Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1986-02-19 / .; . , , . '. - SEt ~EACH PLANNING OOMHISSION AGEND' C1ty Councl1 Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach. California -.; ... \ ! \ \ I 2'be Seal Beacb I'llllU2!ng Cormaiss1on I118ets in session fIVfIry f1rst IInd third Wednesday of eacb IIIOnth at 7130 p,m. If !IOu ,,1sb to address the COlIIII1ss.1on on IInY lMrt1cular public bearing item, the Chairman "ill call for public test1mony first for those in favor of the project, and second, for those "ho are not in favor. rtben!lOu see that the speak.er's pos1tion 1n the center of the Z'OQIII .1s unoc:cup1ecf, step up to the microphone and "hen rec:ogn1zed by the Chairman, speale directly into tbe micro,pbone by first stating !lOur name and address clearly and distinctly for the records. State your business as clearly and succinctly as possible and then ,,111 t a ...nt to see if the COIJIIIJ.ss1oners have any questions in regard to !lOur CClIIIIIIl!nts or questions. If there are no other questions or COIIIIIents, return to your seat so that the ne.t JIfIrson _y address the Coaa1ss10n. If !IOu "ish to address the COIIIIIIi.ss1on on _tters other thlUl public hearings, the agenda prov.1des for tbat t1me "ben the Cba1naan aslcs for C'OIIIIIIents frtJIIJ the public. Address. the COmm1ss10n in the same manner as stated for public bearings, al"ays stat1. !lOur name IUId address f.1rst. Pebruary 19. 1988 (Amendedl Next Re801ution .1414 1. ~!~fK~_2!_6!!~K!!B2~ 2 . B2!LS!!! 3. B!R2l!_!l2__!!2l!!!ll 4. _S2B!!B!_S!!!nf!l A. r!u_Bu!!!!_i=!! (McMullenl A reque8t deviation with a re8idence to allow a minor heirht for a roof line a880ciated propo8ed new 8ingle family - 218 8th Street. B. ~!!B_B!!!!!!_~=!! IZember/Roman8' A reque8t for an interior remodel and the addition of a balcony to a non- conforming property located at 209 Ocean Avenue. 5. f!~!!2_1~!l!DK! A. !n!!D2!_1=!! Re801ution *1410 A reque8t to: 11 Make 8tructural improvement8 and addition8 to a non-conforming buUding. 21 Provide le88 than the required parking. 31 Not prOVide a loading zone. 41 Allow the con8truction of a new addition to be located within a required 8ide yard 8etback. Environmental Review: categorically exempt Review [California Section 15301Iel]. Th18 project 18 from Environmental Government Code Applicant: Tom Schuveiller/Brian Kyle Code Section8: 1403. 28-2500 28-1402. 28-2311. 28- / . , , . . '." _/ '. . ! '( , ) Plannin. Coamission A.enda February 19. 1988 pa.. 2 B. !!t!!B2!_I:!1 Resolution .1411 ~!!~!!!!B!!_!!!_~!t!!1-I=!I_I_!=!1 A reequest for a proposed walk-in/take- out deli with on-sale beer and wine and les~ than the required type and number of parkin. spaces. Environmental Review: cate.orically exeapt Review [California Section 15301]. The project 18 from Environmental Government Code Code Sections: 28-1300(81Ial. 28- 1300181Cbl. 28-2503 Applicant: Ra.zi Mansour Owner: Ellen Musso 8. 12h!~Y!!~_I!!!!t! A. Use Deteraination Request-Walter Babcock. 205 Main Street B. City Policy on 37 for lot widths and story allowance 1/2 foot requirement the resultin. third 7. ~!!!!!!!!g_B!gy!!!! 8. Qt!!_~!!!yg!2!!!!!!_!t!!_!h!_6Y~!!n2! 9. ~!.!!!!!!g_~!!!Yn!2!!!!g! 10. 6~1!ytB!!B! A.enda Forecast: "arch S. 1988 -Variance 3-88 Plan Review 8-88 Watson 350 Ocean -Conditional Use Per.it 19-85 Cleary Tentative Parcel Map 85-1002 -Zonin. Text Amendaent 1-88 Titles for R-l. R-2 and R-3 to RLD. RMD. and RHO -Seal Beach Blvd. Master Iaprove.ent IStudy Session 1 '. e . - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19. 1988 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in !~g!!~! session at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Jessner calling the meeting to order. Commissioner Ripperdan led the Salute to the Flag. BQ~~_~A~~ Present: Chairman Jessner Commissioners Covington, Runt Absent: Commissioners Perrin, Ripperdan Also Present: John M. Baucke, Director of Development Services Mr. Jessner indicated that he had received a request from both Commissioner Perrin and Commissioner Ripperdan to be excused from the February 19, 1988 Planning Commission meeting as they had another business engagement to attend to. Mr. Covington moved Commissioner Ripperdan Runt seconds. to excuse Commissioner Perrin from the February 19, 1988 meeting. and Mr. AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt, Jessner None Motion Carried RlfQBI_lRQ!_!I~RIIARX Mr. Baucke, Commission Secretary, indicated there was one item to report: The addition of a scheduled matter item: (B, City Policy on 37 1/2 ft. requirement for lot widths and the resulting 3rd story allowance. Mr. Baucke requested that the agenda be amended to include this item. Mr. Covington moves to amend the agenda as requested. seconds. Mr. Runt AYES: NOES: Covington, Ruun, Jessner None Motion Carried ~Q~!I~I_~A~I~RAB There were 2 items on the consent calendar for the Commissionls consideration: A) Plan Review 4-88 and B, Plan Review 5-88. Mr. Baucke indicated that Plan Review 4-88 was a request to allow a minor heIght deviation for a roof line associated with a proposed new single family residence - 218 8th St. Mr. Baucke e Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 1986 Page 2 noted that the applicant has submitte~ 2 separate plans in hope that 1 of the 2 will be approved by the Commission. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny Plan Review 4-86 for both proposals submitted by the applicant for the reasons noted in the staff report. Chairman Jessner asked if the Commission would concur that this item be removed from the consent calendar so to open the issue for public hearing. Mr. Covington felt it would be appropriate to do so. Mr. Covington moves to remove Plan Review 4-86 from the consent calendar and place it on the agenda as the first public hearing item. Mr. Hunt seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Huut, Jessner None Motion Carried e Mr. Baucke indicated that the second consent calendar item, Plan Review 5-86, was a request for an interior remodel and the addition of a balcony to a Ron-conforming property located at 209 Ocean Ave. Mr. Baucke did note that the proposed remodeling would eliminate an existing illegal unit by remOVing the kitchen. Staff recommended that Plan Review 5-86 be approved w.ith the 2 conditions noted in the staff report. Mr. Covington moves to approve Plan Review 5-86 with the conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Hunt seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt, Jessner None Motion Carried fYI~IQ_HIARI~g_=_f~A~_RIXII!_!=!~_=_!!~_~!h_~!I!!! l2h~__~!!RR2~!, architect for the applicant, Eunice McMullen, explained to the Commission what he and his client were propOSing to do and felt that there were some misconceptions in the staff report relating to this issue. Mr. Stibbons discussed the specifics of the proposed plans with the Commission. Chairman Jessner noted that a letter had been received from neighbors who were concerned about the height of the bUilding and the possibility that it may affect their view. Mr. Baucke indicated that staff has found it would not obstruct the neighbor's view. Mr. Stibbons explained to the Commisssion the architectural style he was trying to obtain and stated that the proposed request was e . e . Planning Commission Meeting of February 19. 1986 Page 3 only for architectural reasons. Mr. Covington asked for staff's imput on Mr. Stibbons presentation of this proposal. Mr. Baucke stated the proposed plans did not compl~ with the Uniform Building Code. Chairman Jessner suggested that this item be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting so to enable staff and the applicant to work together to clarify certain requirements of this proposal. Mr. Covington requested that a floor plan be provided. Chairman Jessner asked if any members of the audience were in opposition to this item being continued to the next meeting. Mr. Bunt complimented Mr. Stibbons on the proposed architectural design of the building. Mr. Covington moves to continue Plan Review 4-86 to a future date to be determined by staff and the applicant. Mr. Bunt seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington. Bunt. Jessner None Motion Carried ~YI~!Q_BIAR!~!_=_~AR!A~QI_!=!!_=_!~22_fA~!l!~_Q2A~!_B!~~ Staff report. presented by Mr. Baucke. indicated this was a request for approval of a major remodel and 3600 square foot second floor addition to an existing non-conforming building with less than the required parking and without a loading zone. A new second floor addition is proposed to be located above the existing bUilding which i~ currently within a required side yard setback. Mr. Baucke then presented the facts relating to the sUbject property and outlined various portions of the zoning ordinance in relation to .parking. loading zone and street side setback. Mr. Baucke presented staff's recommendation noting that is the Commission should decide to approve Variance 1-86. that the 6 conditions noted in the staff report be considered. Mr. Baucke then made himself available to the Commission for any questions. Mr. Covington and Mr. Bunt asked staff why they were not recommending approval of this request. Mr. Baucke stated there were a few areas in question. mainly the City's grandfather policy and the intensity of the existing property. Mr. Covington noved that the original intent of the grandfather clause was to provide a legal basis for the use of an eXisting operation. Chairman Jessner declares the public hearing open. I!!A!_I~!!. 