HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2008-03-05City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for March 5, 2008
7:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
I.
ROLL CALL
II.
AGENDA APPROVAL
III.
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.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
IV.
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.
CONSENT CALENDAR
V.
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by
one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission,
staff, or the public requests a specific item be removed from the Consent Calendar
for separate action.
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2008.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
VI.
None
PUBLIC HEARING
VII.
2. Variance 08-1
901-1101 Pacific Coast Highway (Seal Beach Center)
(Continued from February 20, 2008)
Applicant/Owner: Paul Sheppard/ Regency Centers
1
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission • Agenda of March 5, 2008
Request: To allow less than Code-required parking/shared
parking within an existing shopping center.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 08-5.
STUDY SESSION
VIII.
3. Study Session – Final Draft – Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning:
Review of Chapter 2.05, Residential Districts – Section 2.05.015C: Floor
?
Area Ratio, and Section 2.05.015D: Floor Area Design Incentives and
Deductions, Including Third Floor Standards; and
Review of Completed Revisions to Various Proposed Zoning Code
?
Provisions Based on Previous Commission Direction or Requests for
Additional Commission Direction.
STAFF CONCERNS
IX.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
X.
ADJOURNMENT
XI.
To adjourned meeting of March 19, 2008, at 7:30 P.M.
2
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission • Agenda of March 5, 2008
2008 Agenda Forecast
Mar 19
Public Hearing – Zoning Code Adoption
Minor Plan Review 08-4 – 4540 Ironwood Avenue
Minor Plan Review 08-5 – 125 Coastline Drive
Apr 09
Apr 23
May 07
May 21
Jun 04
Jun 18
Jul 09
Jul 23
Aug 06
Aug 20
Sep 03
Sep 17
Oct 08
Oct 22
Nov 05
Nov 19
Dec 03
Dec 17
3
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
2
3
Minutes of March 5, 2008
4
5
6
7 Chairperson Deaton called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
8 Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 5, 2008. The meeting was
1
9 held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.
10
ROLL CALL
11
12
13 Present: Chairperson Deaton, Commissioners Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt, and
14 Roberts.
15
16 Also
17 Present: Department of Development Services
18 Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
19 Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner
20 Steve Flower, Assistant City Attorney
21
22 Absent: None
23
AGENDA APPROVAL
24
25
26 MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by DeLay to approve the Agenda as presented.
27
MOTION CARRIED: 5 – 0
28
AYES: Deaton, Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts
29
NOES: None
30
ABSENT: None
31
32
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
33
34
35 Chairperson Deaton opened oral communications.
36
37 Joyce Parque noted for members of the public that the new Zoning Code (ZC) would
38 limit the size of homes on The Hill, and also spoke regarding re-zoning of the Seal
39 Beach Trailer Park (SBTP) to require pads for structures in the park, as well as re-
40 zoning the DWP property for residential use. She added that there has been no
41 discussion on re-zoning to limit “sober living” units within the City.
42
1
These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
1 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 Seth Eaker invited the Commissioners and all member of the community to the
th
2 Springfest Celebration on March 16, and thanked the Planning Commission (PC) and
3 Staff for their consistent hard work on very contentious issues.
4
5 Chairperson Deaton asked if zoning of the SBTP is within the purview of the PC. Mr.
6 Whittenberg stated that Staff could prepare responses to the issues raised for
7 presentation at a future PC meeting. Chairperson Deaton requested that Staff provide
8 responses to Ms. Parque’s questions.
9
10 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt noted that the PC is not “re-zoning properties,” as the
11 zoning is staying the same.
12
13 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed oral
14 communications.
15
CONSENT CALENDAR
16
17
18 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2008.
19
20 MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to approve the Consent Calendar as
21 presented.
22
MOTION CARRIED: 5 – 0
23
AYES: Deaton, Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts
24
NOES: None
25
ABSENT: None
26
27
SCHEDULED MATTERS
28
29
30 None.
31
PUBLIC HEARINGS
32
33
34 2. Variance 08-1
35 901-1101 Pacific Coast Highway (Seal Beach Center)
36 (Continued from February 20, 2008)
37
38 Applicant/Owner: Paul Sheppard/ Regency Centers
39 Request: To allow less than Code-required parking/shared parking
40 within an existing shopping center.
41
:
42 RecommendationApproval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
43 08-5.
