Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1986-07-02 ~~nl. -:.... BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGH"'" Clty Councll Chambers ~l 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California . The Seal Beach Planning Commission meets in session every first and third Wednesday 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. When 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 into 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 hearings, 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. July 2. 1986 XEXT RESOLUTIOS .1427 1. ~l~gg~_~t_all~g!!n~~ 2 . R~lL~!ll 3. R~~~~l_t~~~_~~~r~l!r~ 4. ~~n!~nl_~!l~ng!r 5. fY~li~_H~!~1ng! A. ~Q~~!I!Q!a~_~~~_f~RH!I_!!=!! (Continued from June 11. 1986) Resolution .1423 e A request: to allow center at the hOl:.'s p.m. a large family day care 1729 Bayou Way between of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental RevieK [California Government Code Section 15303(e)]. Code Sections: 28-400(gJlc) Applicant: Charles & Barbara Wackerman Owner: Same B. STATE LANDS SPECIFIC PLAN Resolution :1425 ICont1nued-from-June-ll~-1986) A request to establish a Specific Plan to regulate the development of a 2.7 acre site located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Pacific Coast Hi.ghway and First Street in the City of Seal Beach. The proposed Specific Plan would allow visitor-serving commercial uses to be developed on the project site. Specifically, the uses allowed by the proposed Specific Plan include a hotel 1200 room maximum) and/or restaurantls) and dinner theater!sJ. The Specific Plan contains land use. circulation. parking. landscape and architectural standards. as well as implementation procedures. e .....4 (, i. ,. . Planning Commission Agenda July 2. 1986 Page 2 B. STATE LA~DS SPECIFIC PLAX Icont.) IContjnued-from-June-ll~-19861 Environmental Review: has been prepared in Impact Report. ~egative Declaration 4-86 lieu of an Environmental Zone: SPR (Specific Plan Regulation) Zone Applicant: City of Seal Beach Owner: State Lands Commission - State of Calif. c. YARIA~~~_~~~~ ~Q~~1!lQ~A~_g~~_f~RMl!_11~~~ A request to remodel and expand an substandard single-family residence at Street. including the construction of a tandem style garage which would encroach rear yard setback. existing 302 15th two-stall into the Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review [California Government Code Section 15061(dJ). e Code Sections: 28-2500. 28-2503. 28-70112Jlcl and I d) Applicant: Keith J. and ~arlis ~ang Sneden O,,'ner: Marlis Mang Sneden D. YARH.~fL1Q=~!! .. Resolution ~1421 A request to replace an existing one-story office bUilding at 12121 Seal Beach Blvd. with a two- story general office building on a site with less than the required landscaping. Environmental Review: has been prepared in Impact Report. ~egative Declaration 5-86 lieu of an Environmental Code Section: 28-402. 28-1402(6) Applicant: Century ~ational Properties. Inc. Owner: Same 6. ~~h~gy!~g_H!!!~r! 7. f2mm!!!!2n_R~gy~!!! 8. Qr!!_f2mmYn!~!!!2n!_fr2m_!h~_Ayg!~n~~ 9. f2mmi!!!2n_f2mmYni~!!!2n! . tI' Planning Commission Agenda Jull' 2. ]986 Page 3 ]0. ~gj2~rnm~n1 Agenda Forecast: J~lL!!..._!!!JH! : -CGP 4-86 321 Seal Beach Blvd. (Mansour) -cup 7-86 ]]]1 E. Pacific Coast Hwy. ( Sav-On.l -Cl:P ]0-86 12161 Seal Beach Blvd. (GrHfin) -ZTA 2-86 Hotel/~otel Definition - \' a ria n cell - 8 6 ]50] Seal Way (Renner) - . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 2, 1986 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session at 7:38 p.m. with Chairman Jessner calling the meeting to order. Commissioner Perrin led the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Jessner Commission Members Covington, Perrin, Sharp, Suggs None Absent: Also Present: Mr. Al Warot, Consultant serving in capacity of Director of Development Services. Mrs. Bennington, Secretary to City Manager Chairman Jessner clarified Commissioner Covington's absence at previous Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Covington had requested an excused absence prior to the meeting. Jessner moved, second by Perrin to excuse Covington's absence from the June 4, 1986 meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Jessner, Perrin, Sharp, Suggs None Covington Motion Carried - At this time, Chairman Jessner welcomed Commissioner James Sharp to the Planning Commission. REPORT FROM SECRETARY There were no items to report at this time. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items on the consent calendar. CONTINUED ITEM - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-86, 1729 BAYOU WAY, WACKERMAN Chairman Jessner excused himself from this hearing due to potential conflict of interest and turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Covington. Covington st~tes this was implemented at the request of the City Attorney as one or more of Mr. Jessner's children receives instruction from the Wackerman's. e This request for a conditional use permit to allow a large family day care center at 1729 Bayou Way was continued from the June 11th meeting due to lack of quorum. Vice Chairman Covington reopened the public hearing to receive testimony. Charles and Barbara Wackerman, 1729 Bayou Way (the applicants) stated they were asking for a conditional use permit, which is part of the requirements for