HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2002-11-06
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for November 6, 2002
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Ellery Deaton
Dlstnct 2 - Jim Sharp
Dlstnct 3 - Gordon Shanks
Dlstnct 4 - David Hood
District 5 - Phil Ladner
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
[J
City Hall office hours are 7.00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m Monday through Thursday and
Friday 8:00 a.m to 4:00 p.m. Closed noon to 1 :00 p.m.
[J
The City of Seal Beach complies with the Amencans with Disabilities Act. If you
need assistance to attend this meeting please telephone the City Clerk's Office at
least 48 hours In advance of the meeting (562) 431-2527.
[J
Planning CommiSSion meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m
[J
Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
[J Copies of staff reports and/or written materials on each agenda Item are on file In
the Department of Development Services and City libraries for public Inspection
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
The following is a brief explanation of the Planning Commission agenda
structure:
AGENDA APPROVAL: The Planning Commission may wish to change the order of the
Items on the agenda
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, only
on Items not on tOnight's agenda, may do so during this time penod. No action can be
taken by the Planning Commission on these communications on this date, unless
agendlzed.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Public Hearings allow citizens the opportunity to speak in
favor of or against agendlzed items. More detailed information is found in the actual
agenda attached. If you have documents to distribute, you should have enough copies
for all Planning Commissioners, City staff and the public. Please give one to the
secretary for the City files. The documents become part of the public record and will not
be returned.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar Items are considered routine items that
normally do not require separate consideration. The Planning CommiSSion may make
one motion for approval of all the items listed on the Consent Calendar.
SCHEDULED MATTERS: These items are considered by the Planning Commission
separately and require separate motions. These transactions are considered
administrative and public testimony IS not heard.
STAFF CONCERNS: Updates and reports from the Director of Development Services
(Planning and BUilding Departments) are presented for Information to the Planning
CommiSSion and the public.
COMMISSION CONCERNS: Items of concern are presented by the Planning
Commissioners and discussed with staff.
All /Jroceedinas are recorded.
2
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for November 6, 2002
7:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II ROLL CALL
III 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 Plannrng Commission regarding any Items
within the subject matter JUriSdiction of the Plannrng Commission, provided that the Plannrng
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 Plannrng Commission, staff, or the public requests a specific
Item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action
1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 23, 2002
VI SCHEDULED MATTERS
VII PUBLIC HEARINGS
2 Conditional Use Permit 02-15
226 Fourth Street
AppllcanVOwner
Request
Brent A Sears / Bob & Kathy West
To perform a major addition/remodel to a nonconforming Single-family
dwelling The property IS nonconforming due to density There are now
2 unrts on the property and Inadequate parking, Inadequate parking, and,
Inadequate setback for a legal nonconforming garage The proposal
Includes the addition of approximately 60 square feet to the front unrt and
907 5 square feet as a new second floor addition to the front unrt on the
property No changes are proposed to the garage and rear liVing unrt
above the garage
Recommendation
Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 02-39
3
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of November 6, 2002
3 Conditional Use Permit 02-16
Height Vanatlon 02-5
1210 Electnc Avenue
Applicant/Owner
Request
Recommendation
VIII STAFF CONCERNS
IX COMMISSION CONCERNS
X ADJOURNMENT
Seta Ghazanan
To perform a major addition/remodel and construct a covered roof
access structure to a nonconforming 4-unlt reSidential structure The
property IS nonconforming due to density, parking, and setbacks There
are now 4 units on the property, and 2 are permitted Inadequate
parking - there are 4 parking spaces provided and 8 parking spaces
would be reqUIred for 4 living unIts on a lot Setbacks - the reqUIred
front yard setback IS 12 feet and the eXisting structure IS set back 7 5
feet The required rear yard setback IS 9 feet and the eXisting structure
IS set back 7 feet The proposal Includes the addltron of approximately
140 square feet as a new first floor addition and the construction of a
1,752 square foot second floor addition No changes are proposed to
Units A, S, or C, or to the eXisting garage parking areas
To construct a non-habitable architectural feature In excess of the
25-foot height limit Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a
covered roof access structure to exceed the height limit by 7 feet Seven
feet IS the maximum height vanatlon permitted
Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution Nos 02-40
and 02-41
4
~
.
