Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2007-06-20 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda for June 20, 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. May 2007 Building Activity Report 2. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 23,2007. 3. RECEIVE AND FILE: "How Should California Grow?" - Western City Magazine. VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of June 20, 2007 VII. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Conditional Use Permit 06-2 (Indefinite Extension) 302 Main Street (Vino Voyage) Applicant/Owner: Randy Maddix & Lynne Siemsen / Henryk Warno Request: Indefinite extension of Conditional Use Permit 06-2 at an existing retail wine store that also offers private labeling of personal wines. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-37. 5. Height Variation 07-5 1309 Seal Way Applicant/Owner: Tim Francis / Steve & Tina Lis Request: To construct a Covered Roof Access Structures (CRAS) in excess of the 25-foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 9-ft. 6-in. by 3-ft. 11-in. staircase enclosure to exceed the height limit by approximately 4 ft. 8 in., where the maximum height variation is 7 feet. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-34. 6. Tentative Parcel Map 2007-145 450 Ocean Avenue Applicant/Owner: Patricia Joan Smissen Request: To subdivide an existing 14,702 square foot lot into two new parcels. Parcel one will consist of approximately 6,372 square feet of land area and Parcel 2 will consist of approximately 8,330 square feet of land area in the Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone of Planning District 2. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-39. 2 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of June 20, 2007 7. 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 5 ft. 0 in. The maximum height variation permitted is 7 feet. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-27. 8. Height Variation 07-3 233 - 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 5 ft. 0 in. The maximum height variation permitted is 7 feet. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-28. 9. Height Variation 07-4 235 - 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 5 ft. 0 in. The maximum height variation permitted is 7 feet. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-29. 3 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of June 20, 2007 VIII. STUDY SESSION 10. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning All Portions Except Chapter 2.0S Residential Districts IX. STAFF CONCERNS X. COMMISSION CONCERNS XI. ADJOURNMENT To July 18, 2007, at 7:30 P.M. 4 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 June 20, 2007 2007 Aaenda Forecast HOLl DAY - Meeting Cancelled Minor Plan Review 07-15 - 1101 Catalina Ave Minor Plan Review 07-16 - 970 Heron Circle Minor Plan Review 07-17 - 931 Heron Circle Minor Plan Review 07-18 - 1435 Crestview Ave Minor Plan Review 07-19 - 979 Heron Circle Height Variation 07-6 - 409 Ocean Avenue Study Session - Zoning Code Revisions for Residential Districts 5 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 Minutes of June 20, 2007 Chairperson Deaton called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 20, 2007. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1 ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Deaton, Commissioners Massa-Lavitt and Roberts. Also Present: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney Absent: Commissioner Bello Mr. Whittenberg stated that Commissioner Bello had indicated at the last meeting that she would be absent from tonight's meeting. He requested a motion to excuse her absence. MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to excuse Commissioner Bello from the Planning Commission meeting of June 20, 2007. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-0-1 Deaton, Massa-Lavitt and Roberts None Bello AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-0-1 Deaton, Massa-Lavitt and Roberts None Bello 1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting 1 of 24 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 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Deaton opened oral communications. Mike Bubbe, 412 Central Avenue, requested that the Planning Commission (PC) consider the possibility of conducting a Saturday study session for the new Zoning Code (ZC) revisions, as this would make it possible to have greater participation from the community. Commissioner Deaton asked the Director of Development Services if this had been discussed. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there had been no discussion. Mr. Bubbe then provided the web address for the organization Seal Beach for Two Stories as 2stories40ldtown.com for those interested in finding out more about this group. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed oral communications. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. May 2007 Building Activity Report 2. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 23,2007. 3. RECEIVE AND FILE: "How Should California Grow?" - Western City Magazine. MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Roberts to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-0-1 Deaton, Massa-Lavitt and Roberts None Bello SCHEDULED MATTERS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Conditional Use Permit 06-2 (Indefinite Extension) 302 Main Street (Vino Voyage) Applicant/Owner: Request: Randy Maddix & Lynne Siemsen / Henryk Warno Indefinite extension of Conditional Use Permit 06-2 at an existing retail wine store that also offers private labeling of personal wines. 20f24 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 1 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 2 07-37. 3 4 Staff Report 5 6 Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning 7 Department.) He provided some background information on this item and noted that this 8 business has been operating under the current Conditional Use Permit (CUP) since 9 approximately January 2006, and pursuant to the conditions of approval the applicant 10 has come before the Planning Commission (PC) to request an indefinite extension of 11 this CUP. He indicated that Lt. Tim Olson, of the Seal Beach Police Department 12 (SBPD) had reviewed the original application in January 2006, and at that time had no 13 concerns regarding the issuance of the CUP. He noted that a follow-up call in June 14 2007 revealed that SBPD has had no unusual or excessive calls for service regarding 15 this business and has no objections to the indefinite extension of CUP 06-2. Mr. Olivera 16 then stated that Staff received no comments for or against this request, and is 17 recommending approval as conditioned. 18 19 Commissioner Questions 20 21 Chairperson Deaton asked if the Winegrowers License allows the sale of wine by the 22 glass. Mr. Olivera stated that it does allow this. 23 24 Commissioner Roberts asked about the status of in-lieu parking fees for Vino Voyage. 25 Mr. Olivera stated that in checking with the Finance Department, he was told that Vino 26 Voyage has not yet paid its in-lieu fees. He noted that approval of an indefinite 27 extension of CUP 06-2 would be conditioned upon the payment of these fees. Mr. 28 Whittenberg added that Finance had never received notice from the Planning 29 Department regarding the in-lieu fees due from Vino Voyage and had not provided them 30 an invoice for payment of fees. 31 32 Public Hearinq 33 34 Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing. 35 36 Randy Maddix, co-owner, stated that of Vino Voyage has added a nice, upscale image 37 to Main Street, and he requested that the PC approve the Indefinite Extension of CUP 38 06-2. Commissioner Roberts inquired about the in-lieu parking fees. Mr. Maddix stated 39 that the fees would be paid in full by the end of the week. Chairperson Deaton inquired 40 about an A-frame sign advertising wine by the glass. She asked if this was to become 41 the focus of the business, rather than wine tasting. Mr. Maddix stated that they do offer 42 wine by the glass, but this is still as a wine tasting. Commissioner Roberts asked that 43 Mr. Maddix provide the public more information with regard to the changes in the 44 business. Mr. Maddix stated that the business had originally started as Vintner's Cellar, 45 and he recently joined as a new partner and they decided to rename the business, 46 change the menu of wine samplings, and improve the image inside the store. 