Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1986-12-03 . . -'. ... ___..__0.. to ...~_.._.6_.6._.______._ --------- ---- SFAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGE~J~ - ~ Clty 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 bearing item, the Chairman will call for public testimony first for those in favor of tbe project, and second, for tbose who are not in favor. When you see that the speaker's position in the center of tbe room is unoccupied, step up to the microphone and when recogniZed by tbe 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 wisb 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. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA December 3. 1986 Next Resolution #1446 1. Pledae of Al~eaiance 2. Roll Call 3. Consent Cal~n~ar A. Plan Review 26-86 235 5th Street 4. PubliC? H~a~J,ngs A. Zoning Text Amendment 2-86 Hotel/Motel Definition and (Closed Public Hearing. 1986) Resolution #1432 Regulations continued from November 5. r . ~. A request to amend the Municipal Code to provide definitions for. and possibly to develop regulations for varioue forms of transient lodging facilities such as hotels and motels. f Code Sections: 28-2602 28-243; 28-261; 28-2600; 28-2601; J i. ~ ~ Environmental Review: Negative been prepared in lieu of an Report. Declaration 6-86 has Environmental Impact Applicant: City of Seal Beach B. Zoning Text Amendment 4-86 Resolution #1444 \' " " A request to amend Chapter 28 of the include regulations pertaining to large family day care. Municipal Code to small family and ,. Code Sections: 28-2600, 28-2601 ~ ~ Environmental Review: Negative Declaration 9-86 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report Applicant: City of Seal Bach - . -_.. _. ~__ ~ r--o..' -' ... . . ! _"- .0". . ~_ .... .. :.~ () . ) , - December 3. 1986 P.C. Meeting Page 2 C. Zoning Text Amendment 5-86 Resolution #1445 A request to amend Section 28-2406 of the Municipal Code to provide new regulations for the reconstruction of nonconforming buildings partially destroyed. Code Sections: 28-2406: 28-2600: 28-2601 Environmental Review: Negative been prepared in lieu of an Report. Declaration 10-86 has Environmental Impact Applicant: City of Seal Beach 5. Scheduled Matters A. Architectural Review 1-86 46 Riversea Road B. Minor Plan Review Application Procedures 6. Q.;t:~)_Co1!l.m.\1ni_~~,!:!oJ;1S from th~ Audience 7. Staff_99Pcerns 8. 9p~~~~~on Concerns 9. ~djournment Agenda Forecast: TPM 86-395 12501 St. Cloud Drive (Century National Properties) ..----,.-__""'"--_ao ~_~ ,__- '. ...._ . Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting of December 3, 1986 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, December 3, 1986 at 7:34 p.m. Commissioner Sharp lead the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Jessner Commissioners Sharp, Suggs, Covington, Perrin (arrives at 7:38 p.m.) None E. Knight, Director of Development Services G. Stepanicich, City Attorney P. Walker, Administrative Aide G. Bennington, Secretary to City Manager Absent: Also Present: CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Sharp moves to approve consent calender which contains Plan Review 26-86 for 235 5th Street; Suggs seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried . PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 2-86 - RESOLUTION #1432 _ HOTEL/MOTEL DEFINITION AND REGULATIONS Chairman Jessner explained that the public hearing portion of ZTA 2-86 has been closed and that sufficient input has been received to not warrant the reopening of the hearing. Commissioner Covington questioned section 3A of the proposed ordinance as conferring second-class rights on one property owner. The City Attorney stated that is not the case, that this section essentially grandfathers in existing uses and provides a means of encouraging those existing uses to obtain their conditional use permit in a timely fashion. He explained the January 1, 1987 date was provided to give the Commission the option to decide whether it was appropriate or not to include. He further indicated the draft ordinance identifies what uses may qualify and states that in order to qualify for a CUP to be a legal conforming use, the applicant will have to apply for and be granted the CUP prior to January, 1988. The City Attorney felt this ordinance was concise and exact as to the specifics needed. Should an applicant not apply for a CUP, he stated, it would continue to be a nonconforming use. The staff~s position would be.to construe that use narrowly and it would be subject to abatement by the Commission. The problem that the property owner faces by not applying for the CUP, according to Mr. Stepanicich, is the fact there may be a continuing dispute over the scope of their operation and Planning Commission has the power to establish a period of time for which that use cen be terminated or abated. The Commission holds that power over any nonconforming use within the City. . .' The City Attorney also stated that this is the only ordinance that is necessary to prevent new hotels from being located within the RHO zone. This draft ordinance would redefine hotels, permit existing hotels to obtain a cup and also prevent new hotels from locating within the RHO zone. Staff indicated that should this ordinance be approved, the existing hotels would be notified in writing of their requirements. In response to the Chairman, the City Attorney stated the CUP would relate to the property. If there was a difference between the owner and the tenant, the CUP would have the permission of both on the application. The exception is the alcohol license, explained Mr. Stepanicich, as both ABC and the City work very closely with that type of establishment and under the ABC regulations the change of ownership would be handled through the ABC. As a general rule, it was reported, the CUP should apply to the land itself, not to an individual, because it is a permit for the use of the land itself. The conditional use permit process itself may control any problems that might