Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1985-03-20 Sf' ,BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGEN~'1 C,ty Council Chambers 211 E,ghth Street Seal Beach. Cal,forn,a . 2'he Seal Beach Planrung COll/l1lJ.ss~on meets ~n sess~on every f~rst and th~rd Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. If you w~sh to address the Comm~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 ~n favor of the proJect, and second, for those who are not ~n favor. When you see that the speaker' s pos~ Uon ~n the center of the room ~s unoccup~ed, step up to the l/JJ.crophone and when recogn~zed by the Cha~rman, speak d~rectly ~nto the l/JJ.crophone by f~rst stat~ng your name and address clearly and d~st~nctly for the records. State your bus~ness as clearly and succ~nctly as poss~ble and then w,u t a moment to see ~f the COllIIIIJ.ss~oners have any quest~ons ~n regard to your comments or quest~ons. If there are no other quest~ons or comments, return to your seat so that the next person may address the COllIIIIJ.ss~on. If you w~sh to address the COllDlUss~on on matters other than publ~c hear~ngs, the agenda prov~des for that t~me when the Cha~rman asks for comments from the publ~c. Address the COllIIIIJ.ss~on ~n the same manner as stated for publ~c hear~ngs, always stat~ng your name and address f~rst. March 20, 1985 Next Resolutlon #1365 1. 2. 3. Pledge of Alleglance Roll Call Report from Secretary (A) Changes to Agenda (B) Past and Upcomlng Councll Matters (C) Plannlng and Legal Matters Consent Calendar 4. . At thlS tlme, members of the publlC may present testlmony to the CommlsSlon as to why any ltem should be removed from the consent calendar for a full and separate publ1c hearlng. Unless a Commlssloner requests a full publlC hearlng, all consent agenda ltems wlll be acted upon In one summary vote. (A) E~tens'on_of CUP 2-84 - Rangthong Tal CUlslne 5. Scheduled Matters The publlC may speak at the dlscretlon of the Commlsslon. (A) Study seSSlon on Zonlng Text Amendment 2-84 Non- conformlng BUlldlng ProvlSlons. 6. Commlsslon Requests 7. Oral Communlcatlon from the Audlence 8. Commlsslon Communlcatlons 9. AdJournment Agenda Forecast: Aprll 3, 1985 - Study seSSlon State Lands Speclflc Plan Aprll 17,1985 - Condltlonal Use Permlt 2-85 Mlchael Farrel B47 Surfslde . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 20, 1985 The Seal Beach P1ann1ng Comm1ss10n met 1n regular seSS10n at 7:40 p.m. w1th Cha1rman Jessner call1ng the meet1ng to order. Comm1ss10ner Hunt lead the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Cha1rman Jessner Comm1ss10ners: Cov1ngton, Hunt, R1pperdan Comm1ss10ner Perr1n John M. Baucke, D1rector of Development Serv1ces Dana Ogdon, Adm1n1strat1ve A1de ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: REPORT FROM SECRETARY Mr. Baucke, the Comm1ss10n Secretary, stated there were no scheduled changes o to th1s agenda. Past & Upcom1ng Agenda Matters Mr. Baucke stated that ZTA 1-85 w111 come before Counc11 for a pub11c hear1ng on March 25, 1985. He further stated the appeal for T1ny Nay10rs has been cont1nued unt11 requested by the restauranteurs. It was also noted that the Lohrke appeal has been set for the f1rst Counc11 meet1ng on Apr11 8th. Mr. Baucke also brought the Comm1S1son up to date on p1ann1ng matters, 1.e., the large 111ega1 Safeway pole s1gn has been removed pursuant to the d1rect10n of the Comm1ss10n to enforce the S1gn code provisions. Lampson Avenue Traff1c Acc1dent Ana1ys1s Report1ng back to the Comm1ss10n as requested, Mr. Baucke 1ntroduced the Ass1stant C1ty Eng1neer, Denn1s Jue, who would present the report. Ask1ng 1f the Comm1ss10n had had the opportun1ty to reV1ew the report, Mr. Jue then exp1a1ned the C1ty