Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2003-03-05 -; " . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA for March 5, 2003 7:30 p.m. District 1 - Ellery Deaton District 2 - Jim Sharp District 3 - Gordon Shanks District 4 - David Hood District 5 - Phil Ladner . Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney Mac Cummins, Associate Planner Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary o 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. o The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans 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 o Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3 They are rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4'00 p.m. o Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone' (562) 596-1404. . o Copies of staff reports and/or wntten materials on each agenda Item are on file in the Department of Development Services and City libraries for public inspection. 1 . . . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission · Agenda of March 5, 2003 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 agendized. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Public Hearings allow citizens the opportunity to speak in favor of or against agendized items. More detailed information is found in the actual agenda attached. If you have documents to distnbute, 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 Droceedinas are recorded. 2 . . . City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda for March 5, 2003 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 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 Meeting Minutes of February 19, 2003 2 Minor Plan Review 03-3 250 Ocean Avenue AppllcanUOwner Request Jim Watson Architectural review of a proposal to construct a new, bUilt-in BBQ and a fireplace structure within the rear and Side yard setback areas of the subject property Recommendation Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 03-8 VI PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 Variance 03-1 250 Ocean Avenue AppllcanUOwner Request Jim Watson To vary from the Side yard setback requirements to a nonconforming single-family residence SpeCifically, the applicant IS proposing to construct an 8-foot tall fountain In the Side yard setback area Recommendation Pleasure of the Commission 3 . . . CIty of Seal Beach Planmng CommIssIon · Agenda of March 5, 2003 4 Negative Declaration 03-1 General Plan Amendment 03-1 Zone Change 03-1 Zone Text Amendment 03-1 Seal Beach Boulevard between Electnc Avenue and 125 feet north of Landing Avenue Applicant/Owner Request City of Seal Beach I Vanous General Plan Amendment 03-1 - A request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to revise allowable uses within the limited Commercial land use designation to allow residential uses not In conjunction with a related commercial or office land use Revise the land use designation and Land Use Map from General Commercial to Limited Commercial for the subject properties located north of Landing Avenue Zone Change 03-1 - A request to change the zone on properties located from Landing Avenue 125 feet north on Seal Beach Boulevard from General Commercial (C-2) to Limited Commercial (L-C) Zone Text Amendment - A request to amend the provIsions of the Limited Commercial (L-C) Zone to allow new residential construction as a permitted use In the L-C Zone Currently new resldentral uses are permitted only In conjunction with an allowable business use Recommendation Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution Nos 03-11, 03-12, and 03-13 VII SCHEDULED MATTERS 5 DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY - Bolsa Chlca Street Waterline Easement (Bnghtwater Proposed Water Transmission Line Route) (Contmued from February 19,2003 ) 6 STUDY SESSION Addition and Expansion Standards for Non-Conforming Residential Uses VIII STAFF CONCERNS IX COMMISSION CONCERNS X ADJOURNMENT 4 I '. Mar 19 Apr9 Apr 23 May7 May 21 June 4 June 18 July9 July 23 Aug 6 Aug 20 . Sept 3 Sept 17 Oct 8 Oct 22 Nov5 Nov 19 Dec3 Dec 17 TO BE SCHEDULED: Q Study Session Q Staff Report Q Study Session Q Study Session . City of Seal Beach Planmng Commission · Agenda of March 5, 2003 2003 Aaenda Forecast Permitted Uses and Development Standards In Commercial Zones (5/6/98) Undergroundlng of Utilities ADA Handicapped-Accessible Restrooms Parking Issues In Old Town 5 t! 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 j 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of March 5, 2003 Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planmng Commission to order at 7.30 p m. on Wednesday, March 5, 2003. 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 Department of Develooment Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney Mac Cummins, Associate Planner Absent: None. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Whittenberg requested that Item No.2, Minor Plan Review (MPR) 03-3, and Item No.3, Variance 03-1, both for 250 Ocean Avenue be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 19, 2003. He also requested Item No.5, Determination of General Plan Conformity be continued to the Planning CommiSSion meeting of March 19, 2003. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Agenda as amended. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp None None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Hood opened oral commumcations. 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 . 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 Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2003 Mr. Warren Morton stated that he would again like to bring to the attention of the Planning Commission the Illegal condition at 1110 Electric Avenue He stated that Instead of a double car garage a single-car garage is in place. He said that the utilities from the adjacent property extend under this structure, ~nd now there are extra front doors on the bUilding. He commented that perhaps extra units were being added to this bUilding. He asked the Associate Planner whether he had Inquired about these issues. Mr. Morton stated that the City must stop approving legal non-conforming additions without total compliance by the property owners and that thorough follow-through with Inspections must be done He noted the Similarity with the property at 1220 Central Avenue where units were added to an approved, legal nonconforming property. He reiterated that approvals for these types of structures should be subject to the Conditional Use Permit process or eliminated altogether. There being no one else Wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed oral communrcatlons. