Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1998-03-04 . . e . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA for MARCH 4, 1998 7:30 P.M. * City Council Chambers 211 Eighth street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 Next Resolution: 98-02 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL m. AGENDA APPROVAL By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to: (a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda; (b) Re-arrange 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 is removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 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 the Planning Commission may undertake no action or discussion 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 a specific item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of January 21, 1998. VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS The city of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours In advance of the meeting. Thank you. City of Seal Beach Planning Commission * Agenda of March 4, 1998 . VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permit 98-3 Address: Business: Applicant: 2201 Seal Beach Boulevard Rockwell International Cali J. Nordquist Request: To amend a planned sign program for the Boeing facility which would permit an additional sign on Building 80. The proposed sign, a Boeing emblem with an area of 161 sf, is proposed to be located on the south wall of the building at the same level as the existing "Boeing" sign located on the east wall. Recommendation: Approve CUP 98-3 through the adoption of Resolution No. 98-_. 3. Conditional Use Permit 98-1 & Variance 98-1 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: 116 Main Street Brent Sears, Architect Bob and Jackie Wood Request: To vary from the maximum height requirement by in conjunction with a remodel and exterior renovation of a mixed-use building. The applicant is proposing a major exterior rehab to include: 1\ a Enclosure of the front stairs. a New balconies at the third and fourth floors. a Interior remodel of the fourth floor unit a Addition of a car lift. a A second level storage within an existing tandem garage. a Addition of a new 194-sf greenhouse at the third floor level. The existing fourth floor roof is approximately 2' lower in the middle of the structure than it is on both ends. The applicant seeks to raise the lower portion to match the remainder of the roof, Recommendation: Approval of the CUP. Pleasure of the Commission on the Variance. This should be through the adoption of Resolution No. 98-_. 2 . The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Thankyou. City of Seal Beach Planning Commission * Agenda of March 4, 1998 4. Conditional Use Pennit 98-2, Variance 98-2 and Height Variation 98-1 . Address: Applicant: Property OWners: Request: Recommendation: , VIII. STAFF CONCERNS 250 Ocean Avenue Brent Sears, Architect Jim and Judy Watson To vary from the side yard setback requirement in conjunction with a major remodel to a nonconforming single family residence. The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing substandard first floor side-yard setback for the proposed second floor addition. The proposed project includes the addition of a new second floor (2,755 sf) and an Interior remodel of the existing first floor and basement levels which would include a 251-sf addition to the first floor. The applicant is seeking to construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in excess of the 25' height limit. The proposed CRAS would exceed the height limit by 4W. Approve the CUP and Height Variation. Deny the Variance. This should be through the adoption of Resolution No. 98-_. Restaurants With New Owners: lJ 1310 Pacific Coast Highway * Thai Pan/Pietro's Restaurant lJ 12161 Seal Beach Boulevard * Champs Restaurant lJ 16281 Pacific Coast Highway * Taco Surf Restaurant IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS X. ADJOURNMENT . 3 The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours In advance of the meeting. Thankyou. # City of Seal Beach Planning Commission * Agenda of March 4, 1998 . NOT SCHEDULED: MAR 17 APR 08 APR 22 MAY 06 MAY 20 JUN 10 JUN 23 JUL 08 JUL 22 AUG 05 VAR 93-1 . AUG19 SEP 09 SEP 23 OCT 06 OCT 20 NOV 04 NOV 18 DEC 09 DEC 23 . 1998 AGENDA FORECAST CUP 97-1 Yucatan Grill @ 12147 SBB Plan Review 98-2 for 221 Central Ave. Review Municipal Code/Commercial Uses Bixby proposal. 212 MAIN ($7300 final in-lieu pmt) 4 The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Thankyou. e - . .' City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Minutes of March 4, 1998 Chainnan Brown called the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers. The meeting began with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chainnan Brown Commissioners Yost, Hood, Law, Larson Also Present: Deoartment of Develooment Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Craig steele, Assistant City Attorney Barry Curtis, Associate Planner Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Yost to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Hood, Yost, Law, Larson, Brown ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Yost to approve the Consent Calendar as presented: 1. Planning Commission Minutes of January 21, 1998.1 MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Hood, Yost, Law, Larson, Brown SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no Scheduled Matters. 