3 of 24 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 June 20, 2007 Commissioner Roberts asked if they still make wine. Mr. Maddix stated that they were originally making 22-25 varieties of wine, but now are making only 6-7 kinds. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments None. MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to approve the Indefinite Extension of Conditional Use Permit 06-2, subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution 07-37 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-0-1 Deaton, Massa-Lavitt and Roberts None Bello Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 07-37 begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 5. Height Variation 07-5 1309 Seal Way Applicant/Owner: Req uest: Tim Francis / Steve & Tina Lis To construct a Covered Roof Access Structures (CRAS) in excess of the 25-foot height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes to construct a 9-ft. 6-in. by 3-ft. 11-in. staircase enclosure to exceed the allowable 7 -foot height limit by approximately 4 ft. 8 in. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-34. Staff Report Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is onfilefor inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and noted that the property is approximately 30 feet wide, and is limited to a 25-foot maximum height unless a Height Variation (HV) is granted. He stated the applicant is proposing an approximately 37 -square foot stairway enclosure to be located approximately 26 feet back from the front of the structure, and approximately 3 feet 6 inches from the west side of the property. He indicated that based on the size and layout of the proposed project and the project's compliance with City Code, Staff is recommending approval. 40f24 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 1 He then noted that Staff has received 2 phone calls, 1 FAX transmission, 2 letters, 2 2 e-mails, and a petition signed by 29 neighbors living on either Seal Way or Ocean 3 Avenue, stating their opposition in response to the public notices. 4 5 Commissioner Questions 6 7 Chairperson Deaton asked that Staff explain the difference between a Height Variation 8 and a Variance. Mr. Abbe stated that a Variance is something that can only be allowed 9 when there is some special feature about the property, such as a when a lot is very 10 steep and the setback requirements may prevent construction of a home on the 11 property. He noted that a Variance is granted when there is a departure from the 12 Municipal Code, but they must be granted very sparingly and cannot constitute a special 13 privilege. He emphasized that Variances can only be granted in very limited 14 circumstances. Mr. Abbe then explained that a Height Variation (HV) provides an extra 15 level of review for architectural features that would exceed the maximum height limit, if 16 the PC grants an additional architectural review. He noted that the findings for an HV 17 would be: 18 19 1. Would this significantly impair the view of any property within 300 feet, 20 2. Is it appropriate for the character and integrity of the neighborhood? 21 3. Is the architectural style consistent with the structure? 22 23 Public HearinQ 24 25 Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing. 26 27 Tim Francis, Huntington Beach, stated that he had prepared the plans for this project 28 and they believe that the CRAS has been centered to be as unintrusive as possible to 29 any of the surrounding neighbors. He stated that this request is also based upon other 30 CRAS on surrounding homes within the neighborhood. Commissioner Roberts asked if 31 any of the skylights are higher than the 25-foot limit. Mr. Francis responded that they 32 should not be any higher. Commissioner Roberts stated that in looking at the plans it 33 appears that the rectangular skylight that lies in the center of the building protrudes 34 above the railing by approximately 3-5 inches. Mr. Francis stated future drawings would 35 show that this has been corrected. 36 37 Steve and Bernadette Meltzer, 1308 Ocean Avenue, spoke in opposition to this 38 proposal, and provided photos showing how CRAS do impact neighboring views. He 39 presented photos of 1309 and 1307 Seal Way, which was constructed after he had 40 moved into his home. The photo of 1307 Seal Way shows how that CRAS has 41 obstructed the view from his home. He then read his letter to the PC and recommended 42 that this CRAS be constructed in such as way as to prevent any obstruction of ocean 43 views for surrounding neighbors. (Letter and photos are on file for inspection in the Planning 44 Department.) He emphasized that height limits are important within this high density 45 area. Commissioner Roberts asked if Staff had any data on the CRAS at 1307 Seal 46 Way. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the CRAS was built in 1992 when the City was going 50f24 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 1 through the process of developing standards for these structures. He noted that this 2 type of structure would not be allowed under the today's standards. Commissioner 3 Massa-Lavitt stated that it appears that the mere construction of an addition onto this 4 house would obliterate all of the ocean view from 1308 Ocean Avenue, but a 25-foot 5 high house would pretty much obliterate the view anyway. Mr. Whittenberg noted that 6 at this time the purpose is for the public to address the PC and express their concerns. 7 Mr. Meltzer stated that the CRAS on 1307 Seal Way was constructed parallel to the 8 beach, which shows that allowing these CRAS does substantially impact ocean views 9 for surrounding homes. He encouraged the PC to find a way of allowing these 10 structures without obstructing views. 11 12 James Shoemaker, 4296 Guava Avenue, stated that he owns the property at 1210 13 Ocean Avenue and spoke in favor of creating stricter standards for residential 14 development, noting that he does not want to see Seal Beach look like Surfside. He 15 commended Mr. Whittenberg for doing an excellent job. 16 17 Jim Wolfelt, 238 16th Street, stated that he has lived in Seal Beach since 1982, and is 18 very concerned about the height of all of the new buildings going up around his home 19 and encouraged the PC to control the height of buildings in town. 20 21 Robert Beck, 1310 Ocean Avenue, stated that he owns a duplex located behind the 22 1309 Ocean Avenue property, and has future plans to construct a single-family 23 residence (SFR) on this site. He said that as a former Planning Commissioner and 24 Council Member in the City of Palos Verdes, he understands that in many cases when a 25 project conforms to the Code in all aspects, the PC is powerless to do anything about 26 specific proposals. He encouraged the PC to look at the project's east elevation, which 27 faces his property and noted that what concerns him are other structures that would 28 also exceed the 25-foot height limit, like the chimneys, and encouraged lowering the 29 height. 30 31 Jack and JoAnn Bettenhausen, 1311 Seal Way, stated that currently there are only two 32 CRAS on the 1300 block of Seal Way and one on the block behind their home, and if 33 another is constructed next door, they will lose more of their view, and every approval is 34 a precedent for the next CRAS. Ms. Bettenhausen indicated that the 1200 block of Seal 35 Way has only one large rooftop structure, with the remainder made up of small beach 36 houses and duplexes. She encouraged the PC to limit the number of CRAS allowed. 