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 19, 2003. 2. Minor Plan Review 03-3 250 Ocean Avenue Applicant/Owner: Request: Jim Watson Architectural review of a proposal to construct a new, bUilt-in BBQ and a fireplace structure within the rear and side yard setback areas of the subject property. Recommendation: Continue to meeting of March 19, 2003. MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as amended MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp None None PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Negative Declaration 03-1 General Plan Amendment 03-1 Zone Change 03-1 Zone Text Amendment 03-1 2 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . 47 City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of March 5, 2003 Seal Beach Boulevard between Electric Avenue and 125 feet north of Landing Avenue Applicant/Owner: Request: City of Seal Beach I Various General Plan Amendment 03-1 - A request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to revise allowable uses within the Limited Commercial land use designation to allow residential uses not in conjunction with a related commercial or office land use. Revise the land use designation and Land Use Map from General Commercial to Limited Commercial for the subject properties located north of Landing Avenue. Zone Change 03-1 - A request to change the zone on properties located from Landing Avenue 125 feet north on Seal Beach Boulevard from General Commercial (C-2) to Limited Commercial (L-C). Zone Text Amendment - A request to amend the provisions of the Limited Commercial (L-C) Zone to allow new residential construction as a permitted use In the L-C Zone. Currently new residential uses are permitted only In conjunction with an allowable business use. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution Nos. 03-11, 03-12, and 03-13 Staff ReDort Mr. Whittenberg stated that Negative Declaration (ND) 03-1 was prepared to comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the comment period on the Draft ND closes on Monday, March 17, 2003. He noted that anyone wishing to provide comments could do so tonight or they could provide their comments in writing or bye-mall to the Department of Development Services He reported that copies of the ND were available tonight as well as in the local libraries. He explained that the basic project is a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Zone Change (ZC), and a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA). He stated that Seal Beach Boulevard (SBB) between Electric Avenue and Landing Avenue has been designated a limited Commercial Zone (L-C) since 1992. He said that north of Landing Avenue on SBB there are 3 lots that are developed with residential uses that have been zoned General Commercial (C-2) since the mid-1950's or early 1960's. He stated that north of these 3 lots are the more recent homes constructed on the former Shore Shop property He said that this property zOning was changed In 1998 from a C-2 Zone to a Residential Medium Density (RMD) Zone He said a GPA and ZC were done at that pOInt and a ND approved for that project The Director of Development Services explained that what is before the Planning Commission (PC) this evening IS a request to modify what can be bUilt by right on the L-C zoned properties on SBB. He stated that right now new 3 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 .- 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon Meetmg Mmutes of March 5, 2003 residential uses can only be constructed in conjunction with a non-residential professional office or light retail use, and the new residential has to be on either the second or third floor above the new non-residential use of the property He reported that in July 2002 City Council (CC) authonzed Staff to review this Issue to consider allowing single-family residences (SFR) to be constructed by right or by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval, without having to be in conjunction with a non-residential office or light retail use. He continued by noting that the ZC is to change the zoning of those first 3 lots north of Landing Avenue that are now In the C-2 Zone, to the L-C Zone, and they would then fall Into compliance with the standards that are being considered tOnight. He stated that these 3 lots are currently In a legal nonconforming status and are already developed with reSidential uses, and the C-2 Zone does not allow residences at all. He said that by placing these lots in the L-C Zone they will stili be legal non-conforming uses in that they all have more units bUilt on them than what the current density standards allow, but this rezoning Will bring them Into a category that allows reSidential uses. He reported that pubic notice was published In the newspaper and mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 300-foot radiUS of the area. He stated that Staff has attempted to reflect some of the competing concerns from the property owners in that area, as how best to deal with what should be built along this area of SBB. He noted that there are differences of opinion and this is what makes it difficult for the PC and CC to deal with. He noted that copies of the Staff Reports and minutes from the community meetings on thiS issue have been proVided to the CommiSSioners for review. Mr. Whittenberg then reviewed the resolutions prepared for the GPA, ZC, and the ZTA. He explained that for the GPA the basic Items to consider would be to revise some of the language