Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1986-03-05 .,/ -- -- 'e '\ ~L BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGr 'A C,ty Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California '.the Seal Beach Planning Commission meets jn session every first and third Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. If you wjsh to address the Commission on any particular public hearing item, the Chairman will call for public testimony first for those in favor of the project, and second, for those who are not in favor. When you see that the speaker's posi tion in the center of the room is unoccupied, step up to the microphone and when recognized by the Chairman, speak directly into the microphone by first stating your name and address clearly and djstinctly for the records. . State your business as clearly and succjnctly as possible and then wait a moment to see if the Commissioners have any questions jn regard to your comments or questions. If there are no other questions or comments, return to your seat so that the next person may address the Commission. If you wish to address the Commission on matters other than public hearings, the agenda provides for that time when the Chairman asks for comments from the publjc. Address 'the Commission in the same manner as stated for public hearings, always statin9 your name and address first. "arch 5. 1986 ~EXT RESOLUTION # 1415 1. ~1!gg!_2!_All!gl!n~! 2 . ~21L~!!l 3. ~!22~!_!~2m_~!~~!!!~I 4. ~2n!!n!_~!1!ng!~ A. B. ~inutes of February 5. 1986 fl!n_R!Yl!~_l~!! IBennett/Oblachinskil 102 Ocean Avenue A request for an interior remodel of a non- conforming single family residence B~~2mm~ng~!!2n: Approval with Conditions C. H!n2~_H~!gh!__Y~~1~!12n__i~!~__lfl!n__B~Y!~~_~~!~1 IShearsl 331 10th Street. A request 171 feet octagonal Victorian for a . minor height deviation of seven for a non-habitable architectural turret proposed to complement the style of a new single family residence. B!~2mm!ng!!12nL Approval D. ~!n2~_H~!gh!__Y!~!!!!2n__!=!~__lfl!n__B~Y!~~_~=!!1 IFrahml 333 10th Street. A request (7) feet octagonal Victorian for a minor height deviation of sev~n for a non-habitable architectural turret proposed to complement the style of a new single family residence. B!~2mm!ng!!12nL Approval 5. fg211~_R!!~lng! None Scheduled 6. ~~h~gYl~g_H!!!~~! A. Seal Beach Boulevard Master Improvement Plan IStudy Sessionl. Planning Commission Determination 1-86. Resolution # 1414 establishing a Planning Commission Policy on the 37 1/2 foot requirement for lot widths and the resultant third story allowance with the high density IR-3) and medium density IR-21 zone located in Planning District I 10ld Townl. Staff study on height and bulk limitation of the R-2 and R-3 zones located in Planning District I. B. C. / / , e - - " \ \ Planning Commission Agenda March 5. 1986 Page 2 7. ~2mm!!!!2n_B!gy!!!! 8. Q!!!_~2mmYn!~!!!2n!_!!2m_!h!_AY9!!n~! 9. ~2mm!!!!2n_~2mmYn!~!!!2n! 10. A9i2Y!nm!n! Agenda Forecast: MAB~!L!!!...._!U!.L ~H!!n~L!::.!! f!!n_R!!!!~_!::.!! (Watsonl 350 Ocean Avenue " ~2n9!!!2n!!_Y!!_f!!m!!_!~::.!~ (Clearyl !!n!!!!!!_f!!~!!_~!~_!2::.!QQg !2n!nl_!!!!__Am!n9m!n!_!::.!!_!!!!!!_!2!_B::.!..._B::.g_!n9_B::.~ !2_B~~..._BM~_!n9_BH~... A~!!L!..._!~!.!!.l. YH!!n~!_!::.!.!!. 1500 P.C.H. (Kyle - Schuveillerl ~2ng!!!2n!!_Y!!_~!~m!!_2::.!! (Bettenhausenl 212 5th Street (Seal Beach Innl ~2n9!!!2n!!_Y!!_f!!m!!_!::.!!_ (Coast Property Management) 941 Pacific Coast Highway (Seal Beach Centerl - e e PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 5. 1986 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Jessner calling the meeting to order. Commissioner Perrin led the Salute to the Flag. RQ~~_QA~~ Present: Chairman Jessner Commissioners Covington, Hunt, Perrin. and Ripperdan Also Present: John M. Baucke, Director of Development Services R~eQRI_[RQM_~~QR~IARY Mr. Baucke indicated there were no items to report at this time. QQN~~NI_QA~~NQAR There were 4 items on the consent calendar for the Commission's consideration: A) Minutes of the February 5. 1986 meeting. BI Plan Review 7-86, C) Minor Height Variation 2-86 and D) Minor Height Variation 3-86. Chairman Jessner asked if the members of the Commission wished to discuss any of the items separately. In connection with th~ height variations. Mr. Covington asked if there was any protection for the city against future use by an owner to turn it into occupiable, usable space. He stated that although we know it is illegal, we really do not have any procedure by which subsequent owners are made aware. Chairman Jessner asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of the February 5th meeting. Mr. Covington requested the following changes: Page 6. second line. there is a word missing. future date to be set by or determined by Should read "to a " Page 7. second line from bottom "that recommended rewording of Section 4{cl(1) by Chairman Jessner be included, "but it does not say what that rewording is. All changes should be specifically identified in the minutes. Page 8. under comments make by Mr. Gill. "oversight" is spelled incorrectly. - - . Planning Commission Meeting of March 5. 