No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2007-05-09 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda for May 9, 2007 7:30 p.m. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. AGENDA APPROVAL By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to: (a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda; (b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda; and/or (c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or public to request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, provided that the Planning Commission may undertake no action or discussion unless otherwise authorized by law. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission, staff, or the public requests a specific item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 4, 2007. 2. RECEIVE AND FILE: Provision of Approved "Towing Operation Guidelines" - Tow Business at 1000 Pacific Coast Highway. 3. RECEIVE AND FILE: Information Reports Re: "Choosing Our Community's Future: A Citizen's Guide to Getting the Most Out of New Development." 4. Minor Plan Review 07-6 74 Riversea Road Applicant/Owner: Sheila Oden / Seal Beach Affordable Housing Corp. 1 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of May 9, 2007 Request: To add a new second floor cabana of 494 square feet of living area to a new 540 square foot trailer in the Seal Beach Trailer Park. The overall height will be less than 25 feet, and the proposed structure will provide a total of 1,034 square feet of living space. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-13. 5. Minor Plan Review 07-8 4533 Fir Avenue Applicant/Owner: Richard and Andrea Wilke Request: To construct a 36-inch high barbecue and bar; and an approximately 72-inch high fireplace within the 10-foot rear yard setback area and 5-foot side yard setback area. The barbecue is proposed to be located at the side property line and the fireplace is proposed to be located approximately 30 inches from the side property line and 30 inches from the rear property line. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-24. 6. Minor Plan Review 07-9 4800 Candleberry Avenue Applicant/Owner: California Pool Chemical! Marta Quinteros Request: To remodel the existing swimming pool area by adding a waterfall feature and re-plaster and re-tile the existing pool. The waterfall feature will be approximately 5 feet high by 5 feet wide, will have a depth of approximately 5 feet, and is proposed to be located within the rear yard setback area abutting the rear property line. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-25. 7. Minor Plan Review 07-10 1620 Ocean Avenue Applicant/Owner: Kye Osti 2 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of May 9, 2007 Request: To construct a new 160 square foot (10 ft. by 6 ft.) rooftop deck with exterior stair access and a 72-inch high perimeter fence above the existing single-story secondary dwelling unit at the rear of lot. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-26. VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS 8. Consideration of Forwarding Request to City Council Re: Posting Signs Prohibiting Two Trucks on 10th Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Electric Avenue. VII. PUBLIC HEARING 9. Height Variation 07-2 231 - 15th Street Applicant/Owner: Eric Smith & Martha Bock! George Brown Request: To construct a non-habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25-ft. height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct an 8-ft. 4-in. by 4-ft. 4-in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 4 ft. 0 in. The maximum height variation permitted is 7 feet. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-27. 10. Height Variation 07-3 233 - 15th Street Applicant/Owner: Eric Smith & Martha Bock Request: To construct a non-habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25-ft. height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct an 8-ft. 4-in. by 4-ft. 4-in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 4 ft. 0 in. The maximum height variation permitted is 7 feet. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-28. 3 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of May 9, 2007 11. Height Variation 07-4 235 - 15th Street Applicant/Owner: Eric Smith & Martha Bock Request: To construct a non-habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25-ft. height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct an 8-ft. 4-in. by 4-ft. 4-in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 4 ft. 0 in. The maximum height variation permitted is 7 feet. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-29. VIII. STUDY SESSION 12. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning All Portions Except Chapter 2.05 Residential Districts IX. STAFF CONCERNS X. COMMISSION CONCERNS XI. ADJOURNMENT To May 23, 2007, at 7:30 P.M. 4 May 23 Jun 06 Jun 20 Jul04 Jul18 Aug 08 Aug 22 Sep 05 Sep 19 Oct 03 Oct 17 Nov 07 Nov 21 Dec 05 Dec 19 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of May 9, 2007 2007 Aaenda Forecast Conditional Use Permit 07-7 - Minor Plan Review 07-11 - Study Session - Height Variation 07-5 - Minor Plan Review 07-12 - Minor Plan Review 07-13 - HOLIDAY - Meeting Cancelled 12205 Seal Beach Blvd (Winestyles) 26 Welcome Lane Zoning Code - Residential Standards 1309 Seal Way 951 Heron Circle 56 Riversea Road 5 1 CITY OF SEAL BEACH 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 3 4 Minutes of May 9, 2007 5 6 7 Chairperson Deaton called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning 8 Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 9, 2007. Tt\le meeting was held 9 in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1 10 11 ROLL CALL 12 13 Present: Chairperson Deaton, Commissioners Bello, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts. 14 15 Also 16 Present: Department of Development Services 17 Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services 18 Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner 19 Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney 20 21 Absent: None 22 23 Mr. Whittenberg noted for the record that Commissioner O'Malley has resigned from the 24 Planning Commission (PC) following recent surgery. He is recovering well, but will no 25 longer be able to serve on the Commission. He explained that City Council (CC) will 26 declare this position vacant at their meeting of May 14, 2007, and will appoint a 27 replacement at the June 25,2007 meeting, but because the PC meeting that follows on 28 July 4th has been cancelled due to the holiday, the new Commissioner will not be 29 seated until the meeting of July 18th at the earliest. Chairperson Deaton stated that this 30 has been a great loss for the PC and the City of Seal Beach and she extended good 31 wishes to Mr. O'Malley for a speedy recovery. 32 33 34 AGENDA APPROVAL 35 36 Mr. Whittenberg noted that a letter in opposition to Item No.6, Minor Plan Review 07-9, 37 was received and Staff is requesting that this item be removed from the Consent 38 Calendar for further discussion. He also noted that the Staff Report for Item NO.8 was 39 missing Page 2, and Staff has provided a copy of the missing page to the 40 Commissioners. 41 42 MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Bello to approve the Agenda as amended. 