within the existing General Plan (GP) descnption of what a L-C land use should be. He noted that these revisions should reflect the Idea that in addition to the mixed-use residential/commercial uses that are now encouraged in that area, a person should also be able to develop the property for a stnctly reSidential use in accordance With certain City development standards. He continued by noting that the second part of the GPA is to modify tables and other information to reflect these changes, and to reflect the change In the land use designation in the GP for the 3 lots north of Landing Avenue from a C-2 to an L-C designation. He then noted that the last major change in the GP would be to change the land use map of the City. With regard to the ZC, Mr. Whittenberg stated that under California Law the GP and zoning for cities must be consistent. He stated that Seal Beach is a Charter City and technically is not bound by the general laws of the State of California, but the City has for many years taken a posItion of complying with these provisions of law. He continued by explaining that the ZTA outlines the changes to the Code sections related to permitted uses and building standards for ReSidential Medium Density (RMD) for thiS area to allow residential uses and also for reSidential in conjunction With mixed use projects. He stated that Staff IS recommending that for new homes on the SBB side the front setback provisions allow the homes to be developed uSing the Residential High Density (RHD) standard, which allow an average setback Instead of a straight line setback. He said this would allow for some bUilding variation along the street frontage. He noted that the supplemental Staff Report distnbuted tonight was prepared to Incorporate direction from the City Attorney to delete Paragraph 28-1155(f)4 from the L-C Code section. This paragraph would require that In order to 4 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of March 5, 2003 construct In the L-C Zone, the occupant of the residential unit above the mixed-use project must work in the mixed-use non-residential part of the project below the house. The Director of Development Services then noted that since 1992 when the L-C Zoning was approved, two projects have been approved, but neither one has been constructed. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Deaton stated that she understands that under the L-C zoning reSidential, commercial or a combination of the two can be constructed. Mr. Whittenberg explained that as the L-C Zone currently exists it allows non-residential or mixed-use non-residential and residential, but does not allow strictly new residential uses. Commissioner Deaton confirmed that with the proposed changes all three would be allowed. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this is correct. Commissioner Deaton referred to the e-mail from Richard Grossgold and stated that he IS concerned that should he lose his office bUilding due to fire or another calamity, he would not be able to reconstruct the office building again. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the new zoning would allow him to rebuild a project, but due to bUilding standards he hesitated to state that Mr. Grossgold would be able to reconstruct exactly what he has now. He referred to Attachment 7, Section 28-2406(c), which states that if a nonconforming, non-residential structure IS damaged less than 50%, it can automatically be reconstructed in ItS onginal configuration, and If damaged more than 50%, It can be rebuilt subject to the Minor Plan Review (MPR) process and all of the parking that existed at the time of the damage must be provided. Commissioner Deaton asked if what Mr. Whittenberg was stating is that Mr. Grossgold's bUilding is a nonconforming, non-residential building. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that every bUilding along SBB between the Electnc Avenue alley is Impacted by this proposal, Including the 3 lots north of Landing Avenue, which are currently nonconforming uses of property. Commissioner Deaton clanfled that if these are nonconforming properties then no matter what happens to their bUilding they will be allowed to rebuild It as it is. Mr. Whittenberg stated that in all cases the provisions allow to rebuild as It IS as long as the same number of parking spaces are proVided as existed before. Commissioner Deaton asked If these properties are nonconforming due to parking, setbacks, lot coverage Issues, etc? Mr. Whittenberg stated that they are nonconforming due to all of these Issues and probably several others. He explained that all of the reSidential uses in thiS area are over density, as most of them are 2- to 4- Unit apartment bUildings and some of them already have mixed uses that do not comply with the setback or parking requirements. Commissioner Deaton confirmed that when rebuilding the property owner Will not be asked to bnng the structure Into conformity. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct and noted that the City would not propose changes to the eXisting proVisions of the nonconforming section that would Impact them any differently if the PC were to do nothing this evening. Chairperson Hood reviewed the items to be considered for determination and he asked If GPA 03-1, ZC 03-1, and ZTA 03-1 could all be voted on With one motion or should they be voted on separately? Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would prefer that separate motions be made. Chairperson Hood then confirmed that the closing date for comments on the Negative Declaration is Monday, March 17,2003. 