a large family day care center for the following reasons: 1) There is a dire need for home day care in many areas of California, especially in Seal Beach, 2) Two of the mothers that bring children to the facility now are expecting in the near future, and 3) their 9 year old son (who by law must be counted . as one of the day care children) would like to be able to bring a friend home to play. The Wackerman's state they have met all State requirements as well as the County Fire Marshall's regulations. Rosemary Bidebach, 6122 Balboa, spoke as a family day care licensee. She addressed the fear of dropping property values with the rationale that this is a very personal business, that a well-cared for home is to the benefit of a day care center, that the County inspects yearly to assure the property is not in disrepair, and that repairs to the home are tax deductible. Responding to Covington's questions, Ms. Bidebach indicated she cared for 12 children until 2 weeks ago, that her lot was 50' x 100', that the children ranged in age from 2 mos. to 8 yrs., that the children played in a partner's playground and in her own playroom (however, she qualified on her own as providing enough play area for her center. Debra Wall, President of Greater Long Beach/Lakewood Family Day Care Association and board member of Family Day Care Homes Inc., spoke in support of the issue. For clarification, she pointed out that centers must have 12 or more children, otherwise the facilities are referred to as homes. She also stated that under the statutes of California, SB 163 (which was approved on 9/29/83) determined that the use of a single family dwelling shall not constitute a change of occupancy for the purposes of the State Housing Law or for purposes of the local building codes and that any noise standards shall be consistent with local noise ordinances and shall take into consideration noise levels generated by children. Seal Beach, she stated, has 7 day care homes with 1 closing soon, therefore, the Wackerman's will be providing a valuable service to the community. Ellyn Gelfand, 1130 Catalina, offered her expertise as a claims adjustor for a large insurance firm handling residential homes. She reported that in her 15 years at the Wackerman's home, she had never noted any problem. She further noted that as a parent using the day care home, her child was happy, well-adjusted and the children were always well disciplined. She also mentioned that Mr. Charles Wackerman has been an asset to the children of Seal Beach with his jazz band. Responding to Commissioner Covington's questions regarding the safety aspect of the backyard pool, Mrs. Gelfand indicated that when her child was in the facility, the pool was fenced. Covington, speaking to Mrs. Gelfand's expertise as a claims adjustor, inquired if the fence was sufficient so as to protect the children from any'pool accidents, to which Mrs. Gelfand replied that she had not inspected the back yard in recent times to check the pool security. Harry and Diane Schmidt, 1305 Catalina, spoke in support of the day care expansion. Mr. Schmidt reported he had helped build the fence surrounding the pool, that it was constructed of wood and that the gate is self- closing. Replying to Covington's questions, Mr. Schmidt indicated to his knowledge, there were no sensors in the pool. With regard to property values, the Schmidt's indicated that had made two offers for homes on Bayou Way and in no way felt the property values were diminished by the facility. The Schmidt's . e 2 e indicated the street lighting was adequate on Bayou Way, that they experienced no traffic problems and that the Wackerman's required each parent to park, enter the day care home and sign their child out. Oralia Osuna, 1145 Catalina, indicated she has known the Wackermans for 12 years, working part-time as an assistant to Barbara Wackerman and felt the Wackerman's were providing a valuable service to the working parents of Seal Beach. Sharon Russell, 245 Surf Place, speaking as a long-time friend of the Wackerman's, indicated she felt it was important that someone express how much the Wackerman's had put back into the community. She also indicated she lived directly across from a day care home for many years and never saw any diminishing of property values. Ginger Howard, 301-8th Street spoke on behalf of family day care in general. Ms. Howard manages 14 day care centers in Los Angeles County with never any traffic or other problems occurring. She also indicated that a conditional use permit process is not necessary in all communities. Dan M. Wall of the Greater Long Beach/Lakewood Day Care Association, stated that every city in California has three options in issuing day care licenses, with the public hearing process being the most difficult. Covington indicated that Seal Beach does not have an enabling ordinance, therefore the decision was made to use the conditional use permit process. Mr. Al Warot indicated option 1 would have been to clearly designate child care in a residential zone, option 2 would have been to allow small or large day care facilities to be administered by permit as a staff function and option 3 was the special use permit. He indicated that since Seals Beach has not formally adopted an ordinance, the special use permit alternative was used as has been done in