43 44 MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting. 1 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Deaton, Bello, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts None None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Deaton opened oral communications. Joyce Parque noted that at the last meeting she had been asked to address the Commission and not the TV camera, and she asked the City Attorney to provide the City Charter Code, State Constitution Code, and the Federal Code sections related to this so that she may review them regarding the rules of order. She spoke regarding a problem in Newport Beach with drug rehabilitation homes being located within residential neighborhoods. She stated that the City of Seal Beach should look at this when revising the Zoning Code. She also spoke regarding a home that was recently moved into the Seal Beach Trailer Park and stated that each home in the park should be required to have one parking space and residents of the trailer park should pay school fees. She noted that the Redevelopment Agencies pays no money for schools. There being no else one wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed oral communications. Mr. Abbe noted that all permit approvals from the City typically have a "boilerplate" Indemnification Provision requiring the applicant to indemnify and hold harmless the City. He indicated that this week this was inadvertently left out of the resolutions for Items NO.5 and 7. He recommended that these approvals include the addition of the standard indemnification clause. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 4, 2007. 2. RECEIVE AND FILE: Provision of Approved "Towing Operation Guidelines" - Tow Business at 1000 Pacific Coast Highway. 3. RECEIVE AND FILE: Information Reports Re: "Choosing Our Community's Future: A Citizen's Guide to Getting the Most Out of New Development." 4. Minor Plan Review 07-6 74 Riversea Road Applicant/Owner: Sheila Oden I Seal Beach Affordable Housing Corp. Request: To add a new second floor cabana of 494 square feet of living area to a new 540 square foot trailer in the Seal Beach 2 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 Trailer Park. The overall height will be less than 25 feet, and the proposed structure will provide a total of 1,034 square feet of living space. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-13. 5. Minor Plan Review 07-8 4533 Fir Avenue Applicant/Owner: Richard and Andrea Wilke Request: To construct a 36-inch high barbecue and bar; and an approximate 72-inch high fireplace within the 10-foot rear yard setback area and 5-foot side yard setback area. The barbecue is proposed to be located at the side property line and the fireplace is proposed to be located approximately 30 inches from the side property line and 30 inches from the rear property line. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-24. 7. Minor Plan Review 07-10 1620 Ocean Avenue Applicant/Owner: Kye Osti Request: To construct a new 160 square foot (10 ft. by 6 ft.) rooftop deck with exterior stair access and a 72-inch high perimeter fence above the existing single-story secondary dwelling unit at the rear of lot. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-26. MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to approve the Consent Calendar as amended, with inclusion of the standard indemnification clause in Resolution Nos. 07-24 and 07-26 for Items NO.5 and 7, respectively. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0 Deaton, Bello, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts None None 3 of 20 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 1 Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 07-13, 07-24, and 07-26 begins a 2 1 D-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is 3 final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 4 5 6. Minor Plan Review 07-9 6 4800 Candleberry Avenue 7 8 Applicant/Owner: California Pool Chemical! Marta Quinteros 9 10 Request: To remodel the existing swimming pool area by adding a 11 waterfall feature and re-plaster and re-tile the existing pool. 12 The waterfall feature will be approximately 5 feet high by 5 13 feet wide, will have a depth of approximately 5 feet, and is 14 proposed to be located within the rear yard setback area 15 abutting the rear property line. 16 17 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 18 07-25. 19 20 Staff Report 21 22 Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 23 Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and 24 noted that after reviewing the application and plans, Staff finds that, as conditioned, the 25 proposed project complies with Section 28-401 of the City Code, which sets forth 26 development standards for the Residential Low Density (RLD) District and requires 27 Minor Plan Review (MPR) approval by the Planning Commission (PC) for all detached 28 accessory structures located within required setback areas. He indicated that Staff 29 received one letter in opposition to MPR 07-9 from Abdel & Nafissa Salman. 30 31 Commissioner Questions 32 33 Commissioner Roberts stated that he had spoken by telephone with the Salmans this 34 afternoon. He asked if the waterfall is tied in with the pool recirculation system. Mr. 35 Olivera stated that he was not aware of this. Commissioner Roberts noted that the 36 major concern is the noise aspect of the waterfall and the blueprint provides no cross 37 section of this structure. He asked how high the drop for the water would be. 38 39 Public Comments 40 41 Chairperson Deaton opened for public comments. 42 43 The applicant, Marta Quinteros, stated that the drop for the water is approximately 2 44 feet, and as far as noise, the waterfall will have an on!off switch that will allow for turning 45 off the waterfall at will. Commissioner Roberts asked if the waterfall is to be tied in with 46 the pool filtration system. Ms. Quinteros stated that the waterfall would use the same 4 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 filtration system. Commissioner Roberts asked if the pool filter could be operated without having to turn on the waterfall. Ms. Quinteros responded that this would be possible, as the pool and the waterfall would each have separate on/off switches. Commissioner Roberts asked if the neighbors had ever complained of noise. Ms. Quinteros stated that she has lived in this home for 7 years and has never had any complaints of noise. She noted that the waterfall would only be operated for short periods of time or on special occasions to help keep electrical expenses down. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed public comments. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Roberts stated that if the applicant is sensitive to the neighbor's concerns about noise, he sees no reason to deny this request. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked Commissioner Roberts if the Salmans had made mention of noise from another waterfall at the entrance to the Quinteros residence. Commissioner Roberts noted that this is actually a fountain and the Salmans had made a correction to the wording of the letter from "waterfall" to "fountain." He then noted that the rock formation for the waterfall is not right up against the side yard fence, but sits back approximately 18 feet from the neighbor's side yard. Mr. Abbe again requested that this approval include the addition of the standard indemnification clause within Resolution 07-25. MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Bello to approve Minor Plan Review 07-9, subject to conditions, with inclusion of the standard indemnification clause in Resolution No. 07-25. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0 Deaton, Bello, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts None None Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 07-25 begins a 1 D-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. SCHEDULED MATTERS 8. Consideration of Forwarding Request to City Council Re: Posting Signs Prohibiting Tow Trucks on 10th Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Electric Avenue. 5 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and stated that City Council (CC) does have the discretion to make this type of decision and Staff is recommending that this request be forwarded to CC for their decision. Commissioner Roberts asked if the signs could specifically state "no tow trucks" or would they simply indicate the gross weight of a vehicle. Mr. Abbe stated that City Code only speaks to posting signs prohibiting commercial vehicles, but within this scope the City can specifically state "tow trucks." He noted that in reality no commercial vehicles at all would be allowed on 10th Street. Commissioner Roberts expressed his concern with all residential areas wanting similar signs posted on their streets. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that commercial vehicles are allowed on any street in town if they are making a delivery, but they cannot use the street as a normal travel route if they have no deliveries on that particular street. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked how this issue would affect the ability of the auto shop to operate. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the business has two access driveways on Pacific Coast Highway, and he believes the intent of the PC is to encourage the use of these driveways, rather than entering from 10th Street, particularly late at night. Chairperson Deaton added that the applicant had agreed to these conditions, and the reason for the discussion of the signs is to alert outside tow trucks that 10th Street is not to be used to drop off vehicles at the auto shop. Commissioner Roberts asked if any recommendation is to be added for the wording of the sign. Mr. Abbe referred to the recommendation on Page 2 of the Staff Report and noted the proposal indicating that tow trucks, specifically, are not to be permitted on 10th Street. MOTION by Massa-Lavittt; SECOND by Roberts to authorize Staff to prepare a Staff Report for the consideration of City Council requesting that signs be posted along 10th Street specifically prohibiting tow trucks between Pacific Coast Highway and Electric Avenue. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0 Deaton, Bello, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts None None Mr. Whittenberg noted that CC will meet on Monday, May 14, 2007, so this item will not appear on the CC agenda until the next scheduled meeting on June 25,2007. 6 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 PUBLIC HEARINGS City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 Chairperson Deaton asked if Items 9, 10, & 11 would be heard independently or as a group. Mr. Whittenberg recommended that the hearing for all of these items be combined for the Staff presentation, questions from the Commission, and public comments. He then indicated that when voting, separate motions should be made for each of these items. 9. Height Variation 07-2 231 - 15th Street App licant/Owner: Req uest: Recommendation: 10. Height Variation 07-3 231 - 15th Street Applicant/Owner: Req uest: Recommendation: 11. Height Variation 07-4 231 - 15th Street Applicant/Owner: Request: Eric Smith & Martha Bock / George Brown To construct a non-habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25-ft. height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct an 8-ft. 4-in. by 4-ft. 4-in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 4 ft. 0 in. The maximum height variation permitted is 7 feet. Approval and adoption of Resolution 07-27. Eric Smith & Martha Bock To construct a non-habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25-ft. height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct an 8-ft. 4-in. by 4-ft. 4-in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 4 ft. 0 in. The maximum height variation permitted is 7 feet. Approval and adoption of Resolution 07-28. Eric Smith & Martha Bock To construct a non-habitable architectural feature in excess of the 25-ft. height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct an 8-ft. 4-in. by 4-ft. 4-in. elevator enclosure to exceed the height limit by 4 ft. 0 in. The maximum height variation permitted is 7 feet. Recommendation: Approval and adoption of Resolution 07-29. 7 of 20 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 1 Staff Report 2 3 Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the 4 Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and 5 stated that the elevator enclosures would each measure approximately 36 square feet 6 and are to be located at the north side of the residences, flush with the north building 7 wall and set back approximately 20 feet 7 inches from the front of the building, 10 feet 6 8 inches from the south building wall, and 56 feet 7 inches from the rear building wall. He 9 indicated that Staff is recommending that the size of each of these enclosures be 10 reduced to the minimum area both horizontally and vertically necessary to cover the 11 elevator shaft and that any additional square footage and/or roof structure be 12 eliminated. He noted that as conditioned, the minimum area allowed for the elevator 13 shaft would be approximately 19 square feet. Mr. Olivera stated that Staff has provided 14 the Commissioners with additional information regarding a similar proposal that was 15 denied in November 2004 for properties at 148, 150, and 152 12th Street. He then 16 indicated that Staff had received one letter and one phone call in opposition to this 17 application. 18 19 Commissioner Questions 20 21 Chairperson Deaton stated that she had driven by the subject properties today and 22 noted that the homes are almost complete with the framing for the elevators already in 23 place. She asked why this proposal is just being presented to the PC rather than prior 24 to beginning construction on the homes. Mr. Olivera stated that on the original plans for 25 the homes the space where the elevators are proposed was designed as either storage 26 closet space or a potential elevator shaft. He indicated that initially the applicants had 27 decided not to construct the elevator shaft, as there is stair access to the roof, but later 28 decided to change the plan to include the elevator. Chairperson Deaton confirmed that 29 the elevator is to go all the way to the roof deck, and not just to the second floor. Mr. 30 Olivera confirmed that this was correct. Chairperson Deaton then confirmed that 31 currently there are no guidelines in the Zoning Code for elevators related to Covered 32 Roof Access Structures (CRAS). Mr. Whittenberg stated that there are basic design 33 guidelines for architectural features above the height limit, but the size limitations apply 34 only to CRAS stairways, for which standards were adopted a few years ago. He 35 indicated that this type of request comes before the PC without any size limitations, and 36 Staff has based its recommendation on the general comments received. Mr. Abbe 37 added that the general provision allowing the PC to determine whether this structure is 38 consistent with the architectural style of the building remains true in this case. 39 Chairperson Deaton then asked about concerns with potential glare from the 40 transparent, polycarbonate material to be used for the elevator enclosure. Mr. Olivera 41 stated that Staff does have concerns with potential glare issues. 