Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1985-11-20 , SEAL BEACH PLAM.ING COI~riISSION AG[t,:JA C,ty Coune,l Chambers 211 E,ghth Street Seal Beach, Cal,forn,a e rhe Seal Beach PlannJn~ ConMUSSJOn meets In seSSJon every fJrst and thJrd Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m If you WJsh to address the CommJSSJon on any partJcular publJC hearJng Jtem, the ChaJrman w:zll call for publJC testJmony fJrst for those In favor of the project, and second, for those who are not In favor when you see that the speaker's posJtJon In the center of the room JS unoccupJed, step up to the m:zcrophone and when reco~nJzed by the ChaJrman, speak dJrectly Jnto the mJcrophone by fJrst statJn~ your name and address c1early and dJstJnctly for the records. State your busJness as clearly and succJnctly as possJble and then waJt a moment to see :zf the ComnussJoners have any questJons In regard to your comments or questJons If there are no other qu~stJons or comments, return to your seat so that the next person mall address the ComnussJon " If you WJsh to address the ConmussJon on matters other than pUblJC hearJngs, the a~enda provJdes for that tJme when the ChaJrman asks for comments from the publJc. Address the Conmus5JOn In the same manner as stated for publJC hearJn~s, always statJng your name a~a address fJrst NOVEMBER 20, 1985 rlEXT RESOLUTlor~ ir 1398 1. Pledge of Alleglance 2. ~ l...fill 3. Report from Secretary 4. Consent Calendar A. Mlnutes of November 6, 1985 e B. Plan Revlew 1-85 - Seymour Plzer Mlnor Addltlon of less than 10% of the allowable floor area to a non- conformlng duplex located at 1205 & 1205i Seal Way C. Plan ReVlew 2-85 - Robert Wood Mlnor structural alteratlons In conJunctlon wlth a roof replacement to a non-conformlng bUl1dlng 5. PubllC HearlngS A. VARIANCE 12-85 Resolutlon '1397 12451 Seal Beach Blvd. (lucky's) (Contlnued from November 6. 1985) A request to allow a maJor structural alter- atlon and remodel to a grocery store located In a C-2 (General Commerclal) Zone wlthout prov1dlng the requ1red landscaplng. Code Sectlon: 28-1402(6), 28-2407 EnV1ronmental Revlew: The proJect 1S categorlcally exempt from Envlronmental Revlew [Cal1fornla Government Code Sectlon 15301(3)). Appllcant: lucky Stores, Inc. Owner: Rossmoor Bus1ness Center .- 6. SchedL led Matters A. Revlew of the General Plan, a report by staff and the Clty Attorney , i PlAllNING COMMISSIOlI AGEUDA November 20, 1985 Page 2 7. Commlsslon Requests 8. Oral Communlcatlons from the Audlence 9. Commlsslon Communlcatlons 10. AdJournment Agenda Forecast: December 4, 1985 -ZTA 8-85 Entertalnment -ZTA 9-85 Referral-Back Procedures on Zone Changes, Zonlng Text Amendments, etc. -Zone Change 1-85 Change of zone from C-2 (General Commerclal) to SPR (Speclflc Plan Regulatlon) Zone - State lands Parcel Flrst St. and P.C.H. -Vanance 11-84 Amendment of Resolutlon #1346 Schuvelller/Kyle - 320 Maln St. . . . e e PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20, 1985 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in I!gY!!I session at 7:35 p.m. with Chairman Jessner calling the meeting to order. Commissioner PerrIn led the Salute to the Flag. RQ~~_QA~~ Present: Chairman Jessner Commissioners Hunt, Perrin, Ripperdan Covington (arrIves 7:52 p.m.) None Absent: Also Present: John M. Baucke, Director of Development Services Greg Stepanicich, City Attorney RgfQRI_fRQM_~gQRgIARX Mr. Baucke. Commission Secretary, indicated that there were no items to report. QQN~gNI_QA~~N~AR There were 3 Items on the consent calendar for the CommIssion's consIderation. ChaIrman Jessner requested that the third item, C be removed from the consent calendar and discussed separately Commissioner Perrin also requested that item B be removed for discussion ~r. Hunt moves to approve item A. the minutes of the November 6. 1985 Planning CommIssion meeting. Mr. Ripperdan seconds. AYES: NOES. ABSTENTION: Hunt. Jessner. Ripperdan None Perrin Motion Carried IIIM_D Mr. Baucke indicated that item B was a request by Seymour Pizer for approval of structural improvements and minor enlargements to a legal non-conforming property Mr. Baucke presented the pro- posed plans to the Commission for their consideration and dIscussed the proposed additions. Staff recommended approval of P.R. 1-85 per staff corrected plan. Mr. PerrIn indicated that the reason behind his request for removal of item B was to give the CommIssion the opportunity to review the proposed changes as this property is a duplex which does not provde the required parking and approving this request would extend the life of the buildIng Mr Perrin felt that many of these types of applica- tions would be presented to the Commission due to the adoption of ZTA 2-84. Chairman Jessner noted that thIS applIcation was e - PlannIng Commission Meeting of November 20. 