Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1987-08-19 g BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGEN' City Council 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 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. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA August 19, 1987 Next Resolution #1470 l. 2. 3. 4. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Ca 11 Consent Calendar Public Hearings A. Condltlonal Use Permit 7-87 Pler Restaurant A request to permit on-sale conjunction with a new restaurant Pier. Resolution #1468 beer on and wine in the Seal Beach e Code Sections: 28-2503;28-2504 Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA review (California Administrative Code Section 15301) Applicant: Ruby's Diner, Inc. Owner: City of Sea 1 Beach B. Zoning Text Amendment 1-87 Landscape requlrements (continued from 8-5-87) A request to amend Chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach to revise the landscape requirements for commercial centers. and to provide for the incremental upgrading of landscaping in nonconforming commercial centers. Resolution #1467 for Commercial Centers Code Sections: 28-1302;28-2408;28-2600;28_2601 Environmental Review: Negative Declaration 1-87 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report Applicant: City of Seal Beach C. Variance 7-87 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard Resolution #1469 e A request to vary with the landscape requirement commercial center and permit construction of square foot outdoor patio and a 728 square interior dining room to an existing Taco Bell. for a a 756 foot Code Sections: 28-2408;28-2500;28-2501;28_2502 . Planning Commission Agenda August 19. 1987 Page 2 Environmental Review: been prepared in lieu Report. Applicant: Bima Corporation dba Taco Bell 1213 Negative Declaration 2-87 has of an Environmental Impact Owner: Century National Properties D. Zoning Text Amendment 5-86 Nonconformlng Dlsaster Clause (continued from 8-5-87) A request to consider an amendment to Section 28-2406 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach to establish new regulations for the reconstruction of nonconforming buildings partially destroyed. Code Sections: 28-2406;28-2600 Environmental Review: Negative Declaration 10-86 has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report Applicant: City of Seal Beach 5. Scheduled Matters . 6. Oral Communications from the Audience At this time, 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. 7. Staff Concerns 8. Commission Concerns 9. Adjournment Agenda Forecast: September 2, 1987 -Z.C. 3-87. G.P.A. 2a-87 345 lOth Street -CUP 9-87 941 P.C.H. -Hellman Specific Plan . . Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 1987 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, August 19, 1987 at 7:33 p.m. with Vice Chairman Suggs calling the meeting to order and leading the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Covington (arrived 7:36 p.m.) Commissioners Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs Also Present: Edward Knight, Director of Development Services Ginger Bennington, Secretary to City Manager PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7-87 - PIER RESTAURANT - RUBY'S DINER, INC. - DOUGLAS CAVANAUGH The Secretary, Mr. Knight, reported that CUP 7-87 was a request to permit on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with a new restaurant at the end of the Seal Beach Pier. The applicant has indicated his hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday. The application was reviewed by the Acting Police Chief who had no reservations for permitting beer and wine sales. It was noted the zoning for the property is public land use owned by the City of Seal Beach. . Chairman Covington declared the public hearing open and invited testimony. Douglas Cavanaugh, 114 Garnet Street, Balboa Island, explained the restaurant intends to be open 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. during the summer months and 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the winter. Negotiations for extending the tram hours for evening are currently being conducted with the City. Applicant indicated the restaurant will open as soon as possible. As no others spoke in favor nor in opposition, Chairman Covington closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sharp moved to grant Conditional Use Permit 7-87 as presented; Jessner seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried . PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 1-87 - LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL CENTERS - RESOLUTION # 1467 Knight stated this item was continued from the August 5th Planning Commission meeting wherein the Commission requested additional information on two issues: 1) the landscape disposition of all affected centers in the City, and 2) the possibility of using an amortization period so as to gain compliance with landscape requirements. The three centers in the City that would be impacted by this landscape requirement are: Rossmoor Shopping Center, Leisure World Center, and the Seal Beach Center. Knight further explained representatives of the