1 There were no February Planning Commission Minutes as both meetings were canceled. City of Seal Beach Planning Commission - Minutes of March 4, 1998 PUBLIC HEARINGS - 2. Conditional Use Permit 98-3 2201 Seal Beach Boulevard * Boeing Staff Reoort Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for inspection). The request was to amend a planned sign program for the Boeing facility to permit an additional sign on Building 80. The proposed sign, a Boeing emblem with an area of 161 square feet, was proposed to be located on the south wall of the building at the same level as the existing Boeing sign located on the east wall. Commission Questions to Staff The Commission did not have questions. Public Hearina A representative from the sign company was present in the audience but he declined to speak. No one wished to speak for or against this application and the Chair closed the Public Hearing. Commission Deliberations MOTION by Yost; SECOND by Hood to approve Resolution No. 98-3, thus approving Conditional Use Pennit 98-3, subject to the three (3) Conditions of Approval as set forth in the staff report. e MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Yost, Hood, Brown, Larson, Law Mr. Steele advised the Planning Commission's action is final tonight, the ten calendar-day appeal period to the City Council begins to run tomorrow. 3. Conditional Use Pennit 98-1 Variance 98-4 116 Main Street Staff Reoort Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for inspection). The request was to vary from the allowable maximum building height in conjunction with a remodel and exterior renovation of a mixed-use building on Main Street. The applicant proposed a major exterior rehab to include enclosure of the front stairs, new balconies at the third and fourth floors, interior remodel of the fourth floor unit, addition of a car lift, a second level storage within an existing tandem garage and addition of a new 194 square foot greenhouse at the third floor level. The existing fourth floor roof is approximately 2' lower in the middle of the structure than it is on both ends. The applicant was seeking to raise the lowest portion to match the remainder of the roof. - Mr. Curtis presented the applicant and the Commission with four (4) conditions from the Public Works/Engineering Department. The conditions were (1) to remove the existing street tree; (2) to plant at least two street trees and metal grates. The trees must be selected from the City's list of approved trees; (3) to repair/replace the curb and gutter in front of 116 and 118 Main Street; and (4) to replace the existing sidewalk with new sidewalk, including the installation of brick pavers in 2 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission - Minutes of March 4, 1998 e front of both 116 and 118 Main Street. These improvements are in keeping with the Main Street Specific Plan improvements that are going on at Main Street. Mr. Curtis explained that staff could not make the required findings to support the requested Variance. staff could not find property-related circumstances which deprive this property of the rights enjoyed by other properties in the Main Street Specific Plan zone. This building is already 10' higher than other properties in this zone. Staff conclude this is an aesthetic improvement to have the roof of the building uniform. One argument could be made that this isn't a request for a Variance, but a request to make the roof height uniform. Staff recommended approval of the CUP but recommended denial of the Variance. The City received no oral or written comments about this proposal. Commission Questions to Staff Tandem Garaae & Hvdraullc Auto Lift The Commission asked for clarification on the tandem parking space and the placement of the hydraulic auto lift in that garage. Mr. Curtis explained the garage would be entered at side of the building. The property is 75' wide and there's about 20' - 25' to turn into the garage. The applicant would like to double-deck the garage. Staff is recommending the Commission consider putting the lift at the rear of the structure to allow unimpeded use of the front, primary parking space. One parking space is always available in front of the car lift. Regarding residential parking requirements, the requirement Is two covered spaces per unit. The fact these are all studio apartments makes no difference. e Fourth Floor Heiaht The Commission asked what varied, the floor of the fourth story or the roofline? Mr. Curtis said they both vary. Storace Soace The Commission asked how the storage space was accessed? Mr. Curtis said it is currently through the lift. A person could enter the storage space with or without a car on the lift. Amortizina Leaal Non-Conforminc Prooerties Commissioner Larson noted this property is non-conforming because (1) it's being used for residential purposes in violation of the zoning ordinance and (2) because of height limits. He asked if there anything in the zoning ordinance mandating a time limit for the legal non- conforming use to expire? Mr. Whittenberg said no, and