Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1987-06-03 SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Clty Councl1 Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California e The Seal Beach Planning Commission meets in session every first and th~rd 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 posi tion in the center of the room is unoccupied, step up to the microphone and when recognized by the Chairman, speak directly into the microphone by first stating your name and address clearly and 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 Conmussion 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. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 3, 1987 Next Resolution #1463 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Consent Calendar A. Mlnutes of April 15. 1987 B. Minutes of April 30. 1987 C. Plan Review 8-87 206-208 1/2 lOth Street 4. Public Hearings A. Varlance 5-87 340 Ocean A request to permit a wall along the side property line within the front yard setback which excee~s the permitted height by approximately 20 inches. Code Sections: 28-2316; 28-2500; 28-2501; 28-2502 . Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA review (California Administrative Code Section 15301) Applicants: Dr. Mohan and Sandra Nair 5. Scheduled Matters A. Plan Review 6-87 2600 Westminster (Continued from May 20. 1987) B. Appeal of Staff Determination on CUP 3-87. TPM 87-132 222 7th Street (Continued from May 20. 1987) 6. Oral Communications from the Audience At thlS tlme. members of the public may address the Commission regarding any item within the subject matter of the Commission provided that no action may be taken on off- agenda items unless authorized by law. , . Planning Commission Agenda June 3. 1987 Page 2 7. Staff Concerns 8. Commission Concerns 9. Adjournment Agenda Forecast: June 17. 1987 -cup 7-87 A-1l2 Surfs ide e . . SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1987 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, June 3rd at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Jessner lead the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Chairman Jessner Commissioners Rullo, Sharp, Suggs, Commissioner Covington arrived 7:39 p.m. None Edward Knight, Director of Development Services CONSENT CALENDAR Included on the consent calendar were the minutes of April 15, 1987, minutes of April 30, 1987 and Plan Review 8-87 for 206-208 1/2 10th Street. The Commission removed item a, the minutes of April 15 from the consent calendar. Sharp moves to approve consent calendar as amended, Rullo seconds. . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Covington Motion Carried Item A. Minutes of April 15, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting Jessner moves to approve as presented; Suggs seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Jessner, Suggs None Rullo, Sharp Covington Motion Carried PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE 5-87 - 340 OCEAN AVENUE - NAIR Mr. Knight reported this matter was a request to permit a wall along the side property line within the front yard setback which exceeds the permitted height by approximately 20 inches. In June of 1986, according to Knight, the Nairs submitted plans approved by the Development Services Department which included a notation that the top of the wall would align with the top of garage. During a recent inspection of the remodel, the building inspector, noticing the height of the wall, advised applicant to contact Development Services Department before proceeding any further on remodel. The applicant did speak to Planning staff, wherein staff acknowledged the wall had been approved in error and notified the applicant that the wall would have to be brought into compliance with the Municipal Code. Consequently, the applicants are seeking compliance through Variance 5-87. In reviewing the matter, staff feels the request does not meet the findings for a variance and therefore recommends denial. Although staff did approve the plans in error, all plans are . , stamped with "This approval shall not prevent the Building Official from stopping building operations being carried in violation of the Code or any other Ordinance of the City of Seal Beach." ~ Knight indicated a separate issue arose in reviewing this matter as to what constitutes the method for determining the height of the wall. The zoning ordinance states the height of the fence is measured from the property line from the owners side of the fence. The Nairs have built an area which includes a pool and berm area for planting. The Nair's contend that the bermed area constitutes the new finished grade and that the fence height should be measured from that grade. The adjoining neighbors feel the new grade is part of the fence and the fence should be measured from the natural grade. Knight explained that the Planning Commission can make either point - that the fence be measured from the natural grade or from the finished grade. The Commissioners received a copy of a letter from Jim and Luanne Dunn, 510 Ocean, objecting to the granting of Variance 5-87. After some discussion between staff and the Commission, it was found that