Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 2007-02-21, 2007-02-26, 2007-03-07 Seal Beach, California February 21,2007 The City of Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission met in a joint study session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order. I ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Larson Council members Antos, Levitt, Shanks, Ybaben Planning Commissioners Bello, Deaton, Ladner, O'Malley, Roberts Also present: Mr. Beaubien, Interim City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Abbe, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Vukojevic, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Mr. Crumby, Deputy City !=ngineer Mrs. Devine, City Clerk The Mayor announced the order for the study session: 1) Overview of the preliminary draft of the zoning code; 2) Council and Commission comments; 3) Public comments; and 4) Staff comments. OVERVIEW I "PRELIMINARY DRAFT - ZONING CODE" "A copy of the "Preliminary Draft" of the Zoning and Subdivision Codes and the presentations are on file in the Office of the City Clerk until final adoption. .. I The Director of Development Services gave a brief summary of the events that led up to this joint study session and explained the purpose of the first study session was to review the proposed preliminary draft of the zoning and subdivision codes: Part I - general administrative section; Part III - sets forth the standards for the different overlay zones; Part IV - establishes standards for different types of uses that can occur in multiple zones either in residential or commercial zones; Part V - general administrative provisions on how the City processes applications for permits, variances, zone changes, general plan amendments, other discretionary applications; and VI - definitions. The Director further stated the main purpose of the meetings was to allow staff to present the preliminary document as how they see it should be restructured and to incorporate current updates that reflect the current development issues that the City is faced with in Southern California and receive input from the Council, Commission, and the public as to whether staff is addressing their issues. There are two other study sessions scheduled to review the development standards for commercial, industrial, oil extraction, open space, park uses within the City, and proposed standards for residential development. I Overview: The sections for review this evening are 60% to 70% current ordinance provisions - no changes just reformatted to make it easier to read and added tables and graphs to explain terms and standards to help people better understand what the City expects in certain situations. The areas with changes or are new and different will be highlighted in yellow. In preparing to update the zoning and subdivision codes staff reviewed about 25 to 30 different zoning ordinances from primarily coastal cities in California and those cities that have recently updated their zoning codes to try to reflect the current state of art (from as far south as Coronado to as far north as Monterey; including cities in Los Angeles County). The Director indicated that he will quickly go over the preliminary draft but will point out any changes in a little more detail. Page 2 - Joint Study Session - Zoning/Subdivision Codes Part I - General Provisions: . Table 1.05.030 - Zoning Districts: basic change in reference designations - the current designations were too confusing to the public (zoning districts were confused as Council District) also separated and simplified the other designations to reflect the actual land use (example Service Commercial was C1 will be SC and there will be a designation for a wetland area). . Highlighted: in Old Town most areas are Residential High Density (RHD), with the area between 12th Street and Seal Beach Boulevard and Electric Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway currently designated Residential Medium I Density (RMD). Staff is proposing that the current RMD area be reclassified as RHD. . Chapter 1.15 - Rules of Measurement: there are diagrams that will help architects understand how the City determines measurements for: shortest distance involving a structure, lot width and depth; and lot width sample calculations. Part III - Overlav District Reaulations: . No proposed changes. Areas in the Overlay Zones: Residential Conservation - Bed & Breakfast facilities; Planned Development - Leisure World; Commercial Park - DWP property at 1 st Street and Ocean Avenue; and Coastal Zone - (reserved until after Local Coastal Plan is developed). Part IV - Reaulations ADDlvina In Some Or All Districts: . This major section of the code has been significantly updated to reflect the current state of planning in Southern California. . Chapter 4.05 applies no matter where in the City a particular land use is located; Chapter 4.10 deals with noise, lighting, and maintenance standards; Chapters 4.15,4.20,4.25, and 4.30 incorporates 85% current provisions with 15% new ideas on how to deal with some issues and includes graphic illustrations on what the City would like people to think about; Chapters 4.40 I through 4.85 are existing codes - no changes just reformatted to reflect the new numbering system and some clean up language for better understanding; Chapters 4.35 and 4.90 are reserved for future Coastal Development and Historic Preservation codes and standards. . Table 5.20.010 is in Chapter 5 of the code that sets up staff recommended review responsibilities between an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) or a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The changes would be that the CUP would continue to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and the permits that are currently approved by the Planning Commission under their consent calendar (minor plan review, height