1986 Page 2 Page 9. under Scheduled Matters: "there are no 'factor'" should be "factors." In the preceding sentence we talk about the request having to be considered as part of restaurant use under the code but another concept was in there to the effect that it had to be considered as a restaurant since we had no evidence to the contrary. Mr. Ripperdan moves to approve the 4 items on the consent calendar as amended. Mr. Hunt seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt. Jessner, Perrin, Ripperdan None Motion Carried Chairman Jessner announced that there were no public hearings scheduled. ~QR!~~~!~_MAII!R~ ~!A~_~!AQR_~Q~~!YAR~_MA~I!R_!MfRQY!M!~I_f~A~_~I~~X_~!~~!Q~ The first scheduled item was a Study Session on the Seal Beach Boulevard Master Improvement Plan. Mt~_~~!~_~~t!!~!l. a consultant with Van Dell & Associates, presented proposed plans for the improvement of Seal Beach Boulevard. He stated his firm has put together a plan which they believe reflects the concerns of citizens and will enrich the area. In preparing the proposal, his firm took into consideration issues raised by the Task Force such as parking, safety, speed of traffic, landscaping and aesthetics. Phase One was a Land Use Study and Opportunities and Constraint Analysis; Phase Two - the Seal Beach Boulevard Master Plan of Development; Phase Three - implementation and construction. Mr. Bartless presented a cross-sectional drawing of Seal Beach Boulevard and explained the proposed improvements in detail. He stated there would be no parking on the ease side of Seal Beach Boulevard. All parking and pedestrian movement would be oriented toward the west side of the street toward residences and businesses. There would be a 5 foot landscaping set back area to screen the Naval property and enhance Naval landscaping. The measurements across Seal Beach Boulevard are proposed as follows: a 5 foot planting screen, 5 feet of increased pavement width, a 12 foot travel lane, an 8 foot median with landscaping, a 20 foot travel lane, an 18 foot parking lane with diagonal parking and a 3 foot landscaping and utility easement. He stated that overhead security lighting will remain the same at this time. There will be a 5 foot wide bike lane from Pacific Coast Hwy. to Electric Ave. and next to it, a 4 foot 4Ia Planning Commission Meeting of March 5. 1986 Page 3 e . wide sidewalk. He stated an entry statement is needed on the southeast corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Hwy. and displayed a palm tree graphic for this purpose. Chairman Jessner asked if any consideration has been given to mentioning that there is a beach and pier at this entrance. Mr. Bartlett stated that some kind of directional signing could be provided at Pacific Coast Hwy. and Seal Beach Boulevard. Continuing his presentation, Mr. Bartlett noted that special paving treatment would be provided in the form of stamped concrete to slow traffic down as it enters Old Town. Posted speed would be 30 mph south of Pacific Coast Hwy. The main objective is to slow traffic down at this intersection. Mr. Ripperdan asked if the 20 foot wide traffic lane going south was to accommodate the diagonal parking. Mr. Bartlett stated that this was correct. The width allowed motorists to continue around those cars pulling out of parking spaces. The bike path is proposed to be on the same level as the sidewalk. The proposed sidewalk surface will discourage skateboards and rollerskates. A member of the audience asked what would discourage bikers from riding on the sidewalk. A lengthy discussion followed regarding bikers using the sidewalks and the speeds at which they ride. Mr. Baucke stated that he reviewed this and other alternatives with the City Attorney in terms of liability. ~!!l~~_Mi!!~~ stated that it was his understanding that the City Engineer had recommended a bike path at street level in front of the parked cars. Mr. Baucke noted that the City Engineer had the opposite position and this design was objected to by the traffic engineer because people could be tripping on the separation curb, drainage was poor and there was a problem with street cleaning. Several members of the audience commented on how bike paths were handled in Sunset Beach and in Davis, California. Mr. Miller stated that bikers would be riding not at 5-7 mph but 15 mph on sidewalks. Further discussion followed concerning posted speeds for bikes and cars. Mr. Hunt commented that these concerns had been heard before and that this plan was a result of various comments made previously. He suggested that the meeting move on. M~!