44
45
46
2 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 Staff Report
2
3 Mr. Whittenberg stated that in meeting with the City Attorney to review the issues
4 presented at the previous public hearing regarding how the proposed shared parking
5 program ties in with the potential development of the fuel station, Staff feels that there
6 are still issues to be resolved prior to finalizing recommendations to the Planning
7 Commission (PC) for this application. He noted that Staff has prepared and distributed
8 a memo with proposed conditions, but Staff feels they should meet with the project
9 applicant, the traffic engineer, and the City Attorney to work through some issues prior
10 to presenting alternatives.
(Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.)
11 He requested that this item be continued to the scheduled meeting of April 9, 2008, and
12 indicated that the public hearing would be re-noticed and the PC could proceed to take
13 public testimony tonight from those members of the public present. Chairperson Deaton
14 requested that the Director of Development Services provide a brief history of this
15 application. Mr. Whittenberg explained that when project approvals were granted by
16 Staff in 2005-06 for the redevelopment of the Seal Beach Center, plans were presented
17 allocating specific square footage of the center for retail and restaurant uses. He stated
18 that once redevelopment occurred and new tenants began to move in, Staff requested
19 that the developers provide a spreadsheet to track center uses and the parking demand
20 to ensure that the City was not allowing uses that would exceed the allowed parking.
21 He noted that the spreadsheets provided proved to be faulty and did not reflect the
22 correct parking totals, resulting in Staff allowing uses that have exceeded the existing
23 parking, including the vacant store fronts. He continued by stating that the proposal for
24 the shared parking is a process utilized by many cities that allows for an analysis of
25 peak parking demands for different uses at various times throughout the day to attempt
26 to spread the demand over the day to ensure adequate parking. He stated that should
27 the PC approve Variance 08-1, this would allow a shared parking program. He added
28 that the uses causing the lot to be under parked are beauty, hair, and nail salons, which
29 require 2 parking spaces for each work station within those businesses. He noted that
30 this is part of what is causing the lack of parking under ZC requirements, but whether
31 this results in an actual overuse of the parking lot is uncertain at this point, and the
32 question remains as to what will happen once Vons opens for business. The Director of
33 Development Services then added that there are approvals for a fueling station, but
34 there are time limits with regard to making a decision to move forward with this use, and
35 Staff must work with the traffic engineer, the property owner, and legal staff to
36 determine how these previous approvals may or may not be tied in to the parking
37 analysis, so that everyone has a clear understanding of what the PC would be
38 approving. Chairperson Deaton asked when Vons is proposed to open. Mr.
39 Whittenberg stated that Staff has no idea at this point. Chairperson Deaton stated that
40 she feels the wisest thing to do would be to wait until the market opens to see what the
41 actual impact upon parking will be. Chairperson Roberts requested estimates for the
42 anticipated number of employees within the entire shopping center. Mr. Whittenberg
43 noted that at certain hours there will be a heavier demand for employee parking than at
44 others. Commissioner Bello noted that 5 vacant retails spaces remain, and there are
45 already the maximum number of allowable restaurants in the center. She asked if any
3 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 other eateries would be allowed. Mr. Whittenberg stated that until the parking issue is
2 resolved, no further tenant improvements for new business will be considered.
3
4 Public Hearing
5
6 Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing.
7
8 Erwin Bucy of Regency Centers stated that Regency is committed to creating the right
9 solution. He explained that Regency had calculated the parking for hair and nail salons
10 at 4/1,000 sq. ft., as this is the typical ratio for neighboring cities, and was not aware of
11 the ZC requirements for Seal Beach. He noted that the 2,000 sq. ft. nail salon would
12 require 8 spaces, but under Seal Beach standards this would require 40 parking
13 spaces. He indicated that Regency has invested a great deal in this project and wishes
14 to ensure that all of the tenants are successful. Mr. Bucy stated that regarding signage
15 on the rear of the shop building, Regency sent certified letters to those tenants
16 requesting that they be considerate and turn off signage at approximately 8:00 p.m. He
17 added that Regency has submitted a new proposal for screening roof HVAC equipment
18 and hopes that this will be satisfactory.
19
20 Seth Eaker stated that the role of the Seal Beach Chamber & Business Association
21 (SBCBA) is to reflect the needs of business, and he described Mr. Bucy’s comments as
22 “good faith.” He also confirmed Staff’s recommendations for a continuance and noted
23 that the SBCBA is committed to reaching harmony among resident, community, and
24 municipal issues. He indicated that he had received several calls from residents but
25 has received no written or oral communication from businesses within the Seal Beach
26 Center. He encouraged these businesses to communicate with the SBCBA so that they
27 may be represented.
