Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1986-04-09 -~.. f SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Clty Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California ,/ , ~. I 2'he Seal Beach Planning Commission meets in session every first and third tlednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. If you wish 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. tlhen you see that the speaker's position in the center of the room is unoccupied, step up to the microphone and when recognized by the Chairman, speak directly ipto the microphone by first stating your name and address clearly and distinctly for the records. State your business as clearly and succinctly as possible and then wait a moment to see if the Commissioners have any questions in 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 bearings, the agenda provides for that time when the Chairman asks for comments from the public. Address the Commission in the same manner as stated for public hearings, always stating your name and address first. APRIL 9. 1986 Next Resolution .1418 (Continued from April 2. 19861 1. ~!!~I!_2!_6!!!I!!n~! 2 . B2!L&!!! 3. B!22~1_!~2._!!~~!1!~l 4. &2n!!nl_&!!!n~!~ 5. fY~!!~_B!!~!nl! A. CO~DITIO~AL USE PER~lT 19-85 Resolution #1416 a 1417 I~~I6I!~~_~6B&~~_~6f_!2~!QQ!_1!2~!!!1 210 8th Street . A request to convert an eXisting two-story duplex into two condominium units. Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Reviek [California Public Resources Code 15301. Class 11 K I J . Code Sections: 28-700131 (b). 28-2503 Applicant: Wesley a Mercedes Cleary Owner: Same B. &Q~~1!lQ~~1_~!t_ftB~1!_!=!~ Resolution #1413 921 Pacific Coast Hwr. (Seal Beach Centerl A request to permit a planned sign program for the Seal Beach Center. Code Sections: 28-1803. 28-2503 Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review [California Government Code Section 15301]. Owner: Seal Beach Center Applicant: Same 6. .. 7. 8. 9. !&B~~Y~I~_16I!~R! &QI~!!!!Q~_BlgY~!I! QB6~_&Q~~Y~!&6I!Q~! &QI~!!!!Q~_&Q~~Y~!&6I!Q~! ,/ , . . . .. \ \ Planning Commission Agenda April 9. 1986 Page 2 10. Alll211B.!!l!U Agenda Forecast: A2!:.!Lu'..._U!! Variance 5-86. CUP 8-86 a 9-86 Corky's - 909 Ocean Ave. Variance 4-86 Marsh - 209 14th St. Plan Review 6-86 Buckerfield/Allen - 1101 Seal Way A2!:.!LU...._U!!! Variance 6-86. CUP 11-86 Donnelson 148 7th St Study session on Conditional Use Permit Requirements for on-site and off-site liquor sales. - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 9, 1986 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular adjourned session at 7:30 p.m. with Vice Chairman Covington calling the meeting to order on behalf of Chairman Jessner, explaining he was doing so due to Mr. Jessner's recent eye surgery. Chairman Jessner led the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Jessner Commission Members Covington, Hunt, Ripperdan Absent: Commission Member Perrin Also present: Mr. Baucke, Director of Development Services Mr. Ogdon, Administrative Aide Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk . REPORT FROM SECRETARY Mr. Baucke reported a study session would be scheduled for an adjourned meeting to be held April 23rd to discuss on-sale and off-sale of alcoholic beverages, and to also discuss property located at 148 - 7th Street, (Donelson) pursuant to the Commission's action of last meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 19-85 - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 85-1002 - 210 - 8th STREET Mr. Ogdon reported the subject request by the applicants, Wesley and Mercedes Cleary, is for conversion of a two-story duplex to two condominium units at 210 -8th Street. Mr. Ogdon reported three non-conformities pertaining to the property, the lot size, number of units, and the southerly sideyard setback. He reported further that a 1980 census report showed thirty units have been approved for condo conversion since 1978, and that a 1986 staff survey of property records of the Old Town area shows there is approximately eight percent, or 185 units, in the coastal area that are suitable for conversion, as opposed to the previously reported four percent. Mr. Ogdon reviewed the City'S policy with regard to permitting conversion of legal non-conforming properties, which institutionalizes the non- conformities on a permanent legal basis, noting that the Commission has not approved condominium projects for properties which have had setback, height or parking non-conformities. Mr. Ogdon stated that the existing lot configuation presents a substantial non-conformity at the subject location as well as affecting the adjacent properties, and upon discussion with the builder of the 1978 dwelling, the builder indicated he had applied to the County for a landscape easement between e . . - Page Two - Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 1986 the neighboring properties. He stated further that the County misunderstood the request and made a lot line adjustment to the Assessor's maps, which created a non-conforming, zero sideyard setback. Mr. Ogdon reported that the County will require a written agreement between the adjacent property owners in order to correct this situation. Mr. Ogdon stated the staff would recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit 19-85 and Tentative Parcel Map 85-1002 subject to the conditions that 1) submission of CC & R's for review and approval by the City Attorney prior to recordation of the final map; 2) approval of the CUP subject to approval of the Tenative Parcel