the past when the municipal code was silent on a particular use. Warot further reported that State law says that where a special use permit is required, the permit cannot be denied, however, the City has the ability to impose reasonable restrictions. Basic building standards can be used as long as they apply to every resident within that block. With regard to the facility itself, the safety of the children can be a consideration. e The following letters of support for Conditional Use Permit 12-86 were received by the Department of Development Services {kept on file in that Department} and forwarded to the Planning Commission for their information: Arthur T. Genet, dated June 9, 1986 Robert L. Weaver, dated June 10, 1986 Juan B. McLinden, dated June 11, 1986 e Ronald Hamel, 1756 Harbor Way, spoke in opposition to the day care expansion. He indicated he had sent a letter to the City which might have generated much of this evening's discussion. Mr. Hamel indicated his objection was to the expansion of the facility itself and that he in no way harbored any ill will towards the Wackerman's. His concerns were with the safety of 3 e the site as it is located on a curve where traffic is considerable and many vehicles speed through the area. He felt visibility is difficult around the curve. Another concern of Mr. Hamel's was the decreasing property values. Mr. Hamel reiterated that he was present to exercise his rights, express his concerns on the effect this expansion would have upon the neighborhood. Responding to Commissioner Covington's questions, Mr. Hamel stated that parents occasionally double-parked. Commissioner Covington wondered whether the City Engineer could inspect the location and recommend, if feasible, any safety precautions that might be necessary. Hope Troy, 1716 Bayou, spoke against the matter. Living diagonally across from the day care home, here objection was to the expansion of the facility from 6 to 12 children and not directed at the Wackerman's personally. Her objections were for the increased traffic and loss of property values. Ms. Troy presented a letter of protest dated June 18, 1986 and a copy of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission minutes for June 17, 1986 (both documents on file in the Dept. of Development Services) in which a similar day care home expansion was denied due to neighborhood opposition and concerns for noise, parking and traffic congestion. Ms. Troy also indicated that due to new disclosure laws, property owners selling their homes, must disclose what is occurring within the neighborhood. Gloria McGuire, 1720 Bayou Way indicated that she had hand-delivered a letter opposing the expansion to the Commissioners (letter dated July 1 on filed in the Dept. of Development Services) stating her concerns regarding CUP 12-86. The point she wished to address was the new real estate disclosure law which states that homeowners must disclose any proximity to a source greater than normal neighborhood noise and traffic. Ms. McGuire indicated that Mr. Wackerman is also conducting a small business offering music lessons which further increases the noise levels. Ms. McGuire quoted the City staff report wherein it states" the use permit shall be granted if the large family day care home complies with local ordinances, if any, prescibing reasonable standards, restrictions and requirements concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking and noise control relating to such homes..." Ms. McGuire pointed out that the persons speaking for the matter do not live in her neighborhood and are benefitting from a service. Responding to Covington's questions, McGuire stated she had not been subjected to the traffic from the day care home, but had been more aware of the music business. Ken Rausch, 1725 Bayou Way spoke in opposition to CUP 12-86 for the following reasons: 1) the increased traffic on Bayou and Harbor, 2) the increase in noise levels, and 3) the operation of a commercial business in a residential area setting a precedent and jeopardizing property values. Covington inquired as to whether the unsafe traffic issue was presently occurring or surmised to be a result of the expansion. Mr. Rausch stated that parking on the sidewalks and driveway and on his driveway happened on occasion. Joan Elliot, 1736 Catalina stated she lived directly behind the day care facility and experienced the e e 4 e e 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. e noise of children playing. She felt that the expansion to 12 children would raise the noise levels considerably. She indicated that the cement block walls surrounding the yard created a well effect enhancing the noise levels. Ms. Elliot indicated that as a teacher herself, she was not opposed to teaching, but that it was necessary for her to speak up with regard to this matter as there was no other recourse offered her. Jackie Deamer, 1770 Harbor Way expressed her concerns regarding traffic safety. Ms. Deamer presented a petition (on file in the Dept. of Development Services) with 51 signatures objecting to issuance of the CUP 12-86 due to the adverse effect the expansion would have on the neighborhood. Rosemary Bidebach wished to clarify that fact there would only be 10 children, not 12 participating in the center. Two spots were held for the Wackerman's nine year