Rossmoor Center were present and indicated their support of ZTA 1-87, stating they would apply for landscape program as soon as possible. The Rossmoor Center currently has approximately 5% landscaping and would require an additional 32,420 s.f. to meet . the proposed 7% requirement. The Seal Beach Center has 2.75% of current landscaping or a shortfall of 22,840 square foot to meet the 7% requirement. The Leisure World Center has 4.2% current landscaping with a shortfall of 9,240 s.f. in order to meet the 7% requirement. The Planning Commission had also requested research on use of applying an amortization period to the nonconforming centers to bring their landscaping up to the 7% requirement. Staff recommended against the use of an amortization period for three reasons as being unnecessary. Staff felt the normal need for modification to buildings would trigger the reason for a center to apply for the landscape program and for the fact that an amortization period has not been used for additions (only for removals). By approving this amendment, centers would have their landscaping requirements reduced from 10% to 7% and would not need a variance application to approve any modifications, but would be required to submit a landscape program for each center before any building modifications can be made. . Staff clarified that each center would provide the Development Services Department with a procedure and schedule for improving landscaping. That plan would then be brought to the Commission for approval. After some discussion, it was the consensus of Commission to add a 7th condition to state: "location and square footage of proposed landscaping in compliance with Code". Knight explained that he would not recommend that a reduction in parking be given in order to provide the necessary landscaping. Should it be determined by staff that landscaping could not be met without reducing parking, staff would seek a variance. Chairman Covington opened the public hearing. Richard Greenberg, attorney for Seal Beach Center, 21515 Hawthorne, Suite 150, Torrance, spoke against the amendment, explaining the Seal Beach Center is an old center, owned by a long-time investor who built the center to the standards existing at the time. Mr. Greenberg felt it was unfair of the City to change the rules at this late date. Greenberg was concerned that parking space would have to be reduced in order to come up with the 20,000 sq. ft. additional landscaping or lose buildings in order to provide that parking. He felt financing problems could occur as a result of this amendment. Knight pointed out the Center currently has 2.75% landscaping, with a shortfall of 13,850 sq. ft. He noted that current ordinance requires 10% coverage rather than the 7% which the amendment has now reduced. The fundamental thrust of the ordinance is to tailor make the landscape program to each individual center without losing parking. As no others spoke in favor nor in opposition to the matter, Chairman Covington closed the public hearing. Sharp indicated that with the time and effort by staff and city attorney in drafting this ordinance and with the agreement of Rossmoor Business Center to support the ordinance, he recommended approval of ZTA 1-87 with the addition of 7th condition as previously noted. Commissioner Rullo seconds. . 2 . AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried Chairman Covington felt that economically, it was in the best interest of all commercial centers to maintain an attractive center. . PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE 7-87 - 12147 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD - TACO BELL - RESOLUTION #1469 Knight reported the variance was a request to vary from the landscape requirements of the zoning code for a commercial center and to allow construction of 728 additional interior square footage and a 756 sq. ft. outdoor patio at Taco Bell in the Rossmoor Shopping Center. This variance would not be necessary if the previous zone text amendment had already been enacted. However, Taco Bell must begin construction by November of this year according to the terms of their franchise agreement renewal. Should ZTA 1-87 be approved, the landscape requirement will automatically be adjusted from 10% to 7%. Knight further explained that the City had adopted similar variances for improvements in the Center such as Lucky Market (Variance 12-85) and a second story office building addition under Variance 10-86. Using the same criteria as in the previous two variances, staff finds landscaping portion required by Taco Bell would be 2,218 s.f. Should the landscape program for that Center not be adopted prior to completion of Taco Bell improvements, the owner shall deposit with the City a cash surety device equal to the cost of construction of 2218 sq. ft. of additional landscaping. After one year, the owner will either construct additional landscaping or ask the center to receive approval for a landscape program as the City shall request surety to construct landscape improvements.. Staff, therefore, recommended approval of Variance 7-87. Chairman Covington declared the public hearing open. Tim Lee, project engineer for Taco Bell, 