5 << 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon Meetmg Mmutes of March 5, 2003 Public Hearing Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing. Mr. Greg Miller stated that the issue of commercial parking along this area of SBB has not been addressed. He said that the street is always filled with cars from the overflow on 1 ih Street occupying the parking spaces on SBB. He noted that this also Includes some abandoned vehicles. He stated that when new residential homes go In, no one will park in their garages, but will park on the street. He expressed concern over where his customers would find parking If the street IS filled with cars He asked to know how this IS to be handled. Ms. Serretta Fielding provided a brief history of this area of SBB and stated that one of the reasons property owners would like to have the option to construct a residential use on the lots IS that because the block IS zoned as l-C it is not pOSSible to acquire a loan on a property In the l-C Zone. She noted that the reason the two approved mixed-use developments have not yet been constructed is due to an Inability to acquire funding. She said that many property owners purchased their homes in this area when the commercial lending rates were low, but the rates have Increased dramatically and consequently there have been no improvements made to this block. She also explained that when the Bay Motel was sold and the address was converted to a home along Electric Avenue, the commercial draw to this area was lost. She noted that the commercial draw was also affected by the loss of the Shore Shop. Ms. Fielding stated that with residential on both ends of the block there is little draw for commercial along this section of SBB. She said that the street has seen very little development since 1984 when she moved to thiS area. She encouraged approval of this option, as it would allow property owners to acquire loans to build residential or improve their lots. She noted that she and the Director of Development Services had discussed designating this area on the new zoning map as "l-C and/or RMD," as thiS is the only way residential loans will be approved Mr. Ross Delahay stated that he IS a realtor who represents the owner of the property at 233 Seal Beach Blvd. He stated that this property has been listed for over two years, but with the l-C zomng no one has expressed an Interest In purchasing It. He stated that l-C is no longer viable unless a large shopping center is being developed He also explained that financing for an l-C zoned property is difficult. He reported that he has a long list of people waiting and ready to make an offer If the property is to be zoned as R-1. Mr. MariO Musso, past owner of the Shore Shop, provided a brief history of the property and noted that when the large retailers come to town it made it difficult for the Shore Shop to survive and It became necessary to look for another use for the property He explained that rezoning of the property from l-C to residential made It pOSSible to construct seven SFRs, which have added over $5 million dollars to the tax base of the City, far exceeding the sales tax revenue generated by the Shore Shop In ItS last 10 years of operation. He stated that if the remainder of thiS area of SBB were rezoned to 6 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of March 5, 2003 allow residential, It would be advantageous not only to the residents, but also to neighboring property values, and ultimately to the City's financial base. Mr. John Grossgold speaking on behalf of his father, Richard Grossgold, stated that his father's main concern about being able to rebuild after a disaster had been adequately addressed. He said he was also glad to see the elimination of the requirement that business owners or their employees must reside in the upper residential units of mixed- use structures within the L-C Zone. He also emphasized that the zOning map should reflect "L-C and/or RMD" for the ability to obtain financing. He encouraged approval of the zone changes. Mr. Medhat Rauof spoke In favor of approving ZC 03-1 and ZTA 03-1 He described the difficulty he has had In developing his property at 233 Seal Beach Blvd He also expressed his concerns regarding excessive cars parked along the street. Mr. Brady Johnson, a resident of Electric Avenue, spoke In favor of the proposed zone change. He said he had Informally surveyed the residents on his block and they all spoke in favor of seeing this change. He stated that the parking problem IS probably a result of apartment tenants haVing no deSignated parking and having to park on the street. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the properties would not be zoned as R-1, but Staff is proposing that the L-C designation remain and the allowable uses be changed to also allow residential use He said that what is allowable within the zone is what IS most sigmficant and not the zone category itself. He stated that if the PC determines to change the name of the zone, he sees no problem with uSing the designation L-C/RMD or whatever the PC feels would be most appropriate. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Deaton expressed her concern about the parking Issue. She asked If the L-C designation were retained, would it be pOSSible to restrict parking in this area? Mr. Whittenberg stated that the PC could make thiS recommendation to City CouncIl. He noted that any restrictions on parking are of extreme concern to the California Coastal Commission (CCC). He stated that If the concern IS regarding cars that are parked and not moved for several days, this is an enforcement issue that could be handled by the Seal Beach Police Department (SBPD). He noted that the Vehicle Code does allow cars to park on the street for 72 hours. Commissioner Deaton stated that she understands the problems With the CCC, but she believes that If businesses along SBB are to survive their patrons must have adequate parking Mr Whittenberg noted that In the L-C Zone there are proviSions to provide parking for new commercial uses. He said that there is a proVision that allows for a credit for a certain number of parking spaces required for a new bUSiness-type use to be counted for being proVided on the street Itself He stated that the CCC IS also concerned With thiS Issue He noted that of the 7 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . CIty of Seal Beach Planmng CommIssIon Meetmg Mmutes of March 5, 2003 two projects on SBB approved by the CCC one was required to provide residential parking on the property and the other was required to provide