Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1985-03-06 j' : BEACH PLANNING COMt-1ISSION AGE, Clty Council Chambers 211 Elghth Street Seal Beach. Callfornla ) . 2'he Seal Beach Planzung COlllllUss~on _ts ~n sess~on every f~rst and th~rd flednesda!l of each month at 7:30 p.m. If you w~sh to address the COlIJIIIJ.ss~on on any part~cular publ~c hear~ng ~tem, the Cha~rman w~ll call for publ~c test~mony f~rst for those .in favor of the proJect, and second, for those who are not ~n favor. fihen you see that the speaker' s pos~ hon ~n the center of t:he room ~s unoCC'Up~ed, step up to the mcrophone and when recogn~zed b!l the Cha~rman, speak d~rectly .into the mcrophone by f~rst stat~ng your name and address clearl!l and tbsbnctly for t:he records. Stllte your bus~ness liS clearly and succ~nctl!l liS poss~ble and then Wll~t a moment to see ~f the COlllllUss~oners have IIny queshons ~n regard to !lour comments or quest~ons. If there are no other quest~ons or COJIIIIIents, return to !lour seat so that the next person may address t:he COIIIIIUss~on. If you w~sh to address t:he COlIJIIIJ.ss~on on J/Jo!Itters other than public hear~ngs, the agenda prov~des for that t~me when the Cha~rman asks for conunents from the publ~c. Address the COIlI1IIJ.ss~on .in the same manner as stated for publ~c hear~ngs, always stat~ng your name and address f~rst. MARCH 6. 1985 Next Resolutlon 111365 1. Pledge of Alleglance 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Mlnutes of February 20. 1985 4. Publlc Hearlngs: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2-85 VARIANCE 3-85 201 Maln Street Resolutlon '1363&1364 . A request for on-sale beer, Wlne and dlstllled splrlts, and prOV1Slon of less than the requlred on-slte parklng; In conJunctlon wlth the establlshment of a restaurant (lunch and dlnner) In a vacant bUlldlng formerly used for restaurant purposes. Envlronmental Revlew: The proJect lS categorlcally exempt from Envlronmental Revlew (Ca11fornla Government Code Sectlon 15301). Sectlon: 28-1300(6)(a), 28-1304(4) Appllcant: Walter R. and Mona K. Babcock Owner: Same B. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT - ZTA 2-84 Resolutlon '1348 (Referred back to Plannlng Commlsslon by Clty Councll) A request to establlsh speclflc llmltatlons and publlc reVlew procedures for addltlons and modlflcatlons to nonconformlng propertles. Envlronmental Revlew: Negatlve Declaratlon 6-84 has been prepared In lleu of an Envlronmental Impact Report. App11cant: Clty of Seal Beach 5. Commlsslon Requests 6. Oral Communlcatlons 7. Commlsslon Communlcatlons 8. Report from Secretary A. Szcnrban Appeal B. Lampson Report C. Lohrke Appea 1 (Puer) 9. AdJournment . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 6, 1985 The Seal Beach Plann1ng Comm1ss10n met in regular seSS10n at 7:38 p.m. wlth V1ce-Chalrman Covlngton call1ng the meet1ng to order. Commissloner Rlpperdan lead the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Excused Absence: Vlce-Chalrman Covlngton Commlssloners: Hunt, Perrin, Rlpperdan Chalrman Jessner (Letter from Chalrman lndlcatlng he would be out of town on thlS meeting date; therefore, 1t was the order of the chalr wlth the consensus of the Commlsslon to excuse Chalrman Jessner's absence). Also Present: John Baucke, Dlrector of Development Servlces Dana Ogdon, Admlnlstratlve Alde APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commlssloner Perrln moved, second by Comm1ss10ner Rlpperdan, to approve the mlnutes of the February 20, 1985 regular Plannlng Commlsslon meet1ng as presented. . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Cov1ngton, Hunt, Perrln, R1pperdan None Jessner Motlon Carrled PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2-85 - VARIANCE 3-85 - 201 MAIN ST. - BABCOCK Mr. Baucke, the Commlsslon Secretary, presented the staff report for the Comm1ss10n's conslderat10n. He lndlcated app11cant was requesting an on-sale beer, Wlne and dlstllled sp1r1ts whlle provldlng less than the requlred on-Slte parklng; all In conJunctlon wlth the establlshment of a restaurant. Mr. Baucke detalled the background of thlS request, lndlcatlng appllcant had formerly operatlng thlS restaurant under the name of Walt's Wharf for nlne years prlor to leaslng to another restauranteur. Mr. Babcock lS seeklng to re-establlsh the restaurant S1nce closure of Walt's Wharf In 1983. Staff recommended approval of both the condltlonal use permlt and the varlance wlth condltlons as noted 1n staff report. Mr. Covlngton, act1ng as Cha1rman, declared the publlC hearlng open. Walter Babcock, 201 Maln Street, appllcant, made hlmself aval1able for questlons pertalnlng to the operatlon of Walt's Wharf. He lndlcated that he met wlth lnterested persons regardlng re-openlng of Walt's prlor to comlng before the Plannlng Commlsslon. He further 1ndlcated that hlS deslre was to be a good nelghbor and to be sensltlve to any 1ssues whlch arlse. Babcock also lndlcated that he would part1clpate In the ''In-lleu'' program when and lf developed by C1ty. John Euhlberg, 208 8th Street, buslness owner of 207! Maln Street, stated that he was one of the most voc1ferous when Walt's Wharf had nOlse problems wlth the entertalnment whlle under leaslng operatlons . . . . Plann1ng Comm1ss10n Meet1ng of 3/6/85 Page 2 of d1fferent restauranteur, but that when the restaurant was operated by Walt Babcock, there was never any problem: He d1d not foresee any future problems. Mrs. St1mon, res1dent 1n Seal Beach for 47 years, stated that she felt that park1ng was an exaggerated problem. She p01nted out that many older commun1t1es have s1m1lar problems, but that park1ng could be found a block or two farther 1f necessary. Owen Pate, 137 12th Street, stated he felt Walt's Wharf was as much a part of the town as the p1er. Robert Cook, 441 Central, stated he was a member of the Plann1ng Comm1ss10n when Walter Babcock f1rst operated the restaurant, and at that t1me cond1t10ns were placed on the cond1t10nal use perm1t as they are now. He further stated there was never any v10lat10n of any of those cond1t10ns and there was never any quest10n about fulf1ll1ng any of those requ1rements. As none spoke aga1nst the matter, Mr. Cov1ngton declared the pub11c hear1ng closed. Comm1ss10ner R1pperdan asked that a cond1t10n be added that roof equ1pment be removed or screened. Mr. Babcock agreed and w1th the concensus of the Comm1ss10n, Cond1t10n #9 was amended to 1nclude the words "and roof equ1pment" to be added 1n front of the words "be removed or adequately sh1elded." Mr. Cov1ngton also asked that the words "of 55 park1ng spaces" be added to Cond1t10n #2, 1n front of the words "subject to approval of the C1ty Attorney." Comm1ss10ner Perr1n moved to approved Resolut10n #1364, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 201 MAIN STREET (WALT'S WHARF), as amended, Mr. R1pperdan seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Cov1ngton, Hunt, Perr1n, R1pperdan None Jessner Mot10n Carr1ed Comm1ss10ner Perr1n moved to adopt Resolut10n No. 1363, A RESOLUTION OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2- 85, A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PERMIT FOR ON-SALE BEER, WINE AND DISTILLED SPIRITS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 201 MAIN STREET, as presented. Mr. R1pperdan seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Cov1ngton, Hunt, Perr1n, R1pperdan None Jessner Mot10n Carr1ed PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 2-84 - RESOLUTION #1348 Mr. Baucke 1nd1cated th1s request to estab11sh spec1f1c l1m1tat10ns and pub11c reV1ew procedures for add1t10ns and mod1f1cat10ns to nonconform1ng propert1es was referred back to the Plann1ng Comm1ss10n after a number of comments were rece1ved from the pub11c about the request. Th1s procedure would prov1de for any add1t10nal 1nput from the pub11c. Spec1f1cally, Mr. Baucke p01nted out that the eX1st1ng cond1t10ns would allow no 1mprovements to nonconform1ng bU1ld1ngs unless the park1ng requ1rements are sat1sf1ed. He further stated that th1s zon1ng text amendment 1S proposed to l1bera11ze the eX1st1ng standards. Mr. Cov1ngton declared the pub11c hear1ng opened . . . Plann1ng Comm1ss10n Meet1ng of 3/6/85 Page 3 for Zon1ng Text Amendment 2-84. Mr. J1m Funk, 2l5! 