old son and a friend (if he wished to bring one home). She also indicated that the reason for expanding was to accommodate new siblings of present day care users. Those new siblings would be infants taking morning and afternoon naps and not playing outside the home. Glenda Barry, 621 Southshore Dr., spoke to the need for baby sitters, especially for single working mothers. Ms. Barry indicated she lives close to a day care home and has never objected to the sound of children playing. Ms. Barry also indicated that as a mail carrier for that area, she knew there were only 16 homes on Bayou Way, therefore the petition signatures included persons who did not reside on Bayou. Charles and Barbara Wackerman restated their position. Mr. Wackerman indicated that for the past 3 years, after Seal Beach annexed to Los Alamitos School District, he had been running a summer program at his house - 2 jazz bands - running a period of 19 days for two hours in the morning. He indicated that in those 3 years he had never received a complaint, however, he has since discontinued the program. Mrs. Wackerman reported that when the band program was in use, there were no parking problems as 6 members came from the immediate neighborhood and those traveling from Los Alamitos came in one (vintage) vehicle. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Barbara Wackerman offered the following information: The front yard is proposed to be fenced to allow more play area. There are 4 children now, under 2 years that nap twice a day. There is a family room for the children to play. Children have not played in the back yard for 6 months. Operation is Monday thru Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. except for the City clerk dispatcher who works a 12 hour shift, Monday thru Wednesday, until 7:00 p.m. Parents must come to the door and sign their child out. Only Mrs. Wackerman's own children swim in the pool. 5 e 8. Wackerman's are trying to locate a method of silencing their barking dog. Commissioner Covington closed the public hearing as no others wished to speak in favor, nor in opposition to CUP 12-86. Mr. Warot reiterates the health and safety code regarding day care homes, that they cannot be denied if local ordinances are met. Warot further explains there is a probability that current noise levels fall within local City ordinances. Covington felt a noise level reading should be performed to establish a basis for any future applications or for any changes in the noise levels of this operating day care facility. Commissioner Sharp questioned whether this use can legally be denied due to State law. Commissioner Covington felt that the City Attorney consistently supported any denials made on the basis of public health, safety and welfare. Commissioner Covington inquired if the City Engineer had evaluated Bayou Way in terms of speed limits, caution signs, curb markings, passenger loading zones, speed bumps, signs at both entrances, traffic counts. Commissioner Covington stated he would feel uneasy approving this matter without the City Engineer's input. After discussion with Mr. Warot, it was determined that a noise level study and input from the City Engineer, along with traffic accident reports from the Police Chief might be able to be secured prior to the next Commission meeting. e Commissioner Covington moved to continue public hearing on Conditional Use Permit 12-86 to July 16, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. with additional input as stated above from the City Engineer and the Police Chief, along with a determination or clarification from the City Attorney as to what extent the City can regulate, particularly if they wished to deny an issue such as expansion of day care facilities; Commissioner Sharp seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Perrin Sharp Suggs Motion Carried Commissioner Covington recessed the meeting at 9:55 p.m. to be reconvened at 10:05 p.m. e CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - STATE LANDS SPECIFIC PLAN - RESOLUTION NO. 1425 Mr. Warot reported the subject items was continued from the June 11th meeting. Summarizing the staff report, Mr. Warot indicated that the Director of Public Works suggested conditions of the existing infrastructure and improvements that may be required of the developer to accommodate future development of the site. He stated that in response to the information from the Director of Public Works, it would be appropriate to modify Section 4 of the Draft Specific Plan to stipulate that the developer of the subject property shall be responsible for any upgrading of the infrastructure (i.e. sewers and water mains) required to support 6 . development of the site. e Chairman Jessner opened the public hearing. Responding to Commissioner Covington's request for details of any significant changes in the Specific Plan, Mr. Warot stated the most dramatic series of changes occur in Section 4, "General Notes and Conditions" which has expanded to three times its original length. Mr. Warot stated that these conditions do not in any way weaken the document, but actually strengthen it. Commissioner Covington expressed his concern that the Specific Plan contain conditions necessary to erect a project of suitable quality and stature as befits the entrance to the City. In Mr. Warot's opinion, derived