both non-residential and residential use parking on the property. Commissioner Deaton inquired whether the existing businesses have parking on the premises or are relying on street parking. Mr. Whittenberg reported that it varies, some have parking on the property and others have parking in the alleys. Commissioner Deaton commended Staff for the manner in which this issue has been handled, but stated that she is still concerned about the parking. She said that the CCC is probably not happy about the apartment buildings without suffiCient parking according to City Code Mr. Whittenberg emphasized that at the time that it was constructed every residential use that is out there met whatever parking requirements were In place at that time He stated that over the years most cities have changed parking requirements from one space to two spaces per Unit, which IS what the City requirement is today. Commissioner Ladner asked If It would be possible to place a time limit on parking In front of the bUSinesses in this area Mr. Whittenberg reiterated that placing a limit on parking on any public street within the Coastal Zone IS a CCC issue. He explained that the PC could make a motion to make this recommendation to the City CouncIl. Commissioner Ladner stated that he believes the Issue to be important enough to make this recommendation. He suggested that there be no overnight parking and time limited parking dunng the day. Commissioner Shanks asked If there were sufficient room for diagonal parking. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he believed the actual curb-to-curb width along this area of SBB IS the same as Main Street, so this might be an option that could be included in the recommendation to City CouncIl. He noted that the neighboring residents would have to be surveyed regarding parking issues In this area pnor to the CC making any kind of determination. Commissioner Shanks commented that when Visiting this street late one night he found the entire Navy side of the street filled With parked cars. He questioned where all of these cars are coming from. Mr. Whittenberg noted that a public street IS a public parking area and the public has a right to park there. Chairperson Hood observed that tonight the PC IS dealing only With agenda items, which are the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and the Zone Text Amendment. He stated that as he understands It the parking issue IS not an agendlzed item and should be placed on the agenda for a future meeting. Mr. Abbe concurred that the parking issue should be deferred to the next meeting. Chairperson Hood asked If the CC approves these recommendations what would the parking requirement be should a property owner decide to modify his/her residence or rebuild a new residence? Mr. Whittenberg stated that the current provision for a new residence would be to provide 2 parking spaces in a garage for each new reSidential unit bUilt on the property. For rebUilding a damaged residence, If it were constructed exactly as it was pnor to the damage, the parking requirement would be the same as before the damage occurred. The Director of Development Services stated that this is an Issue that was not discussed as a part of the study session on additions to nonconforming structures because the issue of reconstruction after destruction was not included. He continued by 8 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of March 5, 2003 noting that for additions to an existing, legal nonconforming residential multi-family or SFR, the property owner would be subject to the standards currently in place for these types of structures. Chairperson Hood noted that Item NO.6 on tOnight's agenda deals with the issue of additions or expansions to nonconforming residential uses, and that the Issue of parking could be discussed at a future meeting He then inquired of the Director of Development Services whether development of a Local Coastal Plan (LCP) IS to take place soon. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the City is In the process of preparing a LCP to submit to the CCC for review. Chairperson Hood asked if limited parking restrictions could be included as a part of the LCP. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this could be done. Mr. Abbe Interjected that the Director of Development Services had just reminded him that the parking issue IS not really within the subject matter jUrisdiction of the Planning Commission, and the Brown Act only applies to matters within the PC's subject matter Jurisdiction, so if the PC were to make a recommendation to the CC, it would not be in violation of the Brown Act Commissioner Sharp commented that before getting too deeply into the parking issue, he recommends that the Director of Development Services provide copies of the minutes related to parking issues for review by the Commissioners. MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Deaton to approve General Plan Amendment 03-1 and adopt Resolution 03-11 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp None None MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Sharp to approve Zone Change 03-1 and adopt Resolution 03-12 as revIsed. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 , Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp None None Mr. Whittenberg noted that the motion should reference the revised Resolution 03-12 as It appears in the revised Staff Report. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Ladner to approve Zone Text Amendment 03-1 to Include the new zoned designation as L-C/RMD and adopt Resolution 03-13 as amended. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp None None 9 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon Meetmg Mmutes of March 5, 2003 Mr. Whittenberg advised that these actions tOnight are only recommendations and there Will be future public hearings scheduled with the City Council and all property owners and all residents and tenants within a 300-foot radiUS Will receive notice of these future City Council hearings He cautioned that the CCC would be very resistant to restnctlng overnight parking. Commissioner Sharp stated that although he strongly sympathized with the parking problems, he would vote against this motion strictly because the PC would be asking Staff to do something that will lead them to "buck their heads against the wall with the Coastal Commission." He said that he feels It would be asking the City to spend money that It doesn't need to spend. Commissioner Ladner commented that based on what the Director of Development Services has said, the CCC would object to restrictions on overnight parking, so he would stnke this part of his recommendation, but he still believes there should be a time limited green zone for the commercial uses. Mr. Whittenberg reminded the PC that they are diSCUSSing an Issue that technically they have no junsdlction to change. He suggested that any recommendation to City Council be kept as general In nature as possible. Commissioner Deaton stated that although she is aware that thiS issue has been extensively studied, she believes it deserves further review She noted that thiS street appears to be very congested and she IS surpnsed that the curb-to-curb Width IS the same as Main Street as currently It almost seems dangerous in some places. She said that parking in this area deserves another look to make sure that It is working. MOTION by Ladner, SECOND by Deaton to request that City Council authonze City Englneenng Staff to review potential parking restrictions on Seal Beach Boulevard from the area of Electric Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Hood, Deaton, Ladner, and Shanks Sharp None SCHEDULED MATTERS 6 STUDY SESSION Addition and Expansion Standards for Non-Conforming Residential Uses. Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg stated that because thiS IS a study session Item, there would be no recommendations made by Staff. He said that an additional Staff Report was prepared based upon direction given to Staff at the PC meeting of February 5, 2003. He noted 10 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of March 5, 2003 that public comment or questions could be received and at the end of the study session the PC could make a determination or direct Staff as to how they wish to proceed. He then provided some background information and explained that the main purpose was to review current standards for Individuals wanting to expand livable space at an eXisting legal nonconforming structure. He noted that the City has a two-tier process for expansions to one- and two-unit nonconforming residential projects that under a Minor Plan Review (MPR) process allows additions up to a certain amount of square feet, and anything over that square footage requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He said that there are specific Ordinance reqUirements In those sections of the Code that as part of reviewing these expansions requires the PC to make certain findings as to whether or not the project is consistent with the General Plan (GP) He stated that separate criteria with different size limitations exist for 3-unlt and larger projects. The Director of Development Services noted that at the last study session the PC asked Staff to look into the second step process for the CUP to attempt to develop additional cnteria that would encourage people to Increase the number of parking spaces on their properties that are currently substandard for parking. He stated that the supplemental Staff Report outlines the 2-step process for the CUP that would place a size limitation on the square footage allowable If a multi-family project does not provide at least 1.5 parking spaces per Unit. He said that currently the only criterion the City has regarding parking spaces is that If the project IS to be over a certain amount of square feet, it is subject to the CUP process. He stated that Staff recommends that if 1 5 parking spaces are not provided, the CUP stili be required along with another size cap on the type of development to be considered. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Deaton stated that there are diverse nonconforming issues and she confirmed that If a property owner wished to go from 1 parking space per unit to 1 5 spaces, then under the CUP process they could add as many square feet as they want. Mr Whittenberg stated that If they can provide 1.5 spaces or more per unit, they could ask for whatever they wanted and it would be up to the PC to determine what would be appropriate. CommiSSioner Deaton then clarified that if the property owner chose not to add more parking, then a cap of 216 square feet per Unit up to the maximum of 600 square feet would apply, and for SFRs and duplexes the cap would be 432 per unrt and 864 square feet per property Public Comment Penod Chairperson Hood opened the public comment penod. Ms. Jerri West shared the following recommendations for potential amendments to Section 28-2407: 1 Eliminate the need for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for residential nonconforming property additions 2 Discard any new Idea for 1.5 off street parking spaces per unrt under any conditions or circumstances. Keep the current requirement of 2 spaces per unrt. 11 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of March 5, 2003 3 Keep the Code as IS with respect to duplexes and single-family residence additions. 4. If 3 or more units allow no additions to these if they are on a 25 or 30-foot lot unless they can meet the 2-space per Unit parking requirement. 