1985 Page 2 before the Commission previously as a CUP request which provided the requIred parking. Chairman Jessner asked staff what the final City Council action was on this request. Mr. Baucke indicated that the CouncIl requested that all feasible parking be provided. Mr. Perrin stated that he could not argue the point that the proposal meets Code, but he did not agree wIth it. ChaIrman Jessner asked the applicant if he wished to speak. ~~~g_f!~~~. applicant's son who also resides at this property, stated to the Commission that they had done everything possible to comply with all requirements. Mr Perrin once again mentioned the parking problem. Mr. Hunt agreed that the parking problem was a concern, but the community was being improved with this modifIcation and therefore. this application should be approved. Mr. Ripperdan agreed that it was a nice improvement to the community. Mr. Ripperdan moves to approve P.R. 1-85 as recommended by staff. Mr. Hunt seconds. AYES NOES: Hunt Jessner None Perrin, Ripperdan Motion Carried e Mr. Jessner noted that although he voted to approve this applIcation. he did share Mr. PerrIn's concerns about the parking problem. !Ig~_~ The next item for the Commission's consideration was P.R. 2-85. Mr. Baucke indicated that this item was a request by Robert Wood for the approval of an addition of a new roof for a legal non- conforming residential property. The subject property currently has a flat roof which allows extremely poor drainage. The applicant was proposing a slightly pitched roof to replace his existing flat roof. Mr. Baucke referenced City Council's adoption of ZTA 2-84 and its relationship to this particular request. Staff recommended the approval of P.R. 2-85 WIth one condition as noted in the staff report. the Commission reviewed the plan presented to them of the proposed modification. Mr. Hunt asked staff if their condition of the roof access had been dIscussed with the applicant. Mr. Baucke indicated that it had been discussed and the applicant had no objections. Mr. Baucke discussed the non-conformity of this property with the Commission due to parking, height, use of residential units in a commercial zone and the setback requirements. Mr. Baucke noted that by Changing the roof as proposed. the height of the bUIlding would still be significantly over the 30 ft. height limit . e e e Planning Commission MeetIng of November 20. 1985 Page 3 Mr. Baucke also noted that the heIght increase would be imper- ceptable from the street. Greg Stepanicich, City Attorney, discussed the particular code sectIon dealing wIth the permitted modification and what was being proposed He stated that this new roof would increase the height and this did present a problem, but the application was trying to avoid a leakage problem Mr Stepanicich noted that the Commission should review thIS application based on the applicant's request of a 10" addition in height under the provisions of the new ordinance. Mr. Jessner discussed with the City Attorney his concerns of establishing a precedent in the approval of this applIcation, and the fact that height is not addressed within the new ordinance. Mr. Stepanicich stated that since the new ordinance is silent in reference to height it is really a question of interpretation on the Commission's part. Mr. Perrin asked the City Attorney if he felt a precedent would be set here. Mr. Stepanicich stated that there IS always that possiblility and a potential danger in setting a precedent. Mr Hunt felt that the Commission was aware of what the objective of a height requirement was, and the applicant's letter did show a reasonable request of why a minor increase in height was necessary Chairman Jessner indicated that he would not be comfortable in approving this application. Mr. Ripperdan asked staff if all feasible parking has been pro- vided. Mr. Baucke noted that it had without gOing into the setbacks. Mr Covington discussed with the City Attorney past issues discussed by the CIty Council referencing the effects of thIS ordinance Mr. Stepanicich indicated that the effect of this ordinance was to allow non-conforming bUIldings to exist longer as it allows for them to be upgraded. He did not feel this request was unreasonable or outside the provisions of the code. He noted that if the roof drainage problem is to be corrected, this would be the only way to do it The increase is not for aesthetic purposes H2~~!1_!22g, applicant. indicated that he has tried to keep the height Increase to a bare minimum. He stated there was no other way to take care of the leakage problem. Mr. Wood discussed the need of a corrected design and the problem of the fire sprinklers on the roof top Mr Hunt felt that there was an opportunity here to correct this drainage problem and this request should be approved. Mr. Jessner felt that the Commission would not be dOing the community any justice in allowing a heIght raised above the specified limit. Mr. Ripperdan concurred wIth Mr. Jessner but noted that the 10" increase would not be visable from the ground level. Robert Wood spoke in reference to the fire sprinklers around