Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1996-02-07 CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION . AGENDA of FEBRUARY 7,1996 7:30 P.M. * City Councll Chambers 211 Eighth Street. Seal Beach. CA Next Resolution: #96-2 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ll. ROLL CALL ID. ~ROVALOFAGEmM By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the tlme 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 PlanOlng CommissIOn, staff, or public to request an Item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. IV. ORAL COMMUNlCATlO~S 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. V. CONSENT CALEmlAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routlne and are enacted by one motlon 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 17, 1996. . 2. Receive and FIle: Bolsa Chica EIR - Provision of "Opposition of Real Party in Interest, Koll Real Estate Group, to Petltioner's Points and . . . Authorities in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate" and "Reply Memorandum in Support of Peremptory Write of Mandate" . 3. Minor Plan Review #96-1 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: 123 11th Street Bina Cyman Bina Cyman Request: To construct a 246 square foot patIo cover in the rear yard of a non-conforming smgle family dwelling at 123 11 th Street. VI. PUBLIC HEAIUN.GS 4. Variance 95-5 [Continued from 1-17-96] Address: Applicants: Property Owners: 225 Sixth Street, Seal Beach David and Ellen Friedman David and Ellen Friedman Request: To vary from the required side yard setback requirements m 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 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 Planmng CommiSSIOn. VIII. S1' AFF CONCEQN.S 5. Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment regarding side yard setbacks abutting a side alley in District I, Residential High DenSIty zone. The CIty of Seal Beach compbes WIth the Amencans WIth Dlsabtlltles Act of 1990. If you need assIstance to attend thIS meebng, please telephone the CIty Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours m advance of the meetmg. . . . ....e 3 - City of Seal Be8cb PIaunmg CamoussKIII Agenda for Februuy 7, 1996 IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS x. ~ The City of Seal Beach complIes WIth the Amencans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend thiS meetIng, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours In advance of the meetIng Plac 4 - CtlJ of Seal Beach l'IIoomg CclmouIsIOD Agenda for Fcbl'llllY 7. 1996 . 1996 AGENDA FORECAST FED 21 . . Main St. Specific Plan Zoning Text Amendment 96-1IWooden Decks In Rear Yard Setback [Continued from 1117/96] MAR 06 MAR 20 . . Review Jack-in-the-Box ZTA 95-1IBanner Ordinance [Continued from 1117/96] APR 03 APR 17 . . CUP 94-8/327 Main/Nip 'n Stuff @ 6 mos. CUP 95-111013 PCH/Pietro's @ 12 mos.lhours. MA Y 08 MAY 22 . CUP 92-11909 Ocean/EI Burrito 12 mos. ABC [Changed ownership 1196] JUN 05 ruN 19 JUL 03 . JUL 17 AUG 07 AUG 21 SEP 04 SEP 18 OCT 09 OCT 23 NOV 06 NOV 20 DEC 04 DEe 18 . CUP 94-11600 MarinalRadisson 12 mos. ABC . CUP 94-8/327 Main/Nip 'n Stuff 6 mos. 2nd review . The City of Seal Beach complIes WIth the Amencans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend thiS meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours In advance of the meeting . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 7, 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: De.partment of Development Services: Lee Whittenberg, Director Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Barry Curtis, Administrative ASSistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary AG~A APPROVAL Commissioner Brown requested separate consideration of the Mmutes. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the Agenda with the Minutes to be considered separately. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Sharp; Dahlman, Law, Campbell, Brown ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bill Reiman * 612 Southshore Dr.. Seal Beach Mr. Reiman stated he has an arbor in his front yard which does not meet the City's setback requirements. He asked for the Planmng Commission to amend the City's municipal Code to exclude plant supportmg structures from setback requirements. Mr. Whittenberg adVised the CommissIOn can not take direct action on this request tomght but it can direct staff to present a report at the March 6th Commission meeting outlming the eXisting setback requirements and the rationale behind them. The Commission could then consider thiS and the matter could be scheduled for a Zone Text Amendment (ZT A) if considered appropnate. Staff will withhold any Code enforcement on Mr. Reiman's structure untIl the March 6th meeting. . . . Pace 2 - Clly or Seal Beach l'Ianolag Commission Minutes or February 7, 1996 MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Law to schedule consideration of plant supporting structure setback exemptions on March 6, 1996. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp; Dahlman, Law, Campbell, Brown MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Campbell to approve the following items on the Consent Calendar and to consider the Minutes of January 17, 1996 separately: 2. Receive and File: Bolsa Chica EIR - Provision of "Opposition of Real Party in Interest, Koll Real Estate Group, to Petitioner's Points and Authorities in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandate" and "Reply Memorandum in Support of Peremptory Writ of Mandate" . 3. Minor Plan Review #96-1 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: 123 11th Street Bina Cyman Bina Cyman Request: To construct a 246 square foot patio cover in the rear yard of a non-conforming single family dwelling at 123 11th Street. Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 96-2, approving Minor Plan Review 96-1 subject to conditions. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Sharp; Dahlman, Law, Campbell, Brown The Planning Commission next considered the Mmutes of January 17th. 1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of January 17, 1996 The Commission indicated the followmg changes should be made: Page 4, line 32: Page 4, line 42: Page 5, line 8: Delete "because her". Change "that" to "than". Add "facetiously" before quote. . . . Pace 3 - City 01 Seal Beach l'Ianalag Commission Minutes 01 February 7.1996 Page 15, line 20: Page 18, hne 20: Change "he" to "him II . Delete "He felt a straw vote would give the applicants their first chOlce" . MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Campbell to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of January 17, 1996 as amended. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Campbell, Sharp, Law, Brown Mr. Steele indicated the Commission's action on item #3, Minor Plan Review 96-1, included action on Resolution No. 96-2 which wIll make this action final tonight and start the ten calendar-day appeal period. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Variance 95-5 [Continued from 1-17-96] Address: Applicants: Property Owners: 225 Sixth Street, Seal Beach David and Ellen Friedman David and Ellen Friedman 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 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). The Chair opened the Pubhc Hearing which had been continued from January 17, 1996. It was noted the Pubhc Hearing was re-opened specifically to allow only the applicants orne to review the proposed covenant and to inform the CommissIon whether or not they would accept It. The public was advised no additional pubhc testimony would be taken. If accepted, the covenant would allow the proposed second story addItion to match the lIne of the exisong structure. If the covenant was not acceptable, the Planning Commission would reqUIre the proposed second story addition to meet the six foot required setback. Mr. Curtis said staff provided the proposed Covenant to the applicants. He added that two proposed Resolutions had been provided in tonIght's Commission packet. . . . ....e 4. City or Seal BeadJ P1anolog Commission Minutes or February 7, 1996 Mr. Steele indicated three letters had been receIved and copies have been provIded to the Commission. Mr. Friedman Mr. Friedman and his wife declined to accept the proposed covenant. They felt it was not in their best interest to have the restnction placed on the property. WhIle they plan on lIvmg on the property for a long time, if sold the covenant would follow the property. Chairperson Campbell said the Commission would then adopt Resolution II A II or Resolution No. 96-3. Noting a typographical error at page 4, SectIOn 3, the ChaIr asked staff to correct II ... one person spoke in opposition and two people spake wrote m opposition II . The Chair closed the PublIc Heanng. Commission Comments Commissioner Dahlman referenced the correspondence provided to the Planning CommiSSIon: Letter from MIchelle Brendel, dated February 6, 1996, 5 pages. Letter from MIchelle Brendel, dated February 7, 1996, 2 pages. Letter from Marvm Kantor, dated January 30, 1996, 1 page. Mr. Whittenberg said these letters were receIved after the January 17th Planning Commission meeting and the Commission had not seen them. As they were received after the initIal Public Hearing was closed for receipt of additional public comments, they are technically on the Record as being documents relating to the zone Variance request. These letters will be maIntaIned m the case fIle. Commissioner Dahlman, referenced the Brendel letter of February 6th: 1. Tandem parking IS not allowed to count to satisfy the parking requirement. This has been repeated over and over at plannmg commission meetmgs. He asked staff to explain to what extent this Is/is not true and how it applIes in this case. Mr. Whittenberg explained the City's reqUIrements for tandem parkmg have changed over the years. For example, there were many years m whIch tandem parkmg was not allowed. In the 1970's there was a short tIme period m which tandem parkmg was allowed by nght. Further, m the late 1970's the mUnIcipal Code changed to not allow tandem parkmg by nght. Therefore, parking regulations do depend on what tIme period a sIte was developed in. Commissioner Dahlman said he mterpreted the regulations on modIficatIons to non-conformmg structures to include limited reference to tandem parkmg which allowed tandem parking to qualify under an easier sItuation. . . . PBge 5 - CIly of Seal