.
.
CIty of Seal Beach Planmng CommIssIon · Agenda of November 6, 2002
Nav 20
Dee 04
Dee 18
TO BE SCHEDULED:
o
o
o
Study Session
Staff Report
Study Session
2002 Aaenda Forecast
Grading Policies, Retaining Walls & Environmental Review of Projects
Permitted Uses and Development Standards In Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Undergroundlng of Utilities
ADA Handicapped-Accessible Restrooms
5
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.44
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of November 6, 2002
Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 6, 2002. The meeting
was held In the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Hood, Commissioners Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
Also
Present: Deoartment of Develooment Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
Absent. None.
AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION by Shanks, SECOND by Ladner to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Hood opened oral communications.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed oral
communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 23, 2002.
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting
1
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of November 6, 2002
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Deaton, Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
SCHEDULED MATTERS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Conditional Use Permit 02-15
226 Fourth Street
Applicant/Owner'
Request"
Brent A. Sears / Bob & Kathy West
To perform a major addition/remodel to a nonconforming
single-family dwelling. The property is nonconforming
due to density. There are now 2 units on the property
and inadequate parking; inadequate parking; and,
inadequate setback for a legal nonconforming garage.
The proposal includes the addition of approximately 60
square feet to the front Unit and 907.5 square feet as a
new second floor addition to the front unit on the
property. No changes are proposed to the garage and
rear living Unit above the garage.
Recommendation:
Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of
Resolution 02-39
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
stated that the applicant proposes to remodel the front entry, and create a front
porch enclosure, remodel the Interior of the structure and move the existing
bedrooms upstairs to the new second floor, add a fireplace/entertainment alcove at
the rear of the structure, and add a new Interior stairwell for access to the new
second floor. He noted that in addition to the 907.5 square foot second floor a 68
square foot second floor balcony IS also proposed. He explained that the number of
bedrooms would remain the same, but the applicant is proposing to add one full
bathroom and a half-bath. He cited the Code provisions that allow major structural
2
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of November 6, 2002
alterations, enlargements, and expansions to this type of non-conforming structure,
provided the requirements of the chapter are met excluding density, parking, and the
required setback areas. He stated that this application meets all of the criteria and
the Interior of the garage also meets all current code provisions. He said that
although the property is nonconforming due to parking, there are two legal parking
spaces located on the site. He indicated that Staff reviews such applications to
determine whether there is any potential to add new parking on the site, and in this
case there is no possibility of this being done. Staff recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit 02-15 subject to conditions.
For the record, Mr. Cummins reported that a letter in opposition to this application
was received from Mr. Corder Wattenbarger. (Letter IS on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.)
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Deaton asked historically what the process has been for
determination on these types of applications. Mr. Cummins reported that historically
the Planning CommiSSion (PC) has reviewed a few such applications on an annual
basis and has approved most of those that met the provisions of City Code.
Commissioner Deaton asked If City Council (CC) has provided any direction as to
how they would like to move as far as density is concerned. Mr. Cummins stated
that around 1990 CC had downzoned the density standard to its current standard.
He said that In the zone for 226 Fourth Street, one housing unit is allowed for each
2,178 square feet of lot area. He noted that he did not know if the provisions to add
to legal non-conforming structures were added in 1990, but the interpretation has
always been that If a property meets the criteria of the addition/enlargement to non-
conforming residential structures section, that the policy was to allow the
addition/enlargement subject to review by the PC on an individual basis.
Commissioner Deaton confirmed that the City has not set a policy of attempting to
downzone and bring non-conforming properties into a conforming state. Mr.