42 43 Commissioner Roberts clarified that the structure above the roof deck would have this 44 polycarbonate material. Mr. Olivera confirmed that it would. Commissioner Roberts 45 asked if any functionality would be compromised if the size of the shaft were to be 46 reduced. Mr. Olivera stated that he did not believe any functionality would be affected. 8 of 20 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 1 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt pondered whether glare would be a problem if the roof 2 structure is higher than the surrounding roofs. She also noted that because all of the 3 homes in this area are high, she is not certain that neighbors would be able to see the 4 roof structure. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff is not certain how many of the 5 surrounding homes have roof decks or whether glare from the proposed structures 6 would be visible to them. 7 8 Commissioner Bello asked if other elevators within Old Town have been approved. Mr. 9 Whittenberg stated that he believes one was recently approved for 617 Ocean Avenue, 10 but this did not exceed the height limit. He added that with the change in technology for 11 elevators, he believes the PC will begin to see more requests for this feature. 12 13 Public Hearino 14 15 Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing. 16 17 Martha Bock provided a brief PowerPoint presentation of the proposed project and 18 noted that the enclosure on the roof for the elevator would be constructed of the same 19 stucco material as for the house itself. She said that the plans were initially designed 20 without an elevator, but the applicant's had subsequently decided to include a 21 residential elevator after considering the possibility of living in one of these homes after 22 retirement and perhaps having her aged mother move into the home. She noted that by 23 the time they applied for building permits, building codes had changed requiring the 24 addition of another steel structure midway through the buildings, and when the architect 25 included this, there was no longer enough room for a standard residential elevator. Ms. 26 Bock then explained that Mr. Brown had later met with a representative of an elevator 27 company and was able to find the small, pneumatic tube elevator to accommodate this 28 plan. She stated that she and her husband, Eric Smith, will occupy one of the homes, 29 George Brown will occupy another, and the middle house is to be sold. She noted that 30 Staff's recommendation to decrease the size of the roof structure would not provide 31 ample space for the motor that drives the elevator unit. Ms. Bock explained that the 32 roof deck is to be located in the middle of the roof and should not be highly visible to 33 neighboring homes. She added that because the lots are so small, the roof deck takes 34 the place of a back yard for plantings and for being able to go out in the open air. She 35 then presented copies of petitions signed by residents of 15th Street in support of the 36 proposed projects. 37 38 George Brown stated that the motor for the elevator sits above the door and to the right 39 to protect the elevator door from the elements and from sunlight. He noted that if the 40 roof structure is to be smaller, the elevator motor would have to be placed above the 41 elevator causing it to exceed the height limit by 2 additional feet for a total of 6 feet in 42 excess of the height limit. He then clarified that the CRAS is to be covered with siding 43 and not stucco and each roof design has been varied to prevent a cookie-cutter effect. 44 45 Commissioner Roberts asked if the roof housing for the 8-foot portion of the elevator 46 could be rotated 90 degrees so that it would not be so visible from the front of the 9 of 20 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 1 house. Mr. Brown explained that the 4-foot portion of the elevator that faces north has 2 been designed to accommodate the hallways and stairways within the interior of the 3 home and rotating the roof housing would interfere with the flow. 4 5 Mitzi Morton stated she was confused about the elevator going up to the landing and 6 asked how it could only measure 4 feet high? Mr. Whittenberg explained that the 7 elevation of the roof deck area is at 20 feet, and the CRAS basically creates a 9-foot 8 high structure that will extend 4 feet above the 25-foot height limit. Ms. Morton stated 9 that she likes the idea of the outside stairways to the landing. She said that she 10 recognizes that elevators in homes are going to become more common, but she 11 believes that the elevators should be allowed only for the inside living areas. She 12 recommended adding standards for elevators into the zoning code. 13 14 Arlene Reese, 227 15th Street, stated that the proposed CRAS structures will impede 15 their view of the San Gabriel Mountains. She said she doesn't see why elevators need 16 to go to the roof deck, and requested that they be limited to the inside of the home. 17 18 Eldon Alexander spoke in favor of allowing the CRAS for elevators to the roof. He 19 agreed with Ms. Bock that the roof deck does become the back yard for most residents 20 in Old Town since the lots are quite narrow. 21 22 Warren Morton confirmed that the CRAS would only be 4 feet above the parapet wall. 23 Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. Mr. Morton then stated that he liked 24 the outside stairways to the roof deck. He said he had no concerns over the 4-foot 25 height. 26 27 Ralph Reese, 227 15th Street, stated that the neighborhood was not happy to see two 28 lots combined to create three homes where there had been only two, and now the 29 homes are to be constructed with a roof deck, which is similar to having a third floor. He 30 said he and his wife are long-time residents and hate to see what is happening. 31 32 Eric Smith, one of the applicants, stated that a doghouse on a home to the south of his 33 home blocks his view. 34 35 Joyce Parque spoke in favor of approving this application. 36 37 Sarah Fuller, 243 16th Street, asked if two 37.5-foot lots have been combined to create 38 three 25-foot lots. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that a 3-lot parcel map had been 39 approved for this project. Ms. Fuller stated that roof access could have been achieved 40 in some other manner, and stated that the elevator should have been restricted to the 41 interior of the house. She indicated that she believes the elevators have been added, 42 not to accommodate the applicants in their retirement years, but to increase the resale 43 value of the homes. She recommended denial of these height variations. 