28
29 Bob Beyer, Marble Cove Way, stated that residents are very concerned with employees
30 parking in the neighborhood. He said that the center is already crowded and when
31 Vons opens for business, there will be more need for employee parking. He noted that
32 it might become necessary to limit parking to 1-hour on surrounding neighborhood
33 streets. Chairperson Deaton asked how Mr. Beyer feels about the 1-hour parking limit.
34 Mr. Beyer stated that aside from the cost of resident parking permits, this can be an
35 imposition for guests, as residents would also need to acquire guest permits.
36
37 Joel Klein, Marlin Avenue, stated that the most significant aspect of the parking problem
38 would be the fueling station, as this would simply exacerbate the parking problem. He
39 feels that it is important that should this variance be granted, it include an explicit
40 condition that if the fueling station is to be built, the variance will automatically be
41 revoked. He stated that the very last resort would be to limit neighborhood parking to
42 1-hour.
43
44 Roxanna Copicman, Fathom Avenue, suggested that if the determination is made to
45 limit parking to 1 hour, then employees should be prohibited from parking on
4 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 neighborhood streets. She also expressed concerns with extra traffic coming into her
2 neighborhood and with the safety of children.
3
4 Michael Bremser of Coastline Drive provided copies of photographs and noted the
5 photo of the cart parking for Vons Market, stating that this appears to be the only cart
6 location area. He then
(Photos are on file for inspection in the Planning Department.)
7 described the remaining photos presented showing current parking problems created by
8 on-site dumpsters and the recycling center. He suggested that it would be helpful to
9 have a third party conduct a count to determine the number of cars parked within the
10 center throughout the day.
11
12 Sylvia Malley, Marble Cove Way, stated that the shopping center is already
13 overcrowded and will probably be worse in the summer. She recommended denial of
14 Variance 08-1.
15
16 Jeff Collins, Fathom Avenue, presented letters from some of his neighbors expressing
17 their concerns and stated that he supports continuing this item to allow time for more
18 neighbors to become informed on this issue, and to allow Staff to review all of the
19 ramifications. He expressed
(Letters are on file for inspection in the Planning Department.)
20 his concern with the overflow of traffic into surrounding neighborhoods and stated
21 residents do not want to compete for parking. He then noted that residents do want to
22 have a successful center that produces revenue for the City, helps to raise property
23 values, and provides convenience for residents to eat and shop. He stated that a
24 Variance would not be in the best long-term interest of the Seal Beach Center, as if
25 there is inadequate parking, it will not succeed. He added that he has noted all of the
26 beautiful islands and medians that have been added to the parking lot, but he finds it
27 odd that parking spaces have been taken away. He asked that the PC weigh all of
28 these competing concerns in making the right decision.
29
30 Cheryl Moore, Marlin Avenue, stated that after the previous public hearing many
31 residents asked Regency where the shopping carts are to be stored and they did not
32 have a response. She indicated that after visiting the site she found only one cart
33 location area in the front of the center. She then noted that at the previous hearing one
34 of the Commissioners had stated “well, we can’t make them tear it down,” and she said
35 that if anyone in town builds something that is not up to ZC or does not have permits,
36 the City requires that they “tear it down.” She asked why Regency is not being held to
37 the same standard. She said that although she frequents The Daily Grind on a regular
38 basis, it does create traffic jams in the parking lot. She then provided photographs of
39 cars in queue at the Daily Grind obstructing the flow of traffic within the parking lot.
40 Ms. Moore then noted that in
(Photos are on file for inspection in the Planning Department.)
41 visiting the center she found that there are only two areas designated for handicapped
42 parking. She pointed out that residents of Leisure World recently lost access to two
43 grocery stores and will be coming to Vons for their grocery needs, so more handicapped
44 parking will be required, which will lead to even fewer standard parking spaces. She
45 also expressed concerns with customers of the center parking on her street, as this is
46 what occurs on weekends during baseball season in Seal Beach. With regard to
5 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 Regency’s comments about creating more compact parking stalls, Ms. Moore noted that
2 there are many families in this town and they use larger vehicles that are not
3 accommodated by compact spaces. She then stated that a Variance should not be
4 approved until after Vons opens and we really know what the impact will be, as the
5 parking lot is already crowded.