10th Street, spoke as he was concerned about the 1mpact of th1s amendment to ne1ghbors. He stated that he attended a meet1ng on 2/28 held by the Old Town Rental Hous1ng Improvement Assoc1at10n, dur1ng wh1ch t1me he felt the concensus of those attend1ng to be that m1nor structural alterat10ns should be perm1tted w1thout requ1r1ng a cond1t10nal use perm1t. There appeared to be agreement at the meet1ng that no cond1t10na1 use perm1ts nor 1nvest1gat10n reports should be requ1red for such 1tems as add1t10na1 bathrooms, bedroom expanS10ns, 1nclud1ng the maJor1ty of poss1ble 1nter10r mod1f1cat10ns, and 1nc1ud1ng reduct10n 1n the number of un1ts. Mr. Funk 1nd1cated there would be another meet1ng of the same group on March 14 where the requests and concerns 1nd1cated at the prev10us meet1ng would be put 1nto wr1t1ng to be g1ven to the P1ann1ng Comm1ss10n. Mr. Funk stated that he felt the amendment was too restr1ctr1ve and Comm1ss10n should look at mod1fY1ng the amendment to 1nclude a bathroom add1t10n and bedroom expans10n 1n certa1n cases. Mr. Hunt asked 1f Mr. Funk's statements ton1ght were 1n concurrence w1th h1s letter recommendat10ns. Mr. Funk stated that S1nce that t1me he has had add1t10nal 1nput wh1ch changed h1s pos1t10n. He felt that staff should be g1ven more power to reV1ew app11cat10ns and take care of them at the staff level rather than go through the cond1t10nal use perm1t process for each app11cat10n. Mr. Stark, 204 Ocean Avenue, stated he d1sagreed w1th Mr. Funk's analys1s of the meet1ng of February 28th. He felt the concensus was 1n favor of the downzon1ng. He d1d not want to see Old Town w1th h1gh r1ses nor d1d he w1sh to see propert1es deter10rate because no 1mprovements were allowed to nonconform1ng structures 1n the hopes the structures would be demo11shed and replaced. Mr. Cov1ngton p01nted out that eX1st1ng code w1ll allow no 1mprovements to nonconform1ng bU1ld1ngs unless bU1ld1ngs are brought 1nto conform1ty, wh1ch generally 1mp11es that park1ng requ1rement must be met. Mr. Stark felt 1mprovements should be allowed as long as they do not 1ncrease the dens1ty of the structure. Mr. Stark also felt that dwel11ng 1mprovements should not be t1ed to park1ng. Mr. Cov1ngton expla1ned that the purpose of ZTA 2-84 1S to allow greater flex1b1l1ty to 1mprovements to nonconform1ng bU1ld1ngs. Tony Laur1e, 115 12th Street, was 1n favor of the amendment to the extent that 1t means to l1bera11ze current code. He felt the eX1st1ng standard 1S counterproduct1ve. Mr. Laur1e was 1n favor of a code enforcement off1cer. He also felt the need to stream11ne procedures for rece1v1ng approval for 1mprovements, and to cut down on red tape and costs. Steve Cole, 222 17th Street, agreed that more flex1b1l1ty was needed 1n add1ng a bathroom and one bedroom to a small, two-bedroom, one-bath home. Paula Shearer, 317 17th Street, also felt that the ph1losphy of the eX1st1ng code prOV1S10ns was to downgrade the propert1es to eventually turn them 1nto s1ngle fam1ly dwel11ngs. She felt that tenants' needs should be addressed, that tenants have a r1ght to k1ng-s1zed beds and two baths. She also stated that absentee landlords do not care, but those who res1de 1n the C1ty would l1ke 1mprovements. M1tz1 Morton, 153 13th Street, w1shed to clar1fy the ph1losophy of Ord. 1129; 1.e., that every bU11d1ng has a pract1cal econom1C l1fe, therefore, 