Cummins stated that City Code allows these types of additions subject to PC
approval and the policy has always been to evaluate them on an individual basis,
and typically they have been approved.
Chairperson Hood stated that the PC must ensure that it does not give any piece of
property a right that others do not have. He asked the Associate Planner to address
the Issue of the uniqueness of the lots within the City; Old Town in particular, and
whether or not it is possible to create a blanket provision for them all. Mr. Cummins
explained that there is quite a variety of lot types in Old Town and the reason CC set
the policies as they are is so that the PC can look at each application on an
individual basis, rather than attempting to create a blanket policy. He noted that
some lots are non-conforming due only to parking while others are non-conforming
due to density, but will have a tandem garage. Chairperson Hood noted that the PC
would not be giving special privilege in any particular area since each lot was fairly
unique. Mr Cummins agreed and noted that the PC has in the past approved a
3
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of November 6, 2002
number of these types of applications. Chairperson Hood asked the Associate
Planner to describe the types of determinations made by the PC in the past and the
types of additions and remodeling that are allowed, in general. He also asked what
would warrant having to demolish a non-conforming structure in order to construct a
new conforming structure. Mr. Cummins stated that the City has always taken the
position that additions to existing non-conforming buildings are allowable subject to
the provIsions, but the City has never allowed an applicant to completely tear down a
structure and reconstruct it in a non-conforming state. Chairperson Hood confirmed
that when a non-conforming structure is demolished, it must be reconstructed to
meet all current code requirements. Mr. Cummins confirmed that this was correct.
Chairperson Hood then confirmed that if a non-conforming structure IS merely
remodeled, It is allowed to remain a non-conforming building. Mr. Cummins stated
that subject to provisions, this would be correct
Commissioner Deaton commented that what concerns her is that the PC is
establishing its own precedent and precedent has been set before, therefore, the PC
must be careful with this. Chairperson Hood interjected that the PC must also take
care that it adheres to the precedents that have been established.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Brent Sears, architect for this project, stated that this project is a fairly clean one.
He explained that the structure was formerly part of Navy housing constructed
around 1944. He stated that the current home is a 3-bedroom house that measures
less than 1,000 square feet. He descnbed the design for the new upstairs
bedrooms, bathrooms, and the new stairwell. He indicated that with his design he
has attempted to break up the flat street fac;ade of the current home design and
make it more attractive. He stated that the lot coverage allowance for this lot is 75
percent and the remodeled home will cover only 46 percent of the lot. Mr. Sears
then presented a petition signed by surrounding neighbors indicating their support
for the project.
Mrs. Geri West spoke in opposition to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 02-15 She
said that the intent of the ordinances enacted in 1969 that increased the garage
requirement to 2 cars per unit was done to retain the residential character of Old
Town and mitigate the parking problem. She stated that the intent of the legislation
was to discourage the upgrading of existing non-conforming structures so that as
their economic life expired, new conforming structures would replace them. Mrs.
West noted that the PC IS compounding the density and parking problems by
allowing these structures to be remodeled. She referred to the property at 1210
Electric Avenue noting that it was one of the many structures that was allowed to be
constructed under the old garage requirement during the moratorium penod pnor to
the new ordinances taking effect She recommended that to help the City balance
the budget the Department of Development Services should be eliminated. She
4
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002
commented 'Why bother to make rules and regulations" when anyone could get
what they want by just gOing to the Department of Development Services and have
them find a way to give them what they want no matter what policy decision were
made In the past. She stated that if CUP 02-15 and CUP 02-16 are approved she
may appeal the decisions, and if this proves unsuccessful, she may follow with a
court action.
Mr. Corder Wattenbarger spoke In Opposition to CUP 02-15. He stated that he is the
owner of 215 Fourth Street and lived there for approximately ten years. He said that
during that time there were a lot of changes, one of which is the construction of a
large apartment complex on the property behind his home. He said that the
residents do not use the complex garages but park on the street creating a serious
parking problem. He stated that he is very concerned about the increased density
and parking.