6
7 Karen Woolcut, Balboa Drive, stated that she has lived in her home for 46 years and the
8 shopping center has been there since 1965, and she finds that there are three days a
9 year when people park on the street in front of her home: on St. Patrick’s Day and for
10 The Seal Beach Car Show and the Holiday Parade. She said that she does not see
11 that there is or will be a parking issue at all at this center. She said she can clearly see
12 the parking lot from her home and has never experienced the parking lot being
13 crowded.
14
15 Clyde Huizenga, Coastline Drive, thanked Mr. Bucy for his commitment to do something
16 about screening rooftop equipment. He spoke against compact parking spaces and
17 asked that they not be used in this center. He then stated that the in-lieu parking
18 program doesn’t sound bad; however, having a one-time fee, in perpetuity, would not be
19 practical. He indicated that this should be an annual fee. He also noted that an 18-
20 wheel truck parks in the parking lot behind Mr. Huizenga’s home at night and starts his
21 engine very early in the morning. He requested monitoring trucks parking overnight in
22 the parking lot.
23
24 Alexandra Ito, Coastline Drive, stated that her concern is the impact upon the
25 community in which she has lived since 1973, which is a family neighborhood. She
26 stated that there definitely has been an impact on traffic and the activity within the
27 parking lot. She wondered what the impact to neighborhood children would be without
28 the Variance.
29
30 Nick Barber, Marble Cove Way, expressed his concern with the potential for
31 construction of the Vons fueling station at the Seal Beach Center. He stated that in
32 visiting another Vons station he found that it takes up 19,600 square feet, approximately
33 140 ft. x approximately 140 ft. He noted that a fueling station of this size would
34 eliminate up to 75 parking spaces from the Seal Beach Center. He said the driveways
35 to be added for entry and exit would also eliminate parking along Pacific Coast
36 Highway.
37
38 Art Warner, Marble Cove Way, stated that the biggest difference between now and 20
39 years ago is that this store will measure 48,000 square feet, and whether it is one
40 parking space per 300 sq. ft. or 1 for every 250 sq. ft., this equals approximately 200+
41 parking spaces, not including employee parking, and a store this size would have 125-
42 150 employees. He stated that despite what was said about beauty and nail salons
43 requiring a lot of parking, the big driver here will be grocery store employees. He
44 recommended denial of Variance 08-1
45
6 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 Diana Wade, Catalina Avenue, said that she would like to be able to use the center, but
2 if traffic is a “nightmare,” she will not be going there, and she is probably not the only
3 one who feels this way. She stated that the fueling station needs to be re-thought, as it
4 would be a crazy idea to build this.
5
6 Audrey Hauth, Catalina Avenue, stated that she agrees with the last three speakers,
7 and the fueling station should be eliminated altogether, as it would create a big problem.
8
9 Robert Goldberg stated that if Regency wants to do the right thing, the fueling station
10 should not be constructed. He said this is the only thing that will make a difference, as
11 no one likes to shop in centers where it is difficult to find parking.
12
13 Mr. Bucy stated that the fuel station was approved as part of the original entitlements
14 and Vons has contractual rights to construct the fuel station. He said his opinion is that
15 he does not see Vons building the station, but they do have the right to begin
16 construction within 12 months of opening the store. He stated that he will discuss this
17 issue with representatives of Vons, and added that the fuel station would be smaller
18 than the one Mr. Barber had mentioned, and would only have a net/add of 28 parking
19 spaces. Chairperson Deaton asked how many pumps the station would have. Mr.
20 Bucy stated that he believes it would have six pumps. He reminded the PC and the
21 public that the center has a variety of tenants with different peak times, as determined
22 by the third-party traffic engineer who evaluated the usage throughout the shopping
23 center. He said that some great ideas have been presented tonight and he will attempt
24 to provide a workable solution.
25
26 Mr. Whittenberg then requested that the PC make a motion to continue the public
27 hearing to the scheduled meeting of April 9, 2008, and instruct Staff to re-notice.
28
29 Chairperson Deaton asked for Commissioner Comments.
30
31 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt requested that Mr. Whittenberg confirm the final location for
32 the recycle center and determine how many cart storage locations are to be provided.
33 She stated that she did not wish to see landscaped medians removed to provide more
34 parking. She also requested a traffic count for ingress and egress from all of the
35 shopping center driveways. She then noted that The Daily Grind traffic should also be
36 evaluated to determine the times of day when traffic congestion occurs at this location.
