Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1986-08-20 .1._- ......: ~---~'''_.~'';'.- . .._..::~..)..~~I._..._...-.:"...e..:::..s.":'L~'~'* :':...-.!.",- 'oJ_A ~L BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AG~ C,ty Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California . 2'he 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. SEAL BEACH PLAXXIXG COMMISSIOX AGEXDA August 20. 1986 XEXT RESOLrTIOX ~1435 1. ~1~Qg~_2f_All~gl~ll~~ 2 . R21Lf~U 3. R~~2~!_fL2m_~~~~~!~t~ . 4. f2ll!~ll!_~~1~llQ~t A. ~inutes of July 9. 1986 B.. Plan Re\'iew 18-86 IViljoen) . 411 Ocean 5. ~gQli~_R~~tillg! A. Variance 12-86 2999 Westminster Resolution =1434 A request to permit a roof sign. Environmental Review: exempt from CEQA review Section 15301] This project is categorically [California Government Code Code Sections: 28-1801(2)lg): 28-2500; 28-2501 Applicant: Great Western Savings O,,'ner: Same 6. ~~h~Qlll~Q_~~!!ft! A. Plan Review li-86 (Miller) 312 14th Street B, Resolution Xumber 1400 Reflects action of Planning Commission on December 4. 1985 AYES: Covington.Jessner.Perrin. Ripperdan XOES: ABSEXT: Hunt C. Resolution Xumber 1416 Reflects action of Planning Commission on April 9. 1986. ~. AYES: Covington.Hunt.Jessner,Ripperdan NOES: :' . " . ABSEXT: Perrin - ". I. .., ,~ _"4 ", ':':;::. j:~~? ::..~..;.' ...... t .~. ~ G' .' ~.." ~ ~ ~ ~~~,"...' ~ ~.:'? :-"'fi~'[";n':'"",~ ._ . . " . ~. t'..\-1~ ..... ~ t' . '"q . ~ r ~'!'..,. . , .. , I. , ,-. .;. _ ~__:~_ "":'01-_ '..'.. ""'-......... ~._...=---4 .. -. ..:.....-_.. 1,& t! ~ ~ D. Resolution ~umber 1417 Reflects action of Planning Commission on April., 9. 1986. AYES: Covinton.Hunt.Jessner. Ri~perda~ ~OES: ; ABSE~T: Perrin E. Resolution ~umber 1425 Reflects action of Planning Commission on JUlr 2. 1986. AYES: Covington.Jessner.Perrin,Suggs X'OES: ABSTAIX': Sharp F. Resolution Sumber 1426 Reflects action of Planning Commission on ~ovember 20. 1985. AYES: Covinton.Jessner.Perrin, Ripperdan ~OES: ABSE;\T: Hunt 7. tQmmi!!lQll_~~gY~!l 8. Qr~!_fQmmYlli~~liQll!_frQm_lhf_AYQ1~ll~f 9. fQmmi!!iQn_~QmmYlli~~liQll! 10. Ag.1p'g!n!!!~!U: olnn!!lLIQ!HH!.:. ~~Q!f!!!Q~!_~~_12~~ Cl:P 12-86 138 1'2 140 Main St. IHennesseys, Inc.1 ~~21fm2fr_12~_12~~ TPM 86-280 Seal Beach Blvd. and Lampson (Bixb}' Company I f~R~_l~=~~~_Y~!l~ll~~_l~=~~ 411 Ocean IVlljoenl - '-~,~~.~.:.- , ....~" .. ,~ --<:-- . ....~.. .. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 1986 The Seal Beach Planning Commission Wednesday, August 20, 1986 at 7:35 p.m. the Salute to the Flag. met in regular session on Commissioner Suggs lead PRESENT: Chairman Jessner Commissioners Covington, Sharp, Suggs, Commissioner Perrin (arrived 7:38 p.m.) ALSO PRESENT: Edward Knight, Director of Development Services Pam Walker, Administrative Aide Ginger Bennington, Secretary to City Manager REPORT FROM SECRETARY There was no report from the secretary. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Covington requested removal of Item A from consent calendar; Perrin seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Perrin, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried Commissioner Sharp moved to approve Consent Calendar; Covington secQnds. .. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried Item A - Minutes of Jul 9, 1986 Plannin Commission Session Commissioner Covington requested addition to minutes to be included on page 4, 2nd paragraph, after 3rd sentence, to read as follows: "He additionally pointed out that the number of spaces used by the Lucky precedent was 1884 whereas the parking spaces number that was used tonight to derive the percentage of landscaping had been increased to 2002. He felt this was an error and did not represent the precedent that had been established with the landlord at the prior hearing." Commissioner Sharp moved to approved minutes of July 9, 1986 as amended; Covington seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE 12-86 - RESOLUTION #1434 - GREAT WESTERN SAVINGS - LEISURE WORLD SHOPPING CENTER .. Planning Commission secretary, Edward Knight, reported this application was a request by Great Western Savings to permit a roof sign and vary from the sign code provisions. Knight stated . 2 . that the Planning Commission took formal action on February 5, 1986 and determined that the signs in question were roof signs. This action enabled staff to proceed with code enfOrCement on the illegal roof signs. The City Attorney informed Great Western on 3 separate occasions starting 2/12 that this determination had been made by the Planning Commission and that Great Western Savings had a certain period of time in which to appeal to the City Council, which they did not exercise. Upon the recommendation of the City Attorney, it was decided that in order to best resolve this issue, Great Western should be allowed to submit for a variance and take it to the hearing process. Knight pointed out that roof signs are not specifically defined in the sign ordinance and are subject to the interpretation of the Planning Commission. The variance in question stems from provision of the sign code adopted in 1978 which sets about a sign amortization period which states that existing signs shall conform within 5 years to the sign code. Knight further stated that in staff's analysis of the proposal, two key issues were investigated; i.e., whether Great Western Savings signs are roof signs and whether the signs qualify for a variance. Staff's recommendation was that since the signs are roof signs, as determined by the Planning Commission in prior session, and since no findings could apply to this property that deprived it of privileges enjoyed by others and that since granting this variance would be a granting of special privileges, that the Planning Commission deny Variance 12-86 by approval of draft Resol~tion #1434. . Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing opened. Rob Yerman, 205 12th Street, presented a packet to Planning Commission. Mr. Yerman explained that since 1985 when Great Western wished to construct an automated teller in the facility, problems started to arise with regard to the roof sign. Mr. Yerman indicated that the letters regarding code enforcement were sent to the wrong address as their offices had moved and therefore not received by Great Western Savings. The third letter, he stated, was when Great Western Savings was first notified. Mr. Covington asked when the company moved, to which Mr. Yerman replied December 13, 1985. Mr. Covington questioned whether mail was forwarded. It was determined that Great Western did receive the letter of July, 1985 indicating the proposed illegality of the sign. No correspondence, no response had been received by the City regarding that letter. No appeal had been filed after the Planning Commission determination of July, 1986. Mr. Yerman presented photographs of roof signs existing in this and other cities that were built after adoption of a sign code that did not allow roof signs; i.e. McDonalds, Sizzler in Fountain Valley, Jack in the Box. Mr. Yerman contends that the lettering is on the parapet, rather than the roof, that Great Western Savings has plans to improve the sign with white background and blue letters in keeping with the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Knight indicated that if Great Western were to revise the sign, they would come . 3 . in for a sign permit and would have to abide by sign provisions. If there is any deviation from that, it would have to be brought into compliance regardless of the roof sign issue. Mr. Covington felt this variance was a sleeper in that it seeks to also approve the appearance with what appears to be an excessive ratio of sign footage as to what is permitted under the code. Some discussion ensued regarding parapets used as screening devices for rooftop equipment. Mr. Jessner noted that the code states that if you have rooftop equipment, it must be screened. With regard to the roof signs that appear to be approved after the code was implemented, Mr. Jessner indicated that the McDonalds sign was approved under the Bay Center sign plan. American Savings was approved as a sign above the roof. Mr. Yerman felt that even though a master sign plan is adopted, it must still adhere to the code. Mr. Yerman requested continuation of this meeting for the purpose of his gathering more photographs and expert opinion from Huntington Beach. Mr. Perrin indicated that not all cities would interpret signs uniformly. Mr. Covington indicated that this was a subjective value system and that each case is determined on its own merit by the Planning Commission. The finding of this Planning Commission on February 5, 1986 determined that the signs in question are roof signs. Mr. Covington recollected that Mr. Ripperdan (former Planning Commissioner and architect) felt that the Great Western sign was a roof sign. Mr. Covington was guided by Ripperdan's comments as to why this sign was definitely a roof sign, that this case was heard in February and on the basis of those findings, the vote was 4-0 determining Great Western Savings signs were roof signs Covington indicated that Hunt abstained as he lived in Leisure World and did business at Great Western Savings. Mr. Covington also indicated that if errors were made in the past, the Commission would in no way condone a continuation of an error. There is no way he felt that a 16-year old sign that is not in conformance should be allowed to remain. Commissioner Jessner recalled a very aggressive attempt by the previous Director of Development Services to correct many of these signs that Mr. Yerman brought up. He believed st~ff is in the process of getting these signs brought up to code, mentioning some signs that have already conformed, i.e., Home Federal Savings and the liquor store on Seal Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. Perrin indicated it was his understanding that staff was starting with the 15 ft. height limit signs to bring them into conformance. Mr. Knight indicated that there is a fairly active sign program in process. As no others spoke in favor nor in opposition to this matter, Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing closed. .' Mr. Covington requested that Variance 12-86 be denied by adoption of draft Resolution #1434 as presented; Perrin seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessne~, Perrin, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried . 4 Chairman Jessner indicated it was the unanimous decision of the Planning Commission that this was a roof sign and it should be removed. He also indicated Great Western can appeal to the City Council within 10 calendar days. . PLAN REVIEW 17-86 - 312 14TH STREET - MILLER Mr. Knight indicated this plan review was submitted by Ted and Robin Miller to add a bedroom and a bathroom to a two-bedroom single story home. Normally, minor additions to nonconforming residential uses can be undertaken without bringing the property into total conformance, provided that the modifications entail less than 10% of the maximum allowable floor area. This application, Mr. Knight stated, would fall under that category, however, several illegal modifications on the property including an illegal garage rental unit and construction of two structures on the side yard without building permits necessitated tonight's action. Mr. Knight pointed out the applicants have been notified of the problems and requested to correct them. Staff felt that all other aspects of the plan review are in accordance with code. Staff recommended two options: 1) continue PR 17-86 until corrections have been made and 2) approval of the PR 17-86 with conditions as noted on the staff report. Selection of option 2 would approve plan review now and allow staff to follow up on conditions. Option 1 would request applicant to correct conditions before considering PR 17-86. Mr. Jessner requested the applicant to be heard. Mr. Miller, 916 Dawson, indicated he intends to comply with conditions. He noted he had bought the house with the rental and is now ready to move back into the home to raise the family. Mr. Miller indicated that the rental is gone, he is converting the garage back now. Mr. Miller indicated he has no problem with the conditions as stated. Mr. Jessner wondered if staff had a concern that any of the room addition could be used as a second unit. Mr. Jessner then asked if staff had any objection to adding a condition stating that the subject property would not be used as a separate dwelling unit. Staff had no objection, nor did Mr. Miller. Mr. Covington requested the addition of condition lid to read as follows "the subject property or any part of enlarged structure shall not be used as separate living or rental unit." Mr. Perrin moves to approve PR 17-86 as amended, Suggs seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Perrin, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried Under scheduled matters, Mr. Knight indicated that only items B, D and F be considered tonight as not all commissioners were present to consider the remainig items. Mr. Suggs would be listening to the tapes so that he might vote at a later date. . . 5 Resolution No. 1400 Mr. Covington moves to approve, Perrin seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Jessner, Perrin, Suggs None Sharp Motion Carried Resolution No. 1425 Mr. Suggs moved to approve, Mr. Covington seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Jessner, Perrin, Suggs None Sharp Motion Carried Resolution No. 1426 Mr. Covington moved to approve; Mr. Perrin seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Jessner, Perrin None Sharp, Suggs Motion Carried . COMMISSION REQUESTS Chairman Jessner requested that a roof sign definition for the time permits. staff consider the development of Seal Beach Municipal Code, when In reference to the Rossmoor Business Center and the method used for deriving the landscape ratio, Mr. Jessner requested Commission comments on a master plan for landscape for the Center prior to another remodel project coming before the Commission. This should eliminate the lengthy process for hearing each item if a plan for the Center is implemented. Mr. Suggs felt there should only be one basis for determining landscaping on the Rossmoor Center sites. Mr. Knight indicated that Councilwoman Edna Wilson has also requested a study looking into the landscaping requirement for all the centers in our community. He indicated that staff has researched and will expand that research to try to take a look at some of the issues the Commission expressed this evening such as master plan and will try to devise some sort of system where incremental improvements can take place but at some point master planning improvement will take place. The Commission concurred with this approach to developing a master plan for all centers. Mr. Suggs indicated that Mr. Gibbons stated the Center planned to increase the square footage of the Center with multiple height buildings and it might be well to take that into account. . 6 . Mr. Covington indicated that the Redevelopment Agency had the opportunity to see a conceptual plan of the Super 8 Hotel and hoped the Planning Commission would have that same opportunity. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Michele Brendel, 204 Ocean Avenue, noticed that the Planning Commission meeting of September 3 would consider Hennessey's live entertainment permit. She wished to go on record, as she might not be able to attend that hearing, that the bikini contest banner has been hanging up for one week without a permit - which is one more violation that has occurred. Mr. Covington requested that Ms. Brendel give written record to the Development Services Department of those violations so it may go on written record in Hennessey's file. Some discussion occurred regarding entertainment permits. Mr. Knight indicated that Hennessey's has received some special activity permits from the City Manager for some activities. Pam Walker read the definition of entertainment permits for the Commission. She indicated that the City Manager has asked Hennessey's to come before the Commission to ask for an entertainment in a lump package rather than approaching the City Manager on a case-by-case basis. . ADJOURMMENT The Chairman of the Planning Commission, with the concensus of the Commission, adjourned the Planning Commission meeting of August 20, 1986 at 9:15 p.m. THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. .