Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1987-10-27 10-19-87 / 10-27-87 respecting others property while walking their animals, also spoke of the lack of water conservation by a number of residents. Mr. Marra complained of a local developer removing trees from properties in the City at the time of construction and asked that an effort be made to have those trees donated to the City rather than be destroyed. Councilman Grgas requested that the staff look into the street sweeping schedule on both sides of Electric Avenue in a effort to have that street swept more frequently. There I being no further comments, Mayor Wilson declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss personnel matters. The Council, by unanimous consent, adjourned to Closed Session at 10:31 p.m. The Council reconvened at 12:25 a.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order, and the City Attorney reported the Council had met in Closed Session to discuss matters as previously reported. ADJOURNMENT Clift moved, second by Hunt, to adjourn the meeting until Tuesday, October 27th at 7:00 p.m. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried By unanimous consent of the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 12:26 a.m. I Approved: ~'I..~ Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California October 27, 1987 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 7:00 o'clock p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. Councilman Grgas led the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: I Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner Absent: None Also present: Mr. Thomas, Acting City Manager/Finance Director Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk I I I 10-27-87 WAIVER OF FULL READING Clift moved, second by Grgas, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 5-86 - NONCONFORMING DISASTER CLAUSE Mayor Wilson declared the continued public hearing open. The City Clerk reported receipt of a written communication from Mr. Clifford Evans, 221 - 8th Street, expressing opposition to the Ordinance as proposed and in support of like-and-kind replacement. The Development Services Director stated that the staff conducted an historical review of City zoning over a number of years with regard to parking and floor areas, reporting that the first zoning ordinance, adopted in 1936, required a private garage for a single family unit, the garage not to exceed 800 square feet, one storage space for each apartment unit, did not provide for minimum floor areas, and a disaster clause very similar to current provisions. He reported that although there were periodic amendments to the 1936 zoning, the next major revision was in 1951, requiring one parking space in a garage per multi-unit and a garage for single family, and at that time minimum floor areas ranging from 500 to 700 square feet, depending upon whether it was a single family home or a multiple family units, were developed. He stated that the 1963 revision closely resembles current Code, requiring single family units to provide two car spaces within a garage, 1.5 spaces for bachelor, single to two-bedroom units, and two spaces for units of three bedrooms or greater, the floor area increased to a minimum of 900 square feet for single family, with a range of 500 to 700 square feet for units depending upon density, with the nonconforming article considerably more restrictive than currently exists, which included amortization and abatement of certain nonconforming buildings within a three to five year period. He added that in 1974 two parking spaces were required for multiple units and the 950 square foot minimum was adopted. Mr. Knight noted a request of Council as to the impact of applying a density level of 950 square feet per unit for lots l3,000 square feet or greater rather than 1250 square feet, stating that the result would be an increase of density from lO.4 units to l3.68, rounded to 14, units per acre, and advised that the staff would not recommend such standard since it affects so few properties nor does it affect them equally, otherwise it should be extended to all properties regardless of size. In response to a statement made at the previous meeting alleging that the staff has confirmed that ninety percent of the properties in the City are nonconforming and affected by the disaster clause, Mr. Knight stated for clarification that that statement is incorrect, that there is an estimated 10.6 percent of the units that are affected, the majority of which are in Old Town, and referred to his August 5th memorandum which addressed that issue in detail. At the request of Council, Mr. Knight reviewed the specific provisions of the proposed Ordinance as set forth in the October 19th staff report. With regard to disallowing credit for tandem parking, Mr. Knight explained that the Zoning Code requires that parking spaces must be open and accessible, which tandem is not, therefore if a duplex had 10-27-87 four spaces, two standard and two tandem, the units could be reconstructed in kind as the Code would only require one space per unit, the provision merely requiring that the tandem spaces be reconstructed, and noted further that in some cases a triplex could be reconstructed on a twenty-five foot lot by allowing the density to be rounded up to the next number and where curb cuts had once been allowed from the street side. He added that no credit is given for street parking. Mayor Wilson invited members of the audience wishing to I speak to this item to come to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Mr. Art Boyington, llll - 1/2 Seal Way, President of the Seal Way Improvement Association, stated that it is felt that the Ordinance as presently proposed, with deletion of the sunset clause, is an acceptable sOlution, adequate and fair to all property owners, and expressed appreciation for the time and effort devoted to resolving this problem. Mr. Cliff Evans, 221 - 8th street, spoke in opposition to the Ordinance as proposed, specifically the Conditional Use Permit approval process, which he stated he felt was complicated and unworkable in the event of a major disaster, suggesting instead a simple like-in-kind replacement process, and spoke for the mix of housing as it presently exists. In response to Council, Mr. Evans stated he would prefer some off-street parking be provided at the time of reconstruction, however felt there were few situations where no parking exists, and to be consistent, he would support a like reconstruction for the Main Street area. Mr. Grgas acknowledged that there will always be a mix of housing, the Ordinance presented would only eliminate the most onerous units that exist and provide no parking, and Mr. Hunt noted that there may be situations that are offensive to the degree of being totally unacceptable for replacement. In the event of a major I disaster, Mr. Evans indicated concern with disruption