Mr. Brent Sears noted that the rear unit at 226 Fourth Street is a small Unit
measuring 560 square feet and is occupied by the applicant's son. He stated that
the applicants also intend to live In the small unit while the front unit is being
remodeled. He remarked that he is a resident of Belmont Shore, which also has a
parking problem. He again noted that this was a small project and would not create
a serious increase in density. He recommended approval of CUP 02-15.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Sharp stated that there are very few conforming properties in Old
Town so the PC has had to deal with a lot of different situations. He noted that one
of the main criteria that the PC has followed is that if there is no increase in the
number of bedrooms or kitchens and the remodeled portion is constructed to meet
Code requirements, then the application was usually approved. He stated that he
sees nothing in this application to persuade him to deny this request.
Commissioner Shanks stated that he could not see that thiS project would have any
affect on parking. He noted that from a PC standpoint, when this Unit is complete it
will be almost identical to the Unit right next to it. He said that the PC would like to
see these units end up With two parking spaces for these size lots. He commented
that when many of the older structures In town are demolished they are replaced by
huge 3,500 square foot homes with much greater lot coverage than this project. He
noted that many of these new homes are not as attractive as this project design. He
said he could see no Justification to deny this request.
Commissioner Ladner noted that it was stated that no further new parking would be
required for this project He also stated that he sees no reason to deny this request.
5
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of November 6, 2002
Commissioner Deaton stated that she believes this project will make a nice addition
to the area. She agreed with Commissioner Shanks' perspective that the City is
looking like a "cookie cutter town" with the way that every single new house IS
coming up looking like all the other new homes. She noted that she lives on Fourth
Street and is very aware of the parking problem. She stated that next door to her
home is a non-conforming property with three bedroom units downstairs and
upstairs and usually occupants will share rents creating the need for parking for six
cars for each unit. She emphasized that this project is a very nice one that will
enhance the area. Commissioner Deaton asked that the petition presented earlier
be entered into the record.
Mr. Cummins informed Commissioner Deaton that if she lives within 500 feet of the
proposed project, she would need to abstain from voting on this item
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve Conditional Use Permit 02-15,
subject to conditions, and approve Resolution 02-39.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
4-0-1
Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
Deaton
Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 02-39 begins a 10-day
calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
2. Conditional Use Permit 02-16
Height Variation 02-5
1210 Electnc Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request"
Seta Ghazarian
To perform a major addition/remodel and construct a
covered roof access structure to a nonconforming 4-unit
residential structure. The property is nonconforming due
to density, parking, and setbacks. There are now 4 units
on the property, and 2 are permitted. Inadequate parking
- there are 4 parking spaces provided and 8 parking
spaces would be required for 4 living Units on a lot.
Setbacks - the required front yard setback IS 12 feet and
the existing structure is set back 7.5 feet The required
rear yard setback is 9 feet and the existing structure is
set back 7 feet. The proposal includes the addition of
approximately 140 square feet as a new first floor
addition and the construction of a 1,752 square foot
6
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of November 6, 2002
second floor addition. No changes are proposed to Units
A, B, or C, or to the existing garage parking areas.
To construct a non-habitable architectural feature in
excess of the 25-foot height limit Specifically, the
applicant proposes to construct a covered roof access
structure to exceed the height limit by 7 feet. Seven feet
IS the maximum height variation permitted
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of
Resolution Nos. 02-40 and 02-41
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report IS on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
stated that the applicant is proposing to move the bedrooms from downstairs to the
new upstairs addition and to add a new stairwell to access the second floor. Unlike
CUP 02-15, the number of bedrooms for this project will actually be reduced from
three to two. He explained that the new home would have one large great room on
the first floor. With regard to the setbacks, the Associate Planner stated that all of
the new construction on this property will be in conformance with current City Code
requirements, and none of the existing setbacks will be decreased. He again noted
that Section 28-2407 of the Code is applicable, specifically Provisions 3 and 4. He
stated that the PC could look at this case Individually to determine if this expansion
is appropriate. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 01-16,
subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 02-41.