occur as a result of the operation of the business. Revocation proceedings can be initiated should the requirements of the CUP not be implemented. . With regard to Oakwood Apartments, Commissioner Covington expressed the concern that the entire site might be considered ~s a hotel in the future. Mr. Knight explained there is a question as to whether Oakewood is lawfully existing since no use permit has been applied for their operation. Mr. Knight indicated Oakwood Apartments has been paying bed taxes, however, that does not give them any rights under the zoning ordinance. With regard to how many of Oakwood's units are currently operating as a hotel, Oakwood would have to show substantial records as to how many rooms they have used as transient occupancy. At that point, only those number of rooms allowed for transient occupancy would apply under this ordinance, not the entire site. Mr. Knight indicated that section 4 of the draft ordinance refers to changing the title in C2 from motel to hotel. He recommended the section be amended to make that change but also to provide that hotels the C2 zoning would require a use permit. Covington moves that ZTA 2-86 be approved and Res. 1432 be approved in conceptual form tonight subject to final complete wording described by the City Attorney and Director of Development Services, recognizing the City is permitting existing hotel facilities to remain in RHO zone and are precluding any future intrusion of such facilities in the RHD zone. Commissioner Suggs seconds. . AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried ....--.-.-.., - . --....-..-.----~--....--.-.. 7.-.....--. ... .-..-... ..-...- 0-_. u_, . PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 4-86 - RESOLUTION #1444 - SMALL FAMILY AND LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE CENTERS Pam Walker indicated ZTA 4-86 is a request to establish zoning regulations for small and large family day care homes. She stated the City Council directed staff to draft such regulations following the Commission's hearing on CUP 12-86 (a request for a large family day care home at 1729 Bayou Way). She pointed out the Health and Safety Code of California specifies that small family day care must be permitted in residential homes. The State law does permit cities to require CUp's for large family day care (from 7-12 children) and to permit reasonable standards for concentration of these homes, traffic control and noise. Staff surveyed other nearby cities who regulated concentration, hours of operation, size of play area and noise. This survey was attached to staff report. Section 1 of the draft ordinance establishes small family day care homes as a permited use in the RLD zone. Section 2 of the draft includes large family day care homes in the RLD zone subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit and lists several areas of regulations. Staff's recommendation is to approve regulations and recommend adoption to City Council. . Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing open. Gloria Mcquire, 1720 Bayou Way, indicated she was personally involved in the hearings on CUP 12-86. Ms. Mcquire commended the Planning Staff and Commission for drafting this ordinance which will allow residents to have some basis in the event there is opposition to a day care center. Ms. Mcquire's concerns were the front yard wall and definition of nuisance. Mr. Knight reported there were regulations that would preclude a 6 ft. high wall being built in most front yards as the wall would have to be built in the required setback which in most cases is 20 ft. As to the definition of nuisance, the draft ordinance relates nuisance to noise. The City does have a noise ordinance which can regulate noise impacts upon the neighborhood. Other nuisances would be based upon the types of complaints received. Mr. Knight explained that this ordinance has attempted to define nuisance as it relates to noise. It was felt the traffic impact from a 12- child day care would not be considered a nuisance. Knight also felt the conditional use permit process would be the time to consider each application as to the impact on the neighborhood. . The Commission discussed the section of the draft ordinance stating that day care homes could not be located closer than 300 feet. Mr. Knight explained that section came from Califo.rnia State regulations for day care homes. Mr. Covington suggested increasing that distance, however, the City Attorney would research whether this was a viable option. Mr. Knight pointed out it would be up to the City to find a reason to set a standard at 500 feet or more. As this ordinance now stands, the City would be accepting the standard of the State of California. A valid reason, such as traffic impact, overconcentration, etc. would need to be found as to why a greater distance would be required between day care homes in Seal Beach. Mr. Knight - . . indicated that the closeness of more than one facility could be addressed during the conditional use permit process. This would eliminate any conflict between the State and the City. The conditional use permit process can address any of the concerns mentioned by the Commission. As no others spoke in favor nor in opposition to this matter, Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing closed. The Commission discussed the requirements stated in the draft ordinance, the need for the words "and self-closin'\" placed in front of section 2A, the addition of the words "on site or immediately adjacent to subject property" placed after at the end of item 2G, along with deleting the word "loading". Commissioner Covington recommended approval of ZTA 4-86 with the following changes: section 2A, add the words "and self-closing," section 2B add the word "noise" in front of nuisance and to reword 2C to the effect, "a permit shall not be granted for a large family day care home that would be established within 300 ft. radius of any existing licensed large family day care home with a 500 ft. minimum on the street in which such large