5. Allow no expansion to 5 or more units unless parking requirements of 2 parking spaces per Unit are provided. Ms West ended by stating that to incorporate these requirements would prevent having to take up time testifying before the PC and having to pay fees to appeal decisions made by the PC. Mr. Roger West stated that this study session was unnecessary and creates unnecessary expense. He said that requlnng the CUP process for expansions or additions to nonconforming residential property wastes taxpayers' money. He stated that countless hours and money are wasted by the Planning Department in attempting to help an opportUnist who buys into Seal Beach and wants to exploit It for profit. He noted that he estimates that the 8-page report prepared for this meeting cost the City $2,000 per page He said this is nonsense in light of the City's current financial situation. He said It would be best to stop squandering the City's money by eliminating the need to undergo the CUP process for additions to nonconforming structures. Mr. Jim Caviola stated that he has lived in Seal Beach for 24 years and it bothers him that within the last 5 years zoning in the City is being changed so frequently He said that property owners must be able to rely on their property nghts and he IS concerned that zoning is being "played With." He noted that this is because of the property values He said that Within 200 feet of his property there are 5 Illegal units. Mr. Cavlola noted that this creates an overtaxing of electncal systems and sewer systems. He said that usually the landlords don't even live In this community and he is tired of spending time protecting his property. He stated that use of the CUP process circumvents hiS rights as a property owner. He commented that CUPs are for someone wanting to have a band In a restaurant, but the PC IS using CUPs to allow permanent structures on nonconforming bUildings that Will never meet Code requirements. He said that when he bUilt both of his homes, they had to be engineered and meet all safety codes. He noted that none of the homes In his neighborhood meet these standards. He said he IS tired of the City changing the rules and he is asking that the CUP process be eliminated altogether. He stated there is no reason to make an addition to a nonconforming bUilding and If they wish to do so, the bUilding should be brought up to Code. Mr. Chi Kredell stated that ever since the 1980s when City Council approved converting 25-foot lots from duplexes to SFRs the Code has been watered down He asked why the CommiSSioners feel that they know more than the people who live in Old Town, when they do not have the same type of climate. He stated that the CUP does not benefit anyone and all It does IS add density. He noted that more and more he hears about requests to exceed the height limit by greater heights. He asked why Staff keeps nibbling at the development standards? He said that residents of Old Town do not want more density and he recommended eliminating CUPs and that no Vanances be granted without proof of hardship 12 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of March 5, 2003 Ms Joyce Parque stated that every time a new law is made It creates more paperwork and more expense. She said Staff needs to generate paperwork in order to keep their Jobs She stated that If the/guidelines are made very simple then Staff could not use a CUP or Variance. She commented that regarding parking the City is already in trouble with the California Coastal Commission (CCC) because of the things it has not done properly Ms. Parque stated that the City has not complied with the people's desire to keep the town low density. She said that 2 parking spaces per unit should be required for any additions or expansions Mr. Chi Kredell stated that when construction of one SFR on 25-foot lots was approved, Staff said that no one would bUild one SFR on these lots. He noted that the first year after approval 18 SFRs were constructed on 25-foot lots. He said that many developers reported that more money was made on SFRs than on duplexes He stated that he believes this IS still the case He said SFRs also add more to the character of the City. Mr Warren Morton recommended prohibiting all expansions to nonconforming structures within the City. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Chairperson Hood reviewed the recommended options as listed on Page 5-8 of the Supplemental Staff Report dated March 5, 2003. CommisSioner Deaton stated that all of the testimony recommends elimination of the CUP process altogether. She said that when she served as a Planning Commissioner for Fountain Valley the CUP was designed as something that could be taken away if the specific conditions were not met. She stated that she has never understood how a CUP could be issued to a permanent structure when there is nothing that can be taken away later. She said that she IS bothered by the Idea of not allowing any work to be done to nonconforming units. She noted that renovation inside of these buildings should continue to be allowed. She asked If the PC IS looking at illegal nonconforming and/or legal nonconforming structures and she requested clarification on what the difference IS between these definitions. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the sections of the Code refer to legal nonconforming structures, as structures that were built With building permits and when they were bUilt met whatever the development standards were at that time He said that subsequent changes to City standards during the 1980s related to density, setbacks, parking, etc., caused these structures to be classified as legal nonconforming uses. He explained that Illegal nonconforming uses are those that were built Without applying for bUilding permits from the City and Violations of this kind are usually addressed through the Code Enforcement process. He said that the process being discussed tOnight does not apply to anyone that has Illegally converted a structure. He explained that the CUP process for expansions to nonconforming residential structures has been In place in Seal Beach since 1974 under the provisions of an ordinance 13 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of March 5, 2003 adopted at that time, which allowed very, very limited additions or expansion. He said that over the years the PC and CC In dealing with issues In town have In their declslon- making processes come to the decision to change ordinances and modify them to the pOint at which they are today. He stated that the CC heard a lot of criticism of the process and of the procedures that are now in place as part of the 1210 Electric Avenue process. This is why the CC has asked