With regard to Height Variation (HV) 02-5, Mr. Cummins reviewed the criteria to be
considered by the PC when making a determination on an application for a HV as
listed on Pages 6 and 7 of the Staff Report. He reported that the proposed Covered
Roof Access Structure (CRAS) does not meet the standards as established by the
City Council approved Policy Statement for CRAS, so Staff has proposed a condition
that mandates that the overall length of the CRAS be reduced to meet these
standards. Mr. Cummins then stated that Staff recommends approval of HV 02-5
and adoption of Resolution 02-40 with one additional condition. He explained that
as Staff has reviewed the plans they noted that a portion of the 7 foot height appears
to be just roofing structure and can be reduced from 3 feet to 1 foot in height based
upon the pitch of the roof and stili have a roof area. He said that it would be
appropriate for the PC to require that this roofing be reduced so that the overall
height of the structure IS 30 feet instead of 32.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Deaton asked if CRAS have previously been approved on rental
properties. Mr. Cummins reported that the PC has approved CRAS on duplex type
7
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommIssIon
Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002
properties, but off hand he could not think of any other properties with more than 2
units for which a CRAS was approved.
Public Heanno
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dan Hill, representative for the applicant, provided an overview of the proposed
changes to the structure and reported that the applicant was in agreement with the
reduction in the length of the CRAS. He stated that the floor plan for this project was
designed with the intent to be in compliance with current City Code provisions. He
said that the project will enhance the surrounding area and recommended approval
of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 02-16 and Height Variation (HV) 02-5.
Ms. Terry Mavis stated that she is strongly opposed to approval of CUP 02-16 and
HV 02-5 because the absentee landlord for this property provides inadequate
parking for the tenants. She noted that In order to be compliance with City Code, the
landlord must provide 4 more parking spaces. She said the additional square
footage Will exacerbate the poor parking conditions and the second floor will obscure
her current view of the greenbelt and sigmficantly diminish the value of her property,
while invading her privacy and obscuring the access to sunlight on that street. She
noted that the proposed CRAS would exceed the height limit and affect the
aesthetics of the neighborhood. She recommended denial of CUP 01-16 and HV
02-5.
Mr. Roger West spoke in opposition of CUP 02-16. He reported that in 1969 the
owner of the property was allowed to construct 3 apartments on "this sliver of
property." He stated that thiS corner is already severely congested and tenants often
come across the greenbelt and park in front of his home because there is no parking
at 1210 Electric. He said this is unfair to long-term residents who have sacrificed to
keep the town livable. He noted that when he first purchased the property at 1201
Electric, he could have constructed 9 units on that lot. He said it was downzoned to
6 and then to 3 units, and he accepted this for the sake of saving Seal Beach. He
said that now new residents want to go back to the old standards creating even
more congestion.
Ms. Geri West stated that the purpose of her presence tonight was to oppose CUP
02-16 and HV 02-5. She noted that she lives across the street and will have to look
at this project for the rest of her life.
Mr. Warren Morton, spoke in opposition to CUP 02-16 and HV 02-5 and stated that
the previous property approvals as noted in the Staff Report are not relevant to this
case. He commented that an automobile is always parked across the driveway that
leads to the two-car garage at 1210 Electric Avenue and allows for no parking
access to the garage. He strongly recommended demal of this application.
8
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of November 6. 2002
Mr. Cummins reported for the record that Staff had received three separate letters,
all in opposition to CUP 02-16 and HV 02-5.