37 She then requested that the required number of handicapped spaces also be provided.
38
39 Commissioner Bello noted that trucks making deliveries to CVS park in front of the
40 laundromat blocking traffic and taking up several parking spaces.
41
42 Commissioner Roberts stated that although he would not like to see landscaping taken
43 away, this does have to be considered as an alternative for adding more parking. He
44 then noted that after viewing the photos of The Daily Grind, he believes this “is a
45 disaster waiting to happen,” and stated that something must be done, like relocating the
46 drive-thru window or restriping the driveway. He stated that although he does not want
7 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 the center to rely 100% on compact spaces, he is not opposed to them. He reiterated
2 that the issue of employee parking must be evaluated, with an approximate count
3 provided of the total number of employees to be working in the center as a whole. He
4 then stated that he is not in favor of creating 1-hour restricted parking on neighborhood
5 streets.
6
7 Commissioner DeLay stated that everyone wants to see a good solution to this problem,
8 and he is concerned about delivery trucks and parking in the neighborhood. He
9 emphasized that everyone wants to see this center succeed and must work together to
10 solve this problem.
11
12 Chairperson Deaton stated that until Vons opens for business, it will not be possible to
13 accurately determine the impacts and whether this is going to work. She stated that she
14 would like to continue this item until after the store opens, as it is not that far in the
15 future. She said that Vons needs to take a look at the center so that they will have an
16 idea of what is happening. She stated that everyone wants the Vons grocery store back
17 and wants to have a successful center, but she won’t shop at Vons if parking is a
18 problem. With regard to compact spaces, she said that this is not the solution as large
19 cars are always parking in compact spaces and this is difficult to monitor. She then
20 commented that she has never been in favor of in-lieu parking, as it really doesn’t buy
21 or provide parking spaces.
22
23 Mr. Whittenberg recommended asking Mr. Bucy when the anticipated opening date for
24 Vons would be, before making a motion to continue this hearing. Mr. Bucy stated he
25 believes the proposed opening date is in May 2008, but he will forward the proposed
26 date to Mr. Whittenberg tomorrow. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the regular PC meeting
thst
27 dates in May are May 7 and May 21, and suggested making a motion to continue this
28 item to the scheduled meeting of May 21, 2008. Chairperson Deaton stated that this
29 should not have to be tied to a date. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that the PC
30 approves or denies shopping centers without the stores ever being opened and she is
31 not in favor of delaying this action. She said the community needs answers and the PC
32 and Staff must come up with some solutions. She noted that with or without parking
33 when the store opens it is going to be crazy. Chairperson Deaton stated that if the
34 community doesn’t want to wait, the PC would have to make a guess at what the
35 impacts would be. She asked Mr. Bucy for his comments. Mr. Bucy stated he believes
36 it would be wise to wait until Vons opens, as initially there will be a high usage followed
37 by a cooling off period. Chairperson Deaton clarified that Mr. Bucy understands that he
38 will have five stores that he cannot lease until that time. Mr. Bucy stated that he
39 understands this and he does not want to make a short-term decision that will have
40 long-term impacts. Commissioner Roberts asked about a study on ingress/egress. Mr.
41 Bucy stated that LL&G has found that there is no correlation between ingress/egress
42 and parking. He added that if he had not leased to the two salons, this hearing would
43 not have been necessary. Kyle Mayberry of LL&G stated that there can be some value
44 to this type of study, but relative to parking demand the best method is to count the
45 parked spaces for every hour and half-hour, as was done for the traffic analysis.
46 Commissioner Roberts asked if a time study could be done. Mr. Mayberry said that this
8 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 could be done, but the most accurate is counting parked spaces throughout the day.
2 He explained that LL&G did survey counts, and the ULI accumulation was applied to
3 vacant spaces, and a forecast of what was vacant was done, which is more accurate
4 than taking a theoretical center and applying it to every use.
5
6 Twila Mandella, Crystal Cove Way, said that she has experienced Vons for over 20
7 years, and this can be studied for years, but you will never have an accurate count of
8 parking, as throughout the year Vons conducts several events in front of the store,
9 which brings in more traffic. She said that there were 60 employees in the previous
10 smaller store, and this larger store will open with up to 125-150 employees, and this
11 number will vary, but it will carry over into the parking area. She stated that if this
12 creates parking problems, it will lower the value of her property.