variations, etc.) would be done under the new recommended AUP. Any approvals that would require a public hearing with noticing of property owner in a radius of 300 feet of a project location would remain under the Planning Commission approval (CUP). Any minor review with noticing of 100 feet of a project would be under the AUP approval with an appeal process of the decision - rational: it would allow the project applicants to be able to receive approval sooner without any impact to the City. In the AUP process staff would notice the meeting and list the items up for review, if it appears to be a sufficient issue the proposed language in the process would allow the Director to refer the item to the Planning Commission automatically - this gives the process flexibility and still speed up the approval process for those applicants who are requesting what the City has generally approved on a routine basis. The Council and Commission I should review the chart to determine if thev aaree with the staff recommended desianations. Highlighted items are the areas that the City has no current regulations covering the provision. . Section 4.05.010 - Accessory Business Uses and Activities - would be allowed if the activity occurs less than once a week; if it occurs once a week an AUP is required; and if it occurs more than once a week a CUP is required. . Section 4.05.050 - Drive-in and Drive-thru Facilities - proposing a progressive evaluation and review through AUP or CUP. Page 3 - Joint Study Session - Zoning/Subdivision Codes I . Section 4.05.055 - Extended Hour Businesses - currently referred to as 24 hour operation cut off from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.; suggested considering a change to 11 :00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. with the required permit process. . Section 4.05.090 - Outdoor Dining, Display, and Sales Standards - accessory displays and dining would require AUP and permanent displays and dining would require CUP. . Section 4.05.100 - Residential Accessory Uses and Structures - detached structures requirements would be the same for both pre-fabricated and non- pre-fabricated; maximum lot coverage not to exceed 225 square feet and must be located on rear half of lot; non-structures would not apply. . Table 4.05.11 0.B.1 - Multi-unit Open Space Requirements. . Section 4.05.135 - Vacation Rentals - new section with CUP required. . Section 4.05.140 - Warehouse Retail - structures of 60,000 square feet or larger - to require architectural design - prevent big cube look. . Chapter 4.10 - primary focus in this chapter is section 4.10.020 - Performance Standards dealing with lighting and noise - no changes just cross reference to other sections in the code. · Table 4.1 0.020.A - Outdoor Parking Area Illumination Levels By Use · Included noise standards that are in other sections of the code to make sure the applicants are aware of the standards. Currently no standards for indoor commercial, industrial, or office building - will evaluate on a case by case basis. . Storm Drainage and Storm Water Runoff requirements for development - proposed in response to state mandates (also in other sections of the code). . Recycling and Solid Waste - current code does not address the required dumpsters for multi-units - will have equipment and design standards (Table 4.10.025.D.1 - residential and Table 4.1 0.025.D.2 - non-residential) . Chapter 4.15 - Fences, Hedges, and Walls - one minor change - maximum height from 6 feet to 7 feet (solid wall with additional 1 foot of open lattice type material). Retaining wall changes were done about 4 years ago dealing with area by Gum Grove Park (graphics are included). . Chapter 4.20 - Off-Street Parking and Loading - major change is in the requirements for single family homes and parking lot design standards. I With no objections Mayor Larson called for a recess at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:45 p.m. I Mr. Whittenberg continued to review the proposed Zoning Code provisions: . Change in the number of garage spaces required - above 3 bedrooms you are required to add parking spaces. . Diagrams are included to outline layout and design of commercial parking lots. · Chapter 4.25 - Sign Regulations - added: marquee signs - to preserve the Bay Theater sign and portable A-frame signs can only be used on private property with size limitation and ADA access. · Chapter 4.30 - Landscaping and Buffer Yards - added language and standards for Buffer Yards and landscaping standards for new residential areas of 5 units and larger as well as and all non-residential projects requiring a detailed landscape and irrigation plan (follow state requirements); alternative plans for the coastal area as required by the Coastal Commission. · Buffer Yards - require a minimum width of landscape area between an intensive use (commercial and industrial) of land and a less intensive use (residential) of land. · Chapter 4.40 through 4.85 - no substantial changes. Part V - Land Use and Zonlna Decisions: · Review Authority - the only change would be to implement the Administrative Use Permit. This would include an opportunity for the applicant to appeal a decision to the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Adult Business Zoning Clearance decision would be made thru AUP with appeal to City Council. The Waiver/Reasonable Accommodation deals with the Fair Page 4 - Joint Study Session - Zoning/Subdivision Codes Housing Act - ADA, decision made through AUP with appeals to Commission and Council. . Noticing radius is recommended by staff to increase mailings to property owners/residents to 500 feet. Rational: to help prevent the Commissioners and Councilmembers from FPPC violations / conflict of interest. Part VI - Terms and Definitions: . Chapter 6 has expanded with graphs and diagrams to help clarify the meaning of the technical requirements and interpretations - how staff will I determine and calculate the different codes. This concludes the presentation. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION COMMENTS . The Director of Development Services was complimented and commended by the City Council and Planning Commission on how well the presentation was prepared and how the use of charts and graphics were helpful. . Commissioner Roberts asked if there was a policy on historic buildings being built prior to 1925 - Director's reSDonse: it was a standard that was incorporated into the Residential Conservation Overlay Zone as a criteria to what would qualify for conversion to a bed and breakfast and encourage only those very old homes in town to stay as an economical viable use and under federal historic preservation regulations a potential historic structure is anything that is over fifty years old - this is a separate issue and will be dealt with after the completion of this process. . Councilman Shanks expressed his biggest concern is the expansion to an Administrative Use Permit; need to have a process to keep the Commission and Council informed before they receive calls from unhappy applicants. Commissioner Deaton concurred. Commissioner O'Malley stated that he would like to see a document that would list what was approved by the AUP. Director's reSDonse: that there would be a regular noticed meeting with him, I the staff, project applicants, and interested public members. The agenda for each meeting could be sent to both the Council and Commission as to what will be up for AUP approval, a follow-up report indicating the action taken, and that there will be an appeal period at all levels. . Councilman Antos suggested that the zoning map be more detailed - Director's reSDonse: the department is in the process of digitizing the City's zoning map and make it available on-line where someone will be able to click on an area and it would indicate all the zoning requirements and PDF files (RLD-9 standards). . This concludes the Council and Commission comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS The Director indicated that the Council and Commission received two documents this evening: 1) an email message from Dr. Goldberg with staff response and 2) a letter from David Broomhead regarding a residential issue. . Robert Goldberg, Bridgeport/Seal Beach, commended the Director on an impressive presentation and document; felt that the changes would make the City more livable and would decrease the red tape where it is appropriate. This would give the Commission more control where appropriate. He stated his concerns were that there are several major commercial developments already in progress that would not be under the new changes and that there I needs to be a process to address the existing non-conforming use. . There were no other speakers. Due to a schedule conflict, Councilman Ybaben suggested that the study sessions start at an earlier time. By consensus the February 26th study session will start at the scheduled time of 6:30 p.m. and the March 7th study session would start at 6:00 p.m. Commissioner O'Malley indicated that he will not be able to attend the February 26th session but will view the video tape. Page 5 - Joint Study Session - Zoning/Subdivision Codes ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council and Commission, to adjourn the meeting at 8:37 p.m. to Monday, February 26th, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. to continue the joint study session. I Ci Clerk and ex-officio clerk of the City of Seal Beach Approved: _ h,qJ ~ Mayor Attest: JrVljl4 ~)~ I City Clerk I Seal Beach, California February 26, 2007 The City of Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission met in a joint study session at 6:30 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Larson Council members Antos, Levitt, Shanks, Ybaben Commissioners Bello, Deaton, Ladner, Roberts Absent: Commissioner O'Malley Also present: Mr. Beaubien, Interim City Manager Mr. Abbe, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Vukojevic, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Mr. Crumby, Deputy City Engineer Mrs. Devine, City Clerk I Mayor Larson introduced Mr. Greg Beaubien the interim City Manager and announced the order of the session: staff overview of Chapter II, followed by Council and Commission comments, and public comments. REVIEW /"PRELlMINARY DRAFT - ZONING CODE" The Director of Development Services stated that the area of the zoning code that will be covered would be the standards for commercial, industrial, open space and park districts within the City as well as Title 10 (subdivision). Part II - Base District Reaulatlons: · Chaoter 2.10 - Commercial and Mixed Use Districts: Referred to Table 5.20.010 the Land Use Entitlement or Activity indicating the permits that Page 6 - Joint Study Session - Zoning/Subdivision Codes would be under the Administrative Use Permit (AUP) and the decisions could be appealed to the Planning Commission. . Table 2.10.010 - Use Regulations - Commercial and Mixed Use Districts: The table lists the types of use and the columns indicate what regulations are required - the majority of the items listed on the table have not changed in regards to the review authority and the uses permitted - only those items highlighted have changes: Adult Business Establishments; Banks drive-thru and ATM's - change to AUP; Commercial Recreation - separate large and small; Eating and Drinking Establishments - change to AUP; Kiosks not I currently in code (allow only in major shopping centers) - permitted through AUP; HandcrafVCustom Manufacturing (Art on Glass) not currently in code; Antennae and Transmission Towers/Facilities - restriction and regulations set by federal law; at the bottom of the table are descriptions of the Limitation designations - L-5 and L-6 are related to coffee establishment