~_li~!gi~g stated that most bikes coming through town are going in the direction of Pacific Coast Hwy, that few go into Seal Beach in groups. That is why the fast lane was put on the far side of the street with no pedestrian traffic. The other side of the street was for the people in town. At this time. Chairman Jessner requested that Mr. Bartlett be permitted to finish his presentation. He would then open the meeting up for questions, comments and discussion. ~ Planning Commission Meeting of March 5. 1986 Page 4 In continuing his presentation, Mt~_~!tl!!ll stated that the proposal was to relocate and perhaps reword the historical marker. Parking was redesigned to accommodate the same number of spaces at a 45 degree angle instead of parallel parking. This reduces big rig parking on the east side of the street. This parking scheme provides appreoximately 2 1/2 - 3 spaces fronting each piece of property per typical 25 to 30 foot wide lot. A parking alternative would be to put a box culvert over the channel on the Navy property which would provide 25 additional spaces. e Mr. Bartlett's firm conducted land use studies of the area. They beli~ve the area is unique since it contains both residential and commercial buildings. They propose a combined commercial and residential land use for that area with commercial use on the bottom floor with owner occupied units above. If the City implements a commercial/residential designation for thisa rea, his-study indicated it could be accomplished under the proposed guidelines. Mr. Bartlett has been in contact with the Southern Pacific Railroad regarding their easement. They are willing to relinquish their easement to the City. Negotiations are proceeding. The current railroad frontage is 100 feet. With this frontage. 30' x 100' lots could be created and provide more continuity. Mr. Bartlett stated that the Navy has been cooperative in this whole process and is willing to provide a parking easement. He also stated that the telephone company may relocate their lines underground at their expense. _ He noted that the City can, however, propose to put this area in an underground district to have electrical facilities underground. He pointed/ out that left turn lanes had been provided to alleys to continue circulation. Finally, plant species were chosen fore tolerance to salt air, resistance to disease and low height so that ocean views won't be restricted. Mr. Bartlett described the 5 proposed phases of the project: fh!~!_Q~!: new median median and side. fh!~!_I~Q: west curb, improvements on west side of street, bike lane, historical marker. pedestrian lighting, embellished paving. fh!~!_Iht!!: add new curb, median, asphalt and concrete. eh!~!_IQyt: City entry sign, bus shelters. striping, crosswalk at intersection of Pacific Coast Hwy. and Seal Beach Boulevard. fh!~!_I!Y!: parking alternative, if necessary. construction of underground storm drain because of utilities underground. curb on the ease side. striping parking, and possibly the landscaping on the east . Total: 5568.000 for 4 phases. This can be juggled to fit City's bUdget requirements. - Planning Commission Meeting of March 5. 1986 Page 5 Mr. Covington complimented the committee and the consultants on an outstanding approach. Chairman Jessner opened the meeting to questions and comments from the audience. ~~h_Q~R!!r. Seal Beach Boulevard property owner. stated he was concerned about parking for his tenants on sweeper day. He was not in favor of the bike path being placed next to the sidewalk. M!~h!!!_~r!~g!! asked if the City Attorney had been consulted about the proposed design. Mr. Baucke stated that he had discussed the matter with the City Attorney. Ms. Brendel commented that the City of Huntington Beach currently has a 59 million deep pocket suit. She also raised the question of parking during streetcleaning of Seal Beach Boulevard. Mr. Baucke noted that Seal Beach Boulevard would be broken into sections for cleaning. e Mr. Ripperdan asked about using the Southern Pacific easement for parking. ~r~_~!rl!!ll said he believed that would be an underutilization of the land. Using the property as commercial/ residential development would be the best use of the area. M!