioner Sharp mdlcated the Commission would not be voting on this. Commissioner Brown said he felt the Commission could vote to say "Either Option #2 or Option #8 and staff would come back With a resolution II. Mr. Steele said the Commission was leaving the final actIon open to the next meeting. He suggested again that if the feeling remains that the option should remain open to allow the Friedman's time to fully think it through, perhaps the Commission could give staff directIon to come back with an "either/or" resolutIon. The final vote would be taken in two weeks. Commissioner Dahlman saId he didn't see the need for this. He felt the applIcants' preference has been determined. There is no reason why the Commission can't pass a motion to say it wIll be Condition #2. If the applicants' want to return in two weeks to say they've changed their mind then they could let Commissioner Brown know and at the time of enacting the resolution the Commission will discuss it and change the resolution to reflect their change. Mr. Steele said if the applicants do want to change their minds, and the Commission does want to hear from them, the Public Hearing would be closed and it would be necessary to re-NotIce to re-open the Public Hearmg again. He suggested leaving the Public Heanng open at this tIme. . .. . Peee 18 - CIty of Seal1Ieach Plannmg ConumsslOII MmuleI of JlIDUAry 17, 1996 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to leave the Public Hearing on Variance 95-5 open to the Planning Commission meeting of February 7, 1996 and that the discussion on this issue be confined to (1) hearing from the applicants and (2) an "either/or" vote on Condition #2 or Condition #8 option. Before the vote, Mr. Friedman asked if the Commission were 10 agreement that Condition #2 or Condition #8 were the only two options, would the Public Hearing need to be re-opened. Mr. Friedman said their first choice is to have no covenant at all. Mr. Steele explained a Public Hearing is necessary for an applicant to give mformation to the Commission. For example, tonight's Public Hearing must remain open If the applicants wish to speak at the next meeting. If this PublIc Heanng were closed, and the applicants wanted to be reheard, the City would have to re-Notice all property owners and residents wlthm 300' of the subject site. Commissioner Brown said he did not like the proposed Motion because It said only Condition #2 or Condition #8 would be considered. He asked if Commissioner Sharp would amend his Motion to simply continue the Public Hearing. Commissioner Sharp speculated that if a vote were taken at this time, the Commission would chose between Condition #2 or Condition #8 and nothing else would be changed or considered. He did not believe the five Planning Commissioners would vote for no covenant. Chairperson Campbell said the purpose of continuing the Public Heanng would be to allow the applicants a couple of weeks to decide what they want, to talk to their architect and attorney. She asked the applicants if they wanted the Commission to settle the matter tonight? The applicants opted to continue the Public Hearing. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Dahlman, Law, Campbell, Brown Mr. Whittenberg indicated the issue has been continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 7th, no additional Notices Will be provided, and the purpose of contInumg the PublIc Hearing is to hear from the applicants only regarding the alternative conditions regardmg the requested setback Variance on the one side of the property. Commissioner Sharp asked If the City Attorney would prepare a covenant and prOVide the applicants with a copy as soon as pOSSible so they have as much time as possible so they may review it. Pace 19 - City of SeaJ Belcb Plannllll Comml881011 Mmutes of JanUllI}' 17. 1996 . 6. Zoning Text Amendment 96-1 Apphcant: CIty of Seal Beach Conflict of Interest Commissioner Dahlman stated he believed he lives within 300' of the properties abutting the Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove Park because he received a Notice on this applicatIOn. He said he felt that the Fair Pohocal Pracoces CommIsSIon (FPP) ruling deprives the residents of the district he represents from due representaoon by their elected and appomted representatIves and he vigorously objects to that ruling. Mr. Steele advised Commissioner Dahlman that, because he hves withm 300' of the affected propemes, the FPP says he has a conflict of mterest and he must announce hIS conflict of interest and abstain from participating in the decision on thIS matter. CommIssioner Dahlman asked to be excused from the remainder of the meeting and asked if he could address this matter from the podium as a member of the public. Mr. Steele said Planning Commissioners are permitted to speak as a private citizen on an issue which directly affects their property. . WIth the permission of the Chair, Commissioner Dahlman was excused from the meeong at 9:42 p.m. Staff Report , Mr. Curtis presented the staff report for ZTA 96-1, a request by the CIty of Seal Beach to consider an amendment to the rear yard setback requirements of the ResIdential Low DensIty zone, District V, to permIt wooden decks to be constructed wIthm the rear yard setback. If approved, the proposed amendment would allow wooden decks up to 10 feet in overall heIght to be built to the rear property line, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use PermIt. The proposed amendment is intended to address rear yard slope along the rear yards of Crestview Avenue, Catalma Avenue and Surf Place. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for reference]. . Mr. Curtis indicated this ZTA came before the Planmng Commission in 1990 in the form of a Variance. A homeowner along Crestview A venue had a home WIth a substantIal slope at the rear of the property and he built a deck without the reqUISIte Budding Department permits. The Planning Department thus began a Code enforcement action. The applIcant was adVIsed of the opportunity to apply for a Variance, to seek legalization of the deck. Dunng the Pubhc Hearings that property owner argued that there are other properties which abut the Hellman Ranch which had similar decks/structures. Based on that testImony, staff conducted a walking survey of the back of the Hellman Ranch and Gum Grove propertIes. Staff found there were six (6) other properties along those streets which had non-permItted decks or patio covers whIch . . . PIle 20 - Cllf of Seal Beach Plannmg ComnUBSIOII MIIIIItcs of Janual)' 17. 1996 were close to the rear and side yard setbacks. ThIS information was presented to the Planmng Commission at that time. Mr. Whittenberg said one letter was received from Alan Shields, 1300 Catalina Avenue, Seal Beach [Attached] lOdicated he would be opposed to the proposed ZTA. Additionally, a telephone from Barry Tone, attorney for the Hellman family, was receIved late this afternoon. Mr. Tone said they would like additional tIme to conSIder thIS matter and how It mayor may not impact any development they may consider 10 the future for the Hellman Ranch property. Mr. Tone requested the Commission receive public testimony thIS evening but then continue the Public Hearing for one month to allow them the additional time to study the Issue and come back to the Commission WIth any questions or recommendations they may have. Measuring Point for Structures Commissioner Sharp questioned the height of the structures and where the measuring point is; it is not stated in the staff report. Staff said thIS will be taken into consideratIon in further discussion. Define Covered Patio Roof Commissioner Brown asked where the defimtion of a covered patIO roof could be found? If you were standing under a wooden deck could you be considered to be standmg under a covered patio roof? Mr. Curtis said yes. Most of the properties would be stretching that possibility because the land underneath the deck is at quite a slope. Mr. Curtis indicated that without stretchmg the point, those homeowners could build a 12' gazebo or patio cover 10 that area up to 5' from the property line. Staffs recommendation is to only include decks and to consider them the same as patio covers or gazebos. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that any applIcation of this nature would have to come before the Planning Commission for review, it's not an over-the-counter approval. Public Hearing Bill Morris * 1722 Crestview Avenue Mr. Morris spoke in favor of ZT A 96-1, to allow the decks to be bUIlt to the rear property line. He asked the Commission to consider a substitute for the 10' height lImIt, saying the intent of the deck is to extend the existing back yard at a flush level back and to gain the area now in slope. However, extending a patio deck flush with eXIstIng yard might put the structure 10' higher than the elevatIon at the rear property lIne. He asked the CommISSIon to allow bUlldmg the decks flush with the yard regardless of what the height mIght be. . . . Plae 21 - CII1 of Seat Beach PlannUl&l ComnuIaIOO MUllItea of JanDaI)' 17, 1996 Ken Myers * 1733 Crestview Avenue Ms. Myers spoke in favor of ZT A 96-1 saying she agreed with the staff report but want It to further to include building decks to the full extent of the property line. She and her husband purchased 1733 Crestview A venue two months ago. Their deck makes their back yard the same level as her grass and cement walkways. She said the person who built her deck did a nice job and the deck can only enhance the property value. She could not see how the decks would 10fringe because the properties currently back to the Gum Grove Park and the Hellman properties. She said the Hellman's have a 15' easement between their property and these properties. The easement would be needed to approach the utilities and more than likely it will remain a greenbelt. She said she had a survey done of her property when they purchased it and theIr deck is on their property, about one foot (1 ') back from their property line. She said having her deck where it is good protection against shdes and soil erosion. If she were forced to cut the deck back it would cost her several thousands of dollars and that would ruin that deck. Commissioner Law asked how deep her lot is? Mr. Curtis said the property averages 145' deep. On the shorter side it measures 135' and on the longer SIde it's 155'. Commissioner Sharp asked Mrs. Myers if, when she purchased the property, she was made aware the City of Seal Beach had a problem WIth the deck? Mrs. Myers SaId absolutely yes. She was told that if there was a problem she would have to accept that but she would have the opportumty to address the Planning Commission and present her case. She said the Planning Department staff made her well aware of theIr concerns and this is not a surpnse to her. She is hoping they can get this approved. Chairperson Campbell asked Mr. Steele about the utility easement at the rear of the propertles, If the utilities are re-routed or placed underground, does the easement dIe with the changes? Mr. Steele said if the unhties are not located anywhere WIthin that easement, then the easement will probably die. He assumed if they were undergrounded that they would be located within the same easement. ChaIrperson Campbell explained her concern was that If the easement were to perish that would encroach on their homes. Mr. Whittenberg SaId he was not certatn there is an easement through that area. If there IS he was not sure on who's property It mIght he --- may be on Hellman's property or it may be split between the Hellman property and the individual homeowners. Staff would have to research that. Commissioner Sharp said the fence, which