1f add1t10ns or expans10ns are perm1tted, the econom1C l1fe 1S extended and the bU1ld1ng may never become conform1ng. Cov1ngton agreed that ph1losophy was the bas1s of ZTA 5-83, but c1rcumstances have changed. The new zon1ng text amendment was drafted to address the exceSS1veness of past amendments, . Plann1ng Comm1ss10n Meet1ng of 3/6/85 Page 4 . where1n no 1mprovements could be made to nonconform1ng propert1es unless park1ng requ1rements could be met. M1tz1 Morton asked why those pr1v1leges were taken away 1n 1983. She also felt that the "Seal Beach Journal" should cover the Plann1ng Comm1ss10n meet1ngs and felt that the pub11c not1ces were not apparent to the readers unless they checked the back pages. When there 1S an 1mportant 1ssue such as a zon1ng text amendment, she felt the C1ty should sent a letter to every property owner. She stated the purpose of the Old Town Rental Assoc1at10n 1S to educate the people on these matters. Owen Pate, 137 12th Street, spoke aga1nst the amendment. He recently redecorated f1ve nonconform1ng un1ts under the rules and regulat10ns of 1982, and felt the tenants, the ne1ghbors, the C1ty and h1mself would have benef1tted from more flex1b1l1ty 1n the law. He 1S speak1ng aga1nst the matter because he felt that 1ncreas1ng a bedroom to accommodate a closet should be allowed. Mr. Pate 1nd1cated that garages should be used for park1ng veh1cles, wh1ch 1S not always the case. He felt that at least half of the garages on 12th Street are rented to nonres1dents. Robert Cook, 441 Central, felt the zon1ng text amendment should be 1dent1f1ed as applY1ng to res1dent1al property, not to commerc1al, or 1f 1t app11ed to commerc1al, to so state. He made some observat10ns, wh1ch 1nclude a query as to why property upgrad1ng 1n the m1nds of people stop short of 1mprov1ng park1ng, 2) the hypocr1sy 1n the support people g1ve to the ear11er downzon1ng, an act10n that was spec1f1cally des1gned to reduce dens1ty and solve the park1ng problem, wh1le at the same t1me advocat1ng changes wh1ch result 1n Just the Oppos1te consequences, that 1S, the poss1b1l1ty of 1ncreas1ng dens1ty and 1ncreas1ng the park1ng problem, and 3) why some are 1ns1st1ng on the r1ght to add and expand wh1le cont1nu1ng to burden conform1ng propert1es w1th more problem park1ng. He ment10ned a suggest10n made at a recent Old Town Rental Assoc1at10n meet1ng, wh1ch was to open the park1ng w1th smaller cars that are 1n use today wh1ch would allow the use of the apron, 1n a sense to ach1eve tandem park1ng. Gary Kennedy, 1619 Seal Way, asked spec1f1c quest10ns on remode11ng h1s property. Baucke stated that under the new amendment, many 1mprovements could be made, some u~der the CUP process. Dave Potter, 1007 Seal Way had sent a letter to the C1ty Manager 1n January regard1ng concerns. In essence, Potter felt that changes were necessary 1n the amendment. He would l1ke to see the amendment reworded so that m1nor 1tems can be rev1ewed through the bU1ld1ng perm1t process, 1.e., any remode11ng that does not 1ncrease the square footage, any remode11ng w1th1n the walls that does not 1ncrease bedrooms and mak1ng the percentage of remode11ng more equ1table (poss1bly based on footpr1nt rather than eX1st1ng structure. He also felt that the tone of the amendment should be more pos1t1ve rather than negat1ve. He felt there ought to be some l1m1t on bedrooms 1n terms of how many ought to be allowed. He also felt a spec1al 1nvest1gat10n may not be necessary as the bU1ld1ng code prov1des for the need to 1mmed1ately correct safety hazards. It was the order of the Cha1r, w1th the Comm1ss10n's concensus, to recess at 9:50 p.m. Cha1rman Jessner reconvened the meet1ng at 10:00 p.m. . Joyce R1sner, 845 Dr1ftwood, expressed surp1se that the amendment passed 1n 1983 prov1ded no procedure for persons w1sh1ng to convert a duplex . . . Plann1ng Comm1ss10n Meet1ng of 3/6/85 Page 5 1nto a s1ngle fam1ly house. She clar1f1ed procedure w1th staff. Gary Myr1ck, 2l6! 