explained the City's zoning code allows legal non-conforming residential uses to remain and actually be expanded within certain limits. Most of the non- conformities for residential structures in a residential zone are setback or density issues. At the time this property was built, it was allowable to have residential uses on Main Street; that was changed a number of years ago. There are potential applications to consider building new residences above existing retail areas. Staff will be coming back to both the City Council and the Planning Commission with that issue for consideration. Public Works Conditions Chairman Brown focused on the Public Works conditions, which he read for the public. He asked why the City would want the existing street tree removed? e 3 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission - Minutes of March 4, 1998 It Mr. Whittenberg explained the majority of Main Street's street trees are ficus trees and clarified the destructive nature of this species. The Main Street Specific Plan has provisions to fill in the areas not having trees and discusses the eventual removal of the ficus trees with a more compatible tree. The long-term thinking is that as the new trees are planted and mature, the ficus trees will be removed and replaced. Chairman Brown took exception, saying the Main Street Specific Plan does not say ficus trees will be removed. It says the tree issue shall be looked at and recommends a Tree Advisory Committee. Mr. Whittenberg said that committee recommended the ficus trees be removed. Chairman Brown said it's not actually a problem with the ficus trees but with the way they were planted. He noted Beverly Hills has mature ficus trees and they have managed to control any problems. Mr. Whittenberg said the ficus tree in question does have a problem. It's thirty or forty years old and its roots are causing major damage. Solving the root problems would destroy the tree. If a new ficus tree were planted, root barriers would be used. The root barriers would force the roots to grown downward, rather than spread horizontally across the sidewalk area. He said there are numerous locations on Main Street where the sidewalk is buckled from tree root systems. Chairman Brown asked what type trees would replace thirty-year old trees? Staff said the Tree Advisory Committee has selected approximately seven different trees that would be acceptable for replacement trees on Main Street. The City Engineer would have final authority and the tree size would be in keeping to the trees planted on Central Avenue by Walt's Wharf. e Commissioner Yost explained the new tree choices are designed to be canopy trees, which provide the same sort of feel to Main Street but with a less aggressive root system. They would not create hazards for the City in terms of the sidewalks and continued maintenance and expense to the City. Chairman Brown asked what mechanism would ensure replacement trees are planted? He complained that throughout the City trees have been removed and no replacement trees have been planted. Mr. Whittenberg said no building permits would be finaled until the Public Works conditions are met. Commissioner Law said that if the ficus tree is not removed and a new sidewalk is put in, soon the new sidewalk will be damaged. There is no use to repair sidewalks until you get to the root of the problem. Chairman Brown suggested a good arborist could trim the tree in question and solve the sidewalk problems. He suggested the root of the problem might be "the City's quick chain saw... ". Public Hearina Brent Sears. Architect * 203 Amonne. #210. Lona Beach Mr. Sears said he was just handed the Public Works' conditions tonight. He is not too concerned about the tree issue but was wondering what size tree will be required. Mr. Whittenberg said he thought they might want 24" or 36" box trees. e 4 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission - Minutes of March 4, 1998 - Mr. Sears said this is the largest building in Seal Beach. It's unique in that there are residential units in the building and it fronts Main Street. Regarding parking, Mr. Sears explained Bob and Jackie Wood are moving into a building that was purchased by his parents in 1967. Bob Wood's hobby is his racing car which he wants to work on it while it's elevated by the hydraulic lift. Bob Wood wants the lift in the front of the parking area because it would be easier to access. Two cars can be parked tandem-style under this lift and you can drive through the lift's legs as the area is 12'6" wide. Regarding the greenhouse, growing orchids is Mrs. Wood's hobby. Mr. Sears explained this would be a greenhouse, not living space. There will be access from the building into the greenhouse. There will be hose bibs but no bathroom facilities.. Regarding balconies, a discrepancy was noted in the staff report. A balcony is being requested at the second floor level. Each residential level will have balconies. It is shown on the drawings submitted with the application and he submitted a sketch to the Commission. There is some question whether they want the second floor balcony to extend out to the side yard because there's a liquor store next door. He described their thinking on what they might want. He asked that the staff