Map; and 3) that the final tract map indicate that the lot line adjustment has been corrected to make the property conforming in size and shape, as required by staff. Mr. Ogdon clarified to the Commission that the builder's intent was to provide small landscaped areas across from the building's entryway, also clarifying that the property located to the north of the subject property is conforming, however the two properties south of 210 have been affected by the lot line adjustment, noting that the standard sideyard setback for 8th street lots is three feet. Vice Chairman Covington declared the public hearing open. Mr. Cleary referred to the plot plan prepared by the builder, Mr. Erickson, as well as the legal descriptions of the three lots showing that there was a lot change, that fact confirmed by the County. He stated that the request of staff to correct this si'tuation could cause considerable expense to him, also that it may be difficult for the property owners to come to agreement, that one property owner may give up more than others, that there is no opportunity for addition to the property, and that the property has been improved with patios, fences, sidewalks, and easement rights. Mr. Cleary confirmed he was seeking approval of the conversion without the subject staff condition, stating that the lot line adjustment was made prior to his purchase of the property, noting the number of converions reported by staff, and confirmed that he had not discussed this matter with the adjacent property owners. The Commission explained that the reported conversions are those that have been approved and does not reflect those not approved or not attempted due to non-conforming situations. The Commission inquired if any condo conversion had been previously approved without the required sideyard setbacks. The Director reported the record shows none. Discussion continued regarding the location of fences on the property line, its proximity to the buildings, and necessity of setback areas for emergency access. There were no other communications from the audience; Vice Chairman Covington declared the public hearing closed. . - - Page Three - Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 1986 The Director explained that an action for readjustment of the lot lines to what had existed previously would be done through the County, the process not requiring Commission action, the engineering phase being a fairly simple action, and the legal aspects dependent upon the adjacent property owners. He noted that concern exists with a conversion with a zero setback in that the property is not in conformance with UBC and Fire Code regulations, noting that a structure that is within three feet of the property line requires a one hour fire wall where there are windows that are openable, pointing out that the property in question falls within that regulation. Mr. Covington added that approval of such non-conforming property for condo conversion would be precedent setting, also that alternatives are available to the property owners to correct the situation. The Director added that the same objective could have been accomplished through an easement without moving the lot lines, with the cooperation of the property owners, and thus eliminating the existing safety hazards. Chairman Jessner moved to deny the request for conversion of a two story duplex into two condominium units, CUP 19-85 and TPM 85-1002, without prejudice, therefore allowing the applicant to reapply upon satisfying the condition or to a point where the neighbors are willing to cooperate in satisfying the lot line adjustments that are required to be made. Commissioner Ripperdan seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Covington, Hunt, Jessner, Ripperdan None Perrin Motion carried CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1-86 - PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM - SEAL BEACH CENTER The Director presented the staff report with regard to the request to permit a Planned Sign program for the Seal Beach Center, noting that this item has been a matter of discussion for a number of months. Mr. Baucke summarized that the applicant is proposing a new, modified Center identification pylon sign located approximately in the location that presently exists, a monument sign identification of Safeway and Sav-On, the Monsoon Mike's sign proposed as it presently exists, a new service station sign to comply with Code and tie into the signage for the Center, a fifteen foot pylon sign for the car wash, the tenant building to continue to utilize the type of under canopy, wooden identification signs as presently exist, the colors limited to four, with three styles of lettering allowed, the tenant signage being in compliance with Code. The Director noted that all of the signs are to have the same rough sawn wooden wrap in an effort to tie all signage together architecturally even thougn they would be of different configuration, that the lettering style for the car wash would be within the parameters of what is allowed for the individual tenant signs, the monument . . . .... Page Four - Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 1986 sign not proposed to have the same style of lettering as the other signs, likewise the Monsoon Mike, Safeway and Sa v-On logos would not tie in as far as lettering styles. Mr. Baucke reviewed the amortization period for sign compliance proposed, varying dependent on the particular location, as set forth in the staff report. Mr. Baucke recommended that the Planned Sign