226 7th St.. applicant. gave a brief background of this request explaining to the Commission the specifics of his proposed request. Mr. Kyle felt that this upgrade would benefit the community. Mr. Jessner and Mr. Kyle discussed the shortfall e Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 1986 Page 4 of parking spaces. Mr. Covington noted the several areas of non- conformity in this proposed request and 'stated that it was not the intent of the Planning Commission or the City to grant such requests to give a none-conforming property a whole new useful life. Mr. Covington requested clarification from the applicant as to where the residential structures are in location to the subject property. Mr. Covington asked staff if the neighboring residents had been notified of this request. Mr. Baucke stated that they had been notified. Mr. Hunt asked the applicant if he had reviewed the 6 conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Kyle stated that he would have no objections to staff's conditions. l!!_g!!k!~!2!. 1011 Electric Ave., spoke in opposition to this item. He did not feel the Commission should" grant this request due to the parking problem and loading zone. Mr. Covington and Mr. Gilkerson discussed the grandfather policy in the City. I~!!!_~l!! stated that this proposal will enhance parking at night as the lot will be open for parking in the evenings after 4-5 p.m. l!!_g!!k!~!2! requested the Commissionls opinion as to whether or not the foundation will support a second story. He questioned if in demolishing the existing building, would code have to be met for the entire new project. e As no other members of the opposition to this request. hearing. audience spoke in favor of nor in Chairman Jessner closed the public Mr. COVington felt that based upon the additional information developed tonight, he thought it would benefit staff to enable the staff to come back to the Commission with a recommendation as well as enable each of the Commission members to phYSically look at this site and again view the proposal. Chairman Jessner stated that in his opinion. he viewed this as a brand new building and not a remodel. He did not feel that grandfathering applies nor did Mr. Jessner see any justification to allow 14 parking spaces on .a property that requires 32 parking spaces. Mr. Jessner stated that he felt this request should be denied without prejudice to enable the applicant to come back before the Commission with a revised plan. Mr. Covington moves to continue the public hearing for Variance 1-86 to a later date to be determined by both the applicant and staff. Mr. Hunt seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington. Hunt. Jessner None Motion Carried e e Planning Commission Meeting of February 19. 1986 Page 5 e eYI~!Q_HIAR!~~_=_!AR!A~QI_!=!!~_QYf_~=!!~_QYf_!=!! Mr. Baucke. Commission Secretary, presented the staff report for this item indicating that this was a request for a proposed walk- in/take-out deli/restaurant with on-sale beer and wine without providing the required parking. Mr. Baucke presented the facts relating to the subject property and the various code sections pertaining to this request. Staff requested that the Planning Commission review this application based on several points: Parking, landscaping and restaurant use as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Baucke concluded that if the Planning Commission finds that the reestablishment of the deli/restaurant would not be detrimental to the surrounding community, staff recommends approval of CUP 3-86 and Variance 2-86 with the conditions noted in the staff report. Mr. Baucke noted to the Commission that staff is deleting condition #2, Page 7 of the staff report dated February 13, 1986. In addition, staff recommended that condition #6 (c) be amended to read as follows: "If the present landscaping is upgraded, it can retain the same location as present.". A resolution will be prepared reflecting the Planning Commission's action on this application. Mr. Baucke then made himself available to the Commission for any questions. Mr. Covington, Mr. Hunt and staff discussed the shortfall of parking in this request. Mr. Covington discussed with staff that a possible in-lieu parking requirement be a recommendation. Mr. Baucke indicated that City Council's methodology for an in-lieu parking program had been established for Main Street. Chairman Jessner declares the public hearing open. R!!!!_~!~!~Yr, applicant, stated that this project will be his major source of income and explained that he had lost his lease to this space from the owner of Shore Village in 1984. He stated that his store has been eXisting for the past 10 years, and he has had no problems in the past. Mr. Mansour presented a list of signatures of over 100 people who wish to see his business re- open. Mr. Covington asked if the applicant would accept approval by the Planning Commission of an in-door operation only. Mr. Mansour said that he would prefer to have the outside dining as well but would accept an in-door operation only. Mr. Mansour noted that he would open the deli without a beer and wine license. Mr. Hunt. Mr. Jessner and the applicant discussed the operation without a beer and wine