technically the applicants should have requested a separate fence permit prior to constructing the fence. Commissioner Covington informed the Commission that past practices have measured the fence from the natural grade, not an artificial grade. - Chairman Jessner opened the public hearing. Michael Porter, 31802 Camino Capistranto, San Juan Capistrano, spoke as the designer of the remodel project. Porter explained the encroachment consists of 15 feet in width and 20 inches in height which was based on a determination made by the Planning staff. The entire project, he reported, was presented to the City in June of 1986, wherein the fence height was noted. Both the Planning and Building Divisions reviewed the plans. As it was explained to Porter by Planning staff, the height of the fence was to be measured from the finished grade on the owner's side. Porter also indicated the adjacent neighbor's fence exceeded height limit and that he felt he had initial approval of the entire concept in June of 1986. Staff indicated that copies of ordinances regarding fence height and setbacks had. been received by the applicant. Joyce Kucera, 340 Ocean, expressed opposition to the wall height and submitted copies of a petition from the neighbors as it was felt the fence violated the neighborhood feeling. Warren Shulton, 500 Ocean Avenue was opposed to the variance as it prevented pedestrians from viewing an exiting garaged vehicle. Sandra Nair, 340 Ocean, indicated that Mr. Shulton had approved the plans as the homeowners association representative. Dan Armstrong, contractor for the remodel, explained that mistakes were made issuing the original permit and that direct remarks were made on the plans by staff as to approval of the fence. Mr. Armstrong indicated there was no intention made to deliberately violate the Code. He indicated 2 . this original approval has placed undue hardship on the owners who were not directly involved in the permit process. Terry Barton, 415 Ocean Avenue, spoke in opposition to the matter as it would grant a special privilege to one homeowner. Chairman Jessner declared public hearing closed as no others spoke in favor nor in opposition to the variance. In making their deliberations, the Commissioners fully discussed whether fence measurement should begin at natural grade or finished grade. Commissioner Rullo felt the fence height should be measured from the City sidewalk. In this particular home, the natural grade of the property was not significantly changed, reported Mr. Knight. The resident contends height should be measured from the finished berm rather than natural grade. Commissioner Covington felt that current practice of using existing grade for measurement should be continued. Commissioner Rullo moved that the City use the 42 inch wall measurement within the first 18 feet setback as an average of the existing grade; Commissioner Covington seconds the motion. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried. . With regard to the variance request, Commissioner Covington felt the zoning code addressed fence height and setback as a matter of public safety. The point was also made that because the fence was completed and is a financial concern to the applicant would not apply as a finding for a variance. In addition, although an unfortunate error was made by the Planning staff, it cannot be used as a basis for granting a variance. It was also felt that the architect and contractor demonstrated unawareness of City codes. Commissioner Rullo, therefore, moved to deny Variance 5- 87; Commissioner Covington seconds the motion. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried Chairman Jessner indicated that an appeal process is available to the applicants. An appeal may be made to the City Council within 10 days from the adoption of the resolution denying Variance 5-87 which would be presented at the next Commission meeting on June 17, 1987. SCHEDULED MATTERS - PLAN REVIEW 6-87 - 2600 WESTMINSTER AVENUE - ROCKWELL, INTERNATIONAL . Chairman Jessner indicated this matter was continued from the May 20, 1987 Planning Commission meeting. As Chairman Jessner is employed by Rockwell International, he turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Covington. Mr. Knight explained this plan review was a request to extend the use of temporary facility T-7 for one year. A letter from the Satellite Systems Division discussed certain types of contracts that Rockwell is anticipating award, 3 . such as a Space Surveillance Tracking System in August. Rockwell explained that the timing and staffing involved in these programs do not yet justify a new office building at this point in time. Staff reviewed the matter and found that the contract considerations constitute extraordinary circumstances which prevent the completion of permanent facilities at this date. Staff therefore recommended approval of Plan Review 6-87 for the extension of the use of modular office complex T-7 for one year. Staff also indicated that Rockwell had made positive movement toward permanent facilities and felt that unlimited extension of temporary facilities would not be requested. Staff will review at the end of the one year period