37 Ms. Bettenhausen then stated that she wished to address the massiveness of this 38 structure, but the Director of Development Services advised that she needed to limit her 39 comments to the issue of the CRAS, as the design of the house does meet ZC 40 standards, and those portions that do not will be addressed during the Plan Check 41 Review process. Ms. Bettenhausen then stated that there are many needless additions 42 and appendages to the top of the roof as well as the CRAS, which will also block views 43 and bring a new skyline to the view of the beach. She indicated that skylights and the 44 windows in the CRAS could create a problem with excessive light at night and she 45 requested that windows not be allowed ir:l the CRAS, especially on the north side. 46 6 of 24 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 1 spoke in opposition to CRAS and stated that it is sad to see what can 2 happen when there is no regard for all residents of a neighborhood, and there is nothing 3 that can be done about it. 4 5 Teo Albers, 1307% Seal Way, stated that he purchased the home in 1997 just as it is 6 now. He noted that aside from the CRAS, there will be two 6-foot wide chimneys on the 7 roof, and he expressed his concerns about allowing the CRAS and two chimneys. He 8 stated that this would also block the view from his home and he would like to see one of 9 the chimneys or the CRAS eliminated. 10 11 Steve Lis, owner of 1309 Seal Way, provided photographs of homes in the area to the 12 PC. He stated that the maximum visual impact of the CRAS would actually be 13 approximately 3 feet. He noted that they had attempted to align the CRAS with the 14 chimney so that the chimney would obscure the CRAS and vice versa. Chairperson 15 Deaton asked why Mr. Lis wanted the CRAS. He stated that it was so that they could 16 get up to the roof area and this near the beach area there is a lot of moisture, 17 particularly in the morning. He noted that the CRAS would prevent moisture on the 18 stairway to the roof and eliminate the possibility of an accident. Chairperson Deaton 19 asked if the CRAS would be facing south. Mr. Lis stated that it faces east and west. He 20 then proceeded to review the photographs and noted that the CRAS for his home would 21 be smaller than those on surrounding homes. Commissioner Roberts referred to the 22 north elevation and noted that the fireplace and CRAS on the rear portion of the 23 property and the dual fireplace in the front would block about 50 percent of the width of 24 the house. He asked if Mr. Lis has looked at alternate designs that would better align 25 these three structures. Mr. Lis stated that he had not looked at alternate designs. 26 Commissioner Roberts stated that he does want to grant this CRAS as it appears that 27 the designer has attempted to limit the size as much as possible; however, the 28 combination of all of the structures on the roof makes the choice troublesome. Mr. Lis 29 asked if making the rear fireplace smaller would help. Commissioner Roberts stated 30 that this would be a step in the right direction. Mr. Lis stated that he would be willing to 31 work with the Planning Department in attempting to create an alternate design. 32 33 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public 34 hearing. 35 36 Commissioner Comments 37 38 Commissioner Deaton stated that in her 5 years on the Planning Commission (PC) one 39 of the main things that the PC has used as criteria for granting or not granting a Height 40 Variation (HV) has depended entirely on whether or not the neighbors were in 41 concurrence. She indicated that the Commission must decide when a CRAS is 42 appropriate and when it is not. 43 44 Mr. Whittenberg explained that under the Building Code requirements fireplaces are 45 required by law to be at least 2 feet higher than any portion of the roof within 10 feet of 46 the outside diameter of the fireplace itself, and the City does not have a limitation on the 70f24 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 June 20, 2007 height of fireplaces. He then explained that Building Code also has a minimum required flue area and in many cases in two story homes, the flue for a first and second story room will be combined and this would then increase the width of a chimney. He noted that the PC could consider imposing a condition that states that fireplaces must be the minimum size required to meet Building Code. He stated that whether or not this would result in a reduction of the size of what appears on the plans would be determined during Plan Check. Chairperson Deaton stated that she is very uncomfortable with going against what the neighborhood wants, and believes that people living within an area should be able to determine these issues. She noted that with all of the people who have voiced their objection to this, she feels that as the representative for Old Town, she needs to listen to what they have said. Commissioner Roberts stated that he would like to see some mediation to see if these structures can be brought down to a reasonable height, as he is not convinced that the objections aired tonight are for the right reasons. He recommended that the architect spend some time with the Planning Department to look at alternate designs. Chairperson Deaton stated that she fears that continuing this item will only serve to cause more division in the neighborhood, but should the Commission desire to continue this item she would support that decision. She said that she does not believe that anyone needs a CRAS. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that she believes that this has provided a good opportunity for the neighbors to be in another environment in discussing possible solutions. She indicated that it sounds like the neighbors and the property owner might be able to come to agreement if they know that there will be an agreeable solution. She said that given the opportunity to work with Planning and with one another in coming up with a solution that creates less impact, perhaps the PC should facilitate this. MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to continue Height Variation 07-5 to the Planning Commission meeting of July 18, 2007, to allow applicant to meet with Staff to review alternative designs for the roof structures at 1309 Seal Way. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-0-1 Deaton, Massa-Lavitt and Roberts None Bello Mr. Whittenberg indicated that there would be no additional public notice given of the continuance of this matter. Mr. Abbe requested a motion to re-open the public hearing. MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Roberts to re-open the public hearing for Height Variation 07-5. 8 of 24 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 June 20, 2007 MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-0-1 Deaton, Massa-Lavitt and Roberts None Bello 6. Tentative Parcel Map 2007-145 450 Ocean Avenue Applicant/Owner: Request: Patricia Joan Smissen To subdivide an existing 14,702 square foot lot into two new parcels. Parcel 1 will consist of approximately 6,372 square feet of land area and Parcel 2 will consist of approximately 8,330 square feet of land area in the Residential Low Density (RLD) Zone of Planning District 2. Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 07-39. Staff Report Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item noting that the minimum size lot for the RLD Zone is 5,000 square feet. He stated that while the newly subdivided lots do not meet the minimum standard with regard to lot width, the City has historically allowed lot subdivisions within the Old Town area that conform to the original underlying lot subdivision dimensions. He indicated that the proposed subdivision does conform to this standard and is allowed by the City. Mr. Olivera then stated that Staff had received no comments regarding this application and recommends approval of this request, subject to conditions. Chairperson Deaton asked what the standard lot width is. Mr. Olivera stated that within the RLD Zone the standard lot width is 50 feet. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt inquired about corner lots. Mr. Olivera responded that for corner lots it is 55 feet. Mr. Whittenberg explained that when buildings on properties that have had units constructed across the original subdivision lines are demolished, the City historically has allowed the property to revert to the underlying parcels as created on the original tract maps. He cited the former site of the Seal Beach Inn & Gardens at Sth Street and Central Avenue, which was recently demolished and six new homes have been constructed on the six original 2S-foot wide lots. He continued by noting that the original subdivision for 4S0 Ocean Avenue was comprised of a 42.S-foot wide corner lot and a number of 2S-foot interior lots, and somewhere along the way, the owners of adjoining properties had transferred a 7.5-foot piece from one of the original lots and incorporated it into the current property. With this subdivision Staff would have allowed to revert to the 42.5-foot and 25-foot lots, but this would have left the 7.5-foot wide lot, so the parcel maps combine the 25-foot lots with the 7.5-foot addition. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked why a tentative parcel map is needed if the original lot lines are still in existence. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the map is needed to combine them into one lot, as they are also subdivided by a sewer easement. Chairperson Deaton asked if 90f24 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 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 the structures that are constructed on these lots would then be legal nonconforming. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the new structures would have to meet current setback standards for the zone based upon the lot widths. Public Hearinq Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing. Tricia Smissen stated that Mr. Whittenberg had adequately covered all of the information. She recommended approval of her application. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Roberts referred to Page 3, Item 7, of Resolution 07-39 and asked for a definition of off-site improvements. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this refers to public right-of way improvements like street trees, curb gutter repair work, etc. MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to approve Tentative Parcel Map 2007- 145, subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution 07-39 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-0-1 Deaton, Massa-Lavitt and Roberts None Bello Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 07-39 begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. Chairperson Deaton asked if Items 7, 8, & 9 could be heard as a group. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the hearing for all of these items could be combined for the Staff presentation, questions from the Commission, and public comments, but when voting, separate motions should be made for each of these items. 7. Height Variation 07-2 231 - 15th Street App licant/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 10 of 24 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 1 exceed the height limit by 5 ft. 0 in. The maximum height 2 variation permitted is 7 feet. 3 4 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 5 07-27. 6 7 8. Height Variation 07-3 8 233 - 15th Street 9 10 Applicant/Owner: Eric Smith, Martha Bock & George Brown 11 12 Request: To construct a non-habitable architectural feature in excess 13 of the 25-ft. height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes 14 to construct an 8-ft. 4-in. by 4-ft. 4-in. elevator enclosure to 15 exceed the height limit by 5 ft. 0 in. The maximum height 16 variation permitted is 7 feet. 17 18 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 19 07-28. 20 21 9. Height Variation 07-4 22 233 - 15th Street 23 24 Applicant/Owner: Eric Smith, Martha Bock & George Brown 25 26 Request: To construct a non-habitable architectural feature in excess 27 of the 25-ft. height limit. Specifically, the applicant proposes 28 to construct an 8-ft. 4-in. by 4-ft. 4-in. elevator enclosure to 29 exceed the height limit by 5 ft. 0 in. The maximum height 30 variation permitted is 7 feet. 31 32 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 33 07-29. 34 35 Staff Report 36 37 Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning 38 Department.) He provided some background information on this item noting that the 39 application was originally heard at the Planning Commission (PC) meeting of May 9, 40 2007, at which time Staff had recommended a reduced enclosure size that would 41 eliminate unnecessary square footage. He noted that the PC did not take action at that 42 meeting, but recommended that Staff meet with the applicants to determine an 43 alternative configuration. After meeting on May 14, 2007, both parties agreed to a plan 44 that would reduce the exterior walls of the elevator enclosure, but retain the roof 45 structure for protection of the elevator door and shaft from the elements. In redesigning 46 the structure the applicant determined that an additional 1 foot of height would be 11 of 24 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 1 required to contain the mechanical elevator equipment within the roof structure of the 2 enclosure, which required that the project be re-noticed and postponed to tonight's 3 meeting. Mr. Olivera stated that Staff has reviewed the application and plans and finds 4 that the project is in compliance with City standards. He indicated that the applicant is 5 now proposing an approximately 32-square foot elevator enclosure to be located at the 6 north side of the building with the roof structure flush with the north building wall and the 7 enclosure door set back approximately 3 feet 6 inches from the north building wall, 8 approximately 20 feet 7 inches from the front of the building, 10 feet 6 inches from the 9 south building wall, and 56 feet 7 inches from the rear building wall on each respective 10 building. Based upon this revision and the projects compliance with City Code, Staff 11 recommends approval of Height Variation 07-2, 07-3, and 07-4, subject to conditions. 12 Mr. Olivera stated that Staff had received 5 letters and 1 telephone call in opposition to 13 this project. 14 15 Commissioner Questions 16 17 Commissioner Roberts confirmed that the changes reflect that the roof structure has 18 increased in height. Mr. Olivera confirmed that it has increased one foot in height, the 19 building wall originally flush with the north wall has been eliminated, and there will be 20 two pilaster post structures that will support the roof structure. Commissioner Roberts 21 asked if there would now be a breezeway rather than a solid wall. Mr. Olivera 22 confirmed that this was correct. 23 24 Public Hearinq 25 26 Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing. 27 28 Eric Smith, 233 15th Street, thanked the Commission and Staff for discussing the project 29 to get a visual perspective on it. He stated that he and his wife are approaching 30 retirement and want to be able to live in this home and have roof access. He said when 31 originally designing the homes they were unable to find the design they wanted, but 32 later found an elevator design that would work and would fit into the structures they had. 33 He ended by requesting approval of Height Variation 07-2,07-3, and 07-4. 34 35 Marcia Katz stated that she is very concerned about doghouses and these in particular, 36 as they will not only cut out light, but would look jagged and take away from the small 37 town atmosphere of the community. She noted that the size of these doghouses is 38 about the same as the CRAS for 1309 Seal Way. She asked that the PC work with 39 property owners to prevent this from continuing. She stated that the homes already 40 have stair access to the roof and do not need elevators. She recommended denial. 