Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1987-08-25 SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City Councl1 Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California e 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 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 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. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Adjourned Meeting August 25, 1987 1. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call 2. 3. Consent Calendar 4. Public Hearings A. Zoning Text Amendment 5-87 Nonconforming Disaster Clause (continued from 8-19-87) e A request to consider an amendment to Section 28-2496 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach to establish new regulations for the reconstruction of nonconforming buildings partially destroyed. Code Sections: 28-2496; 28-2699 Environmental Review: Negative been prepared in lieu of an Report. Declaration 19-86 has Environmental Impact Applicant: City of Seal Beach 5. Scheduled Matters 6. Oral Communications from the AUdience At this time, members of the public Commission regarding any item within the the Commission provided that no action may agenda items unless authorized by law. 7. Staff Concerns may address the subject matter of be taken on off- 8. Commission Concerns 9. Adjournment Agenda Forecast: September 2, 1987 e -Z.C. 3-87, G.P.A. Za-87 345 lBth Street -cuP 9-87 941 P.C.H. -Hellman Ranch Specific Plan . SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNED MEETING OF AUGUST 25, 1987 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular adjourned session on Tuesday, August 25, 1987 at 7:36 p.m. Vice Chairman Suggs led the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Covington Commissioners Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Absent: Also Present: Edward Knight, Director of Development Services Ginger Bennington, Secretary to City Manager . PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 5-87 - NONCONFORMING DISASTER CLAUSE The Secretary, Mr. Knight, explained ZTA 5-87 was continued from the August 5 and August 19 Planning Commission meetings for the purpose of establishing new regulations for the reconstruction of nonconforming buildings partially destroyed by disaster. Mr. Knight indicated the Commission had identified certain areas they wished to discuss including: a) density, 2) parking, c) setbacks, d) height, e) the sunset provision, f) determining value of structure, g) number of dwelling units and h) minimum square footage of units. The Commission's consensus on these items would result in a draft ordinance to present to Council. He further stated that the City Attorney had been consulted on two issues - variance applicability and consideration of joint Council/Commission workshop on this matter. The City Attorney stated any variance granted applies to the land - not to the property owner. A recommendation was also made against a joint Council/Commission workshop as the City Attorney felt it would be more appropriate for the Commission to receive testimony and subsequently recommend a draft ordinance to the Council for their consideration. In response to a comment by Joyce Ross at the previous hearing regarding a supreme court case (First Lutheran Church), Mr. Knight stated that research showed a city is not required to compensate a property owner for reducing density. Knight also stated the City is limited in its ability to regulate even though it is a charter city unless findings are made on the basis of public health, safety and welfare. . In speaking to the density issue, staff offered the following: a standard lot in Old Town is 25 ft. x 117 ft., which is approximately 2900 sq. ft. Current zoning for RHD requires 2178 sq. ft. per units or one dwelling unit for each standard lot. For RMD, it is 2500 sq. ft. At the time downzoning was implemented, 1225 sq. ft. was permitted per unit which allowed a duplex to be constructed. FOr RMD, it was 1875 sq. ft. per unit. In Old Town there are many triplexes on standard lots that have access from the street as well as from the alley but do not meet minimum parking requirements of one space per unit. Staff suggested rolling back or eliminating RMD and setting density at . 1250 sq. ft. for all parcels in Old Town (in the event of a disaster and only for legal nonconforming properties). Those properties with variances that allowed three units would be permitted to reconstruct. He indicated different lot sizes have different configurations; i.e. 37-1/2 ft. lot allows 3 units and a 50 ft. lot allows 4 units. Covington suggested option to consider, that is, the rounding up to next highest number when computing number of units allowed on a parcel, i.e., 2.3 units would allow 3 units to be rebuilt. Chairman Covington indicates the consensus of the Commission was to resolve density issue by using a standard lot of 1250 sq. ft. per unit and that any fluctuation will be rounded up to determine the number of units allowed on a parcel. With regard to the parking issue, staff explained the current standard is two spaces per unit, open and accessible, carport or garage. No tandem parking is allowed. One alternative was to consider a conditional use permit process if only one parking space per unit could be provided. This would allow for individual case-by-case review of each property. After discussing alternatives, the consensus of the Commission that a minimum of one open and accessible parking space per unit be provided. If tandem parking had been utilized, they shall be reconstructed but no credit for parking spaces shall be given for rear parking spaces. . Speaking to the concern of setbacks, staff recommended 3 ft. side, 10 ft. front, 9 ft. rear on 15 ft. alley, 12 ft. rear on 12 ft. alley and 13 ft. rear on 13 ft. alley. Staff pointed out that use of setbacks should not impact reconstruction of nonconforming buildings, and that the community as a whole would benefit. Commission consensus was to require disaster setbacks to adhere to existing code in the City at the time. Height was a concern the Commission had identified. Staff indicated, for almost all lots in Old Town, existing maximum height is 25 feet. Chairman Covington felt the disaster clause should apply to the entire community, not only to Old Town. Therefore, other height restrictions in the City would have an impact. After much discussion, Commissioners felt the existing code requirements for height at the time of the disaster should be applicable. . The Sunset provision recommended by staff set 60 years as the maximum number of years would be considered under the disaster clause. This would allow for phasing out the older, legal nonconforming properties. Covington suggested a process by which a property owner could come before the Commission before the 60 years have expired to apply for a conditional use permit to grant an extension on life of structure based on individual analysis of improvements made or proposed improvements to be made prior to expiration date. Knight suggests a plan review process rather 2 . than CUP process as being lest costly to the applicant and a more appropriate way of handling that issue. The Commission concurred with both of those suggestions and also concurred with Commissioner Jessner's suggestion that those properties that are presently nonconforming be provided with a process by which the City can help the owner achieve minimum safety standards and receive a certification as legal, nonconforming property. Staff offered several alternatives to determining market value of a structure destroyed or partially destroyed by a disaster; ie. assessed valuation appraisal by certified MAl or Development Services figures for reasonable replacement value. After discussion of the matter, Commission consensus was to use the reasonable replacement value according to yearly updated valuation figures used by the Director of Development Services. It was also agreed that should an applicant object to those valuation figures, an appraisal by a certified MAl would be acceptable. The number of dwelling units issue had been solved by resolving the density issue at beginning of the meeting. . The minimum number of square feet, according to current code, is 950 sq. ft. Staff felt the minimum sq. ft. could be met without difficulty. Chairman Covington felt the previous code allowed much smaller units to be built between 350 to 500 sq. ft. Chairman Covington reopens the public hearing for specific testimony. Cynthia Lydioff, 245 Main, indicated s~e has several units approximately 540 to 750 sq. ft. Laurie Leann, 10th Street, has units of approximately 500 sq. ft. As no others wished to speak on this matter, Chairman Covington closed the public hearing. Knight stated the Commission could allow property owners to rebuild to the same square footage if they desire. Covington felt there should be certain minimum standards below which a dwelling unit could not be rebuilt. Staff recommended the conditional use permit process as a way to mitigate this concern. A finding could be made that square footage of the structure could be based on the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and also based on certain minimum standards which the City Attorney will draft. It was the consensus of the Commission to use a conditional use permit process to determine appropriateness of square footage of dwelling unit below the code standard. Chairman Covington moved to direct staff to bring back to the Commission a draft ordinance using the information and commentary provided at this meeting; Rullo seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried . 3 . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none at this time. STAFF CONCERNS There were none at this time. COMMISSION CONCERNS There were none at this time. ADJOURNMENT It was the consensus of the Commission and so ordered by the Chair to adjourn the meeting at 10:07 p.m. THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. . . 4