from reading past Planning Commission minutes on this matter, the concern over a specific developer need not be addressed if the document includes adequate details and conditions to develop a quality project. Chairman Jessner noted that at a previous meeting, the State indicated the land could not be dedicated for the road, but they would grant a 49 year lease right of way for this extension of First Street - but that this language did not appear in the present document. Mr. Warot stated the language could be modified within the circulation portion of the plan to note that 49 year lease with the State. Jessner also expressed concern over the hotel/motel definition. Mr. Warot had spoken to the City Attorney who felt it would be appropriate if the Commission wished to place that definition within the zoning section of the plan. On Page II-visitor serving, primary use, the City Attorney, it was reported, is drafting the ordinance to define the hotel for this plan. Jessner also requested insertion into the document of clarification on primary uses - that banquet/meeting facilities and certain recreation facilities could be used by the public depending upon certain criteria being met. Mr. Warot stated the Plan could indicate that after the hotel is built, it should include a banquet room, recreational activities and meeting rooms. After some discussion, the Commissioners felt the restaurant was always as a complement to the hotel - that the 39 ft. height was negotiated for that specific reason - to house a restaurant to take advantage of the view. Commissioner Covington asked if the Commissioners would consent to the restaurant as a corollary use with the. hotel, rather than to stand alone as a primary use. Alan Scott, representing the State Lands Commission, stated that the reason for the stand alone restaurant, was to provide the City with an alternative to the primary use should there come a point in time when the hotel alternative would become impractical. Mr. Scott stated he had no objection to removing the stand alone option. e Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing on the State Lands Specific Plan closed as no others wished to speak in favor nor in opposition to the matter. 7 - Commissioner Covington moved to approve, Perrin seconds, the State Lands Specific Plan by adoption of Resolution #1425 with the following modifications as listed: 1. Page 11 - lC would become lB Page 11 - lB would become 2A Page 11 - 2A would become 2B Page 11 - 2B would become 2C Page 11 - 2C would become 2D 2. Page 11 - 2D would be changed to "recommendation to have all open space uses to be proposed for the site and shall be available to the public through an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency. 3. Page 1 of Section lB should be deleted as irrelevant. 4. Page 12, item B, should read "developed City standards under a long-term lease with the State Lands Commission to the satisfaction of the City of Seal Beach. 5. Section 4, General Notes and Conditions should be amended to include" the developer of subject property shall be responsible for any upgrading of the infrastructure required to support development of the site." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: e Covington, Jessner, Perrin, Suggs None Sharp Motion Carried Mr. Warot reported the negative declaration should be adopted first. Therefore, Commissioner Covington moved to withdraw previous vote, Perrin seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Jessner, Perrin, Suggs None Sharp Motion Carried Commissioner Covington moved to adopt Environmental Study/Negative Declaration prepared for the State Lands Specific Plan; Perrin seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Jessner, Perrin, Suggs None Sharp Motion Carried Commissioner Covington moved to adopt Resolution #1425 to approve State Lands Specific Plan as previously amended; Perrin seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: e Covington, Jessner, Perrin Suggs None Sharp Motion Carried 8 e PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE 9-86 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-86 - 301 15TH STREET - SNEDEN Mr. Warot presented the staff report to the Commission indicating this matter had been reviewed for environmental impact and found to be exempt. At present the property is developed with a single family residence that does not meet minimum floor area. Warot stated the proposed expansion represents a 157% increase in the existing living area. He also indicated this is a nonconforming property and therefore must fulfill Seal Beach's requirement of conditional use permit process. One variance is being requested at the same time. Due to the 50 ft. lot depth which reduces the usable rear yard area, the applicant is proposing tandem parking in the enclosed garage to accommodate their two compact vehicles. This would bring the property into conforming status in terms of living area and the number of off-street parking spaces, however it would violate the requirement for rear yard setback of five feet. The encroachment results from the proposed tandem style garage and the second floor deck area. This garage would be built at reduced dimensions to accommodate the two standard compact vehicles. It was reported that staff looked at several alternatives, including starting