report include there is a balcony at that level. Regarding the top floor, Mr. Sears explained the space rearrangement to take advantage of the view but to minimize the noise from Main Street. Because the building is already 40'2" at the highest point they want to raise center of the roof to match what exists at both ends. Their goal is to have the interior space all one level. -- In summary, Mr. Sears said his client's want to clean up the building; they don't like the way it looks now. The building has been non-conforming for many years. This proposal will not add square footage, thus increasing the non-conformity. The proposal involves reworking the entire exterior - stucco, railings, glasswork, windows, doors, the storefront of the existing retail space, the walks down the side-yards, the stairway will be enclosed at the ground floor to control access. They will install a door with an intercom and motion detector lights to discourage pub patrons from using the side yard. This will make the area safer and better looking. Generally they are in agreement with the staff report and its conclusions. They would like to see Condition #8 re relocating the car lift removed. The Commission asked about ventilation in the storage area. Mr. Whittenberg said some ventilation for that area is required but it doesn't have to be done by windows because it's not a habitable area. Commissioner Yost asked if they had considered lowering the building height --- as it's already the tallest building being 10' over what is part of the Main Street Specific Plan? They could lower the ends to meet the middle to achieve their goal of uniformity. Commissioner Yost applauded the upgrade, but noted he would have to have a reason to make the roof taller than it already is. Commissioner Law asked about the 8' interior ceilings and what they would be if the floor were lowered? Mr. Sears the ceilings are now 8' but the clients want 10' ceilings. They have not discussed lowering the roof because they are trying to get volume in the building. They would consider a compromise position of lowering the 40' portion by l' and raising the 38' part, creating a uniform level of 39'. Chairman Brown said the plans show a staircase to the roof deck. e 5 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission - Minutes of March 4, 1998 e Mr. Sears explained the building code requires a staircase to the roof in a four-story building. There Is an existing staircase to the roof now which opens with a skylight and a roof hatch. This would be removed and relocated. There will be no roof deck. Bob Wood. Prooertv Owner Mr. Wood clarified that the roof elevation at the back is over the elevator. This cannot be lowered because the area is required for the elevator's mechanism. Mr. Curtis said the elevator covering is slightly higher than the front of the building. It's a very small area, not the whole roof. Approximately a 4'x 6' area. There were no other persons wishing to speak in favor of this application. The following person spoke against the application: Rea Clewlev * Catalina Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. Clewley opposed this application on grounds it would lead to incrementally eliminating height limits In the City. He said this would not be sustainable development and favored bringing this building into conformity. Rebuttal * Brent Sears Mr. Sears said this building has been here since 1967. The Variance process was set up for unique properties such as this. This client didn't cause the non-conformity and is trying to clean up the property. e Regarding the Variance findings, Chairman Brown asked Mr. Sears what are the special circumstances for this property? Mr. Sears said the building Is outdated. They are asking to blend the structure; it's already 40'. They are not going taller. The special circumstances are that the front and the back already exist in a unique construction. Perhaps they could consider cutting the building down 1'. He admitted the location and topography are not unique. Commissioner Yost asked if the building height could be lowered at each end to meet the middle, thus bringing it closer to conformity? Mr. Sears said it could be done at added cost. They just got hit with re-doing the curbs, gutters and sidewalks. The Chair closed the Public Hearing. Commission Deliberation Commissioner Yost said there's a lot that's great about this project and enumerated things he liked about the project. He stated his concern was the height of the building is 40' and it's the tallest building in the area. If a compromise to lower the building could be struck, allowing the applicant to achieve his desired result, that would be good. Additionally, he wanted a restriction placed on the greenhouse to ensure it was not used for human habitation. Commissioner Law said 10' ceilings are nice but not necessary. She agreed with Commissioner Yost, lowering the building would be good. She didn't like the idea of evening the building out at 39'. Commissioner Hood said he supported the staff reports and its recommendations. e 6 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission - Minutes of March 4, 1998 It Chairman Brown said the Planning Commission is not a design review committee. He would like to see applicants not bring