Mr. Dan HIli stated that many of the properties In Old Town are non-conforming and
he noted the disparities between the requirements for the current City Code as
compared to what the standards were when this home was first constructed. He
Indicated that the owner proposes to occupy the remodeled residence and will not
be renting or leasing it out.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Deaton stated that discretion is needed in this case, as the current
structure is an apartment building with improper setbacks, which contributes to this
being an enormous bUilding. She said that to take this building and add almost
1,800 square feet, even though the number of bedrooms would be decreased, would
make a continued eyesore of a structure that already presents a poor appearance.
She stated that it would be preferable to have the landlord on site and noted that
when she drove by the property this evening, the automobile Mr. Morton referred to
is still parked across the driveway, blocking the two-car garage. She said that she
would not vote in favor of this particular project. She urged the PC to use discretion
and deny this request.
Commissioner Sharp noted that when a bedroom is eliminated, a car is also
eliminated. He stated that the applicant IS not requesting anything that the PC has
not granted in the past and he does not see any way that the application could be
denied.
Commissioner Shanks stated that unless City Council sets up other standards, the
PC has very little option but to allow this request. He noted that he wished that
when presenting their proJects, applicants would not attempt to ask for everything
they can possibly get, but rather be more considerate of their adjoining neighbors
and what they will have to live with. He commented that unfortunately the public
assumes that the PC can arbitrarily cancel their approvals when the precedent has
already been set. He stated that currently the property does not give a nice
appearance and the renovations would help improve this.
Commissioner Deaton asked Mr. Abbe what the discretion of the PC is in granting
CUPs. She noted that the differences between the property at 226 Fourth Street
and this application are huge. She commented that the property at 1210 Electnc is
already overbuilt. Mr. Abbe stated that the PC definitely has large discretion in
making determinations on CUPs. He said he is comfortable with either granting or
denying CUP 02-16 and HV 02-5. Commissioner Deaton stated that she does not
believe that the proposed addition will enhance the property in any way.
9
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of November 6, 2002
Commissioner Ladner confirmed whether 8 parking spaces are required. Mr.
Cummins stated that current Code requires 2 parking spaces per unit, so forgetting
the density standard, if 4 new Units are constructed on any particular piece of
property, 8 parking spaces would be required; however, additional parking spaces
would not be required for additions to non-conforming structures. Commissioner
Ladner asked if the addition were built as proposed, would additional parking be
required. Mr. Cummins stated that If the PC determines that the proposed addition
conforms to all provIsions for the section of the Code regarding non-conforming
structures, additional parking would not be required, unless the PC wished to impose
creation of additional parking, but for this particular project this would not be a viable
option. Commissioner Ladner stated if no additional parking would be required, he
would vote to approve CUP 02-16 and HV 02-5.
Chairperson Hood asked for the address of the property that appears in the
photograph attached to one of the letters of opposition, which shows a car parked
across the driveway entrance in front of the garage. Commissioner Deaton reported
that the address is 1210 Electnc Avenue. Chairperson Hood said both the Agenda
and Page 14 of the Staff Report state that there is inadequate parking on the
property. He then noted that Item 10 of the application reports that there are 4 off-
street parking spaces provided. He stated that he would like Staff to verify whether
this garage, indeed, provides two off-street parking spaces, because if there are no
spaces available, the applicant has misrepresented the facts. He said he is not
willing to vote for or against a proposal unless he has all of the facts straight.
Commissioner Sharp stated that with regard to the question of whether or not the
garage is being used for storage, he would be amazed If after checking all of the
garages In town it was determined that 50% of the garages are being used to park
cars. He said he doubted whether a third of the garages in town have enough room
to park a car. He stated that he does not believe the City has the prerogative of
opening garage doors to determine what is inside and whether there is room to park
cars in them.
Chairperson Hood said he agreed with Commissioner Sharp's observations,
however, this application has obviously misstated the facts.
Commissioner Sharp reiterated that the City does not have the right to question
whether a garage is parkable or not. He said if the PC did have this prerogative,
they could do something to alleviate the parking problem.