and make a recommendation to the Commission. Mr. George Taylor, Supervisor of Facilities Project Engineering for Satellite Systems Division indicated there were no objections to the conditions placed in the staff report. Mr. Taylor indicated the temporary facilities are air conditioned with bathroom facilities. Commissioner Sharp moved to approve PR 6-87; Suggs seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Jessner Motion Carried . SCHEDULED MATTERS - APPEAL OF STAFF DETERMINATION ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3-87, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 87-132-222 7TH STREET - SHADDOX Knight stated the Shaddox's submitted application to convert 222 7th Street from apartments to condominiums. The State provides planning staff with a certain review period in which to determine conformity to City codes. It was staff's determination that the condominium was not in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act and certain sections of the City Code. The applicants were notified and their use permit fees refunded. Staff denied the application on the basis the request is not consistent with the General or Specific Plan and is over density. The allowable density is 20 dwelling units per acre and this project is 22.2 units per acre. The disaster clause would only allow two units to be rebuilt in the event of a disaster. During this review period staff was provided with a policy statement adopted in 1978. Given the policy statement, staff felt it upheld their determination that the application should be denied. Charles Antos, 148 14th, represented the Shaddox's. Antos explained that the policy statement enabled staff to judge whether an application should be processed through the Planning Commission and City Council for condominium conversions. Antos felt the Commission should determine exactly what their policy shall be for nonconforming properties. He pointed out that there are only 3 condominium conversions that presently meet density requirements - the Leisure World condominium project, Riverbeach and First and Marina condominium projects. Those condominiums . 4 . . not conforming to code are the Bixby Townhomes, Rossmoor Regency and Rossmoor Chateaux stated Mr. Antos. Antos felt public hearings should be held regarding the policy resolution as it relates to density clause as it is a significant departure from the 1978 policy resolution. According to Antos, those conversions coming before the Commission after 1978 were over density. Antos explained that density was not specifically noted as an issue in those cases, that the policy statement was intended as a checklist upon which to measure each condominium application. Commissioner Suggs felt the main thrust of the appeal was whether it met the letter of the law or not. Covington stated that whether past projects had been approved which were over density was not a basis upon which to approve this request. Antos detailed the background on this particular property, which had been built in 1980. During that time all permits were issued, all inspections took place on the apartment construction. As far as density was concerned, staff approval was given to remove two rooms in the back of the site to be replaced with two units and parking. The plans should have come to the Commission for review but were issued by the Director of Planning. At the time the older of the two units were demolished, the City stopped the work. The City Manager acted as Secretary to the Planning Commission and brought the project before the Commission. Direction was given to deny the project and appeal to be made before the Council. The appeal was subsequently made and approved on the basis of staff error (approval of Director of Planning). Mrs. Darlene Shaddox, applicant, explained that her tenant wishes to buy her apartment and remain in Seal Beach. Mrs. Shaddox questioned why this project was denied when others had been approved that were over density. Covington explained that it was in the applicant's best interests to await the outcome of the proposed disaster clause since under the current laws, two units would not be allowed to be rebuilt. He explained that under current law, staff cannot grant the conversion. Betty Bogstead, tenant at 222 7th Street, spoke in favor of the conversion. Charles Antos requested the City attorney render an opinion in writing on this matter should Commission uphold staff's denial. Mr. Knight indicated City Attorney had been contacted and opinion given, however, City Attorney would be presented should an appeal be presented to City Council. Commissioner Rullo moves to uphold staff's recommendations to deny application for condominium conversion at 222 7th Street; Sharp seconds the motion. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried STAFF CONCERNS There were none at this time. . 5 . COMMISSION CONCERNS Staff was requested to report to the Commission as to whether the Code should be clarified regarding grade and what constitutes grade. ADJOURNMENT With the consent of the Commission, Chairman Jessner adjourned the meeting of June 3, 1987 at 10:35 p.m. THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. . . 6