Variances before the Planning Commission if/when they know the application is going to be turned down because the State-mandated findings can't be met. He said there is no way to find special circumstances for this application. The law won't allow the Planning Commission to approve this Variance, as it would be a granting a special privilege. Regarding the new conditions set forth by the Public Works Department they have shown just how good they are at removing fully mature trees but Chairman Brown hasn't been impressed at how well they've done at replanting trees. He felt they should have to prove they have ability to replace missing street trees before the Commission allows them to remove fully mature trees. Regarding replacing curb and gutter, that's City property. Mr. Whittenberg explained these Public Works conditions are placed on other projects when something needs repair or replacement. Every city in Califomia uses conditions like these. These conditions are authorized by the City code and would be placed on this applicant when they apply for permits. Planning Department staff requested them from the Public Works Department to advise this applicant ahead of time. Chairman Brown asked if the curbs and gutters are the property of the homeowner? Mr. Curtis said no, they are owned by the City. Ownership varies by street. For example, on Ocean Avenue the City property extends 4' beyond the back of the sidewalk toward the homes. The City right-of-way there is 1S' wide from the face of the curb back toward the homes. The City owns the right-of-way, it's not an easement. On Main Street, the property line is the back of the sidewalk. - Commissioner Larson said this building is special because of its size and shape. He didn't see the Commission meeting the Variance findings by lowering it l' and yet leaving it 9' above the limit. He said he was most concemed about the tree being cut down and would vote to retain the present tree. Commissioner Yost said the long-term costs of leaving the ficus tree and replacing the sidewalks over and over outweigh the costs of removing the ficus. Planting a tree that offers the same canopy, the same feel; the same general character to Main Street but at the same time lowers the long-term costs and liability to the City. Every time a tree buckles a sidewalk and somebody trips and falls - that's a liability to the City. Mr. Steele said the Public Works conditions presented tonight are really here for the applicant's convenience. To let the applicant and everybody else know what conditions are going to be imposed on the totality of the project. He advised the Commission not to act on the theory that if they delete the condition regarding tree removal that the tree will be there forever. If that tree poses a liability problem by buckling the sidewalk, the Public Works Director will likely order the tree removed, regardless of what you do on this permit. Chairman Brown said the Commission understands that but it is also letting the Public Works Department know that they are being carefully watched on this issue. "They have done some things in the past that I've taken issue with publicly. And I'll continue to do so. I think they need help in that department - professional help". MOTION by Yost; SECOND by Hood to re-open the Public Hearing. MOTION CARRIED: Unanimous by consent. e Brent Sears Regarding the height issue, If they did not ask to raise the roof for the lower third, there would be no discussion of a Variance for the height. The building could be left as it is and they would deal with ceilings and floor issues from the inside. His thought was that it may be to the Commission's 7 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission - Minutes of March 4, 1998 - pleasure to lower it a foot and then level the roof. But if that's not the case, then nothing has been accomplished. Chairman Brown said he didn't think that could be done. Mr. Steele said he didn't think that raising and/or lowering the roof would change the Variance issue. It doesn't change the fact that we're granting a Variance by making special circumstances findings. He reminded the Commission that when they're looking at the special circumstances issues for a Variance, the Improvements on a property are not relevant to whether there are special circumstances. It's the property itself that you look to find out whether or not there's a uniqueness. The Chair closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Yost to approve Resolution No. 98-3, thus denying Variance 98-1, to vary from the maximum height limit in conjunction with the remodel of a mixed-use building at 116 Main Street. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Hood, Yost, Brown, Law, Larson MOTION by Yost; SECOND by Hood to approve Resolution No. 98-4, thus approving Conditional Use Permit 98-1, allowing a major remodel/addition to a non-conforming mixed use structure at 116 Main Street. This is to include the removal of optional Condition #8 regarding the hydraulic car lift. e MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Hood, Yost, Brown, Law, Larson Staff will bring back appropriate resolutions at the March 18, 1998 meeting for Commission review and approval. 