Eng1neer's recommendat10ns, 1.e., no spec1a1 C1r- cumstances eX1st on Lampson Avenue that would warrant any property owner to dev1ate from p1ann1ng and bU11d1ng codes of the C1ty that would 1n any way reduce traff1c acc1dents. Mr. Jessner 1nqu1red 1f the C1ty Eng1neer had any suggest10ns for a11ev1at1ng the s1tuat10n on Lampson. Mr. Jue stated that the area 1n quest10n was 1nvest1gated dur1ng the n1ght and day and the 11ght1ng and use of reflectors was found to be appropr1ate. Mr. Jue further ment10ned that the average acc1dent rate on Lampson has averaged S1X acc1dents per year over the last four years and that only two of the e1ght block wall acc1dents have occurred S1nce Apr11, 1981. Comm1ss10ner Cov1ngton felt that acc1dents occurr1ng on Basswood, Cand1eberry and Heather 1ntersect10ns were h1gh. He also felt cons1derat10n should be g1ven to the number of res1dent1a1 un1ts abutt1ng Lampson Avenue, along w1th the length of that street vs. the acc1dent rat10s on other maJor arter1a1s w1th1n the C1ty. Respond1ng to quest10ns, Mr. Jue stated that Lampson represents 11% of the traff1c and 5% of the acc1dents w1th1n the C1ty. The State looks at acc1dents per m11110n veh1c1es, but does not cons1der the length of the street. Cov1ngton 1nd1cated he had hoped the C1ty Eng1neer would make recommendat10ns for a safer Lampson Avenue. . . . Plann1ng Comm1ss10n Meet1ng of 3/20/85 Page 2 He also felt that S1nce the C1ty presently has on the books the ab1l1ty for approv1ng h1gher fenc1ng 1n certa1n c1rcumstances, that a stronger type of fence could also be approved as an alternat1ve for homeowners along Lampson. Comm1ss10ner R1pperdan felt that a stronger fence would not be the answer to stopp1ng veh1cles and there could be a potent1al for l1ab1l1ty. Mr. Cov1ngton requested the C1ty Eng1neer to study the Lampson Avenue problem to 1nvest1gate 1f there 1S any poss1b1l1ty of slow1ng veh1cles down by some type of re1nforced fence and to also look at the potent1al l1ab1l1ty. He stated that an op1n10n m1ght be needed from the C1ty Attorney and asked that staff br1ng back th1s report at some future date. The Comm1ss10n agreed. CONSENT - EXTENSION OF CUP 2-85 - RANGTHONG TAl CUISINE Mr. Baucke presented staff report stat1ng that as a cond1t10n of approval of CUP 2-84, staff was to reV1ew the bus1ness operat10n at the end of one year. It was determ1ned that the Ch1ef of Po11ce and the Plann1ng Department have no concerns regard1ng th1s matter and recommendat10n was to extend CUP 2-84 1ndef1n1tely w1th all the cond1t10ns of that approval to rema1n 1n effect. Mr. Cov1ngton moved, second by Mr. R1pperdan to approve the extens10n of CUP 2-84. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Cov1ngton, Hunt, Jessner, R1pperdan None Perr1n Mot10n Carr1ed STUDY SESSION - ZTA 2-84 - Nonconform1ng BU1ld1ng Prov1s10ns Mr. Baucke presented background on ZTA 2-84. He recommended an amended proposal based on test1mony prev10usly rece1ved. Th1s amended proposal would estab11sh three levels of reV1ew: 1) over the counter bU1ld1ng perm1t reV1ew, 2) consent calender (Comm1ss10n rev1ew) and 3) Cond1t10nal Use Perm1t Process. Baucke stated that Level 2 would requ1re a $10 fee and not1ce to property owners w1th1n 100 feet. W1th that consent calendar process, any Comm1ss10n member or 1nterested c1t1zen could request the 1tem be removed from consent calendar and be heard by the pub11c. Mr. Baucke further expla1ned the chart wh1ch shows wh1ch level of reV1ew process would be used for a part1cular construct10n proJect. Mr. Baucke further noted th1s amended proposal would be the most l1beral set forth 1n Seal Beach re non-conform1ng propert1es. The recommendat10n was for approval w1th later mod1f1cat10ns should