Commissioner Deaton asked about Staff having gone into a garage to determine
whether it was carpeted and not being used for parking Mr. Cummins stated that
this was in reference to a complaint received that a garage had been carpeted and
converted to a living unit. He explained that the property owner had intended to use
the garage as a game room for his children, but was informed that he must remove
the carpet and use the garage for parking. Commissioner Deaton asked if Staff was
able to enter the garage. Mr. Cummins stated that in this case the owner had
10
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
, 46
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of November 6, 2002
allowed Staff onto the property. He stated that tonight's case is very different and
the PC has the ability to enforce conditions in this case if they chose to do so. He
said that in the case of a complaint about a private property owner who is not
applying for a discretionary permit, a Search Warrant granted by the court would be
required in order to enter the property. With regard to the car parked in front of the
garage at 1210 Electric Avenue, the Associate Planner noted that there are a
number of these situations In Old Town. Commissioner Deaton stated that perhaps
when an application comes before the PC this would be the time to address these
issues. She said that with the power to address them on a case-by-case basis the
PC should evaluate them with an eye toward plannrng and the future of the City. Mr.
Cummins stated that within the Development Code for the City it does state that
garage spaces should be open and accessible, but typically this Code has been very
difficult to enforce. Commissioner Deaton stated that she is not suggesting policing
garages, but when discretionary approval is required the PC has an opportunity to
curb the problems with density and overbuilding.
Chairperson Hood interjected that this would not be prejudicial because the
applicant has come before the PC and made a request. He said that the PC would
not be going beyond its authority to impose a condition that Staff certify at the time of
the vote that the garage is available and accessible. Mr. Cummins stated that if the
PC were to decide to add this type of condition, the best time to impose this would
be when the City completes the final inspection. At this point the Building Inspector
would not sign off on the final project until all garage spaces were open and
accessible. Chairperson Hood asked that if Staff were to enter this garage tomorrow
and find that it is not available for parking, would the applicant have made a
misstatement of fact Mr. Cummins stated that Staff looks at provision of garage
space based upon what the garage can physically provide based upon the
dimensions of the garage whether it is used for parking or not. He said that It is
virtually unenforceable Chairperson Hood countered that the statements should
reflect what the case actually is.
Commissioner Sharp Interjected that the spaces are still there and until an ordinance
is approved prohibiting uSing garages for storage, he does not believe that the PC
"has a leg to stand on." He stated that even if the final inspection hinged on parking
being made available in the garage, this does not eliminate the possibility of the
garage being used for storage at a later date. He said the City has no way of
enforcing this.
Commissioner Deaton asked where in the Code it states that the garage has to be
accessible for parking. Mr. Cummins stated that this is stated in the Development
Zoning Code. He said that if the PC so desired, It could add a condition to CUP
02-16 making it clear that the garage space must be accessible. Commissioner
Deaton stated that for her the issue is not parking but overbuilding the property on
the corner. She said that the plan as it IS proposed would not enhance the
neighborhood in any way She noted that this is where the PC should use its
discretion In determining whether or not to grant this CUP.
11
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
'" 46
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of November 6, 2002
Chairperson Hood then reviewed the options available to the PC.
Commissioner Deaton emphasized that the PC must be aware that If this project is
approved a precedent will be set opening the door to increased proposals of this
type and an increase in density. She reiterated that the project involves an
apartment building and not a single-family residence or a single-family residence
with a unit over the garage that is rentable.
Commissioner Sharp called for a 5-minute recess to review the options. Mr.
Cummins noted that the PC has reviewed cases for major additions to 4 or more unit
two-story bUildings and he cited a few of these cases. The PC recessed at 8:38
p.m.
The PC reconvened at 8:44 p.m.