4. Conditional Use Permit 98-2 Variance 98-2 Height Variation 98-1 250 Ocean Avenue Staff Reoort Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for inspection]. The applicant, Brent Sears, represented property owners Jim and Judy Watson. The Variance application requested approval to vary from the side yard setback requirement in conjunction with the major remodel. The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing substandard first floor side-yard setback for the proposed second floor addition. Staff recommended limited approval of the Variance, to allow a 10% setback on the stub-street side as opposed to the normally required 15% setback. - The Conditional Use Permit application requested approval for the addition of a new second floor of 2,755 square feet plus an interior remodel of the existing first floor and basement which is to include a 251 square foot addition to the first floor. Staff recommended approval of the CUP, subject to the eight conditions outlined in the staff report with Condition #3 being amended to 8 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission - Minutes of March 4, 1998 e indicate the staircase down from the exercise room be an interior staircase and be fully integrated with the remainder of the dwelling. The Height Variation application requested approval to construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in excess ofthe 25' height limit by 4%'. Staff recommended approval of the Height Variation as proposed. Staff provided recommended findings and conditions for each of the three requests. Resolutions were not provided but will be provided at the next meeting based on the actions the Commission takes tonight. Staff has not received any comments or letters regarding this application. Commission Questions to Staff Chairman Brown asked what was the reason for the 15% versus the 10% side yard setback? Mr. Curtis said the setback calculation considers the bulk of the building in relation to the street itself, to allow for a wider streetscape and visual clearance. It's particularly required in the Old Town area due to the street layouts and aesthetics. Chairman Brown stated some of the stub streets are functioning streets and have garages off them. e Mr. Curtis said all the stub streets are on the Gold Coast side of Ocean Avenue. One or two Ocean Avenue homes have garage entrances off the stub streets. A very limited number of properties actually abut the closed stub streets, a maximum of 12 properties. The City has already granted two Variances from side yard setbacks for properties that abut a stub street. Staff feels it would be in keeping with those to proceed this way. It would be a reasonable alternative to have a ZTA to address that. Chairman Brown said a ZTA would be preferable to granting a Variance on every property as they come up. Public Hearina Brent Sears * 203 Araonne. Lona Beach Mr. Sears explained he is the architect representing his client and property owners, Jim and Judy Watson. Regarding the stairway, Mr. Sears explained that inadvertently the wrong first floor plan got blueprinted and included in the packet. That is why there is confusion about the exercise room stairway. It is an interior stairway. He presented a xerox sheet of the correct floor plan to the Commissioners. He felt condition #3 would be non-essential. Regarding the CRAS, Mr. Sears said it conforms in size and height to what was previously approved. This CRAS is 2%' lower than the allowable l' building height. Regarding the setbacks, Mr. Sears said this is the major issue. This building doesn't have one wall that parallels a property line. e He hypothetically walked around the building describing setbacks and other problems. On the beach side, because the two property lines are not the same lengths, he is not really asking for a Variance on that side. What the staff report does not mention, is there's an existing encroachment that they will remove. It sticks out 2' into the vacated alley. They are hoping this has some mitigating effect on the other issues they want. This is only on the second floor, not the first floor. The Gold Coast Architectural Committee was told of this encroachment and the plans to remove it; they approved these plans as submitted to them. The Third Street side is the worst 9 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission - Minutes of March 4, 1998 -- with the setback being way out of whack. It is special in that it is a vacated street. They have 25' of street, approximately 2.5' on their side. There is 30' between buildings. "It's kind of special. There are seven streets down there. So, it's not something that occurs all over the City". Also on that side are existing bay windows that project even closer, even onto, the property line. He told Mr. Watson these would have to be removed. A 7.5' setback on this side would be nearly impossible. It brings a building line directly above an existing kitchen and living room where they are no walls, no means of supporting a new wall. He explained the existing house was not built correctly, not being square to any property line and this is a special circumstance. Their willingness to remove other non-conformities is a special circumstance. He didn't think It would be in conflict with the General Plan and he didn't think it would be