44 45 Martha Bock thanked the PC and Staff for working with them in presenting their 46 application. She said she has no rebuttal, but stated that Seal Beach is a unique town 10 of 20 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 1 with a mixture of architectural styles and home sizes and she does not think that this 2 request is excessive or the designs any more obtrusive that what already exists in town. 3 Chairperson Deaton asked what prompted the decision to include the elevator in the 4 middle structure, which is to be sold. Ms. Bock explained that the intent was to be able 5 to make it possible for a retired couple to invest in a home that already has this feature. 6 7 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public 8 hearing. 9 10 Commissioner Comments 11 12 Chairperson Deaton stated that she is still concerned with this proposal being presented 13 so late in the construction process and also that currently there is nothing in the Zoning 14 Code to address this. She proposed returning the application to Staff for creation of 15 guidelines to be added to the Zoning Code and recommended continuing this item to 16 the next scheduled meeting when the PC would be able to more adequately make a 17 determination on this issue. She added that she does see residential elevators as a 18 coming need, as the cost of beach properties makes them unattainable for first time 19 home buyers, so she can see that older home buyers would probably have the need for 20 an elevator to access second or third floors within their homes. 21 22 Commissioner Bello stated that she agreed with Chairperson Deaton's comments and 23 would also like to wait until some guidelines are prepared. Mr. Whittenberg stated that 24 he understands the Commission's concerns, but practically speaking, he does not 25 believe that Staff can have this type of detail ready in time for the next meeting. 26 Chairperson Deaton stated that she would like to know that some thought has gone into 27 this process for text that can be worked into the Code and have the applicants return in 28 two weeks to hear other options to the proposed elevator roof structure. Mr. 29 Whittenberg noted that Staff would probably return with some very preliminary 30 information for consideration by the PC. He recommended continuing the public 31 hearing to the next scheduled meeting and keeping it open for further discussion. 32 Chairperson Deaton stated that the builder and the architect have done an excellent job 33 in keeping the height variation to only 4 feet. 34 35 Commissioner Roberts stated that this request has a lot of similarities to the project on 36 13th Street, and he feels that any new ordinances must have a lot of careful thought put 37 into them. He said he believes elevators in homes are going to become a thing of the 38 future, but he is not certain what will be learned between now and May 23rd that will 39 help in making a determination on this project. He stated that the applicants have done 40 a good job in keeping the height variation to only 4 feet, which is as minimal as you can 41 possibly get, and he thinks this is a reasonable request. He recommended approval 42 with the full recognition that this issue must be studied for the purposes of creating an 43 ordinance. 44 45 Chairperson Deaton stated that she would still like Staff to look into this. 46 11 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that it would be good if Staff could reach some type of agreement with the developer to reduce the structure, but she noted that the working drawings do show the elevator shaft on the floor plans, but show no opening on the roof for this elevator, indicating that this is something that was expanded during construction. She said that she believes the City will have to deal with elevators to roof decks as a fact of life. MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Bello to reopen the public hearing for Height Variation 07-2, Height Variation 07-3, and Height Variation 07-4. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0 Deaton, Bello, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts None None Public HearinQ Chairperson Deaton re-opened the public hearing. George Brown stated that waiting two weeks would not change the dimension, as the CRAS has been designed with the smallest square footage possible, and is small compared to all previously-approved CRAS. Chairperson Deaton stated that her concern is setting a precedent with three houses in a row with CRAS with elevators, and she wants Staff to look at this and make a recommendation that the design is the best that can be done. MOTION by Roberts; SECON D by Massa-Lavitt to continue the public hearing for Height Variation 07-2, Height Variation 07-3, and Height Variation 07-4 to the next scheduled meeting of Wednesday, May 23, 2007. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 4-0 Deaton, Bello, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts None None Mr. Whittenberg advised that because this hearing has been continued there will be no additional notice provided. He then called for a brief recess before beginning the Study Session. The meeting recessed at 8:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. STUDY SESSION 12. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning All Portions Except Chapter 2.05 Residential Districts 12 of 20 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 1 Staff Report 2 3 Mr. Whittenberg stated that after conducting three joint study sessions with City Council 4 (CC) and the Planning Commission (PC) the council members stated that they favored 5 the use of the Administrative/Conditional Use Permit and the PC will decide what should 6 be placed under each category. He described the processes as follows: 7 8 Administrative Use Permit (AUP) - Would replace the Minor Plan Review process and 9 will require 1 DO-foot notice of a project with approval or denial to be determined by the 10 Director of Development Services. 11 12 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) - Requires a 300-foot notice and publication in the 13 newspaper. The Code revision recommends that the noticing radius be increased to 14 500 feet. 15 16 He explained that the basic changes proposed under the AUP process will hopefully 17 help address the less controversial items for which the PC usually would not have a lot 18 of comments or concerns nor for which the public would have concerns. He noted that 19 Attachment 2 of the Staff Reports provides some language for what would occur when 20 an Administrative Use Permit is granted. He stated that the language proposes that 21 notice of approval would be provided to the PC and CC within 3 days of any action 22 taken by the Director of Development Services on this type of permit request. 