Program proposed be judged by the Commission on a comprehensive basis as to the forms, colors, materials, size and shape of letters. Mr. Baucke noted that the Sign Program proposed contains elements which would substantially improve the signage that exists or has been proposed in the past. Mr. Baucke clarified that the colors available for tenant signs are ivory, yellow, red and rust, noting that based upon findings that have been made, the management firm has chosen to not approve signs incorporating darker colors, the range of colors chosen comparable to the colors used in other shopping centers. Vice Chairman Covington declared the public hearing open. Mr. Scott Demejian, Heath and Company, 3225 East Lacey Street, Los Angeles, applicant's agent, offered to respond to questions of the Commission. Mr. Demejian confirmed that the management of the Center does plan to pursue this Program upon its approval. Mr. Covington asked how Mr. Demejian would respond to a statement that the Sign Program appears to be a significant effort to encapsulate most of the signage that exists, incorporating a wood theme and calling it a Planned Sign Program. Mr. Demejian stated that as an example, the way the Safeway and Sav-On buildings are constructed, individual letters can not asthetically be provided as exist on the tenant buildings, hence the cabinet signs on the buildings themselves. With regard to the Monsoon Mike's sign, Mr. Demejian noted it to be existing and assumed to be in conformance with City Code, that it is only possible to take what exists and attempt to tie in with the guidelines that are being proposed. with respect to future free-standing signs, he stated he would presume that action will be taken by the individual tenants as to whether or not they wish to incorporate the proposed signage, that the guidelines are proposed for future fabrication and installation, also that it is not being suggested that the proposed signs, in fact, will be built. Mr. Covington noted that significant deviations of signage could exist for a long period of time unless conformance to the Sign Program is required. Mr. Demejian pointed out that an amortization period is proposed for compliance, noting that there could be financial hardship to the tenants of the Center if immediate compliance is required, suggesting that the signs that exist be allowed to remain until expiration of the amortization period or change of tenancy. Mr. Covington questioned the validity of granting a special privilege from compliance under a set amortization period, such as the Monsoon Mike's sign. Mr. Demjian again stated that specific guidelines have been . - e Page Five - Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 1986 proposed, that enforcement would be the responsibility of the city. There were no other communications; Vice Chairman Covington declared the public hearing closed. In response to the Commission, Mr. Baucke confirmed that the Monsoon Mike sign was built and installed in accordance with the sign provisions of the Code due to the lack of a Sign program for the Center at that time, also that the Sav-On and Safeway signs have been corrected since the expiration of the amortization period, and meet minimum Code standards. The Commission discussed the problem of ' conformance and uniformity of signs incorporating a trademark, such as Safeway, Sav-On, the Union service station, and Monsoon Mikes. The Director advised that the Commission make an asthetic judgement on the entire signage concept, taking into consideration the variety of types and sizes of the signs, and clarified that with adoption of the Sign program, a legal right would be established for certain signage until such time as the ownership changes. Discussion continued regarding the height and square footage of the signs proposed, specifically noted that the Center identification sign of sixteen feet five inches, as proposed by the applicant, is more than likely a trade-off for the Center sign that was removed, and that the service station is presently in a phase of prosecution with regard to their existing sign, and upon adoption of the Sign program, would be required to come into conformance with that program. It was clarified by staff that upon discussion with tenants of the Center, they have indicated their support for construction of the readerboard sign in the approximate location of the previous sign. Chairman Jessner stated that the Plan proposed appears to have taken into consideration the comments and directions previously given during discussions with the management, members of the Council and Commission and the staff. Mr. Covington expressed his objection to the Monsoon Mike's sign remaining until change of occupancy, suggesting a five year amortization period, and stated he felt that business to be more in line with the retail merchants rather than Safeway and Sav-On. Commissioner Hunt expressed his objection to such a modification for Monsoon Mike's, stating he felt good signage is a subjective issue and that the Plan as proposed constitutes a successful compromise. Mr. Demejian noted to the Commission that Monsoon Mike's is a free standing building and somewhat removed from the Center as a whole. Commissioner Ripperdan asked if this particular sign could be redesigned, changing the lettering and background, to come into greater compliance without undue expense. Mr. Demejian stated that would be a possibility, however alteration of the face of the sign would represent a major expense. Commissioner Ripperdan moved to approve