from scratch. Staff has proposed an alternative method wherein an the construction of a carport or garage facing Landing Avenue where a ground-level nook is now proposed, would not encroach into the minimum setbacks and would not exceed maximum lot coverage. A curb cut onto Landing Avenue would be necessary, and has found Whether to consider and eliminate the need for the variance request. That option being the construction of a second off street parking space along Landing Avenue to the rear of the yard. There is adequate space available. It would involved the loss of certain offstreet parking. It could be an enclosed or covered spaced. The City Engineer has indicated no objection to a curb cut onto Landing Avenue. Staff felt that this request for variance should be denied on the grounds that appropriate findings cannot be made. This property owner has an alternative to what has been proposed. While the current occupants have vehicles that would be accommodated within the garage, the long term range use of the property must be considered. e . Chairman Jessner opened the public hearing. Peter and Marless Soeden, 302 15th Street (the applicants) stated this is a very small 746 sq. ft. home that needs much work. They propose to construct a second story addition, keeping the major part of existing structure. Mr. Sneden indicated there is a one care garage in which they are proposing tandem parking by extending to a total of 35 ft. Since their two vehicles are compact, the proposed tandem parking will easily accommodate them. Mr. Sneden felt that with the small size of the lot, 50'x50' and lack of alley access, that this was the most feasible alternative to parking. He also stated that staff is recommending a carport that would extend 1-1/2 ft. into the setback and still require a variance. The Snedens felt the carport would destroy the 9 e character of their proposed home as it would cover more than half the back yard, would not allow access from the kitchen. The Snedens sincerely felt their tandem plan provides a creative solution to the parking problem as it provides two spaces. Chairman Jessner indicated that the 50'x50' lot as compared to a 25'x100' lot has the same square footage but different shape. He indicated that it is not necessary to build a carport, the structure could be an enclosed garage. He further noted that in the past the Commission has always reviewed a matter as to whether it is feasible not to have tandem parking. If it was the only alternative, the variance was granted. Since staff has recommended another option, the Chairman felt it would be difficult to grant the variance. Mrs. Sneden indicated that with construction of a carport, the light would be blocked in the kitchen and in the bathroom, and rendering the remaining backyard unusable. She spoke to the safety issue of entering onto Landing Avenue. Commissioner Sharp inquired whether the Snedens looking into the rules and regulations governing remodeling when they purchased their home, to which Mr. Sneden replied in the negative. Sneden did state that he likes Seal Beach, plans to be here a long time basis, that they are trying to upgrade and remodel according to City code. They indicated a willingness to have as a condition of sale of their home, that future buyers would have to park their vehicles in the tandem garage. Mr. Sneden indicated Landing Avenue is narrow with parking on one side of the street. He would have to drive up to start the car, get out to unlock the gate and pull open to exit. Jessner indicated that many garages along Landing have curb cuts and use garage door openers. Jessner also indicated that the size of garages has not been reduced to accommodate the present owners compact cars, that the long term use of the property must be considered and future owners may not have compact vehicles. Covington stated that the Commission much prefers and are obliged to grant a variance that is non-precedent setting, that variance permits cannot be customized for each applicant. Commissioner Covington suggests continuation of this meeting so the architect and staff can review the matter and develop other options not yet addressed. e Steve Sloan, 301 15th, stated he had reviewed his neighbors plans and felt the proposed structure would add value to the neighborhood. He felt that aesthetically the carport was a poor solution to the parking problem and that the tandem parking was a viable alternative. Mr. Sloan was concerned that the City would lose a property owner wishing to upgrade and develop the site versus having a property owner come in who did not want to improve area. e Commissioner Covington moves to continue Variance 9-86 and Conditional Use Permit 17-6 until July 16, 1986; Sharp seconds. AYES: Covington, Jessner, Perrin, Sharp, Suggs NOES: None Motion Carried 10 . PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE 10-86 - ROSSMOOR BUSINESS CENTER _ 12121 SEAL BEACH BLVD. At this point Chairman Jessner indicates that it has been a policy of the Commission to not begin any public hearings after 11:00 p.m., therefore, this next item will be heard on July 16th. Mr. Edward Gibbons, representative of Rossmoor Business Center, stated that he has a tenant proposing to construct a building in the Center and that the tenant needs to make a commitment if they are going to