granting a special privilege to grant this request. Commissioner Yost asked if the Architectural Committee had any concerns or questions with this application? Mr. Sears said no. Jim Watson Mr. Watson said the Architectural Committee said they were interested in having the front encroachment on the beach side cut back. They were willing to do this. Not mentioned, was that at 350 Ocean, the property having a Variance for less than 10%, a good portion of that building is already sitting on the property line on the street. It's not in the 10%. The entire length of the building is setting on the street property line. There were no persons wishing to speak further in favor of this application. The following persons spoke against the application: e Jim and Judv Whallens * 311 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. and Mrs. Whallens explained they live across the street from 250 Ocean Avenue. This application would affect their view of the ocean, which is over the top of the Watson's house. The Watson's already have a great view of the beach from their first floor and will have another wonderful view of the beach from the new second floor. But to exceed the height limitation for the CRAS to enhance that view is unnecessary and would interfere with their view. The Commission and staff discussed the CRAS, Its location and from what point heights are measured. Mr. Sears said the highest point of the roof is approximately 7' above the ridgeline of the existing roof, about 24.6' from the driveway. not counting the CRAS. The CRAS is as small as he can make it around a circular stairway. Rebuttal Mr. Watson said he Is willing to give up the CRAS to assist his neighbors if the Planning Commission would allow him to keep his side yard and follow the existing walls. While he would like to keep the CRAS, feeling it had architectural benefits, it was not as important as other issues. He agreed the proposed CRAS would cut into the Whallens' view. Chairman Brown said that traditionally the Commission has allowed CRAS and "traditionally we haven't been concerned with other peoples views ... once we got into view issues it was just a big mess" but every house he knew that had a roof deck it was the most under-utilized part of the property. There were no other persons wishing to speak and the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. e 10 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission - Minutes of March 4, 1998 . Commission 'oeliberations Commissioner Larson said he got lost in the discussion of numbers and figures for the last half- hour. Staff said there are three problems and he had hoped the architect could speak about those problems without all the measurements. Mr. Whittenberg explained the Variance request is to allow the second story addition (on the Third Street and opposite street side) to encroach into the required setback areas. On the Third Street side the required setback is 7W and they are proposing to build at 2'Yz'. On the interior property line the garage is set back about 3' from the side property line and the house, having a court yard in between, is setback 4' and our Code requires a 5' setback for both those areas. They are asking for a 2' encroachment above the garage and above the house a l' encroachment. The house was built sometime In the 1940's, long before the current development standards were established for that area. Staff did not go back to find the standards for the 1940's but staffs best guess is, given the way the house is built, they probably had a minimum 3' setback and they missed the setback on one side by 6". Staff is not sure of this. The structure was probably confonning when it was built but the City has revised its standards to where the structure now doesn't meet the requirements. Staff does not see a way to approve the requested Variance they're asking for. But, given the City has approved a modification of this, staff is suggesting a 5' Variance on the street side (not the 7'Yz) which splits the difference. On the other side staff is suggesting the 5' standard be met, which would involve moving the garage addition back 2' over the existing wall and on the house side back 1'. Commissioner Larson said he was trying to figure what, in this case, would not be completely inconsistent with the last vote the Commission took. In that case the Commission said there was a big problem with the house but that didn't count. -- Mr. Whittenberg said staff sees there is a difference in this case because the street setback is a standard setback requirement for all street side property lines. The Third Street area is not a public roadway in the general sense of the tenn. It's still owned by the City but there are impediments In the street to prohibit vehicular access into the area. That's why the City has granted Variances for other structures on similar streets. It may be necessary for a Code amendment to be done to allow for a different setback on the stub streets. Chainnan Brown said he agreed it is hard to be hard to be consistent and not vote against a Variance for the same reasons on the other property. He could see giving up the 15% and going for the 10% and a 5' setback on the Third Street side. But he felt this would be better accomplished through