the perimeter of the roof top. Mr Baucke discussed the current fire codes with the Commission. Mr. Covington suggested that since other available options by current fire codes were unknown, possIbly staff could research this with tit Planning Commission Meeting of Novembpr 20, 1985 Page 4 e e the fire department. The fIre department may allow removal of these roof top sprinklers if they're no longer required. Mr Perrin moved to approve P.R. 2-85 with the condition as recommended by staff and that a second condition be added that the applicant remove the roof top sprinklers if it is so deter- mined by the fire department. Mr. Hunt seconds. Mr. Covington asked the City Attorney if he concurred that it would be in everyone's best interest if the motion made specified findings as to why this particular plan's height increase was granted. Mr Stepanicich concurred with Mr. Covington's request to add that this application was being approved due to the unique problems of the building and in keeping with Section l(e) of the ordinance and the unusual fire sprinkler system already installed that the Commission is considering approving this request. The City Attorney added that the additional height was being approved to correct a drainage problem which presently exists. AYES: NOES Covington Jessner Hunt, Perrin, Ripperdan Motion Carried eY~1IQ_HgARINQ_=_YAR!ANQg_!!=~2_=_!!!2!_~!!!_I!!~h_I!Y~~ Mr. Baucke presented a brief background of this request to the Commission indIcating that the public hearing portion was closed as there had been a public hearing held at the November 6, 1985 Planning Commission meeting for this item. He noted that since Mr. Perrin was absent from this meeting, he had listened to the recorded tape of this public hearing so to be able to vote on this item. Mr. Baucke noted that this item had been continued to allow tIme for the staff to discuss with the City Attorney the concepts and points made at the November 6, 1985 meeting Mr. Jessner discussed the landscaping calculations preViously presented. Mr. Stepanicich. City Attorney, indicated that there were 2 main issues here The first was whether there was such a unique situation in that through the variance process, the findings could be made and that the total landscaping requirement could be found to be accomplished on an incremental basis. His main concern was that the City act consistently and apply the same methods as utilized with similar past applIcations. The other issue involved the applicant's proposal for a credit of the existing landscaping on the property. this approach creates a problem with special privileges being granted to those who make the landscaping improvements first and WIll be carrYing a SignIficantly greater burden than those who were later. Since more landscaping is added to the property, those who make application for Improvements at a later time would be allowed a greater credit. Mr. Covington and Mr StepanicIch discussed the cost of improvement as being between the landlord and tenant. and the Obligation for such improvements and the application are both in the hands of the landlord, not the tenant. Mr Covington stated that in a free enterprIse system. the very basic Planning Commission Meeting of November 20. 1985 lit Page 5 requirement that bodies such as ours have is to provide a level playing field. and it seems to be inequitable to allow a certain set of rules or interpretations to apply to those who have been here in the past when we're asking for a full and complete standard of all those who develop comparable properties now. ~r. Stepanicich stated that the City would not be involved in this decisIon and in addition. noted that the Variance. if granted. is to the landowner since the Variance carries with the property. Mr. Covington and Mr Jessner discussed the fairness of the applIcation of law and the matter of the City being consistent in their approvals. Mr. Hunt stated that he felt there should be a compromise in the amount of landscape credited. Mr. Covington moved to continue thIS request and thereby direct the applicant to propose a new landscape plan WhICh would fully comply with code. Mr Perrin seconds. To allow the public hearing to be re-opened for this item. both Mr Covington and Mr Perrin withdrew their motions. The Commission concurred to re-open the public hearing. Chairman Jessner declares the public hearing open. It Ag~!!ll_Y!