license as far as making profit from the business. Mr. Mansour indicated that the alcohol was approximately 20 - 25_ of the gross business sales. Mario Musso, 301 Ocean Ave., owner of Shore Village, clarified--;lth-the Commission some of the information provided in the staff report. e e Planning Commission Meeting of February 19, 1988 Page 8 Mr. Musso provided the Commission with a 1979 map of Shore Village and a 1986 proposed map of Shore Village, and discussed the changes made over the past 18 months. Mr. Jessner and Mr. Musso discussed the additional square footage provided for storage space to Villager Shoes in Shore Village. Mr. Covington complimented Mr. Musso in working with the City Staff in the preparation of a landscaping plan, signage plan and parking plan. Mr. Musso and Mr. Covington discussed the parking need for his tenants, Carefree Haircutters. and Mr. Musso noted to the Commission that when Carefree went to the City in 1980 to get a business license. the City did not discuss the parking requirements with Carefree. Qh!t!!!_An!2!. 316 10th St.. wanted to discuss a few items noted in the staff report. Mr. Antos explained to the Commission the various permits issued to Shore Village during his employment at the City. l!~-~!!~!t!2n spoke in reference to the parking problems and discussed a possible CUP alternative for the applicant. Mr. Baucke discussed with Mr. Gilkerson his concerns over the delay of this application and the moratorium on the issuance of CUP's for beer and wine licenses. e As no other members opposition to this hearing. of the audience spoke item, Chairman Jessner in favor closed of nor in the public Mr. COVington asked staff if they would feel appropriate, on the basis of what has been discussed tonight. to meet with the applicant and the owner to determine whether or not a CUP alternative to this Variance could be presented. Mr. Baucke felt that the Planning Commission coul~ determine this option. Mr. COVington asked Mr. Baucke if he felt that this application could be granted on a reasonable basis by Variance only. Mr. Baucke stated that in his opinion. it could be. Mr. Hunt spoke in regard to the storage space and felt that it had no bearing on this application. Mr. Hunt also felt that a 42% compact parking space ratio is very acceptable. Mr. Covington moves to approve Variance 2-86. Conditional Use Permit 3-86 and Conditional Use Permit 4-86 subject to all the conditions established by Variance 2-86. that the findings established by staff of conditons 1.3.4.5 and 6 (a-e) be incorporated with the modification of 6(c) as follows: "Such landscaping may be maintained in its current location pending the upgrading of such landscaping as noted in the required landscape plan.". Also to be included are staff's condiitons 7.8.9. and 10 and that. condition '11 be included as follows: A) That the parking plan to be approved will provide for 43 spaces in e 'It Planning Commission Meeting of February 19. 1986 Page 7 comparison with the 48 that would be required on the basis of present and proposed useage (including 2 spaces for the outside eating). The finding for condition #11 is done on the basis of the Commission noting that this is a deviation of approximately 10% of the required parking and could have been applied for on the basis of a CUP processed separately. B) That a count of one was given to the employee compact parking because employees come to work at different hours and are often part-time. and C) That the benefits to the City from the many other enhancements of the property were easily warranted to trade-off which would have easily been permitted under a CUP process.... Mr. Bunt seconds. Chairman Jessner re-opened the public hearing for any public testimony regarding the conditions stated. e ~!t!~_~YII~ spoke in reference to condition #6(e). He asked for a clarification of this condition. Mr. Covington explained that a trash enclosure will need to be provided for the deli/ restaurant. Mr. Baucke told Mr. Musso that staff will discuss this requirement with him. Mr. Musso also requested clarification on the signage issue. Be told the Commission that he was willing to provide plans for the signage and the new signs that will go up for the deli/restaurant. Chairman Jessner declares the public hearing closed. AYES: NOBS: Covington. Bunt. Jessner None Motion Carried . IQII~Y~I~_~6III!1 Mr. Baucke indicated there were 2 scheduled matter items. The first item was a Use Determination Request by Mr. Walter Babcock which was presented at the February 5, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Babcock did not attend that meeting and at that time. the Commission had some questions pursuant to making any determination on this matter. Mr. Baucke indicated that Mr. Babcock was in the audience tonight and has submitted floor plans for the CommJssion's consideration. It was to be determined if this particular request for a pastrY/bakery shop would be classified as a restaurant use. !!!!