uses. . Table 2.10.015 - Development Standards: Added the Floor Area Ratio (FAR - ratio of the size of the lot to the size of the building) to establish a maximum area for the number of square feet of building on a property; added Building Transition Zone Adjacent to R (residential) Districts; Building Design section is to help developers/architects to better understand what the City would like to see incorporated in new buildings; the last column of the table sets forth the subsections listed that give specific types of design standards required. . Building Setbacks - Minor changes to the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) proposed that new buildings have to be built no further back than 10 feet from the sidewalk to maintain the pedestrian capability along the street and not allow curb cutouts to driveways (all access to parking areas are off the alley) and that there be setback limitations to professional office (PO) buildings. . Landscape section (2.10.015.D.1 and 2) to allow air flow and sunlight where mixed use occurs (diagrams added). . Sub-section E - New section for public gathering space (courtyard) for buildings over 25,000 square feet. . Sub-section F.2.a - Clarify the location of the public parking areas - these are I small lots. . Sub-section H - Currently no standards for where the location of truck docks and loading service areas - proposed to be through AUP. . Sub-section I - Building Design Features this is more advisory than mandatory - worded that the Director has final design authority and the applicant can appeal the decision (diagrams added). . Sub-section K - Building Orientation - the main entrance of the business should face the public street . Sub-section N - This is a new section for mixed use requiring 100 square feet of open space and new required setbacks and windows. . Sub-section R - Projections - proposed AUP approval . Chaoter 2.15 - Light Manufacturino (BoeinalPacific Gatewavl & Oil Extraction (Hellman orooertvl Districts: Currently the regulations are controlled by the Boeing Specific Plan. . Sample design photos are included to help clarify requirements. . Chaoter 2.20 - Public & Semi-Public Facilities Districts: Land Use/Recreation is all park areas; Recreational Golf is only Old Ranch Country Club. The regulations would depend on what is adjacent to the property. · Chaoter 2.25 - Ooen Soace. Parks. & Recreation Districts: Divides the open space areas from the park areas (facilities). I . Open Space - Natural areas can only have public safety facilities. · Commercial Recreation areas designated large would be greater than 20,000 square feet. . AUP approval is proposed for concession stands. · The regulations for development would depend on what is adjacent to the property. Title 10 - Subdivisions: · Title 10 is a new section for Subdivisions - what was previously presented is the proposed Title 11 for Zoning Codes and Standards. Page 7 - Joint Study Session - Zoning/Subdivision Codes I . Chapter 10.50 - Streetscape and Chapter 10.55 - Block Structure are the only new sections to the current Subdivision Codes. All the other chapters were just reformatted and updated language to reflect current state requirements. . Chapter 10.05 - Administration: Under the Subdivision Map Act the Planning Commission serves as the primary Advisory Agency and can approve certain types of land subdivision without City Council approval and there are other approvals that require Commission recommendation and Council approval; staff is recommending a Subdivision Technical Review Committee be established which would consist of the Planning Director, the Building Official, and the Public Works Director to consider minor lot line adjustments and to review and give technical assistance and recommendation for requests for creating new parcels either under parcel map (Planning Commission approval) or tract map (Council approval) - Table 10.05.035 Review Authority. · Chapter 10.10 - Approval Requirements: Listed exemptions from the Map Act - City Council approval only. · Chapter 10.15 - Improvement Requirements: Storm drainage requirements in compliance with Regional Water Quality Control Board. · Chapter 10.50 - Streetscape: Standards and requirements for basic street design, intersections, and driveway and alleys. This is to give a developer of land a better understanding up front as what the City wants to see in regards to design standards (illustrations included). · Chapter 10.55 - Block Structure: Standards and guidelines for a better planned neighborhood. . This concludes the presentation. I COUNCIL AND COMMISSION COMMENTS · Councilman Shanks questioned the parking requirement of three spaces for a four bedroom home; would that be retro-active to make it legal non- conforming for existing homes? Director's reSDonse: the existing homes would be grandfathered in but if they wanted additional bedrooms they would need to comply with the current codes and standards. · Councilman Levitt stated his on-going concern about the parking at small shopping center (Leisure World) being a dangerous situation and is there anything in the current code that would allow the City to have the developer make changes to make the parking lot safer? Director's reSDonse: there is nothing that would require the developer to make any changes but you can always go back and ask them to consider to make changes based on the concerns of the public or Council - if the owners of the property come back to make any changes they would be under the new standards (proposed Chapters 4.30, Landscape and 4.20, Off Street Parking). · Mayor Larson said that neither the Bixby nor the Rossmoor projects comply with the new proposed ordinance regarding the parking area being located in the back and there should not be any parking that would require the drivers to back out into a main access lane. Director's reSDonse: where