Mr. Cummins stated that if the PC chose to approve the request and wished to
Impose a condition related to keeping the existing garage spaces in the building
open and accessible, they could do so. He read the language that Mr. Abbe
composed for the condition as follows:
Before final permit is issued by the City's Building Department, the City
shall inspect the property to ensure that the existing four parking
spaces are available for the shelter and storage of vehicles. The
parking spaces shall remain continuously available for the shelter and
storage of vehicles for the life of the building.
Commissioner Deaton asked how this would be enforced. Mr. Cummins stated that
if this were not done they would be in violation of the CUP. He said that removing
stored items from a garage IS one of the easier code violations to address.
Commissioner Deaton asked Mr. Abbe why the City has a CUP process and how
does precedent setting affect this process. She also asked why the City has CUPs
and not just build by right. Mr. Abbe explained that the CUP process allows City
government to make the kinds of decisions that the Code cannot provide for in
making discretionary decisions regarding compatible land uses He said that he
could not tell the PC how they should vote. He stated that the fact that precedent
exists should not affect the discretion of the PC to grant or deny permits.
Commissioner Deaton confirmed that the PC could make their decisions based upon
what they would like the City to look like, and with non-conforming properties the PC
could vote on a case-by-case basis based upon how a project would conform to the
long-range goal for the City. Mr. Abbe confirmed that in this case the PC definitely
has discretions, but he noted that In other cases the PC may not change uses for
certain non-conforming properties.
Chairperson Hood commented on the problem with impacted parking in Old Town
and he noted that part of living together in a small community is respecting your
neighbors and obeying the laws and keeping off our neighbor's property. He stated
12
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
'::!! 46
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of November 6, 2002
that the PC's concern with the parked car blocking access to the garage at 1210 is
not necessarily a matter of legality, but a matter of civility.
Commissioner Deaton interjected that this particular part of Old Town has a much
higher density than the other side of town and they need help In resolving this issue,
which is what the PC IS attempting to do.
Commissioner Sharp stated that in his opinron the new addition would create a
decrease in density, as the number of bedrooms would be decreased. He also
noted that the design of the new addition was compatible and he does not believe
the PC has the prerogative to deny this request
Commissioner Deaton stated that she beheves legally the PC does have the nght to
deny this request. She noted that eight parking spaces are required and only 4 are
provided, so eliminating one bedroom does not solve the problem. She said that the
CUP process and the discretion of the PC provide an avenue to begin to solve the
problems of density and parking.
Commissioner Shanks stated that he understands Commissioner Deaton's
concerns, but when allowing the CUP process to be used for upgrading of older,
nonconforming lots, they are usually overbuilt. He also noted that if the PC did not
allow for this, the properties would remain the same, or the original bUilding could be
demolished and a huge new home built on the lot. He stated that he does not see
that the PC has the means of stopping this process, nor does he see what would be
gained.
Commissioner Ladner stated that he had no objection to this request.
Chairperson Hood again reviewed the options for determining the outcome of this
item.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve Conditional Use Permit 02-16
and Height Vanation 02-5, subject to conditions, and approve Resolution Nos. 02-40
and 02-41 as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-1
Hood, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
Deaton
None
Mr Abbe adVised that the adoption of Resolution Nos. 02-40 and 02-41 begins a 10-
day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is
final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
13
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 6, 2002
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Cummins stated that the PC had directed Staff to cancel the scheduled meeting
for November 20, 2002, and the next scheduled meeting will be on December 4,
2002.
He also reported that at the direction of City Council Staff would present at the
December 4, 2002 meeting Zone Text Amendment 02-2 addressing the issue of
three-car garages.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Sharp asked for an update on the Sunrise Assisted living facility. Mr.
Cummins reported that the plan check process is almost complete so vertical
construction should commence shortly.
Chairperson Hood inquired about provision of the Planning District Maps for the
Planning Commissioners. Mr. Cummins reported that Staff is producing color maps
for distribution to the PC.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~"--~~
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Sec1etary
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on December 4, 2002, approved the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of Wednesday, November 6, 2002. ~~~:.
14