they be necessary. Mr. J1m Funk expla1ned 1n deta1l the concensus arr1ved at dur1ng the recent Old Town Rental Improvement Assoc1at10n meet1ng. A copy of h1s deta1led statement 1S attached. Mr. Funk also 1nd1cated the Assoc1at10n supports the retent10n of a code enforcement off1cer for the purpose of e11m1nat1ng 1llegal garage converS10ns. Mr. Funk also 1nd1cated that Counc1lman Grgas brought up a p01nt that the reference to 10% 1ncrease 1n eX1st1ng structure m1ght be more feas1ble and fa1r 1f t1ed to total floor area or lot S1ze. A quest10n was also ra1sed as to need for full house 1nspect10n. Jessner 1nd1cated that one of the maJor reasons for request1ng a full house 1nspect10n was for allev1at10n of safety hazards 1n the older homes. Funk then stated . . . Plann1ng Comm1ss10n Meet1ng of 3/20/85 Page 3 that the full house 1nspect10n could be requ1red for homes over a certa1n age. Mr. Charles Antos, 316 10th Street, expla1ned the h1story beh1nd the C1ty'S preV10US code enforcement off1cer. Accord1ng to Antos, the C1ty had h1red a code enforcement off1cer S1X years ago to make property 1nspect10ns 1n the downtown area. The enforcement off1cer was later lent to the Redevelopment agency for a per10d of l~ years. At the end of that t1me, the f1rst letters were sent w1th regard to code enforcement. W1th the onset of Prop 13, the code enforcement off1cer was layed off as part of the C1ty'S budget reduct10n. Ch1 Kredell, 1615 Seal Way, felt 1t would be 1mposs1ble to have Leisure World agree to a code enforcement off1cer, and should the C1ty h1re one, he would have to serve the ent1re C1ty. Bob Cook, 441 Central Avenue, p01nted out some concerns. Mr. Cook stated that not all parcels are un1form 1n S1ze, that to allow room add1t10ns of less than 10% of the eX1st1ng struccture, would allow larger homes greater opportun1ty to expand and the small two bedroom homes on a large lot would not be able to expand as much. He felt the percentage should be t1ed 1nto the parcel S1ze rather than the S1ze of the eX1sting structure. Another concern of Mr. Cook's was the fact that no allowance was made for maJor d1fferences 1n nonconformity. As he pointed out, some cons1derat10n should be g1ven to propert1es that are nonconform1ng due to setback, wh1le another parcel might be nonconform1ng due to no park1ng. Mr. Hunt congratulated staff on the proposal and suggested that each 1tem noted on the chart be rev1ewed w1th the possib1l1ty of plac1ng 1nto the bU1ld1ng perm1t reV1ew category. Joe R1bal asked that some flex1b1l1ty be g1ven w1th regard to compact park1ng. Mr. Baucke agreed w1th Mr. Cook that the degree of nonconform1ty should be evaluated and that staff would look at that carefully, along w1th the relat10nsh1p of increas1ng the parcel by 10%, rather than the eX1st1ng structure. Mr. Cov1ngton moves to cont1nue to Apr1ll~, Mr. Hunt seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Cov1ngton, Hunt, Jessner, R1pperdan None Perr1n Mot10n Carr1ed COMMISSIONS REQUESTS There were no Comm1ss10n requests. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no speakers from the aud1ence. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS The Comm1ss10n d1scussed the draft letter to the C1ty Counc1l prepared by the Cha1rman on Appeal 5-84, Szczerban. The Comm1ss10n unan1mously agreed to sent the letter to the C1ty Counc1l as worded. D1scuss10n followed on the tOp1C of code enforcement. After d1scuss10n, the Comm1ss10n unan1mously moved to d1rect staff to prepare a survey of code enforcement act1v1t1es by other c1t1es 1n Orange County. ADJOURNMENT It was the concensus of the Comm1ss10n and so ordered by the Cha1r, to adJourn the regular meet1ng of March 20, 1985 at 11:15 p.m. ~ ' Re~~