~lQl!. applicant representative of Lucky Stores. Inc.. stated that he had no objections to the calculations presented by staff wIth the exception of the attributed landscaping. Mr. Covington discussed wIth Mr. Varlota who the actual applicant was and the maintenance costs involved Greg Stepanicich. City Attorney. discussed the code sectIons pertaining to this item. Mr. Varlota stated that Lucky preferred to have a vote from the Commission based on the amount of landscape that will be credited. Mr Varlota felt that the landscsape credit given now was unfair and ineqUitable. and he wanted a definition from the Commission that was consistent with past applications. Mr. Covington felt that if the Commission approved this application. the applicant's request would set the stage for future applica- tions with more permissive requests. As no other members opposition to this hearing. of the item. audience spoke in favor of nor in Chairman Jessner closed the public . Mr. Covington moved to continue Variance 12-85 and direct the applicant to provide staff and the Commission, for its review. a landscape plan which fully complies with the 10% landscape requirements, with additional landscaping totaling 10.182 sq. ft. as recommended by staff Mr. Perrin seconds Mr Baucke stated that based on the testimony of the applicant. staff feels that 1100 sq. ft. attributed to Lucky's not be credited against the e e e Plannlng Commisslon Meeting of November 20. 1985 Page 6 deviation since the applicant has stated that it is not under his control but is the Center's landscaping. Mr. Covington felt that no change in the credit should be considered at this time Mr. Ripperdan concurred with Mr. Covington. Mr. Hunt stated that he opposed the motion made by Mr. Covington. and he felt that the Commission should approve the applicant's request. AYES' NOES' CovIngton. Jessner. Perrin. Ripperdan Hunt Motion Carried ~QB!RY~IR_KAIIIR~ There was one scheduled matter item for discussion: Review of the General Plan. a report by staff and the City Attorney. Mr. Stepanicich presented a brief report outlining the Seal Beach General Plan. Mr Stepanicich pointed out a few areas requiring improvements and indicated that no action needed to be taken at this time. this was just for lnformation and discussion purposes. Mr. Covington and Mr Baucke discussed the preliminary review process. The City Attorney outlined particular court cases which spent a great deal of time detailing the compliance of General Plans to state laws He noted that the Seal Beach General Plan has all of the required elements of a General Plan. but its weakness was that it had been prepared in the early 1970's and had become dated Mr. Stepanicich then discussed each of the elements of the Seal Beach General Plan for the Commission's review. In discussion of the Circulation Element, Mr. Stepaniclch noted that a basic study on the traffic issue needed to be done and that an updated General Plan would be more compre- hensive for future developments in the evaluation of new projects Mr. Stepanicich once again noted to the Commission that this report was intended as a brief overview of the general Plan lkaw and the Seal Beach General Plan. He stated that the Seal Beach General Plan could definitely use a revision. Mr. Baucke stated that the Seal Beach General Plan was adequate. but outdated. It did not clearly establish the goals and objectives that the community wants to ascertaIn for its future. Mr. Hunt asked staft to outline the review process. Mr. Baucke stated the following: 1) Assess existing document. 2) Find opportunitIes and problems with existing document. 3) Preliminary review by staff and the City Attorney. 4) City Council concurrence that action should be taken for revision of the General Plan. 5) The City Council possIbly appoint a Task Force (approximately 15 members consisting of business owners, property owners, Planning Commissioners, all appointed by the City Council). The review and updatlng process takes approximately 1 year including the utilization of outside consultants in specific tOPIC areas 6) A draft is completed and goes before the City Council and the Planning Commission for review until a final document is achieved. The Commission also discussed the pOSSible inclusIon e e .e Planning Commission Meeting of November 20. 1985 Page 7 of the Coastal Plan to the Seal Beach General Plan. Staff Indicated that their recommendation was that the CIty Attorney's report be sent to the City CouncIl for theIr information and notation of the thoughts of the PlannIng Commission. The Commission concurred to instruct staff to do so. QQ~~!~~!QN_Rggyg~I~ Mr. Covington requested any recent imput from staff on the Hellman property. Mr. Baucke stated that there were still negotiations taking place between the developers and the Hellman owners at this time. Request for Qualifications will be sent out next month for a development constraint analysis on an environ- mental basis for the property. In addition. Mr. Baucke noted that in conjunction with the State Land's Specific Plan. Request for Proposals will be gOing out next week for an envIronmental analYSis and assessment of the proposed revised Specific Plan for the property. QRA~_QQ~~YN!QAI!QN~ There were no Oral Communications. QQ~~!~~!QN_QQ~~YN!QAI!QN~ There were no Commission CommunicatIons A~lQYRN~gNI It was the concensus of the Commission and so directed by Chair to adjourn the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:10 p.m. -- ~~~---------------- Re~~ Secretary