Beaeh Planning ComlDlSSlon Minutell or February 7, 1996 Mr. Curtis explained several portions of the non-conformmg ordmance reference tandem parking and say that on properties where it can not physically be provided, existing tandem parkIng is legal to satIsfy parking requirements. Commissioner Dahlman said he was not taking into account any questIon of economic hardship. He felt the Commission exists to handle land use issues. Mr. Steele pointed out that the case law on Variances is very clear that every hardship that can justify a Variance is at some level an economic hardship. The statement that an economic hardship is not grounds for a Vanance is not true. Staff has told the Commission many tImes that the Commission considers land use issues and not economic issues, but that arises m the context of policy discussions. For example, IS this a good economic use for the City, will the City derive tax dollars? Commissioner Dahlman would be correct m this sense. But, It should be made clear that at some level you can always pay enough money to ehminate the hardship. Therefore, it is not true that economic hardships are not relevant. Chairperson Campbell read the title of the Resolution and noted the Commission IS not permitting a Variance from the reqUired Side yard setbacks. I Mr. Whittenberg explained that the Commission IS grantmg a Variance for the side and rear yard setbacks for the existIng structure. In order to grant an additIOn to the eXlstmg structure the Commission needs to approve a formal Variance for those eXisting structures to be located within the current Side yard setback requirements. Once you add to the structure you need a Variance. If the Commission did not grant a Variance, the only way the applicants could add to the structure would be to move the existmg structure to meet the current setback requirements. Commissioner Brown saId he has received several comments on this Issue and felt there IS a lot of misunderstanding among the public as to what's bemg done. He restated what is happenmg. The existing first story is 31h' from the property hne on the North side and It should be 6' because the lot is,60' wide and the setback requirement IS 10% of 60'. The CommissIOn is not asking the applicant move the first story back 21/2'. The CommissIOn IS requiring that all new construction conform to the 6' required setback. The Vanance acknowledges the existence of a garage containing an illegal living unit in it. Under this apphcation the Illegal umt will be removed/reconstructed into a functioning garage. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Law to approve Resolution No. 96-3, thus approving Variance 95-5, requiring all new construction to comply with current setback requirements. Before the vote, Commissioner Sharp restated what the CommiSSion was votIng on. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Law, Sharp, Brown, Campbell . . . ....e It - City or Seal Beacb l'Ianolog ComlDlSSlon Minutes or February 7. 1996 Mr. Whittenberg said there is a ten calendar-day appeal period wIthm which an appeal may be filed to the City Council. The time clock will begin tomorrow morning. STAFF CONCERNS s. Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment regarding side yard setbacks abutting a side alley in District I, Residential High Density zone. Mr. Curtis said Ericksen Construcoon Company brought this Issue to staffs attention. The current CIty Code requires a 4' sIde yard setback for a site abutting an alley on the sIde. The garage itself can be moved out to 3' from the side property hne to allow the full garage width. For similar properties that abut a side street (mstead of a side alley) they have a 15 % lot width requirement for the side yard; most lots are 25'. ThIS equates to a 3'9" setback on the side. The Ericksen's asserted that for 20 years plus (1970's to 1991) most of the houses bUIlt abutong a side alley were treated for the same side yard setback requirement as for a property abutting a side street; the 3'9" mstead of the 4' setback. The Encksen's questioned what's the dIfference between the two properties and why a property with a side alley must have a greater sIde setback than a property abutting a side street. Staff didn't have a distinct answer to that. The greater setbacks are for aesthetic reasons, particularly along streets and for hne-of-sIght safety reasons. When abutting an alley, the line of sIght extra setback does not accomphsh much because the garage is allowed to sock out l' further than the rest of the house. Staff could not find a good explanation as to why the two were different and staff IS bnnging thiS before the CommissIon for consideraoon of a ZT A to consider amendmg the Code so the two setbacks coincide. ThiS issue involves Old Town only. Staff would like Commission direcoon. Commissioner Dahlman said he had no objection to forwarding this matter to the CIty Council as long as there is a reason to do so. He noted staff mdicates there are a couple of apphcaoons per year that this issue is raIsed. With a consensus of the Planning Commission to proceed, staff will forward this matter to the City Council for concurrence prior to scheduling Public Hearings on a ZT A. CommIssioner Dahlman indIcated he