830 N. Batavia, Orange, stated one of the requirements for renewal of his franchise agrement called for a building permit to be in hand by November 1987. Lee strongly supported the variance request. In answer to Commission's questions, the following was offered: 1) applicant is satisfied with conditions noted in staff report 2) Taco Bell is trying to gain new image by enclosed dining area and outside patio. Commissioner Jessner was concerned about the narrow drive aisles which had been reduced to accommodate the landscaping. He felt it was a safety hazard with large volumes of traffic entering and leaving the Center. Knight recommended removal of condition #6 to allow for changing landscaping site. He pointed out that condition #2 provides for a detailed irrigation plan, and staff could widen the drive aisles at that time. Knight also stated that applicant would prefer to have a direct benefit to his site from the additional landscaping. As no others wished to speak in favor nor in opposition to this matter, Chairman Covington closed the public hearing. . 3 . To clarify, proposed condition #6 is being withdrawn on the basis that the wording of condition #2 which states that irrigation plan be approved by the Director of Development Services would suffice to work out a final plan with the applicant and one that is consistent with the Commission's consensus not to establish a precedence in narrowing the drive aisles. Chairman Covington reopened the public hearing to take testimony from the representative of Rossmoor Shopping Center. Dorothy Phillips, indicated Rossmoor Center would not object to Taco Bell placing landscape in other areas of the Center to meet the their landscape requirement. Chairman then reclosed the hearing. A sixth condition was suggested to state that "roadways will not be significantly reduced". Sharp moved to approve Variance 7-87 with modifications to conditions as noted, Jessner seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Motion carried The Commission recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. to reconvene at 9:15 p.m. . PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 5-86 - NONCONFORMING DISASTER CLAUSE Knight indicated this matter was continued from the August 5th meeting during which time the following concerns were highlighted: 1) Seal Way Improvement Committee supported option (c) 3 with conformance to minimum setbacks and an exemption for single family homes and duplexes. The Committee also supported the use of market value rather than assessed value in determining value of nonconforming structures. 2) Several persons spoke out against the sunset provision which would eliminate any protection in rebuilding nonconforming properties if structure is older than 60 years. 3) The Commission felt the RHD and RMD standards should be called out for affected property owners. . Knight pointed out that under option (C), the plan review process would require conformance with height and setbacks. The conditional use process would require conformance with setbacks only. He also stated that under option (C)3 would not allow complete reconstruction in all cases. For lots 25 x 117.5 ft. two units could be built, for a 37.5 x 117.5 ft. lot, three units could be built and for lots 50 x 117.5, 4-5 units could be built. Knight felt the sunset provision would enable nonconforming properties to eventually be brought into compliance with code after a reasonable 60 year lifespan. Of those properties which 4 . could not be rebuilt, Section 43007 of Sta~e Government Code allows property owners of destroyed property that cannot rebuild to apply to county and have their property assessed at the original value upon reconstruction. Knight recommended Commission consider similar general provision for inclusion in the ordinance that will aid those property owners. That general provision has been included in the draft ordinance. It does provide a low tax rate for those properties than cannot be rebuilt. Commission Sharp suggest a joint City Council/Planning Commission workshop on this matter. . Knight also pointed out that the burden or proof as to legal nonconforming property that has no building permits is up to the property owner. Should it be proven that illegal units existed, they shall not be rebuilt. Art Boynton, 1111 1-2 Seal Way, president of Seal Way Improvement Committee, supported the use of market value in determining value of property destroyed by disaster. He pointed out that in many instances, assessed valuation reflects the 1970's assessment figure. His group felt the Sunset provision was unjust and discriminatory. Many of the older structures have been renovated so as to be up to date, therefore 60 year clause should not apply in those cases. Boynton felt that one parking space per kitchen should be provided in rebuilding nonconforming structures. Bob Ragland, 1211 Seal Way, recommended that this issue be resolved since the potential of flooding is an often occurring event in our community. Charles Antos, 148 14th Street, pointed out that the Comcast office building is an historical building over 60 years old that has been completed renovated. Under the Sunset provision, that