of the financial stability of those involved. Mr. Olin Pate, 137 - 12th Street, stated he felt that those who reside in Old Town and take pride in their properties are an asset to the community, while the non-resident owner is an entirely different situation, and that should a high percentage of properties be destroyed by a disaster he felt that the rules would change at that time, as the CUP process would not be workable. He added that he felt residential properties should be given consideration equal to that of the business community with regard to parking, and suggested residential participation in the in-lieu parking program. Mr. Pate stated he was expressing the concern of a number of property owners when it comes to renewing insurance or refinancing a property with regard to the question of rebuilding in the case of a disaster. In response to that concern, the Development Services Director advised that under the current disaster clause, using the example of a duplex on a twenty- five foot lot, if the units were destroyed greater than fifty percent they would be required to be replaced with a single family residence, which does affect their lending ability. He stated this has been a concern of staff, and that an independent study had been conducted of lending institutions in and outside the City to inquire about lending on nonconforming properties, the replies being I consistent that they would not be considered, which not only affects refinancing but the sale of a property. He added that in that regard the nonconforming status has the greatest effect on the duplex, triplex and fourplex, and that the Ordinance proposed is an attempt to aide those property owners in obtaining financing and insurance, and advised further that properties with a greater number of units are more acceptable to the lending institutions due to the property value. 10-27-87 I Mr. Charles Antos, 148 - 14th Street, stated that the Ordinance provides that if a property has the parking and it is not tandum, it can be rebuilt with a plan review, however a property with two units and tandem parking is required to go through the CUP process, also with regard to providing more parking on-site he stated that under Section 3-a that would not be permissible since the property could not be reconstructed in excess of its existing size. He expressed his opinion that the provision relating to reconstruction of commercial buildings is not equitable, also that parking problems are not only the result of buildings that do not currently have parking, but traffic and congestion is greatly due to the occurrence of special events, stating that the infastructure is sufficient to handle those persons who reside in the community. Mr. Antos acknowledged that illegally converted units do pose a problem and that a garage converted to living space continues to generate cars without an area to park, adding that he did not feel that buildings legally built at the time of construction should be penalized because they have no parking. He stated that the market will determine the amount of rent that can be generated from a specific square footage unit, suggesting that at some point a property owner may determine to reduce the number and increase the square footage of their units, realize an equal or greater rent, and also add parking. He also expressed his feeling that a single family residence can generate considerably more vehicles than a two car garage can accommodate. Mr. Antos stated he felt that an equal amount of square footage should be allowed to be reconstructed, and that the property owner should not be penalized if they wish to add parking, even if it is not covered parking as required by Code. The Director clarified that the intent of Section 3-a is to not enlarge the habitable area, and does not apply to parking. Councilman Clift suggested that Section 3-a be clarified to refer to enlargement of the habitable area. Councilman Grgas responded that the law of averages would dictate that there would most likely be fewer cars with a single family residence, and given the example of a triplex with a family or two persons per dwelling unit, the multiple units would generate more vehicles. Norma Stromeier, 209 Seal Beach Boulevard, expressed her feeling that special events, not the residents, create parking problems, and complained that parking regulations are not enforced, specifically with regard to trucks parking on Seal Beach Boulevard. Mr. Richard Elvidge, 1009 Seal Way, made reference to discussions relating to density, specifically to the occasion of demolishing one residence and replacing same with two or three, also to a four unit dwelling with three garages in his neighborhood that has recently been upgraded, however he stated he felt it could not be rebuilt under the disaster clause if destroyed. Council advised Mr. Elvidge that those residences must provide the on-site parking. Mr. Elvidge stated he felt that this issue should be looked at in the context of what it will do in the case of a disaster, and that the parking, downzoning, etc. should be subjects that are addressed separately. Mr. Bruce Stark, 204 Ocean Avenue, stated that the recently filed initiative petition contains a like for like disaster clause, that parking is not relative to this issue, and again referred to the disaster clause as redevelopment. He referred to the previous downzoning as restrictions on certain property to control the construction of apartments, asked where the parking spaces are that have been a historical requirement since 1936, and noted that there is now disagreement that ninety percent of properties are nonconforming. Mr. Stark asked the whereabouts of the numbers of residents who support the disaster clause, he I I 10-27-87 noted also the lack of enforcement for parking violations, unverified number illegal units, and stated his knowledge of homes that are noncomforming and built within the last two years. He expressed his concern with taking away property rights, and referred to the expressed feeling that the treatment of commercial properties is inequitable to residential properties, and that traffic problems, blamed on residents, are in fact created by the merchants and special events. Members of the Council remarked briefly to Mr. Stark's comments. Mr. Christopher Marra, 1009-1/2 Seal Way, I questioned the definition of density, referring specifically to the removal of one residence and replacement with two or more, and expressed his objection to a local developer securing properties with older homes and constructing ones of less quality, which he stated he felt is taking away the ability for persons to live in or purchase affordable housing in the community and further, that property owners are not allowed to rebuild if the existing structure is demolished. Mr. Art Boyington, 11ll-1/2 Seal Way, urged that the Council take an action of the proposed Ordinance, stating that one needs