is located about 10' from those rear property lines, was not put there for an easement. Anton Dahlman * 1724 Crestview Avenue Dr. Dahlman said his home is not affected by thIS ZTA as it's across the street. Dr. Dahlman said this ZT A should be easy to approve as worded 10 the staff report. Several years ago the Planning Commission denied a single Vanance for 1733 CrestvIew A venue because the reason . . . Plge 22 - CIty of Seal Beach PIannuIg Conunl881ClO Mmll1e8 of January 17, 1996 for granting it applied to every property bordering on the Hellman property. Also, an mspection was made of the property hnes at 1733 Crestview A venue and It was found that many of the homes which back to the Hellman property have massive concrete structures built right up to the property line. Enforcing those out of existence would be a major task, if not virtually impossible to accomplish. The eXIsting zoning at 1733 Crestview Avenue is for a mmimum 15' buffer zone but possibly a 30' buffer zone per the Hellman SpecIfic Plan. Mr. Whittenberg said he did not remember the setbacks for the eXIstmg plan which IS m effect. However, it should be noted the Hellman Specific Plan has not be approved by the California Coastal Commission and they indicated it would never be approved by them. So, it's not a plan that could be built. Dr. Dahlman said that of all the plans considered, as proposed by Mola Development Corporation, in the 1980's (plan A, Plan B, Plan B2 etc.) every plan had a buffer zone. It was generally a wide buffer zone of 15' to 30'. There is probably not an issue If the decks were extended to the property line. Damon Swank * 1685 Crestview Avenue Mr. Swank spoke in favor of the ZTA but believed development should be permItted to the rear property line. As a matter of economic reality he believed the property along that strip is not developable. There have been two aggressive developers over the last fifteen years who have tried to develop every square foot of the Hellman property. No one has proposed development along the buffer zone space. Rich Clewle.)' * 945 Catalina A venue Mr. Clewley said his property abuts the Hellman property. Mr. Clewley spoke m opposItIon to any decks exceeding the specific reqUIrements set forth m the City's mUnIcipal Code. A fence on the property line should be no higher than 6'. Mr. Curtis saId a fence on the properties abutting the Hellman property can go to 10' in height on the rear wall and 6' on the side walls maximum. Mr. Clewley said it's not really wide open space in the back of their yards --- there's a chain link fence on the Hellman property. Anyone can see shear faces of decks going up 10' or 12' plus the 42" guard raIl WhICh puts them to 13'6". ThIS would create an inescapable alley back there --- "... a muggers alley II . The cham link fence at 6' would not allow someone to escape from a pursuer and you couldn't go up for help to the neighbors with their high decks and large walls. Once a deck is out there it could be enclosed which could become a Mother-in-Law suite at the property line. The homeless people who walk in from Long Beach would love these decks as a form of shelter. "You could have an encampment back there with literally hundred of people livmg under these decks II . He felt It's a totally inappropriate use of the property and a pubhc safety hazard. He suggested that terracmg would be much more attractive result. He said he has seen, m the past, existing sun decks being used . . . Plco 23 - Cd;y of SeaJ Beach PIannmg ComnuSSlon MlIlutes of January 17. 1996 to Justify further expansion. Additionally, the high decks are dangerous as someone could fall over and have a long drop. He was against granting mdlscnminate Vanances as It could lead to corroding of the building codes. He said the matter should be referred to a safety committee for further study. With no further speakers the Chair closed the Public Heanng. Commission Comments MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to continue the Public Hearing on Zoning Text Amendment 96-1 to the Planning Commission meeting of February 21, 1996 to allow the Hellman property owners to comment on this issue as requested by the Hellman's. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSTAIN: 4-0-1 Brown, Sharp, Campbell, Law Dahlman Mr. Whittenberg indicated no further Notices Will be prOVided. The ZTA will be discussed on February 21st. At that time the Planning Commission mayor may not make a deciSIOn. STAFF CONCKRNS There were no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS There were no Commission concerns. Chairperson Campbell asked if anyone was working on getting the Brown Act unconstituuonal? Mr. Whittenberg said not anyone from the City of Seal Beach. Commissioner Dahlman Said they have been looking at getting exemptions from the Brown Act when it would be appropriate to do so because Seal Beach is a small town. It's a geographically large town but m terms of population this is a small town no larger than Signal Hill; Signal Hill has an exemption. Commissioner Sharp said Leisure World IS in the process of getung ready to butld a new medical center in the middle of the complex. He was sure questions Will be raised about thiS building and it would be a shame to have to have a three-member Planmng Commission make a decision without either of the Leisure World representatives bemg able to vote on the matter. Their share of stock is one issue when the actual residences are more than 300' away from the project site. . . . ....e 24 - C1ly of Sellllcacb PlaDnmg Comnll881011 MmUle8 of J801181)' 17. 1996 ADJOURNMEN]: Chairperson Campbell adjourned the meeting at 10:17 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~o~~ Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary APPROVAL: The Planning Commission Minutes of January 17, 1996 were approved on February 3=-, 1996. ~