41 42 Allen Katz stated that this property was formerly two 37.5-foot lots. He indicated that he 43 is not certain, but probably these had originally been three 25-foot lots with single story 44 homes on them, as there were fewer two story homes and fewer doghouses back then. 45 Now with three lots with doghouses on each home, you have the added height and 46 increased density. He asked if Staff had a count of the number of houses in Old Town 12 of 24 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 1 with elevators for roof access. He also noted that the homes already have stair access 2 to the roof and do not need elevators. 3 4 Jim Wolfelt spoke in opposition to this project stating that the increased elevation and 5 doghouse are setting a very bad precedent, and he would not want these homes next to 6 his He stated that this will set a precedent for future development and soon there will 7 be elevators on three-story homes, adding even more height. 8 9 Arlene Rees, 227 15th Street, spoke in opposition stating that when constructing the 10 CRAS on her home, she was told that it had to be located on the rear portion of the 11 home, and if these elevators were located on the rear of this property she would have 12 no objection to this. She stated that homes should be constructed in conformance with 13 City Code. She noted that George Brown is an experienced builder and is aware of 14 Building Codes, so she cannot understand why this project has been presented with this 15 design. She encouraged consideration for the neighbors. 16 17 Joyce Parque stated that two homes on Ocean Avenue have already received approval 18 for elevators, as well as one home on The Hill. She referred to this as "select 19 enforcement" and "select approval." She said that approvals or denials should be 20 consistent, and the reason for an HV is so that people can come and ask for a HV. 21 22 Lee Melody, 236 15th Street, stated that he has a front porch and his home sits on a 23 37.5-ft. lot and the house on the left of the new construction is also a 37.5-ft. lot and the 24 home is three stories high and covers the entire lot. He continued by stating that Mr. & 25 Mrs. Katz built a three-story home on a 37.5-ft. lot. He said that he had spoken to the 26 owners of 231,233, & 235 15th Street and asked if the doghouse would be visible from 27 his home. He was told that the doghouse would be at the rear of the home and would 28 not be visible. Mr. Melody stated that there should be elevators in any home for which 29 roof access is allowed. He noted that he does not like CRAS, or three stories on 37.5-ft. 30 lots, but they are allowed. He stated that no one's view will be affected by these CRAS 31 and he recommended approval as the population in Seal Beach is aging and elevators 32 are needed. 33 34 George Brown stated that he had circulated a petition acquiring 42 signatures in support 35 of this project. 36 37 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public 38 hearing. 39 40 Commissioner Comments 41 42 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated if the elevation drawings are accurate the CRAS 43 appear to be at the front of the building and look to be very obtrusive and impactive and 44 they could be minimized even more. She then noted that if the elevation drawings are 45 inaccurate and the CRAS are pushed back 40 feet from the front edge of the roof then 46 they should not appear like this on the elevation drawings. She said that this is 13 of 24 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 1 misleading. Mr. Olivera stated that according to the plans submitted the CRAS are 2 setback approximately 20 feet 7 inches from the front wall. He added that the elevation 3 drawings do not accurately reflect what would be seen from the street level or public 4 right-of way. Mr. Whittenberg added that the location of the CRAS has not changed, but 5 the previous plan had solid doors at the exit from the elevator to the roof and a solid wall 6 around to the north wall of the house straight up to the roof cover area. He explained 7 that now the proposal is just to enclose the elevator shaft with a solid structure and the 8 stairway landing would have a covered roof area with posts supporting it and no solid 9 walls. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt noted that based on photos previously presented, it 10 appears that there are already a lot of doghouses in this area. Mr. Whittenberg 11 confirmed that there are many doghouses in this area of town. 12 13 Chairperson Deaton stated that the PC needs to look at the issue of CRAS. She said 14 that she would like to get rid of HVs altogether, or set criteria for or against them. She 15 indicated that when dealing with an elevator, this must be looked at differently. She 16 said she does not see why a CRAS would be needed for a stairway, but she does see 17 how this would be needed to cover an elevator. She stated that she had visited the 18 property and there is no yard, so the roof deck would be the only yard. She added that 19 she believes the City will be faced with the need for elevators in the near future. She 20 stated she does not want to be selectively approving or disapproving these applications, 21 and standards are needed. 22 23 Commissioner Roberts inquired about the statement made that CRAS are required to 24 be on the rear portion of the property. Mr. Whittenberg stated that during his tenure with 25 the City this standard has not applied to the approval of a CRAS, and before that there 26 were no standards at all for these structures; this is why there are some very large 27 doghouses in town. Chairperson Deaton noted that the large doghouses are no longer 28 allowed, and there are now excellent standards on how to construct a CRAS. Mr. 29 Whittenberg added that the current standards for covered roof access stairways, are 30 strictly for these stairways, and other things like an elevator enclosure technically are 31 not subject to the same size limitations for CRAS. He noted that Staff does use these 32 as a guideline, as generally they are for the same type of purpose. He emphasized that 33 the PC has the discretion to approve or deny an application for an HV. Commissioner 34 Roberts stated that both GRAS and elevators need to be addressed in Chapter 2.05 of 35 the Zoning Code (ZC), but this proposal has been in the pipeline and he does not 36 believe that the PC should deny this request predicated on a future discussion. He said 37 he would vote to approve. 38 39 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked why the height of the CRAS had increased 1 foot. 40 Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was due to the mechanical equipment requirements for 41 this type of elevator that operates off of a vacuum system. 42 43 MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to approve Height Variation 07-2, 44 subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution 07-27 as presented. 45 46 MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 0 - 1 14 of 24 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 June 20, 2007 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Deaton, Massa-Lavitt and Roberts None Bello MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to approve Height Variation 07-3, subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution 07-28 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-0-1 Deaton, Massa-Lavitt and Roberts None Bello MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to approve Height Variation 07-4, subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution 07-29 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-0-1 Deaton, Massa-Lavitt and Roberts None Bello Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution Nos. 07-27, 07-28, and 07-29 begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. Mr. Whittenberg then encouraged members of the public to attend the next scheduled study session on the ZC revisions on Wednesday, July 18, 2007. Commissioner Roberts requested that discussion be held on the proposed Saturday study session. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would have to be scheduled as a discussion item on the agenda for the next meeting. Mr. Abbe stated that a special meeting could be scheduled. Commissioner Roberts stated that he would like to do this. Mr. Whittenberg noted that there are two Commissioners absent and it would be best to wait until July 18th when everyone is present. At 9:15 p.m. Mr. Whittenberg requested a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. STUDY SESSION 10. Study Session: Preliminary Draft - Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning All Portions Except Chapter 2.05 Residential Districts Mr. Whittenberg introduced Steven Flower from Richards, Watson & Gershon (RWG) to continue a presentation on the ability to require underground equipment boxes and panels for telecommunications facilities. 15 of 24 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 1 Steven Flower stated that with regard to under grounding wireless antenna facilities, this 2 can be required with a caveat, noting that the concern is the Federal 3 Telecommunications Act (FTA), which is a federal law that broadly preempts the area of 4 wireless facility regulation. He indicated that the City does have a reservoir of zoning 5 authority that it can draw upon to regulate wireless facilities, so long as it meets certain 6 conditions, as follows: 7 8 1. City standards cannot prevent wireless service providers from providing services 9 within a given area; 10 2. The City cannot discriminate between service providers. 11 12 Mr. Flower stated that as long as these conditions are generally met, the City can set 13 forth standards such as those for under grounding. He continued by saying that 14 standards for separation and distance requirements between facilities and maximum 15 height limits can be implemented, as long as they do not prevent the provision of 16 services in a given area. Commissioner Roberts asked if all of these caveats pertain to 17 both dish and pole antennas. Mr. Flower stated that he is not absolutely clear on the 18 technical issues with regard to the difference between these two types of equipment, 19 but from a legal standpoint it only matters whether or not these types of facilities would 20 affect the ability of a provider to cover a specific area. Commissioner Roberts stated 21 that he asked because at the previous discussion it appeared that there was some 22 differentiation between a dish and a pole. Mr. Whittenberg explained that there are 23 some specific limitations on the ability of cities to control dish antennae less than a 24 certain diameter in size. He said he believed the diameter is 39 inches, but Staff would 25 confirm this and provide the current court decisions on this issue. He cautioned that 26 court decisions s are always changing what a city can or cannot do. Mr. Flower stated 27 that he was under the impression that the PC was more concerned with wireless 28 facilities rather than dish antennae. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that the PC is 29 more concerned with wireless facilities, rather than with Direct TV dishes or antennae. 30 Mr. Flower stated that in terms of the FTA it would be important to be very specific 31 about when requirements would not apply. He noted that language in the proposed 32 ordinance states that the Director of Development Services or the PC can waive a 33 requirement if it would require non-compliance with federal state law. He recommended 34 including language that states "it would be waived" or "it shall be waived" if this would 35 prevent the provider from operating the service in a given area. He cautioned that this 36 would not mean that there would have to be blanket coverage citywide, but there could 37 be "dead zones." Chairperson Deaton asked how dead zones are determined. Mr. 38 Flower stated that this is a technical question, but the service provider would have to 39 make a showing that there is a gap in coverage. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the City 40 has several tower installations on City property, noting that currently there are three 41 different service provider antennas on the City Hall clock tower. He explained that when 42 a provider requests the ability to locate, certain technical documents must be provided 43 to Staff showing that the area is one that is underserved, and how broad an area the 44 new service will cover. He indicated that there are also several towers adjacent to the 45 City water reservoir along the 1-405 Freeway and at the Seal Beach Tennis Center 46 facility. Mr. Flower added that the proposed ordinance is written to require similar 16 of 24 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 1 submittals for facilities located off of City property. He then stated that based upon a 2 recent court decision on Sprint vs. The County of San Diego, the 9th circuit court 3 invalidated the County's wireless ordinance on a provision that had not previously been 4 utilized in court cases, which stated that the County of San Diego ordinance vested too 5 much discretion in their decision makers with regard to camouflaging, consistency with 6 community character, and visual impact. He noted that these are standard for city 7 zoning practices and many cities have wireless ordinances that vest this kind of 8 discretion in their decision makers. He said that Seal Beach is taking a conservative 9 approach and is looking at where discretion for decision makers can be "tightened." He 10 noted that the Sprint decision is to be reviewed by a wider panel and the County of San 11 Diego has advised that they intend to petition for Supreme Court Review, and RWG will 12 keep Staff informed of any new developments in this case. He recommended looking at 13 the ordinance now to ensure that these facilities are compatible with neighborhoods, 14 while at the same time reigning in discretion as much as possible to avoid any 15 problems. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if this decision addressed the location of 16 facilities in the public right-of way rather than on private property. Mr. Flower stated that 17 there is a parallel case coming up in the state courts that deals with the right-of way 18 provisions under state law. He noted that the proposed wireless ordinance for Seal 19 Beach is much broader, as it covers private property as well as the public right-of way. 20 Mr. Whittenberg added that the issue of land use control continually evolves as court 21 decisions are made, so changes to the ordinance may be necessary at the time it is 22 presented at public hearings. 23 24 Mr. Whittenberg then continued the Study Session by stating that tonight the PC will 25 focus on the new recommendations for the proposed Commercialllndustrial/Open 26 Space standards. He presented the table entitled "2007 ZONING CODE REVISION, 27 Proposes Use Permit Review Changes" for viewing during the discussion. He then 28 began the discussion by reviewing the following items. 29 30 Buildina Heiahts: No changes are proposed for current building heights. There are 31 height and story limitations for some zones and others have none because this is the 32 way the Code has been written over the years. Staff is proposing creating another table 33 for all of the separate standards that now exist in each of the City zoning categories. 34 35 Buildina Setbacks: Additional standards are to be proposed for properties within the 36 LC/RMD Zone along Seal Beach Boulevard (SBB) between Electric Avenue and Pacific 37 Coast Highway (PCH), for the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone, and the 38 Professional Office (PO) Zone (currently there are no properties within this 39 classification). Staff recommends a "build to line" requirement to prevent parking at the 40 front of a commercial building. Commissioner Roberts asked if the property line begins 41 at the interior edge of the sidewalk. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is generally true for 42 commercial buildings, but it is not always the case for residences. He noted that this is 43 being proposed for areas that are primarily pedestrian-oriented retail areas, such as 44 along Main Street. Chairperson Deaton noted that at the joint study sessions Mayor 45 Larson had commented on women not wanting to have to walk through an alley or 46 around and behind a building after parking or to return to their car. Mr. Whittenberg 17 of 24 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 June 20, 2007 stated that today most business operations will have some sort of entry from the parking lot at the rear of the building. Chairperson Deaton then inquired about the PO District. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the Professional Office (PO) Zone is on the books, but currently no property in town falls under this designation. He noted that at one point in time a portion of the Bixby Office Park Development, north of the 1-405 Freeway, was in a PO Zone and another in the Light Manufacturing (M-1) Zone, but in the mid-1980's the City adopted an overlying specific plan that allowed the current office park. He indicated that Staff wants to keep this designation, as there is potential for its use in the future. He added that retail uses would not be allowed within the PO Zone. The Director of Development Services then referred the Commissioners to the items listed on Page 3 of the May 9, 2007, Staff Report and to the Preliminary Draft of the Title 11 Zoning Code, Part II, Base District Regulations, Sections 2.10.015.D through 2.10.015.R - Development Standards - Commercial and Mixed Use Districts for a review of recommendations for the following items: o Minimum Yard Requirements: Building Transition Zone Acijacent to Residential Districts- page 23-24; Discussion: This would apply to transition areas between a commercial and residential zone. This usually occurs along Main Street and in the LC/RMD area adjacent to SBB, south of PCH. These standards attempt to prevent the mass of commercial buildings from casting shadows across residences, and to provide light and air circulation. Staff presented graphics on how this would look noting that the graphics are illustrative and not technically correct, but are to be revised with exact dimensions. (Presentation is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) In most cases this occurs across an alley where you get a rear property line for residential across from a commercial property line as with the townhomes behind the Rossmoor Shopping Center. o Public Open Space - page 25; Discussion: For new commercial buildings over 25,000 square feet in area Staff is recommending that they include a public gathering place such as an outside patio area or courtyard measuring 25 square feet/1, 000 square feet of retail building area. This has been incorporated at the new Shops at Rossmoor, which will have courtyards, an outdoor fire pit, and fountains with seating around. This would be required for new retail only. 18 of 24 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 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 o Limitations on Location of Parking - page 25; Discussion: For the LC, PO, and MSSP zones above-ground parking cannot be located within 40 feet of a street. This would apply to parking structures and there would be some exceptions through the Administrative Use Permit (AUP) process and would provide a 300-foot notice. o Limitations on Curb Cuts - page 25-25 Discussion: Would be applied to commercial and retail centers to reduce impacts on traffic flow. o Limitations on Location of Truck Docks; Loading and Service Areas - page 27; Discussion: Staff has already received direction from the Planning Commission (PC) on how this is to be handled. o Building Design Features - pages 27-32; Discussion: No existing standards within the Code. Recommend a variety of wall planes as well as roof designs to get away from a long length of a flat, square building fac;ade on the street side or parking lot side. The new CVS Store reflects this with a complete roof all around the building. Commissioner Roberts asked if the City had any control on the color of buildings. Staff stated the City has none, noting that this is a very subjective issue. Mr. Abbe stated that he has not seen an ordinance that specifically regulates color. With regard to building design Staff proposes architectural detail for the street fac;ade of buildings. Photos with examples of design variety were displayed. o Blank Walls - pages 32-33; Discussion: Recommend limiting the length of blank walls to a specific percentage of the building, with the remainder incorporating design standards as discussed above. Chairperson Deaton commented that the new Daily Grind will have nothing but a blank wall facing Pacific Coast Hwy. Mr. Whittenberg stated that currently there are no provisions for this, and noted that this is a very small building. Staff will check the plans to determine whether the wall will be blank. o Building Orientation - page 33; Discussion: Recommendation is that the primary entrance of buildings face a public street. There is a provision for an AUP to receive a waiver from this requirement, if necessary. Emphasis would be on preventing 19 of 24 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 June 20, 2007 back walls from facing the street and would also include requirements for providing landscaping or other design features to help soften the effect. o Ground Floor Requirements - pages 33-34; Discussion: Suggest standards for the type of building materials and designs to be used for ground floor areas to create better articulation, greater detail, more use of window and door recesses, etc. This would apply to all commercial zones. o Building Transparency - page 34; Discussion: Within an area between 2 and 6 feet above grade, a specific percentage of the building must be open to public view. This will also help prevent long blank walls. Chairperson Deaton asked if there were any restrictions on blacked-out windows. Transparency requirements would address this issue. o Open Space Requirements for Residential Uses - page 34; Discussion: Proposed revisions for setbacks for residential uses on commercial, mixed-use property to help provide light, air circulation, and private open space. o Required Side and Rear Yardsfor Residential Uses - pages 34-35; Discussion: Provide setback requirements for second and third stories on residential within the LC/RMD Zone for provision of light, air circulation, and private open space. o Consistency with Design Guidelines, Specific Plans, or Area Plans Adopted by the City Council- page 35; Discussion: If the City has adopted a Specific Plan for a residential area or commercial property that differs from City Code, the Specific Plan standards would apply. o Pedestrian Access to Buildings Set Backfrom the Street - pages 35-36; and Discussion: Sets standards to help oversee design for pedestrian access from the street to the building in commercial use areas. o Projections - pages 36-37. Discussion: Suggest minor changes to existing standards for architectural projections that exceed the height limit. 20 of 24 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 1 Commissioner Comments/Questions 2 3 Commissioner Roberts noted that the proposals for standards for facades on 4 commercial buildings are a good feature. 5 6 Chairperson Deaton asked what had been decided on whether projections above 7 the height limit would be subject to a CUP or an AUP. Mr. Whittenberg stated he 8 believed the PC wished to have this remain subject to a CUP, and to limit the 9 size even further. She indicated that after hearing the public comments made 10 tonight she is very sensitive about projections. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that 11 mechanical equipment on commercial buildings can become an issue, 12 particularly when you have multi-story office buildings. He noted that most of the 13 retail shopping centers in Seal Beach don't have multi-story buildings. 