to consider what is best for the people as well as the City, however noted that the proposed Ordinance will not satisfy all people. Mr. Boyington recalled the damage caused by the storms in 1983 and pointed out that everyone was allowed to replace and rebuild without significant problems. Ms. Reva Olsen, Seal Way, questioned the need for a disaster clause citing the complicated procedures for property buyers, sellers and for the lenders, noted the inequities between properties of different zoning, the monetary losses persons have suffered due to the downzoning, and suggested that the disaster clause be dropped. She advised that the City of Huntington Beach has deleted their disaster clause for up to ten units if the structure was legal at the time of construction. The Director clarified that Huntington Beach allows complete I reconstruction up to ten units, past ten units all parking requirements must be provided and subject to the CUP process. Members of the Council suggested that the public hearing be continued to allow for any new public input, and that statements be restricted to three minutes. Wilson moved, second by Risner, to continue the public hearing until the next regular meeting. The City Attorney stated that the Council would be provided with a revised Ordinance, in addition to that recommended by the Planning Commission, incorporating certain clarifying language and the changes that have been made by the Council to date. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried By unanimous consent, the Council declared a recess at 9:07 p.m., and reconvened at 9:25 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. Councilman Hunt requested the opportunity to make a statement for the record, specifically that it is hoped that every reasonable concession will be made to owners of nonconforming rental property, the draft Ordinance having I already made concessions such as allowing 1250 square feet of lot space as the qualifying number for single unit replacement, and suggested that a way be found to allow the concessions to be exercised at the owners discretion without regard to disaster, noting that although his suggestion may appear to be drastic and may involve legal problems, there may also be numerous community benefits, therefore requested that his suggestion be given consideration. Mr. Hunt stated he felt that the idea of lowering density or adding garages through the means of a disaster clause would not be I I I 10-27-87 successful, noting the lack of progress historically. He stated he felt that the economics of high rental property density will continue unless a means is found to allow, as an example, a proposed twelve unit, six garage development to construct nine units with nine garages that is economically equal or superior, therefore the end result would be reduced density, removal of cars from the street, lower cost for City services, increased property value, inc~eased property tax revenue to the City, as well as removal of the present disaster clause provisions for nonconforming properties. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Mayor Wilson read a communication from Coultrup Development Company dated October 7th regarding a proposed development of an office building located at 3000 Seal Beach Boulevard, a three story, approximate 30,000 square foot building on a C-l zoned lot of 64,900 square feet, l25 parking spaces, wood frame construction with brick and glass exterior, construction of which is anticipated to commence by January 1988. In response to Council, the Development Services Director reported there have been preliminary discussions with the developer relating to general planning critera, however no formal plans have been submitted to date, adding that if the parking is proposed to be below the building it could be anticipated that the ground floor would be approximately 15,000 square feet, the remaining area being landscaping and parking, clarifying that a standard parking space is about 180 square feet or a total of approximately 225 square feet allowing for the backout area. Councilman Grgas noted the filing of a local initiative for verification, and acknowledged the right of the public to vote on such matters, however stated that in order to alleviate any concern that action could be taken that may be contrary to such vote, he asked that consideration be given a motion to direct the City Attorney to report the legal feasibility of establishing a moratorium on commercial development of 25,000 square feet or greater until the proposed initiative is voted upon, said moratorium not to exceed a period of six months. After brief discussion Councilmember Risner moved a substitute motion to direct the City Attorney to report on the legal feasibility of adopting a moratorium on properties north of the 405 freeway and east of Seal Beach Boulevard to the northerly City limits for purposes of obtaining sufficient information to make informed land use decisions, excluding the College Park East residential development. Councilman Hunt seconded the motion. Councilman Grgas deferred to the substitute motion, which would allow an approved development in Rossmoor to continue while allowing voter input on the initi~tive that could affect Bixby Ranch Company's development of its' property. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried Councilman Hunt noted his personal opposition to imposing moratoriums except in extreme cases, however noted that in this particular case with regard to the Bixby project he felt it appropriate due to the need for additional information before any consideration or action can be taken, such as the traffic study. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney reported the Council would meet in Closed Session to discuss a claim against the City by MTSS Leasing. 10-27-87 / 11-2-87 The Council adjourned to Closed Session at 9:44 p.m. and reconvened at 9:54 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order. The City Attorney stated the Council discussed the matter previously reported. ADJOURNMENT Grgas moved, second by Hunt, to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I of the Approved:' ~~ /~, I . I , ~.~.~ Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California November 2, 1987 The City Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:25 p.m. with Mayor Wilson calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Wilson Councilmembers Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Nelson, City Manager Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mr. Knight, Director of Development Services Mrs. Walker, Administrative Aide/Planning Mr. Osteen, Recreation Director Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Clift moved, second by Hunt, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such I ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Wilson proclaimed November 14th, 1987 as nMedal of Honor Day. n