building would not qualify for restoration. He felt each building should be considered on its own merits as some structures might be very up to date. Antos suggested using construction valuation data in determining value of property. Antos further mentioned that many buildings in the Surfside area have apartments, offices and may fall under this disaster clause. Knight stated that those structures with an approved variance may rebuild their properties as it, since variances apply to the land. Bruce Stark, 404 Ocean, spoke regarding density, variances granted, building permits for structures which are later determined nonconforming, parking problems, downzoning, etc. Stark felt it was fair and equitable for a property owner to be able to rebuild to what the City originally permitted. Jessner explained the reasons behind downzoning had nothing to do with bootlegged units but were an attempt to stop the construction of many duplex and triplexes in the City. Richard Elvidge, 1009 1/2 Seal Way, felt a building permit was a legal contract and therefore properties building according to a building permit should be able to rebuild as is without compromising the safety and welfare of those persons. Cynthia Lydoff, 1206 Ocean avenue, stated that older structures were well made, quality buildings and have a longer lifespan than 60 years. Legal nonconforming property owners had originally requested an amendment to the . 5 . current disaster clause because financing these properties had become difficult. She felt this proposed amendment did not satisfy those original concerns. Chi Kredell, 1615 Seal Way, stated downzoning was not used to decrease population but to stop the 25 foot lot being converted to duplexes and to encourage the development of single family homes. Reva Olson, 1625 Seal Way, did not object to the amended disaster clause personally however expressed concerns regarding limiting this to two units. Many persons brought property innocently thinking they could rebuild according to the density they purchased only to find out differently. Joyce Ross, 1116 Seal Way, felt that if permits were given to build a structure, then should the structure be destroyed by disaster, it should be permitted to be rebuilt as it was. She indicated the City of Long Beach has a grandfather clause that allows a property owner to replace in kind if permits were granted. Huntington Beach also allows replacement in kind for up to 10 units. Frank Pedilla, 1605 Seal Way, indicated his property exceeds height and setbacks and was built in the early 1940's. It was rebuilt in 1976 and he was unable to refinance the home for a lower interest this year because of the disaster clause. Mr. Pedilla felt the disaster situation was separate from other zoning issues, that should a disaster occur, a homeowner with a legal nonconforming property should be able to rebuild not to have the City use this as an opportunity to solve their zoning problems. He felt that the legal nonconforming property owner should have a period of time to validate their property and to prove they could pprovide parking spaces and be exempt from this clause. . Chairman Covington closed the public hearing. Commissioner Suggs felt some relief should be given to this situation. He further recommended the use of appraised value by a competent appraiser approved by City staff rather than assessed value. Commissioner Jessner recommended a list of concerns to discuss for staff to bring back at the next meeting, such as 1) density, 2) parking, 3) setbacks, 4) height, 5) sunset provision, 6) assessed value vs. appraisal value vs. square footage index. Covington suggested additional items; i.e., 7) number of units - whether policy applies to a particular number of units or whether it applies to all structures and 8) the size of the units. Covington suggested staff comment on this list and provide a draft ordinance and schedule an adjourned meeting to discuss. Sharp suggests inviting Council to attend if they so wish. With the consensus of the Commission, Chairman Covington continued this hearing to an adjourned meeting Tuesday, August 25, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. SCHEDULED MATTERS There were none at this time. '. \ \ \ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none at this time. 6 . COMMISSION CONCERNS Jessner questioned the property at 8th and Central Avenue and requested staff to bring information regarding the approval of the construction of that property. Jessner also asked for copy of the loud party ordinance heard at the last Council meeting along with a copy of the Merchant's Parking Agreement. ADJOURNMENT It was the consensus of the Commission and so ordered by the Chair to close the Planning Commission meeting of August 19, 1987 at 11:50 p.m. THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. . . 7 . 'tt - 'l() s~cl F/;?v4'7 - ~~ NOTICE OF ADJOURNED MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Seal Beach Planning Commission did, at their regular meeting of August 19, 1987, adjourn to Tuesday," August 25, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers, 211 - 8th Street, Seal Beach, California. DATED this 20th day of August, 1987.