~ M~rl~~ asked whether both bike paths could be located on the Naval Station side of Seal Beach Boulevard. Mr~_~!rl!!ll said he had checked into that possibility but that there were safety problems connected with that alternative. Discussion followed concerning placing both bike paths on the same side of the street. Mr. Bartless noted that the other most feasible alternative was not to designate Seal Beach Boulevard as a bike route and simply have the bikers use the 20 foot traffic land. The proposal was designed in such a manner that it was consistent with the bicycle element of the General Plan. A member of the audience raised questions about the left turn lane into the alley increasing traffic in alleys and about the positioning of the bike path next to the sidewalk. Mr. Bartlett stated that no increase in traffic is being proposed. only that a left turn pocket is proposed from north bounded Seal Beach Blvd. so to allow for free flow of north bound traffic with no functional change from what presently exists. !!!l!r_M!!!!r expressed concerns about motorists baGking out of parking spaces into 30 mph traffic. He also had questions regarding access for south bound cars. Discussion followed concerning access to Mr. Miller's business and whether U turns are permitted. A member of the audience asked whether the sidewalk could be widened. He was concerned that a pedestrian could step out into the bike path and be hit. He suggested the City make it attractive for people to stroll down Seal Beach Blvd. -- ~ , t"J e Planning Commission Meeting of March 5. 1986 Page 6 A member of the audience questioned the width of the median strip. Mr. Bartlett explained that the reason the median 1s 8 feet wide is that the Task Force and the City had indicated their preference for a median down the center of Seal Beach Blvd. The median will help slow down traffic and provide a visual amenity. M~~_M!!!!~ again expressed concern regarding cars backing out of parking spaces into traffic. He suggested the street could be improved without a median. His concerns were that a median is a waste of money. it prevents access to his business and he was concerned with putting bikes on the sidewalk. - There was some discussion regarding changing the design to separate the sidewalk from the bike path. M!Qh!!!_I~!~g!! expressed concern in regard to the use of alleys for traffic stating they were narrow and dangerous. She also asked what plans the City had for the Happy Holiday Hotel property if it were condemned. Mr. Baucke explained the term condemnation and noted that the CVity had no plans to take the property by condemnation but may shut the building down for health and safety reasons. M~~_M!!!!~ suggested eliminating the bike path entirely. Mr. Covington pointed out that eliminating the bike path may require a change in the General Plan. Mr. Miller stated he was in favor of changing the General Plan. Mr. Covington suggested it might be difficult to accomplish since the bike route is part of the regional plan. JQ!_L~~Qh expressed his frustration with those persons who were making negative comments after never having attended any Task Force meetings. He suggested that the meeting take a more positive turn. I~YQ!_~l~~~ felt the plan was generally good. but expressed concern over locating the bike path next to the sidewalk because of lawsuits. ~h~!~lQ2h!~_M~~~ asked a questions about pedestrian lighting and commented that the landscaping presently in the City is not maintained. . Mr. Hunt noted that the consultant has received a fee to plan and that he has no more than 40 hours left to make any changes. He proposed a few of the suggested changes be incorporated in the time the consultant has left. Mr. Covington agreed stating that the changes not incorporated would be a part of the minutes of this meeting. Mr. Covington asked whether the consultant had identified any outside sources of funding for this project. M~~ 1~~1!!11 said this could be done in cooperation with City staff. Mr. Baucke pointed out that the City had made an application for 5172.000 in block grant funds. Mr. Covington requested that high. low and average traffic figures for traffic going north and south be incorporated in the consultant's material. He also e e . Planning Commission Meeting of March 5, 1986 Page 7 stated that he believed all utilities should be located underground. M!~h~!~_~~~~~~! pointed out that the poarking for Erickson Antiques is blocked by utility pole wires. Chairman Jessner suggested that the speed limit on any plan needs to be looked at by the Engineering Department as he believed 30 mph was too fast. He was also concerned about the bike land and sidewalk positioning. Chairman Jessner raised the question of joggers using the bike path. A short discussion followed concerning joggers and bikers using the same path. At this time, Chairman Jessner thanked the audience for their comments and the consultants for an informative presentation and closed the study session. ~~ANNIN~_QQMM!~~IQN_~~I~RMINAIIQN_!=!~_=_~l_!L!