CUP 1-86 with a condition that the amortization period for the Monsoon Mike's sign to be brought into conformity with the Sign program, be five years or upon tenant change. Mr. Page Six - Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 1986 ~ Demejian stated it should also be recognized tbat that business has had a recognizable, registered trademark, and is a subsidiary of Tiny Naylor's, therefore falls into the same category as Safeway and Sav-On. Chairman Jessner seconded the motion. Discussion continued. It was suggested that if Monsoon Mike's choose to retain the present sign, they could apply for an amendment to the Sign program. e e AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Covington, Hunt, Jessner, Ripperdan None Perrin Motion carried The Commission, by unanimous consent, declared a recess at 9:11 p.m.; the Commission reconvened at 9:17 p.m. with Vice Chairman Covington calling the meeting to order. SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no scheduled matters for consideration. COMMISSION REQUESTS Chairman Jessner referred" to the revised number of units that could be eligible for conversion as reported by staff, a significant change from the original estimate, and requested comment on this matter. The Director stated that as far as how the original estimate was calculated, he would be unable to comment, however the methodology used to determine the recent figures were the result of an investigation of building permits and land use survey records for each parcel in the Old Town area to determine the number of legal units on a particular property. He stated that the records were surveyed for those properties with more than allowable units, setback irregularities, or other nonconformities, that would disallow a condominium conversion according to the established pOlicy, therefore the total of one hundred eighty-five units of which seventy-one have presently been converted. He noted that a number of the properties have duplexes that could be converted, also that the financial benefit to the City would be minor in the way of property tax from such conversions. The Commission expressed concern as to what affect the conversions have on the Housing Element of the General Plan. Mr. Baucke responded that question has been raised with most every conversion coming before the Commission as to converting properties that do not meet the City's Ordinance, the conversion establishing a nonconformity in legal perpetuity. The Commission inquired "if the guidelines established for conversions should now be reexamined based upon the newly reported figures. The Director noted the survey of properties showed 2,283 rental units legally existing in the Old Town area, the survey showing only 185, per present pOlicy, that could be considered for conversion. He stated that the question with regard to the General plan's Housing Element is with convertiqg rental stock . . . Page Seven - Planning Commission Minutes - April 9, 1986 to fee-ownership condos, thereby reducing the rental population, noting however that based on present policy over 2000 rental properties would remain, which continues to provide a wide segment of different opportunities for living in the community, therefore would not be an issue. Mr. Baucke did note that there is some concern with the legalization for perpetuity of the nonconformity in the area of density, however not totally contrary to the objective of the General Plan to bring the City into a single family ownership situation over a period of time. Discussion continued, and members of the Commission indicated they felt the City's policy should be reviewed based upon the data received from staff. Mr. Covington moved to reaffirm past Planning Commission guidelines to staff that when presenting the Commission with background materials on variances, conditional use permits and matters for public hearing, that the staff provide pro and con data of the review and evaluation process and based upon those facts, make recommendation to the Commission. Mr. Hunt noted that the staff's intent is to not influence Commission determinations, which may be in the best interest. Mr. Ripperdan added his desire that more concise drawings and plot plans be provided by the applicants. Mr. Covington amended his motion to request staff to establish minimum standards that all applicants would be required to abide by for submittal of such drawings. Discussion continued. Mr. Jessner seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Covington, Hunt, Jessner, Ripperdan None Perrin Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS vice Chairman Covington declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Christopher Marra, 1009-1/2 Seal Way, spoke about Seal Way Alley, parking requirements for property improvements, and complained about trash, garbage, and the need for additional refuse barrels in the downtown area. The Commission advised Mr. Marra he could voice his refuse complaint to the County Health Department. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Baucke announced that Mr. Ogdon has submitted his resignation and would be leaving the City staff on Friday, having accepted employment with the City of Glendale. The Commission expressed appreciation to Mr. Ogdon and requested that an appropriate Resolution be drawn up commending him for his service and participation in the various planning functions. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent, the Commission adjourned their meeting at 10:00 p.m. /1P,<J ~t/~lJ.' s: 2.1-96