the PC to revisit these issues once again. He emphasized that any changes to a law of the City that impacts how a development can be built on a piece of property is not something that is determined by Staff alone. He explained that there IS an ordinance that IS ultimately adopted by CC and Staff enforces and Implements that ordinance, and people have the right to come In submit an application If the City's ordinances allow for this. He stated that what happens after thiS is a decision process at the PC and CC level. He observed that people don't like the decisions that are currently being made and the extent for what people can apply, and that is the Issue before the PC tonight. He noted that as stated during the public comments, most cities do not allow expansions of nonconforming structures, penod Commissioner Deaton asked the Director of Development Services to expand on what the potential problems with this type of a prohibition might be. Mr. Whittenberg stated that as far as intenor remodels or upgrades on nonconforming structures are concerned, the City already allows this. All residents have to do is apply for the bUilding permits He said that projects to expand or add additional living space to a unit must come before the PC. He indicated that since 1974 the size of the expansions able to be considered by both the PC and CC have Increased, which he believes IS more of a reflection of private individuals coming before the City and making a case to change the laws. He said that from Staffs standpoint, If the PC were to decide that no more expansions are to be allowed, it would make the City's workload very different and would allow Staff more time to work on other projects. He said that Staff is not bound to state that this IS the best process in the world, but when PC and the CC ask for Staffs opinion for how best to deal With an Issue, Staff IS bound to proVide the best advice possible. He said that for the most part cities that do allow some form of expansions are cities that have an older residential base constructed In the 1920s, 1930s, or 1940s, and provides multi-family housing that under their current laws could not otherwise be proVided. He noted that in thiS town it is Important to maintain this type of housing in some manner. He commented on the opposing opinions of whether Seal Beach should be a homogenous community of stnctly Single-family residences or whether multi-family housing should be Included. He noted that many new developments throughout Southern California do Include condominiums, apartment buildings, and townhouses. Commissioner Deaton stated that next door to her home is a duplex that her neighbor has beautifully renovated She asked If the PC were to consider the elimination of any expansions or additions to legal nonconforming structures would property owners be able to do what her neighbor has done? Mr. Whittenberg reiterated that If no additional living space is to be added to legal nonconforming structures renovations are permissible by simply applying for the appropriate bUilding permits Commissioner Deaton inquired about whether a roof deck would be permissible Mr. Whittenberg stated that a roof deck would not increase habitable living space, but should it exceed the height limit, the person would have to apply for a Height Variation (HV). He noted 14 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of March 5, 2003 that this would be a separate category from expansions/additions to legal nonconforming structures. Commissioner Shanks stated that with regard to CUPs, one reason some of this has not been all negative IS that one of the requirements for someone adding square footage IS that they bring their electncal and plumbing up to current building and safety code standards. Commissioner Sharp asked how many of the properties on Manna Hill are conforming. Mr Whittenberg stated that a number of the properties constructed on the HIli have garages that were less in square footage than the Code required at that point, but were somehow approved. He surmised that approximately 98-99 percent of every residential area In town IS generally made up of conforming structures except for those properties between Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to the ocean. He said this is primanly an Issue in Old Town and Surfside. Commissioner Sharp asked If the properties on Marina HIli are nonconforming would eliminating all expansions affect these homes Mr. Whittenberg stated that it would not because there is already language In the Code that addresses the Issue of garage size in that area and recognizes those as being legal size garages for bUilding permit purposes. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to recommend that City Council consider elimination of the provisions allowing for expansions or additions to any legal nonconforming structures within the City MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp None None Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff would prepare a report for a future City Council agenda with the Planning Commission's recommendation. He said that at that point Staff would request authonzation to begin a Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) process to amend the Code to reflect the recommendation of the PC, assuming CC wishes to proceed In this manner. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg reported that he would not be in attendance at the March 19, 2003 meeting. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Shanks requested that the status memorandum regarding 1110 Electric Avenue be provided to Mr. Warren Morton. 15 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 . . ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 9.27 p m. Respectfully Submitted, ~~'?- Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary Planning Department APPROVAL CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommIssIon Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2003 The Commission on March 19, 2003 ap~d the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Wednesday, March 5, 2003 16