14 Chairperson Deaton stated that she would be more concerned about 15 architectural projections than she would the mechanical, because mechanical are 16 necessary. Mr. Whittenberg stated that now Staff tells applicants that they must 17 abide by the height limit, and in most cases this should be the procedure, but 18 there may be a case where the PC would like to have the ability to adjust this on 19 an as needed basis. Chairperson Deaton stated that this should remain subject 20 to a CUP. 21 22 Mr. Whittenberg then quickly reviewed the remaining items as follows: 23 24 Part II, Base District Regulations, Table 2.15.015.B through 2.15.015.D - 25 Development Standards - Light Manufacturing and Oil Extraction Districts 26 27 Recommend building design features, variety in wall planes and height, massing 28 elements, landscaping, etc. Specific Plan will override City Code. The same 29 recommendations made for projections would apply. 30 31 Part II, Base District Regulations, Table 2.20.010 - Use Regulations - Public and 32 Semi-Public Facilities Districts 33 34 Apply to private golf course developments and public uses like the police station, 35 City maintenance yard facilities, park facilities, and associated recreation 36 buildings. He noted that most uses on a golf course would require a CUP. 37 38 Part II, Base District Regulations, Table 2.25.010 - Use Regulations - Open Space and 39 Parks Districts 40 41 Standard apply to public parks, the public beach, and the future 100-acre public 42 wetland area. Most of these uses are permitted by right, but certain uses would 43 require CUP approval, such as the tennis center. 44 45 Mr. Whittenberg stated that this ends the review of proposed standards for 46 commercial uses and he then requested direction from the Commission as to 21 of 24 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 1 how they wished to proceed. Commissioner Roberts ask whether the City or the 2 developer decides how much money they contribute for dedications and 3 exactions for new developments. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the City makes 4 the final decision, and will usually not take a dedication of land within small 5 developments. Commissioner Roberts stated that a $10,000 exaction for a 6 subdivision seems relatively inexpensive. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff had 7 conferred with the City Attorney with regard to increasing this amount, but 8 Proposition 218 states that if a tax on property is to be increased, you must have 9 voter approval in order to do so. Mr. Abbe stated that the City still has the 10 authority to impose development fees, and if counsel finds that the City does 11 have the authority to impose a higher fee, an escalator clause indexed to inflation 12 may also be included. Chairperson Deaton asked if the 6 new homes on the 13 property at 5th Street and Central Avenue would qualify as a subdivision. Mr. 14 Whittenberg stated that it would not, as the underlying parcels on this property 15 were already in existence. 16 17 Commissioner Roberts confirmed that the decision on the notification radius for 18 the AUP would be 300 feet and 500 feet for a CUP. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed 19 that this had been the consensus. 20 21 Mr. Whittenberg then asked if the PC would need to revisit the proposed zoning 22 standards for commercial uses. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that a study 23 session on the Chapter 4.05 standards should be conducted. Mr. Whittenberg 24 recommended completing the study sessions on residential uses and then 25 returning to Chapter 4.05. 26 27 Public Comments 28 29 Chairperson Deaton opened for public comments. 30 31 Eldon Alexander referred to the LC/RMD Zone and asked if mixed-use 32 developments can be commercial, mixed use residential and commercial, or 33 simply residential. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. He then 34 asked if strictly residential were being done in this district would the setback 35 requirements be the same as for an all residential zone. Mr. Whittenberg stated 36 that residential development in this area must meet the standards for the RHD-20 37 Zone. Mr. Alexander then stated that he does not believe there is a parking 38 problem in Seal Beach or in Old Town. Chairperson Deaton countered that the 39 denser part of Old Town does have parking problems. Mr. Alexander stated that 40 in meeting the 2-parking space requirement, the 25-foot lots in Old Town also 41 allow for a third parking space on the rear garage pad, and the 37.5-foot lots 42 would accommodate 4 spaces. He also noted that with an aging population, 43 within 5-7 years there would be fewer teenagers with cars requiring parking. 44 Chairperson Deaton asked about homeowners renting out bedrooms. Mr. 45 Alexander stated that he knows of no one in his neighborhood who rents out 46 bedrooms within their homes. He added that it is more likely to have existing 22 of 24 City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 1 apartments demolished for construction of a single-family residence. Mr. Abbe 2 cautioned that tonight's discussion is not on residential, but on commercial uses. 3 Mr. Alexander then referred to an article entitled, "The Birth of the Property 4 Rights Movement," (copies distributed to the Commission) and stated that he 5 sees the process of limiting third story development and imposing design 6 standards as a regulatory taking. He stated that dedication and exaction fees 7 could fall under this as well. He also noted that in Proposition 90 one of the 8 examples used was similar to limiting third stories, and Proposition 90 passed 9 and was approved in all 5 districts of Seal Beach. He postured that the author of 10 the above-noted article is saying that the court decisions cited are not correct 11 from the point of view of the original understanding of property and the takings 12 clause as well as due process. Mr. Alexander then stated that he still does not 13 understand why the PC cannot look at the economic impacts of making these 14 "legislative" changes to the Zoning Code (ZC). Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff 15 would research this question and present a response at the public hearings. Mr. 16 Alexander then referred to comments made by Councilmember Ybaben 17 regarding his expectation to have architectural considerations for buildings within 18 Seal Beach, which Mr. Alexander understands is Mr. Ybaben's compromise 19 position regarding making Seal Beach look quaint. He stated that based upon 20 the architectural considerations presented and the ensuring discussion; he would 21 like to see what the actual proposed FAR calculations would be. 22 23 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed public 24 comments. 25 26 Commissioner Roberts commented that he is disappointed with the landscaping 27 in front of Stats at the Shops at Rossmoor. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff had 28 met with the representatives of the Rossmoor Center today, and they had 29 indicated that the grass planted was the wrong type, and it will be pulled out with 30 the appropriate type to be planted. He noted that the landscaping has been 31 designed as a storm water retention area to collect all drainage from the parking 32 lot areas. 33 34 STAFF CONCERNS 35 36 None. 37 38 COMMISSION CONCERNS 39 40 Commissioner Roberts asked if the Seal Beach Townhomes project has been 41 scheduled for review. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this is scheduled for July 18, 2007. 42 43 ADJOURNMENT 44 45 Chairperson Deaton adjourned the meeting at 11 :02 p.m. to the next scheduled meeting 46 of July 18, 2007. 23 of 24 City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meeting Minutes of June 20, 2007 1 Respectfully Submitted, 2 ~ ~~~ 5 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary 6 Planning Department 7 8 9 APPROVAL 10 11 The Commission on July 28, 2007, approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission 12 Meeting of Wednesday, June 20,2007. ~. 24 of 24