the back parking would be is in the Limited Commercial-Residential Medium area along Seal Beach Boulevard, along Main Street and on properties that maybe in a Professional Office zone, not in the shopping centers. The proposals presented can be changed. Any changes to existing buildings and shops would be required to comply with the new codes and standards. · This concludes Council and Commission comments. I PUBLIC COMMENTS · Mike Buhbe, Central Way, had three questions regarding the Preliminary Draft - Part II - 1) roof top parking (page 26) would this be possible anywhere in Old Town: 2) did not understand drawings regarding setbacks of different kinds of windows in the residences near the commercial (page 40); and 3) what the ratio for park requirements for new subdivision projects. Director's reSDonse: 1) as propos~d, any parking structure would require Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit - there are proposed design standards for ramps; 3) ratio for park requirements would only apply to subdivision creating new residential property not commercial or industrial Page 8 - Joint Study Session - Zoning/Subdivision Codes subdivision of land and there is a standard of five acres per thousand people anticipated to reside in the residential project - in proposed Title 10, Subdivisions, there are specific land areas based on the type of housing and number of bedrooms that are proposed . Robert Goldberg, Seal Beach, had a question on (page 22) table regarding building standards for commercial and mixed use districts - height (right hand column) limitation and story maximum - not consistent. Director's reSDonse: these are current provisions of the code; the standards for Main Street were developed because there were concerns when the Main Street Specific Plan was being developed about the ability to develop three story structures. . Mitzi Morton, Seal Beach, expressed her concern regarding what the cost of appeals would be using the Administrative Use Permit. Currently to appeal to Council it is $750.00. Director's reSDonse: currently for Minor Plan Review and Height Variation the fee is $150.00 for both the application and the appeal; for CUP the fee for appeal and application is $750.00; the difference in the amount is due to the administrative process cost for the appeals (CUP requires notice in the newspaper and to notice residents in a 300 foot radius (proposal would change this to 500 feet) and additional staff reports). The Council approves a fee schedule annually and any changes in the fee would be approved at that time - AUP fee is anticipated to be $150.00. . Eldon Alexander, 8th Street, questioned that for the Commercial-Mixed Use- RMD the FAR was 0.9 for 2,500 sq. ft. lot but if you go to residential same lot size the FAR is 1.0 - is this an inconsistency. Director's reSDonse: the Limited Commercial with a 0.9 is for commercial development, not for residential development, and in addition to this allowable commercial development people are allowed to build residential units on top the commercial building. This does not exist in other zones in the City. . There were no other speakers. I COUNCIL AND COMMISSION COMMENTS - Continued . Councilman Shanks commented on the fact that Councilman Ybaben would not be in attendance for the entire study session scheduled for March 7th and asked if they should reschedule the last session in order to have everyone present. Felt that much of this process is due to Councilman Ybaben's concerns. . Councilman Ybaben stated that he would be viewing the video tape of the study session before the public hearings. . Mayor Larson inquired if they can reschedule the last session. Director's reSDonse: all the sessions were published in the newspaper indicating the schedule of meetings and in fairness to all parties a date later than the March 7th should be agreed to so that staff can advertise the new date and time to highlight the change. . Commissioner Roberts stated that if the presentation for March 7th were longer than Councilman Ybaben would not be present to hear any comments. . Commissioner Deaton requested that Council give direction to the Planning Commission so that they can hold the first set of public hearings and make their recommendation to the City Council - Councilman Ybaben would need to be present in order to do this. . Councilman Antos stated that since the meetings are already scheduled the presentation should be given and then continue the session to a date certain to take all comments; the proposed drafts do not have any recommended compromises that deals with the two/three story issue. Stated that under Council Business they are being asked to take action without any suggestion of a compromise. . Mayor Larson indicated that there would not be decisions made at the conclusion of the study sessions but to hear what is proposed by staff and for fact finding. . The Director commented that staff provided additional provisions and design features to the code for side and rear setbacks on second and third floors based on the height of walls adjacent to side property lines and the length of I I Page 9 - Joint Study Session - Zoning/Subdivision Codes I those walls; whether this is sufficient enough to satisfy everyone is up to Council. . Commissioner Deaton asked for clarification regarding design factor for third story and roof line. Director's reSDonse: this discussion is for the March 7th session. . Mayor Larson indicated that no one had a problem with the schedule and should continue as advertised. . Councilman Shanks agreed and stated that if there is some dissatisfaction with this process they can vote to have additional meetings. . Councilman Ybaben further stated that people are looking for immediate answers but the process is set up to present the information and then to hear any related comments. This is all information gathering and there