_fI~_H~I~HI_R~2~ The next item on the agenda was Planning Determination 1-86. Mr. Baucke stated that at the last meeting, the Commission was presented with a question regarding the Planning Commission's policy on determination of the 37 1/2 ft. width requirement in R- 2 and R-3 Zones. Historically, City policy is that there must be exactly 37.5 ft. to receive a third story allowance. The City has had requests to reconsider that policy. The Commission asked staff to draft a resolution expressing a policy. Staff did a survey of properties in Seal Beach which would be affected. Fifteen properties would be affected. All are located in the Ocean Avenue/Seal Way area. Mr. Baucke presented a determination resolution that would allow rounding off to the nearest 1/10 of one foot which would allow all of the properties that fall into this category to have the allowance. Of the fifteen properties. the lowest number was 37.46 (one case). The remainder are 37.48 ft. wide. Mr. Covington made a motion that the resolution be approved as submitted with the notation that no property fell in the 37.40-to 37.44 category in order to show why we came up with these figures. Mr. Covington then moved that the Commission recommend the adoption of Resolution #14'* with the following modification to the last "Whereas": "in that the rounding of the actual survey to the nearest 1/10 of one foot is a fair and equitable way of determination since a survey of all such applicable parcels in the City determined no parcels measuring 37.40 to 37.44 feet.". Mr. Hunt seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt, Jessner. Perrin, Ripperdan None Motion Carried . Planning Commission Meeting of March 5. 1986 Page 8 - STAFF STUDY ON HEIGHT & BULK LIMITATION/R-2 & R-3 ZONES Mr~-8aucke-stated-that-during-a-previous-dlscussion-on-third story limitation, a grphic was shown of what culd be built in the City. Questions were raised regarding bulk and scale. Staff did a survey of lot widths. Three hundred and twenty one properties presently have the allowance of a third story on the rear half of the property. Many are in areas of narrow alleys and streets. Mr. Baucke then gave a brief history of this provision in the zoning code. He asked for direction from the Commission on how to handle this issue. He suggested the Commission possibly consider asking the City Council to consider a moratorium on construction of buildings more than 30 ft. high. Mr. Covington agreed that his concern was valid but said he hesitated to ask for a moratorium without public imput. Mr. Hunt also opposed the moratorium and suggested the Commission proceed with public discussion. Chairman Jessner requested that a study session be arranged. R!~h~~g_~Y~!!~f!!!g requested that Seal Way be separated from Old Town in this issue. He stated that Seal Way does not really fit into this because it has mostly three-story buildings already. Chairman Jessner, with Commission concurrence, directed staff to take this suggestion into consideration for the Study Session. ~QMM!~~!Q~_RgQ~g~I~ Some discussion followed regarding the Conditional Use Permit for Bettenhausen and possible violation of ABC laws. . QRA~_~QMM~~!~AI!Q~~ ~!~~g!_A~!~l~~ng, 1 Anderson Street, Seal Beach, asked that the Commission be aware that a service station building next to his water tower has not been demolished. He read a letter from his attorney which stated that the service station use is lost if not in business for 90 days and then must be demolished. If the station building is allowed to remain, he believes it must have a variance to do so. He said that Mr. Baucke had informed him that if a new building was built at this location, it would most likely have to be built in the same spot due to site limitations and be approximately the same size. Mr. Baucke pointed out that another entity is currently in the process of converting the service station location to restaurant use. ~~!!_l~hn~~n, owner of the proposed restaurant, stated that he had met all City codes. Mr. Johnson displayed drawings of the proposed restaurant. M~~_A~!~l~Qng objected to the restaurant saying it would attract young people at late hours and produce much trash. Mr. Hunt pointed out that the issue was abatement, a legal point in which the City Attorney had rendered his opinion to staff. Mr. Perrin suggested that Mr. Anderson bring the issue to City Council. . ~ ~ - Planning Commisison Meeting of March 5. 1986 Page 9 Qht!!!~2h~t_M!t! asked why Erickson homes with 3 bedrooms have to provide only 2 parking spaces. Mr. Baucke noted that is the present code requirement. Discussion followed regarding how many parking spaces should be provided. Mr. Mara stated he had been delayed in remodeling because of parking requirements. Mr. Perrin suggested he bring his plans to the Planning staff again. QQMM!~~!Q~_QQMMY~!QAIQ~~ There were no Commission Communications. AQlQYR~Mg~I It was the consensus of the Commission and so directed by Chair to adjourn the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:45 p.m. Recording Secretary