~t_I!~~~~~, 201 Main St.. discussed with the Commission what he was proposing to do at 205 Main Street. He wanted to augment the activities at Walt's Wharf. 201 Main St.. by baking their own bread. croissants and some desserts. Mr. Babcock did not intend to make the bakery a restaurant and no waitresses would be serving tables. There would be some tables and chairs for people to serve themselves and sit down. e Planning Commission Meeting of February 19. 1988 Page 8 Mr. Covington moves that on the basis of additional information. the request for a pastry/bakery shop be approved as submitted with the finding that the improved space at 205 Main Street be operated as a bakery with the stipulations that the owner agrees that any tables and chairs on the premises will be used by customers on a self-serve basis. Mr. Hunt seconds. AYES: NOES: COVington. Hunt. Jessner None Motion Carried e Mr. Baucke stated that the next scheduled matter item was city policy on 97 1/2 ft. requirements for lot widths and the resulting third story allowance. Mr. Baucke gave a brief background of past actions taken by the Planning Commission on this matter in reference to the existing city policy requiring a specific 97.5000 ft. requirement for a third story. It was recommended to the Planning Commission in a report by the City Engineer that a difference of 1/10 of one foot or less be considered insignificant. The final action by the Planning Commission was that this item be brought back to the Commission at a later date for determination upon the presentation of additional information. .. ~. Mr. Baucke noted that a Plan Review application was submitted to the Director of Development Services on February 5. 1988 by Phil Allen which brought this issue up again. Mr. Allen requested to come before the Commission and discuss the information he had in reference to this and to express his desire for a modification to be made to this strict interpretation. fh!!__A!!!~. expressed concern to the Commission over this strict requirement for lot widths and felt a modification should be made. Staff recommended that this requirement be rounded to the nearest one-tenth of one foot as suggested by both the City Engineer and Paul Calvo. a local surveyor. Staff. Mr. Covington and Mr. Jessner discussed the possibility of rounding to the nearest five-one hundredths. !!~h~tg__IY~k!t!!!!g. 1101 Seal Way. spoke in reference to his property which had originally raised this issue and the various properties in town which relate to this matter. Mr. Baucke noted that a resolution would be prepared by staff to come back to the Commission pending their determination. !2~!t!_Q22~. 441 Central Ave.. spoke in regard to a previous application before the Commission of a similar situation. He felt that the Commission should give consideration to all factors involved before making a decision on this matter. The Commission instructed staff to prepare some draft resolutions that would incorporate some of the commentary heard tonight and bring this back to the Commission. - ~ . Planning Commission Meeting of February 19. 1986 Page 9 QQ~~!~~!Q!_RlgYI~I~ There were no Commission Communications. QR6~_QQ~~Y!!Q6I!Q!~ R2~~~1_Q22k encouraged the Commission to undertake a new study of density standards for Old Town. He felt that since the current studies were taken several years ago. they were based on a very broad concensus. Mr. Cook suggested that for the benefit of the City's future direction. the Commission should review this matter and hold some public hearings to get public imput. Mr. Hunt also encouraged the Commission to have a current comprehensive study done in"Old Town of the commercial parking availability and need. Mr. Baucke noted to Mr. Cook that a demand-use analysis was in the process of being prepared for Main St. ~h!!__6!!~n spoke again in regard to the lot width requirement of 37.5000 ft. He recommended that the height limit be modified to a 30 ft. maximum. Chairman Jessner indicated that he felt this would be appropriate. Mr. Covington stated that on the basis of earlier discussion and imput received tonight. he would like to request the Chair to direct staff to provide in addition to the draft resolutions. some additional background information on the number of lots that appear to be affected by the 37 1/2 ft. requirement and the pros and cons from staff as to the consequences of the additional number of lots on which 35 ft. high structures could be built. In addition. direct staff to propose some alternatives on what would be appropriate for possible height or story modifications. Chair directed staff to do so. A~lQYR!~I!I It was the concensus of the Commission and so directed by Chair to adjourn the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission at 12:10 a.m. -------------------------------------------- Recording Secretary