13
14 Commissioner Roberts stated that this item should be continued to April 9, 2008, and
15 Staff will let the PC know if they have enough data to make a determination.
16
17 Chairperson Deaton noted for the record that she believes this item should be continued
18 until after Vons opens for business.
19
20 MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to continue Variance 08-1 to April 9,
21 2008, and direct Staff to re-noitice this item.
22
MOTION CARRIED: 4 – 0 – 1
23
AYES: Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts
24
NOES: None
25
ABSENT: Deaton
26
27
28 Mr. Whittenberg advised that public notice for the April 9, 2008, hearing will be mailed
29 and will be published in the Sun Newspaper, and noted that based upon the information
th
30 presented by Staff on April 9, the PC could determine to defer the decision to a future
31 date.
32
33 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt requested a short recess. The recess began at 8:55 p.m.
34
35 The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m.
36
STUDY SESSION
37
38
39 3. Study Session – Final Draft – Municipal Code, Title 11, Zoning:
40 Review of Chapter 2.05, Residential Districts – Section 2.05.015C: Floor
?
41 Area Ratio, and Section 2.05.015D: Floor Area Design Incentives and
42 Deductions, Including Third Floor Standards; and
43 Review of Completed Revisions to Various Proposed Zoning Code
?
44 Provisions Based on Previous Commission Direction or Requests for
45 Additional Commission Direction.
46
9 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 Staff Report
2
3 Mr. Whittenberg thanked the Planning Commissioners for their patience in participating
4 in the study sessions on this issue since February 2007. He explained that tonight Staff
5 will attempt to provide language on issues for which the PC had previously provided
6 direction and finalize the Zoning Code (ZC) document.
7
8 The Director of Development Services began with the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and noted
9 that it appears from previous study sessions that the general consensus is that this idea
10 makes sense for utilization in the new ZC. He explained that currently Section
11 2.05.015C of the ZC sets forth FARs based upon lot size, and Section 2.05.015D sets
12 forth design incentives to allow for an increase in the FAR if additional design features
13 are incorporated and deductions to the FAR imposed for the use of less desirable
14 designs features. He referred to Attachment 1 containing information on FARs on
15 Pages 14-23, and noted that the minute excerpts for all of the study sessions are also
16 included as attachments to the Staff Report.
(Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
17 He stated that based upon the study session discussion from May
Planning Department.)
18 and October of 2007, Staff has revised the basic FAR provisions as follows:
19
20 1. Exclude basement areas, if the basement is totally below natural grade level.
21 2. Revised the base and maximum FARs to keep the ratio the same for lots 6,000
22 sq. ft. or greater, no matter the how large the lot.
23
24 He then noted that Staff has added language to eliminate Covered Roof Access
rd
25 Structure (CRAS) from the ZC and to exclude 3 floor elevator shaft enclosures of up to
26 40 sq. ft. from the FAR. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked what the 40 sq. ft. would
27 include. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this area would include the footprint for the
28 elevator shaft and the minimum required landing area in front of the elevator, as
29 required by Building Code. He noted that equipment would not be included in this 40
30 sq. ft. area, as most residential units are hydraulic lifts with the equipment located within
31 the shaft area above or below the elevator.
32
nd
33 Eldon Alexander noted that first and 2 floors would lose square footage, as the
34 elevator shaft would have to go through these floors. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff
nd
35 could create an exclusion for elevator shafts on first and 2 floors. Chairperson Deaton
36 clarified that this would allow for 40 sq. ft. on each floor to be excluded from the FAR.
37 Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct and that anything beyond 40 sq. ft.
38 would be included as part of the FAR. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if this would
39 include the landing on each floor. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this would be
40 included in the 40 sq. ft. He added that Staff would modify the language throughout the
nd
41 section on FARs to allow an exclusion for interior living space on first and 2 floors of
nd
42 25 sq. ft. for the elevator shaft; 40 sq. ft. of a 2 floor roof deck to allow for the elevator
43 shaft, the landing, and any equipment; and 25 sq. ft. for elevator shafts that open onto
rd
44 3 floor living space.
45
10 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 Robert Goldberg asked how the FAR treats staircases, which would be the alternative
2 to elevators. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it counts only on the first floor and noted that
ndrd
3 the staircase and 2 and 3 floor landings don’t count as living space. Mr. Goldberg
4 noted that impacts for an elevator shaft would be comparable to a staircase and should
5 be considered in the FAR. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the design of the stairways
6 varies, making if difficult to assign a specific FAR exclusion, but noted that 40 sq. ft.