23 24 Mr. Whittenberg then reviewed the Table 5.20.010 under Attachment 1, 2007 Zoning 25 Code Revision, Proposed Use Permit Review Changes. (Staff Report and Table are on 26 file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He noted that the items highlighted in 27 green are the proposed new review items relative to proposed new development 28 standards that do not currently exist in the Zoning Code. Chairperson Deaton referred 29 to Table 5.20-010, Chapter 2.05 and requested an explanation of the term "Exception to 30 main building envelope," as it appears under the heading Land Use Entitlement or 31 Activity. Mr. Whittenberg explained that essentially what is proposed are building 32 envelope regulations that limit the mass of the building at the top end of the structure to 33 prevent construction of "cube" structures up to the setback lines on the side and rear 34 property lines. He stated that the building envelope would have the impact of moving 35 the taller portion of a structure that exceeds the height limit into the center of the 36 building, and would propose changing roof pitches to create a hip roof or a gable roof, 37 rather than having a parapet. He noted that if parapets are desired, then the walls of 38 the sides of the house would have to be moved closer to the center of the property to 39 stay within the proposed building envelope plane. He indicated that any exceptions to 40 the main building envelope would be subject to the CUP process. 41 42 Mr. Whittenberg then indicated that the items highlighted in yellow are the items 43 currently subject to review by the PC and are proposed to be subject to the AUP 44 process. He explained that in proposing these changes from the CUP to the AUP 45 process Staff is attempting to reduce the amount of time required for the application and 46 hearing process by half, from approximately 8 weeks to 4 weeks, to allow applicants to 13 of 20 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 1 submit plans to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) sooner. He noted that in 2 reviewing the table the PC can decide the items it would like to remain subject to the 3 CUP process. 4 5 Items highlighted in yellow and proposed for an AUP include the following: 6 7 · 2-Story Cabana or Manufactured Homes in Mobile Home Park 8 · Projections above height limits (Commercial and Mixed-Use District, Light 9 Manufacturing and Oil Extraction Districts 10 · Automated Teller Machines 11 · Drive-In and Drive-Through Facilities 12 · Extended Hour Business 13 · Outdoor Displays and Sales - Permanent 14 · Outdoor Dining Area - Seating less than 20% of indoor seating 15 · Minor accessory structure less than 6-feet high in required setback 16 · Retaining wall greater than 30 inches in height 17 · Parking Reductions - Shared Parking Program 18 · Parking Reductions - Other Parking Reduction 19 · Signs on Main Street - Up to 3 tenant spaces 20 · Signs on Main Street - 4 or more tenant spaces, Planned Sign Program 21 · Master Sign Program 22 · Nonconforming Structures - Specified structural repairs 23 · Nonconforming Structures - Residential - Specified minor improvements 24 · Nonconforming Structures - Residential reconstruction after damage - more than 25 50% subject to specified standards 26 · Nonconforming Structures - Nonresidential reconstruction after damage - more than 27 50% subject to specified standards 28 29 Mr. Whittenberg then noted the green-highlighted item "Incidental Business Activity" and 30 explained that this new proposal for the Zoning Code would cover temporary uses at a 31 business location that are currently handled via the Special Event Permit (SEP) 32 process. He explained that this use is proposed for either a CUP for activities occurring 33 more than once a week, or an AUP for activities that occur only once per week. He 34 cited examples such as having a single, nonamplified live entertainer, book readings, 35 lectures, book signings, art shows, etc. He noted that some of these activities might be 36 allowed automatically without having to go through either process. 37 38 The Director of Development Services then reviewed the drive-in/drive through category 39 and noted that if the drive through lane area is more than a certain distance away from 40 residences and blocked by a building mass on the commercial property, it would go 41 through the AUP process, but if it is within a certain distance from residences and not 42 blocked by buildings, then the CUP process would apply. Commissioner Roberts stated 43 that he would prefer that this item and the extended hour business items remain subject 44 to a CUP. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff is requesting direction regarding the hours 45 of operation for extended business noting that currently businesses wishing to operate 14 of 20 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 1 between the hours of 2:00 am and 6:00 require a CUP. He said that Staff feels that a 2 2:00 a.m. closing time is "too generous" and suggests an 11 :00 p.m. closing time. 3 4 With regard to outdoor seating, Chairperson Deaton stated that she would prefer to use 5 something other than a percentage amount to determine the amount of seating that 6 could be approved with an AUP. 7 8 Mr. Whittenberg then discussed requiring a CUP for accessory uses such as guest 9 rooms or pool houses, which are not currently allowed under City Code. Mr. Abbe 10 clarified that this would be for something that falls short of a second unit, because the 11 PC would not have the discretion to conditionally approve a second unit. Commissioner 12 Massa-Lavitt asked whether parking could be required for second units. Mr. Abbe 13 stated that one parking space per bedroom can be required. Commissioner Massa- 14 Lavitt then asked whether a property owner would be able to construct a "rumpus room" 15 above the garage. Mr. Whittenberg stated that they would not, as exterior stairways are 16 not allowed and noted that the room would have to be physically attached to the house 17 at the second floor level, but even then there is a process that requires a recorded 18 covenant on the property stating that it will be maintained as a single family home. 19 20 The Director of Development Services then addressed vacation rentals, which are 21 recognized in the Business License Ordinance, but do not appear in the Zoning Code. 22 Staff is proposing that vacation rentals be subject to a CUP and that language be 23 incorporated limiting the maximum number of units on a property that can be used as 24 vacation rentals. 25 26 During the discussion on retaining walls greater than 30 inches, Eldon Alexander, stated 27 that some homes in Old Town would need to raise the grade for their lots above the 28 flood plain to prevent flooding. He asked if these properties would require a CUP. Mr. 29 Whittenberg noted that the current Code states that property owners would not be 30 penalized if their lot grade must be raised to meet flood standards. 31 32 With regard to parking reduction standards, Commissioner Roberts stated that he 33 agrees with Shared Parking being subject to an AUP, but stated that he would like to 34 further discuss Other Parking Reduction standards. Mr. Whittenberg briefly explained 35 the shared parking program, noting that these are found more in the larger shopping 36 centers. 37 38 He then reviewed the proposed use permit review changes for sign regulations for 39 tenant signs on Main Street and for Master Sign Programs. Commissioner Roberts 40 questioned using the AUP for Master Sign Programs. Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff's 41 experience over the last 7-10 years has shown that very rarely are any changes 42 necessary to what is proposed. Commissioner Roberts stated that his concern is 43 visibility to the community and he believes these should be subject to a CUP. 44 Chairperson Deaton stated that she agreed, and would even like to require a CUP for 45 the signs for buildings on Main Street having 3 or more tenants. Mr. Whittenberg then 46 explained that once the study sessions are complete, Staff will create a final draft 15 of 20 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 1 document, which will include all of the changes as discussed and based upon 2 comments received. He noted that the Final Draft would be the document presented at 3 the public hearing. 4 5 Mr. Whittenberg then reviewed the proposed use permit changes for legal 6 nonconforming uses, structures, or lots, noting that minor structural repairs or 7 improvements that do not exceed the height limit could be subject to an AUP. Staff has 8 also proposed that residential and nonresidential reconstruction after damage of more 9 than 50% of the structure be subject to specified standards and to an AUP. He noted 10 that the rebuild would be subject to the requirement of providing one parking space. 11 12 Commissioner Roberts asked if tattoo establishments were allowed by state law. Mr. 13 Whittenberg noted that under City Code tattoo establishments are allowed subject to 14 approval of a CUP and they also have to meet County Health Code requirements, which 15 Staff recommends be included as standard conditions of approval of a CUP for this use. 16 Commissioner Roberts asked if the PC could deny approval. Mr. Whittenberg stated 17 that the PC could make a finding that it was not compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. 18 Abbe noted that he would have to research this as it may involve First Amendment 19 implications. He noted that the City does not have the authority to completely prohibit 20 adult businesses. He stated that the City can extensively regulate these types of 21 businesses and would have to allow for the possibility of having 3 or 4 under U.S. 22 Supreme Court precedent. 23 24 Eldon Alexander said that he disagreed with the City Attorney regarding Supreme Court 25 decisions, stated that all of their decisions have not eliminated community standards. 26 He noted that California has set this up in its Code and provides limitations on the 27 location and imposes other restrictions on the operation of adult businesses. He stated 28 that now is the time to set the community standards. 29 30 Mr. Abbe indicated that an adult business would never be allowed by right, and at the 31 very least they would be subject to a CUP and would be extensively regulated, but 32 these businesses cannot be regulated out of existence. Mr. Alexander noted that 33 existing zoning standards do a fairly good job of preventing the establishment of adult 34 businesses within Seal Beach, but he would still like to see these types of uses subject 35 to approval of a CUP. Commissioner Roberts added that he would like to ensure that 36 the standards for adult businesses are as "tightly" written as possible. Mr. Whittenberg 37 explained that Chapter 4.50, which is the adult business section of the Code, basically 38 requires a zoning conformance to be determined by the Director of Development 39 Services within 30 days of receiving an application that would be subject to meeting 40 specific location criteria. He indicated that this process complies with the current 41 legislation related to adult businesses. Mr. Abbe stated that he would research this 42 issue and report to the Planning Commission. 43 44 On Page 9 under Chapter 4.70 - Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, Mr. 45 Whittenberg stated that Staff recommends approval of a CUP for a new ground- 46 mounted tower or monopole on property not owned by the City. He noted that most of 16 of 20 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 1 the existing towers or monopoles are currently located on City-owned property, as the 2 Zoning Ordinance has no height limits on City property, but for location on all other 3 property, a CUP would be required. He explained that the new technology for wireless 4 facilities now allows for better reception at heights of 35-40 feet. Chairperson Deaton 5 inquired about the roof-mounted towers. Mr. Whittenberg stated that these would be 6 subject to the height limit of the zone. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked whether the 7 Code requires that the wireless equipment sheds should be underground. Mr. 8 Whittenberg stated that he would have to review the Code to see if this is included. Mr. 9 Abbe stated that he would have to check into the new telecom laws to see if this is 10 required. 11 12 Mr. Whittenberg then continued with Chapter 4.75 - Common Interest Developments, 13 which are proposed for requirement of a CUP. He explained that refers to a 14 development like Leisure World, which is a stock cooperative arrangement. 15 16 On Page 10, Chapter 5.25 - Director Determinations - Waivers and 17 Exceptions/Reasonable Accommodation, Mr. Whittenberg explained that this section 18 allows an AUP for approval of relief from dimensional standards not to exceed 5 percent 19 of the existing Code standards. 20 21 Chairperson Deaton referred to Page 10, Chapter 5.25 - Director Determinations - 22 Temporary Uses and confirmed that if there is a substantial and detrimental impact the 23 Director would make the determination that this would only be temporary. Mr. 24 Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. Mr. Alexander gave the example of the 25 barbed wire above a chain link fence on the DWP property, which is temporary until the 26 property is developed. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that this Chapter would apply to the 27 prohibition of placing barbed wire on residential property, but would not apply to 28 commercial property or other uses. He explained that this would also relate to 29 reasonable accommodation issues to meet ADA compliance regulations through federal 30 laws. 31 32 The Director of Development Services then asked if there were additional comments. 33 34 Commissioner Roberts complimented Mr. Whittenberg on the work done on this report 35 and noted that the suggested being made are related to visibility type issues. 36 37 Chairperson Deaton referred to Chapter 5.25 - Director Determinations - Waivers and 38 Exceptions/Reasonable Accommodation on relief from dimensional standards not to 39 exceed 5 percent of the existing Code standards and noted that for the 25-foot 40 residential lots in Old Town, 5 percent would be over one foot, which she sees as huge. 41 Mr. Whittenberg clarified that this is zoning, and noted that the Subdivision Code sets 42 forth the minimum lot width, which cannot be changed under this chapter. He explained 43 that if the setback requirement is 5 feet, the Director could approve for up to 2.5 inches 44 less than the 5-foot setback, without having to bring this before the Planning 45 Commission. He noted that this would be most commonly used for projects on irregular 46 size lots. 17 of 20 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 1 2 Chairperson Deaton referred to Page 1 of Table 5.20.010 and expressed her concern 3 with the reduced rear yard in the RLD-9 Zone being subject to an AUP. She stated that 4 the public should have the opportunity to hear about this. Mr. Whittenberg explained 5 that this applies only to the RLD-9 Zone and Staff is proposing that the current rear yard 6 setback area be increased from 10 feet to 15 feet across the board, automatically 7 providing a larger rear yard requirement in the Code. He indicated that this would allow 8 for a 10-foot setback for single-story additions to help address the issue of minimum 9 usable open space on the property. 