a ZTA rather than individual Variances as they come up. At 206 Ocean rather than grant a Variance on the roof overhang the Commission changed the zone text. Chainnan Brown asked about selling Mr. Watson part of the stub street. Mr. Whittenberg said that under the current definition, as long as a portion of it remains a public street, you still have the same setback requirement. He was not sure the City would want to give up that right-of-way. Chainnan Brown asked if consideration is given to landscaping those streets and making them walkways? Mr. Whittenberg said that could be a City desire, to make those more of a pedestrian entrance to the beach. Staff feels the Commission can make a justified finding to approve the 10% setback on the Third Street side as opposed to the required 15%. Mr. Curtis said 22' are needed for a fire lane. - Chainnan Brown said it's a question of faimess and of having a level playing field. To houses that were built with the required 15% setback it would be unfair to say .You could have gotten the 11 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission - Minutes of March 4, 1998 - extra 2' if you had asked for it through the Variance processD. However, he was not disagreeing that 10% makes more sense than 15%. Traditionally the City has not asked people to take down existing structures to bring them Into conformity when they remodeled. But there have been several Instances where people have built second stories to meet the setback requirements. Most recently was the Friedman's property on 6th Street. He also felt it was unfair to the property owners to have architects draw up plans with the expectation of a Variance. To spend money for something that the Commission has not or will not grant. A ZTA versus individual Variances would be better and more consistent. Commissioner Law said the front of the house is already there and she couldn't see bringing all the second floor walls in to meet the setbacks. Mr. Curtis said one house has been permitted to encroach on the setbacks because that 1905 house had local historical value. Changing the setback would have destroyed the house itself. Commissioner Yost agreed with the ZTA process, saying it was reasonable. The stub streets do create a special circumstance and it's reasonable to change the setback from 15% to 10%. The Commission does have to be consistent but to be fair; the Commission must require the setback at 10%. It's generous of Mr. Watson to cut out the CRAS for his neighbor's view. Those have traditionally been allowed. Since it has been a precedent to require new setbacks to meet the current setbacks this proposed structure should do the same. Commissioner Hood asked what the time line would be on a ZTA? e Chairman Brown said the ZTA on the Johnson's property took two months. If a Variance were granted tonight, followed by a ZTA the ZTA would eliminate the Variance. The Commission discussed how to proceed and considered the applicant's time line. MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Law to approve Height Variation 98-1 subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in the staff report. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Hood, Law, Larson, Brown, Yost MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Yost to approve Conditional Use Permit 98-2, subject to the Conditions of Approval set forth in the staff report with the deletion of Condition #3. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Hood, Law, Larson, Brown, Yost MOTION by Law; SECOND by Yost to approve Variance 98-2 with a 10% setback on both sides of the property. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Hood, Law, Larson, Brown, Yost Staff will return. at the March 18, 1998 meeting with resolutions on this vote. MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Yost to instruct staff to prepare a Zoning Text Amendment on the issue of side-yard setbacks along stub streets in the Gold Coast area of Ocean Avenue. It MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood, Law, Larson, Brown, Yost 12 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission - Minutes of March 4, 1998 - STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg Indicated that staff included in the Agenda packet several memos noting changes in ownership to restaurants subject to CUPs. Additionally, staff provided the Commission with an American Planning Association article regarding recent court decisions on Mola v. City of Seal Beach. COMMISSION CONCERNS 222 Main Street Commissioner Hood requested a status on the payment of in-lieu parking fees. Mr. Whittenberg said discussions are on-going with Howard Brief. Staff anticipates this to be on the March 18th or April 8th Commission agenda. Beach Sand Commissioner Law asked who pays for the sand being put on the beach? Mr. Whittenberg said the taxpayers pay for it. Hellman Ranch Commissioner Yost said letters in favor of the Hellman project proposal are needed. They should be sent to the California Coastal Commission before their April hearings. e ADJOURNMENT The Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: "----- Joan Fillmann Executive Secretary Planning Department WVAL: These minutes were approved by the Planning Commission on March 18, 1998. . 13