family day care homes is situated." and that section 2G be modifed as mentioned above. Sharp seconds. . AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Perrin, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried PUBLIC HEARING ZTA 5-86 Mr. Knight indicated in his staff report that this matter had been brought forth at the City Council meeting of October 27, 1986 by the Old Town Rental Housing Improvement Association. The OTRHIA requested the study of the City's current disaster clause in the zoning code and the enactment of an interim ordinance that would allow affected owners to rebuild their properties as they currently exist if destroyed by flooding during the oncoming months. This draft emergency ordinance has been prepared by the City Attorney for recommendation to the City Council to hold public hearing on December 8, 1986. Mr. Knight indicated that staff will be studying the City's disaster clause and will be presenting issue papers on this subject. . Commissioner Covington suggests adding the wording to the effect that this ordinance does not in any way give any permanent and vested right to these properties. Staff concurred with this additional wording. Chairman Jessner asked if the City has sufficient records to define what is existing on every site that is nonconforming. Mr. Knight explained there was a study performed in 1979 which established lot size, building size, stories, numbers of illegal units, garages, number of potential on-size parking spaces. In addition, the Ci~y has fairly good microfilm records which established past actions taken on properties. Mr. Knight also reported that if there were no records on a piece of property that flooded, the size of the sewer lines, examining remaining plumbing lines, remarks and ...---..- ----.---.- ----.....-.-..- .-........--.. .-:"'.... -..- -- . depositions by neighbors could be used to try to determine the number of units that existed. Mr. Knight also explained the value of the structure was the factor in determining 50% or more of damage, i.e., should 50% or more of the value of the structure be destroyed by flooding, the property owner could rebuild as the property currently exists only from November 10, 1986 to July 1, 1987. The City Attorney stated that Ordinance 1234 relates only to flooding. Resolution #1445 includes the provisions dealing with fire and other calamiteis because that is the existing provisions of the ~ode. Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing open. Mr. Joseph Ribal, president of Old Town Housing Improvement Association, wished to go on record in favor of this urgency ordinance. He explained that there are many areas in Seal Beach susceptible to flooding and the adoption of this urgency ordinance would assure those homeowners faced with wi~ter storms and high tides. . The City Attorney indicated this ordinance only applies to legal nonconforming properties. As far as illegal properties, the ordinance would not allow for reconstruction, such as an illegal converted garage. Chairman Jessner felt that the conditional use permit process should be used for the reconstruction of damaged legal nonconforming properties. The City Attorney stated the building plans would be approved by the City and would determine what would be authorized on the site. Whether or not a conditional use process was used would not make any difference from an enforcement point of view. Mr. Bob Ragland, 1211 Seal Way, indicated that much damage from flooding was sustained during the 1983 storms and that it could happen again. He felt the ordinance would insure those property owners of the City's support during the coming winter months. As no others spoke in favor nor in opposition to this matter, Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Perrin moved to adopt Resolution #1445 approving ZTA 5-86 with the additional wording to be provided by the City Attorney as discussed in this evening's meeting; Covington seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Perrin, Shsrp, Suggs None Motion Carried SCHEDULED MATTERS - ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 1-86 - 46 RIVERSEA ROAD Mr. Knight explained that the owners have asked staff to continue this matter until the January 7, 1987 meeting of the Planning Comission. . Commissioner Sharp moves to continue to 1/7/87; Covington seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Perrin, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried e. SCHEDULED MATTERS - MINOR PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION PROCEDURES Mr. Knight reported that one of the short-term goals of the Planning Commission was the development of a minor plan review form and also standards to inspect buildings under a minor plan review. Included in the draft provisions before the Commission is a packet of information defining minor plan review and explanation of when to apply. instructions on how to apply. a revised application form and an inspection checklist. Recommendation was for approval .of the new application packet. Commissioner Sharp moves to approve the new application packet and instruct staff to implement these new procedures for minor plan review application; Suggs seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington. Jessner. Perrin. Sharp. Suggs None Motion Carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none at this time. . STAFF CONCERNS It was brought to the attention of the Commission that no items have been scheduled for the December 17th Planning Commission meeting; therefore the Commission may adjourn to the January 7th meeting. Commissioner Covington requested that should a issue arise in time for the next meeting. that it be scheduled. COMMISSION CONCERNS There were none at this time. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair. with the concurrence of the Commission to adjourn the December 3rd meeting at 9:20 p.m. until January 7. 1987 at 7:30 p.m. .. THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE. SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. .