be the prime tenant. Therefore, Mr. Gibbons requests Commissioners to hear this matter tonight. Chairman Jessner opens the public hearing. After some discussion, Commissioner Covington moves to continue this matter to an adjourned meeting next Wednesday, July 9, 1986 at 7:30 p.m.; Suggs seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Perrin, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried The Commission indicates that in the future, Chairman Jessner will announce early in the meeting that no new public hearings will begin after 11 p.m. e COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Perrin indicates that the original resolution showing action on Dave's Other Place, 1500 PCH, was never brought back to the Commission. Staff agrees to research matter. Commissioner Covington questions appeals procedure. Secretary indicates the Commissioners will be provided with the ordinances relating to referrals-back and appeals procedures. Staff indicated they would inspect a deck on 302 or 300 14th Street per Commission request. It was the consensus of the Commission and so ordered by the Chair to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of July 2, 1986 at 11: 50 p.m. Secretary to Planning Commission (AI Warot) . 11 ". e -. . ..r June 18, 1986 TO: Seal Beach Planning Commission FROM: Philip J. Troy, 1716 Bayou Way, Seal Beach RE: Conditional Use Permit #12-86 Members of the Commission: I have been a resident of Seal Beach for 16 years and currently own a home diagonally across the street for the Wackermans,who have recently applied for a permit for a large family daycare center to operate from their residence at 1720 Bayou Way. I oppose the granting of this permit. I've lived on Bayou for just a few months. I chose to purchase a home on Bayou because it was one of the quietest streets on the Hill and that due to the nature of the street it would remain quiet always. I never thought I'd be across the street from what will be a major business that will gross $30,000 or perhaps $50,000 per year. A business with at least 24 cars coming and going per day. A business with at least two empolyees. A business that will IMMEDIATLEY lower the property values of the entire street. TRAFFIC: I chose Bayou because it had very little traffic and gave my children the opportunity to play in safety. There are well over thirty small children on this circle, one of the highest on the Hill, and now each family here must give up their feeling of security because of increased traffic this Business generates. We chose to live on Bayou because of the lack of traffic. Now, to support a major residential Business, we must give up a major feature of our street. REAL ESTA'I'E VALUES: I ask each of the Commissioners, would you' -.- want to live adjacent to a house that cared for 12 children from 7;00 a.m. till 5:30 p.m. five days a week? Would you buy the house next door? Wouldn't you be concerned about any Business being established beside your home that would dramatically change the quality of your life and the value of the property? People who live on or near streets that are zoned for businesses take their chances with what kind of business moves in. But for people who live in low density residential streets in quiet neighborhoods should not even have to worry about a business moving in that will affect their lives. But I am worried. The quality of the street will most definately go down, and with it goes property values. There is no doubt, and upon consideration you must agree, that the value of the homes surrounding the Wackermans will drop. With virtually no back yard because of their pool, the situation gets even mOl<e complica:ted;__The, potential of v.isually ch:apg.;i..ng. the the-neighborhood is also a threat. NOISE: As a parent I know kids make noise, and as a parent I've learned to put up with a fair amount of it. Noise from the neighbor's kids is not as easy to take, but it's acceptable because their Conditional Use Permit #12-86/Bayou Way .41 Page 2 parents chose to live on Bayou. However, noise from a business is not acceptable on Bayou. Twelve children 'across the street for 10-1/2 hours per day run as a Business is quite different and should not be allowed to disturb an entire neighborhood. Please keep in mind that this is a year round Business. I've never met the Wackermans and don't like criticizing their business plans, but I feel they haven't considered the impact that this venture will have on their neighbors. I don't feel it fair to run a Business for profit that lowers property values and destroys the quality of the street. I would hope that the voices of the neighbors before the Commission will have considerable impact, since it is the residents who will bear the weight of the Commission's decision. Please vote against this permit. Please think of it in terms of being established next to your home and how your property and lifestyles would be affected. ---- ---- e . . NOTICE OF ADJOURNED MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Seal Beach Planning Commission did, at their regular meeting of July 2, 1986, adjourn to Wednesday, July 9, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers, 211 - 8th Street, Seal Beach. . DATED this 3rd day of July, 1986. ~ /-- ,...- , /' /' ,/ ~~ Lk.,o Joanne M. Yeo, Cit~-clerk City of Seal Beach " .