10 11 Chairperson Deaton then referred to the exception to maximum garage width. Mr. 12 Whittenberg stated that he would have to review this item, as he is unable to recall the 13 content at this point. He noted that a CUP is required for garages larger than a 3-car 14 garage, and he believes this item has a provision limiting the width of a 2-car garage to 15 no more than 20 feet, or a certain percentage of the width of the house. He stated that 16 he would report back to the Commission on this item. 17 18 With regard to parking location exceptions commercial and mixed use districts, 19 Chairperson Deaton asked if this refers to where one is parking on the property. Mr. 20 Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct and noted that this applies only within the 21 (LC/RMD) Limited Commercial/Residential Medium Density Zone along Seal Beach 22 Boulevard, south of Pacific Coast Highway, and the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) 23 area. He explained that Code requires that parking be to the rear of the property, 24 although in certain cases, due to circumstances, it may be necessary to allow parking in 25 front, which could be addressed through an AUP. 26 27 Chairperson Deaton then noted that projections above the height limit should be heard 28 by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Roberts stated that he would like to see 29 requirements for screening of roof-mounted mechanical equipment in commercial 30 zones. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff will include standards for screening 31 mechanical equipment from all sides in the final draft of the Zoning Ordinance, but he 32 noted that to construct a wall around a roof to screen mechanical equipment from the 33 view of a neighboring second story home would not be reasonable. He indicated that 34 blocking this equipment on all sides from view at street level would be realistic. 35 36 Eldon Alexander stated that now would be a good time to include undergrounding of 37 utilities in the Zoning Code, noting that with all of the new development at the Rossmoor 38 Center, utility poles are still visible. Chairperson Deaton noted that the cost of 39 converting to underground utilities is quite high. Mr. Whittenberg said that underground 40 utilities are required for all new subdivisions, and this was also discussed for the Boeing 41 Project; however, the cost of doing this was somewhere in the range of $50-60 million. 42 He noted that there are ways to convert existing utilities and Southern California Edison 43 (SCE) does have a program that provides money to cities on an annual basis to be 44 placed into a fund for undergrounding of utilities. He stated that some of this work took 45 place along Seal Beach Boulevard as part of the Heron Pointe Development. 46 18 of 20 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 1 Mr. Alexander then inquired about the process for informing the Planning Commission 2 (PC) and City Council (CC) of decisions on AUPs, asking how applicants would be 3 made aware of their right to appeal these decisions to the PC or CC. Mr. Whittenberg 4 stated that the City has an appeal form that is currently part of the application for a 5 public hearing, and this form would be incorporated into the AUP application. 6 7 Chairperson Deaton asked if a cost has to be associated with an appeal for an AUP. 8 Mr. Whittenberg stated that once you are into an appeal process you must re-notice 9 everyone, publish notice in the newspaper, prepare a separate set of staff reports, and 10 conduct the public hearing, and the City would like to recover the costs involved in this 11 process. Chairperson Deaton asked what the cost for an appeal would be. Mr. 12 Whittenberg indicated that the appeal fee would be half of the application fee. * 13 14 (*Correction: Appeal fee would be the same amount as the fee for the initial application 15 for an Administrative Use Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance, or Tentative Parcel 16 Map.) 17 18 Chairperson Deaton questioned the fairness to property owners who feel they will be 19 negatively impacted by a proposed project on an adjoining property and would then 20 have to pay to file an appeal on the approval of that project. Mr. Whittenberg explained 21 that the AUP process would provide the opportunity for the Director to hear any 22 concerns and investigate potential impacts prior to making a decision to approve or 23 deny an AUP. He noted that the option to appeal an AUP decision would be available. 24 Chairperson Deaton asked if when making a decision for an AUP on a project that 25 becomes a publicly sensitive issue, would the Director of Development Services have 26 the discretion to turn this over to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Mr. Whittenberg 27 confirmed that this was correct, and noted that any AUP fees would be applied toward 28 the total application fee for a CUP. 29 30 Chairperson Deaton asked about future study sessions on nonresidential zoning. Mr. 31 Whittenberg stated that Staff wouid return at a later date with a revised draft of the 32 Zoning Code. He asked that the Commissioners look through the items discussed 33 tonight and provide comments to Staff. Commissioner Roberts asked if it would be 34 helpful to submit written comments to Staff. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would be 35 helpful as long as comments are provided far enough in advance to be included in the 36 Staff Reports for the next Study Session. Commissioner Roberts suggested conducting 37 additional meetings to help expedite completion of the study sessions. Mr. Whittenberg 38 reviewed the upcoming schedule of meetings and noted that personal schedules would 39 have to be looked at to determine when additional study sessions might be arranged. 40 Mr. Abbe interjected that he appreciates having written comments submitted by the 41 Commissioners prior to a study session, as he then has the opportunity to conduct 42 research and to provide responses on the date of the meeting. 43 44 45 46 19 of 20 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2007 1 STAFF CONCERNS 2 3 Mr. Whittenberg reported that the property owner at 429 Beryl Cove Way has filed an 4 appeal of a previously-approved Variance for a property line wall. He indicated that this 5 would be scheduled for a future meeting. 6 7 8 COMMISSION CONCERNS 9 10 None. 11 12 13 ADJOURNMENT 14 15 Chairperson Deaton adjourned the meeting at 10:28 p.m. 16 17 18 Respectfully Submitted, 19 20 21 22 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secreta 23 Planning Department 24 25 26 APPROVAL 27 28 The Commission on May 23, 2007, approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission 29 Meeting of Wednesday, May 9,2007. ('~ 20 of 20