are further meetings to be scheduled. . Mayor Larson said this is not between the Council and Commission this is for the opportunity to hear what the public wants; they have divided themselves and will express their viewpoints. With no objection, Mayor Larson continued the joint study session to March 7th. CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS Ybaben moved, second by Levitt, to adopt second reading of Ordinance Number 1555 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH REPEALING ORDINANCE NUMBER 1553." The Assistant City Attorney read the title for the record. By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1555 was waived. Councilman Antos stated that he has not received any calls or letters asking him to change his position on this matter. Councilman Shanks indicated the same. I Roll call vote: AYES: Larson, Levitt, Ybaben NOES: Antos, Shanks Motion carried ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council and Commission, to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. to Monday, March 7, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. to continue the joint study session. ~ - lb.- ruI4t vn/ Ity Clerk and ex-officIO clerk of the City of Seal Beach Mayor Approved: I Attest: ~ >>//}1f~ City Clerk Page 10 - Joint Study Session - Zoning/Subdivision Codes Seal Beach, California March 7, 2007 The City of Seal Beach City Council and Planning Commission met in a joint study session at 6:00 p.m. with Mayor Larson calling the meeting to order. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Larson Council members Antos, Levitt, Shanks, Ybaben Commissioners Bello, O'Malley, Roberts I Absent: Commissioner Deaton was not present due to a family emergency; Commissioner Ladner (resigned) Also present: Mr. Beaubien, Interim City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mr. Abbe, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mr. Vukojevic, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Mr. Crumby, Deputy City Engineer Mrs. Devine, City Clerk The Mayor announced the order of procedure for the session: staff report, staff overview, Council and Commission comments, and public comments. Further stated that there are two sides to this issue and asked that everyone respect all speakers' comments. REVIEW - "PRELIMINARY DRAFT - ZONING CODE" Director Whittenberg, Development Services, indicate that this is the last scheduled study session to go over the proposed zoning code revisions and will focus on the residential development standards. (Copy of presentation is on file.) . Table 5.20.010 - Review Authority: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would go to the Commission/public hearing process - more controversial requests and the Administrative Use Permit (AUP) would be more minor and routine requests. . Table 2.05.010 - Use Regulations - Residential Districts: letter designations are defined; RLD, RMD, and RHD are currently used; land use types are listed; L-2 (limitations) retail and large apartment buildings (150+ units) currently only applies to the Oakwood Apartments. . Develooment Standards - Changing name designation of planning districts to indicate the number of housing units that can be built per acre of land in that particular zoning classification - example RLD-9 designation the maximum number is nine units of separate single units on the property of an acre of land. RLD-9 (CPE/CPW/HiII); RLD-15 (Bridgeport/Suburbia); RMD-18 (Bixby Townhomes/ORCC/Lampson); RHD-20 (Old Town - currently RMD & RHD); RHD-33 (Oakwood/trailer park/Riverbeach); RHD-46 (Rossmoor/Montecito Road) · Reminder - all the areas in the presentation that are highlighted are the changes to the proposed draft; the rest are current provisions. . One of the main ideas staff is proposing for consideration is the idea of establishing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for residential development - currently what controls the size, bulk, mass of homes in town are the required setbacks, maximum height limits, and lot coverage standard. · FAR would basically limit the size of livable area that can be built on the lot - it is set forth as a ratio to the lot area of the property (Table 2.05.015.C - Allowable Base and Maximum FAR by Lot Area) the numbers are subject to change after more determination is given to the current homes being built. I I Page 11 - Joint Study Session - Zoning/Subdivision Codes I . Proposed are FAR design incentives and deductions (bonus and deduction points are listed in Table 2.05.015.D.1 and D.2) - this would encourage an owner and an architect to work with those incentives and deductions to figure out how they can design a home that best meets their needs, meets the City's needs, and still allow some flexibility in the design. . There are proposed provisions that are required for ratio of second story building area to the first story, maximum height of down slope skirt walls, and maximum court dimensions. · Required Daylight Planes (Table 2.05.015.1) - This will change the maximum building envelope at the roof line from a cube look to a more traditional slope type roof - primary building design (subsection 'T') would require additional setback on the additional side stepback above 21 feet and some solar access standards (section 4.10.045). This general concept is only proposed for the RLD-9, RMD-18, and RHD-20 zoning district (Table 2.05.015.1). A certification of Daylight Plane compliance would be required. . Retaining the current provisions of the code regarding the third story construction on the rear half lots that are 37.5 wide or wider - the additional setbacks and daylight planes propose provisions would impact the design of third story areas - Commission and Council will have to make the final determination - staff is trying address some of the concerns through design standards. . Other changes: curb cuts and driveways (RLD-9) would address semi- circular driveways; limit the width of a garage (facing a street); retaining the maximum square feet of a garage; for water quality control (water run-off) a requirement of 60% of street facing yards shall have a permeable surface; open space requirement for single unit resident have permanent outdoor use in RLD-9 be a minimum of 800 square feet and in RHD-20 a minimum of 225 square feet, with certain design standards; and a new section would put a size limitation for a two story cabana (California regulations managing this program defines a cabana as an accessory structure to the main living unit and cannot exceed the size of the mobile home or travel trailer). I The Director concluded the presentation with pictures of residential development with a comparison chart of the current and the proposed standards. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION COMMENTS Mayor Larson announced that at this time the Councilmember and Commissioners will make their comments followed by Public Comments - there will be no decisions made and further study sessions and public hearings will be conducted. I · Councilman Ybaben stated that he believes that the Council does not give direction to the Planning Commission because they are an independent body and that the Commission should work through the presented information as well as any additional comments that are presented to them and make recommended changes to the draft that would be presented to the Council for consideration; requested that a record be kept of all public comments in order to make certain that the Planning Commission address all the concerns and make note whether the comments were incorporated into the changes or not - this way there is a record that all comments were taken into consideration. The document presented is a draft and the Planning Commission is the body that will work the hardest to craft it into a final document that will become the new law. Later stated that the AUP idea has merit for residents and more efficient for the City; would reduce staff time to prepare agenda reports and would help residents to move forward with their minor projects between Commission meetings. · Commissioner Roberts indicated that the Commission is willing to take on the job and commended the Director for highlighting the areas of concern that will need additional amount of time to not only come to a conclusion but to also come to an understanding on what the changes will mean - one major concern would be the idea of open space and its effect on all properties. Page 12 - Joint Study Session - Zoning/Subdivision Codes . Councilman Levitt asked the Director to provide a guide in layman's term for the floor area ratio and under landscaping section says "permanently maintained after approval" - how would Council ensure this will be done. Director's resoonse: staff will compile all the comments and concerns and address them in future sessions. . Commissioner Bello commented that a record of all public comments is a good idea in order to make sure everyone is heard and would like to have more visuals when going through the process. . Councilman Shanks said that after being on the Planning Commission, felt it I would have been helpful if the Planning Commission received guidance from the City Council on their views regarding major changes this would save time if the change being considered is the direction the Council would approve; the two relatively large changes would be the administrative and conditional use permits and believes the other area would be elements on the height limits. Later stated that the AUP concept has merit and a movement in the right direction - Council needs to give direction that they agree with the concept. . Councilman Antos expressed that there is currently a property maintenance ordinance that can be modified to address the long term maintenance of landscape; the covered roof access (dog house) structure should be handled architecturally; and all additions should be architecturally tied in. Later added that he is in favor of the AUP concept and that the Commission should discuss in depth with staff at what level of comfort they would have as to what would be considered routine and what type of noticing should be given to Council and the Commission. . Commissioner O'Malley agreed with the increase of setbacks and landscaping that would help prevent flooding in Old Town; one of the biggest jobs for the Planning Commission would be to determine what should be under the AUP and what should be a CUP - would be helpful to know that Council would want this process; felt that the Planning Commission has always taken the public comments serious but has not been documented; inquired if there is a provision that would prohibit a new structure from I blocking solar panels/equipment on a neighboring property. Director's resoonse: nothing for the existing structures the provision recommended would generally allow the solar capability from new structures. . Mayor Larson realized that there cannot be any decision made at this time because there are substantial amount of changes that need to be considered; one area is the permit approval process (AUP vs. CUP) letting staff deal with minor approvals would allow the Planning Commission to deal with the more important issues; should allow this process to continue; stated that 2 books have influenced and guided him in this area: "The Zoning Game" and "The City Is The People". The Director stated that this is only a preliminary draft and will continue to work on the document; there will be another study session with the Planning Commission only; will need to prepare the environmental document for a 30 day public review period; the public hearings will start sometime in June; and then it will go to the City Council for public hearings. PUBLIC COMMENTS . Eldon Alexander, RHD 20 (8th Street), stated that the AUP is a good idea as long as there ,is an appeal process and a disclosure statement that says that they were notified that they could make an appeal if they did not like the results; suggested that staff keep statistics on the number of appeals and set a review period to determine if the process is working; and suggested that "adult business" on the list of AUP be a CUP instead - felt this is an area that should be treated like issuing an alcohol license. Comments regarding the floor area ratio (FAR): definition of FAR - the area permissible to build divided by the lot coverage; provided a comparison chart (on file) showing what he had calculated as to the current square footage allowed and what the proposed FAR would allow; had researched the use of FAR and found it is becoming more out of favor and stated that FAR should not be used, instead should stay with what is used currently (flexible zoning - lot coverage with I Page 13 - Joint Study Session - Zoning/Subdivision Codes I building heights and setbacks); indicated that he may have some miscalculations on the chart but would recommend that the use of FAR not be considered there are too many difficulties. The Director indicated that Mr. Alexander misunderstood the calculations at the bottom of the slide presentations - the pictures show the current homes and the FAR information would be for new construction projects. Mr. Alexander continued to state that the use of FAR would create a 40% reduction of use of property and this would create a majority of the homes in Old Town to be non-conforming and the Planning Commission would have more variances to consider. . Mike Buhbe, Central Way and chairman - Seal Beach for Two Stories, presented a position paper on behalf of the members of "Seal Beach for Two Stories" (on file); they believe this would be a meaningful compromise on the issue of third story residential development in Old Town; the goal of the compromise is to maintain the character of Old Town and equally important to the residents in Old Town is the general health and welfare; the proposed draft of the zoning code reminds everyone that it has to promote the general health of the community; concerned with the large incompatible buildings being built (e.g. one hundred block on 13th Street); creates shadows, blocks air flow, and invades neighbors privacy with the height; a meaningful compromise would be to never again allow such large incompatible building; the proposed changes in the zoning code goes part way towards a compromise and commend the staff for their work taken so far; after meeting with the Director the committee has come up with eight points to their compromise; the rationale for the compromises regarding the third story structures would minimize potential for illegal units and parking impact - eliminate blank wall effect on adjacent neighbors - minimize privacy impacts on adjacent properties - avoid canyon effect - preserve view corridors, breeze way, and open space for adjacent properties; and believes that if the residents in Old Town (the only area effected) had the opportunity to vote on this issue a vast majority would not allow any further three story buildings; the votes on the Council have disregarded the wishes of the vast majority of Old Town residents; stated that the compromise presented would reduce the size of a third story and lessens the impact on neighbors and maintains the character of Old Town and the owner of a lot eligible to build a third story can still do so and still end up with a house with thousands of square feet of living space; if additional space is needed a basement can be built; and finally stated that the terms of the meaningful compromise are not meant to be adjusted or negotiated - this is a complete document - they would be open to thinking that may produce other meaningful compromises. . Jim Croft, Hill area, inquired about the rear yard setbacks stating that there is a category of homes that do not have property facing their property in the rear yard (Gum Grove Park area) and should be exempt from this requirement. . Vic Grgas, 15th Street, read a letter submitted by Patrick Kearns, 15th Street, (on file) indicating his point of view to some of the changes in the proposed zoning and subdivision codes: no penalty on height elevation if the lot is above the flood zone; questioned Table 2.05.015 RHD-20 - number of square feet; parking in general and residents should observe Ordinance #948 "Use of Garages and Carports" ; and Table 4.20.020A.1 parking requirements - more off-street parking and deeper rear offsets from the alley to the garage door could be considered. Mr. Grgas recognized the passing of former Mayor Frank Laszlo. . Robert Goldberg, Seal Beach, commented that the charts and graphs presented are helpful in better understanding and clarify how the changes would effect the properties in the City (before and after); would need to study the impacts; and requested staff to provide photographs of what a 10,000 square foot home looks like compared to a 5,000 square foot home. . There were no other speakers. I I With no objections Mayor Larson called for a recess at 7:41 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Page 14 .. Joint Study Session - Zoning/Subdivision Codes Due to a prior commitment Councilman Ybaben excused himself from the meeting and left the chambers at 7:41 p.m. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council and Commission, to adjourn the meeting at 7:51 p.m. Adjourned the City Council to Monday, March 12, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. - Closed Session, if deemed necessary. Adjourned the Planning Commission to Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. I &/It;Ju ~0!1:/~~:' City lerk and ex-officio clerk of the City of Seal Beach Approved: G-+nt0!2..LN.s~ Mayor Attest: ~;hJ Jku;, City Clerk I I