preferred to operate on this baSIS versus granting two Variances per year. Next Meetine Director Whittenberg mdicated that the February 21, 1996 Plannmg Commission meeong wIll be a very long meeong. The Commission will hold Pubhc Hearmgs to consider: Banner Ordmance (continued) Setback Provisions Along the Hellman Ranch for Detached Accessory Structures (continued) . Page 7 . City or Se8I Beach Planning ColDlD1ssion Minutes of FebMlBry 7, 1996 Main Street Specific Plan Limiting Height for All Structures 10 Old Town to Two Stories. Staff will deliver the Main Street Specific Plan staff reports prior to the packet as it w1l1 be a lengthy report. COMMISSION COlS'~ERNS FPPC Unconstitutional Chairperson Campbell said she was not joking at the last meeting when she asked If anyone was doing anything to get the Brown Act declared unconstitutional? She noted Commissioner Dahlman's comment that the City of Signal Hill has been granted an exemptIon. . Mr. Steele explained that the Chair was correctly referring to the Political Reform Act and not the Brown Act in regard to conflict of interest concerns. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) allows a small Junsdlction exemptIon to the Pohucal Reform Act. It provides for any city which is less than one (1) square mile in area and less than a population of 25,000, the 300' and 1000' distance provisions regard10g conflict of interest provisions do not apply. The City of Seal Beach does not fit under either criteria as Seal Beach has a 27,000+ population. Commissioner Dahlman said Leisure World may be short 3,000 residents in their census count. Mr. Steele Said thiS is a very bright lzne rule, It'S very exact. The FPPC has never shown any real interest in chang10g the rule or making it more lement. He felt the State legislature is not interested 10 mak10g changes. Commissioner Dahlman disagreed, saying he had written to State Senator Johnson. The Senator appears interested. Chairperson Campbell expressed frustration that the people who are most concerned with Issues in their community are prevented from vot1Og due to the FPPC rule. Commissioner Sharp asked the Chair how close her home was to the Bixby proJect? Mr. Steele said she is more than 1000' because an appraisal was made when Bixby's project came to the City. Commissioner Sharp said every resident 10 Leisure World must have a share of stock and it doesn't matter where a Leisure World reSident would hve as the FPPC can claim It's a conflict of interest. The Chair said this IS not right. Mr. Steele said that under the current law we're forced to ask the FPPC to grant an exemption on a case-by-case basis. The problem with thiS is that untIl there's an actual case we can't ask for their advice. The FPPC w1l1 not give general adVice Commissioner Law noted that by the time an Issue presents Itself It'S too late to get FPPC . permission/exemption. Mr. Steele Said if a formal apphcatIon IS submitted which looks as . . I. ~ Page 8 - City or Seal Beadll'Ianwnc Commission Minutes or February 7, 1'96 though it will come before the Planning Commission, staff WIll ask the FPPC for advIce so there's enough time to get the FPPC's answer In wnting. Under the system the FPPC has established this is the best that can be done. The Chair jokingly remarked that the United States started a revolutlon over non-representatlon. Mr. Steele said the Political Reform Act was a voter-enacted initiatlve. The legIslature cannot repeal the legislation, that would take a popular vote. )rn-OPEN ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Whittenberg indIcated two indIviduals came into the meetlng after the close of the Oral Communications period and they would I1ke to address the Commission. The Chair re-opened Oral Communicatlons. Joe DiMento * Coastline Drive. Seal Beach Mr. DiMento complained the charbroiling odors from Burger King are impairing his home and way of life. The odors engulf his yard and intenor of his home. There is no let up on the stench, it's a daily matter. Mr. Curtis said staff has initiated a Code enforcement actlon against Burger KIng. Initially staff met with the owner of Burger King and he felt he could handle the problem in-house. He thought what was wrong was that they were cooking too many hamburgers at once and over- taxing their hood system and too much smoke was coming out. They were gOIng to stagger their cooking to slow things down. Staff was going to allow him to try this awhIle and monitor the complaints. Staff spoke to Mr. DiMento yesterday after one month's time and the conditions are the same. Staff will now have Southern CalIfornia Air Quality Management DIStrict (SCAQMD) inspect the site with staff. The next step, if It is a violation of their codes, would be to require Burger King to replace or fix their hood. Staff WIll keep Mr. DIMento appraised of what actions are being taken and find a resolutlon. The Chair advised Mr. DiMento to keep in touch with staff In 30 to 45 days. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Campbell adjourned the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~o..- ~~,.... Joan Flllmann Recording Secretary APPROVAL: The Planning CommiSSIOn MInutes of February 7, 1996 were approved on February 21, 1996.~