10th Street, spoke 1n Oppos1t10n to th1s amendment as he felt 1t 1S too restrict1ve. It places too much emphas1s on the cond1t10nal use perln1t process as he felt that process cannot prov1de park1ng. Charles Antos, 316 10th Street, read the goals adopted by the City 10 1982 1n the Hous1ng Element to the General Plan. He made the d1st1nct10n between nonconform1ng and 1llegal propert1es. He felt 1llegal act1v1t1es are what contr1bute more to the problem of park1ng than eX1st1ng nonconform1ng bU1ld1ngs. Mr. Antos felt th1s was a good opportun1ty to collect thoughts, 1deas and suggest10ns from many d1fferent fact10ns w1th1n the C1ty and comp1le and review that data so that 1t may be sent to Counc1l for reV1ew. Antos also felt that a full house 1nspect10n would not be necessary for the reason 1f a bU1ld1ng 1nspector comes upon a hazard, he must act on that 1mmed1ately or be respons1ble for contr1butory neg11gence. He hoped the Comm1ss10n would continue th1s matter to g1ve the people who have worked on th1s 1tem for some t1me the effort to br1ng a draft back. Comm1ss10ners d1scussed whether or not to cont1nue pub11c hear1ng. Joe Hunt felt that all that can be sa1d on th1s amendment can be sa1d. He felt a new amendment should be e1ther draft or th1s amendment acted upon. Staff suggested th1s zon1ng text amendment be changed to reflect 1nput rece1ved to date. Comm1ss10ner Perr1n moves to recess pub11c hear1ng and cont1nue at the future Plann1ng Comm1ss10n meet1ng, R1pperdan seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Cov1ngton, Hunt, Perr1n, R1pperdan None Jessner Mot10n Carr1ed Cov1ngton repeated that the pub11c hear1ng on th1s zon1ng text amendment w1ll be cont1nued unt1l a t1me and date certa1n, and on an 1nter1m bas1s by the consensus of the Comm1ss10n, a pub11c study seSS10n to rece1ve addt10nal 1nput, would be held at the next regularly scheduled Plann1ng Comm1ss10n meet1ng. COMMISSION REQUESTS There were no Comm1ss10n requests. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral commun1cat10ns. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS There were no Comm1ss10n commun1cat10ns. REPORT FROM SECRETARY As pursuant to the mun1c1pal code, when Counc1l takes act10n on an appeal, contrary to the act10n of the Plann1ng Comm1ss10n, the Comm1ss10n 1S requ1red to respond back to Counc1l 1n the form of a report. The Cha1rman has drafted a response to C1ty Counc1l 1n response to Mr. Szczerban's appeal. The Comm1ss10n was to reV1ew the report and d1scuss at th1s t1me. Mr. Cov1ngton asked that th1s 1tem be held over unt1l the next meet1ng after read1ng the Counc1l m1nutes regard1ng that 1tem would be ava11able. . . . Plann~ng Comm~ss~on Meet~ng of 3/6/85 Page 6 Mr. Baucke expla~ned that a report from the C~ty Eng~neer regard~ng the h~story ~nvolv~ng veh~cle acc~dents on Lampson Avenue over a f~ve year per~od of t~me was ava~albe to Comm~ss~on. In the C~ty Eng~neer's op~n~on, the acc~dent h~story for Lampson Avenue would not Just~fy the dev~at~on from setback that Mr. F~fe was ask~ng. The C~ty Eng~neer ~s w~ll~ng to extend th~s report to a 10 year per~od of t~me and look at the ~ssue more carefully and return to the Comm~ss~on w~th that ~nformat~on at a future date. Mr. Baucke told the Comm~ss~on that Mr. P~zer's appl~cat10n at 1205 Seal Way has been appealed by Mr. Robert Lohrke, the ne1ghbor~ng res~dent, about the ~ssue ~nvolv~ng the sta~rway that the Comm~ss~on d~scussed. Baucke also noted that the draft of the State Lands Spec~f~c Plan should be before the Comm~ss~on w~th~n the week and ~t w~ll be d~scussed at the next meet~ng. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Cha~r, w~th the concensus of the Comm~ss10n, to adJourn the March 6th Plann~ng Comm~ss~on meet~ng at 10:37 p.m. .Qt. ~. Record~ng