7 would probably be a reasonable number for staircases. Chairperson Deaton asked
8 what the exclusion would be for homes having both an elevator and a staircase, which
9 would usually be the case for two- or three-story homes. Mr. Whittenberg explained
10 that an elevator is not required by ZC, but Staff has suggested that homeowners be
11 given a credit for building the elevator inside the living space. Chairperson Deaton
12 stated that she would like to keep the proposed language as presented by Staff and
rd
13 only allow an exclusion for an elevator on 3 floor living space. Commissioner Roberts
14 agreed.
15
rd
16 Mr. Whittenberg then proceeded with a discussion on 3 floor FARs and noted that at
rd
17 the last few meetings Staff proposed a base FAR of 0.10 for 3 floor with a maximum of
18 0.15, with the requirement to include incentive design features in order to be granted the
19 maximum and deductions made for the inclusion of less desirable design features.
rd
20 Chairperson Deaton requested an example of what the 3 story FAR would be for
21 someone constructing a home on a 37.5-ft. wide lot while staying within all of the ZC
22 standards. Mr. Whittenberg stated that for a 37.5 wide x 117.5 long lot, the base FAR of
rd
23 0.10 would allow for 440 sq. ft. on the 3 floor, and with design incentives the maximum
24 FAR would be 0.15, or 661 sq. ft.; however, deductions could be imposed if less
25 desirable design features are used, which could create a FAR of less than 0.10.
26
27 Eldon Alexander noted that there may be the perception by the public that using FARs
28 could lead to oversize homes leading the PC to reduce FARs. He stated that under the
rd
29 current ZC 3 stories are allowed on the rear half of 37.5-ft. wide lots or wider with a
rd
30 maximum allowable square footage of approximately 1,500 sq. ft., and a 3 story roof
31 deck could also measure 1,500 sq. ft. He indicated that a reduction to 440 sq. ft. was in
32 essence “stealing” an opportunity for property owners to use their property to construct
33 larger homes. He added that the wider lots are traditionally marketed by stating that
34 homeowners can “build more” and have greater utilization on larger lots. He pondered
35 whether there were more practical solutions to this, as the law provides that when you
36 purchase a property you have rights for everything under and over the property. With
37 regard to concerns expressed about having a 3-story home affecting air circulation,
38 sunlight, and privacy, Mr. Alexander noted that if this is a concern, then it would be wise
39 for a homeowner to purchase neighboring lots and maintain them free of any
rdnd
40 development. He also proposed renting the 3 or 2 floor of a neighboring home and
41 leaving those floors vacant in order to preserve privacy. He then postured that using
42 only daylight planes, building envelope, stepbacks, cutouts, and design incentives this
rd
43 would probably reduce the size of a 3 story to approximately 900 sq. ft. He proposed
44 a FAR of 0.15 with a maximum of .20 for a 37.5 x 117.5 ft. lot providing a range of 660
45 sq. ft. to 880 sq. ft. of living space. Chairperson Deaton asked about what a 50 x 117.5
46 ft. lot would look like. Mr. Alexander stated that this size lot would provide a range of
11 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 881 sq. ft. to 1,174 sq. ft. He added that he does disagree with Staff’s description of
rd
2 what people want for 3 stories, and noted they usually want both a recreation room
rd
3 and a master suite on the 3 floor.
4
5 Robert Goldberg requested clarification on Mr. Whittenberg’s comment that the base
6 FAR could be reduced based upon the use of the proposed design features. He noted
7 that he assumed that the base was the base, regardless of the design features. Mr.
8 Whittenberg stated that this was the initial proposal; however, based upon discussion
9 the PC requested that this language be removed and deductions would now be applied
10 to the base to minimize the use of less desirable architectural features. Chairperson
rd
11 Deaton asked if this applied only to 3 stories. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that this would
12 apply to all floors. Mr. Goldberg stated that he did not pick this up in reading that
13 section of the ZC and noted that perhaps the language could be more explicit. Mr.
14 Whittenberg indicated that the language appears in Attachment 1. Mr. Goldberg then
15 inquired about his comment on how the current ZC as well as the proposed ZC provides
rd
16 incentive for people to build 3 stories in order to maximize the value of their home. He
rd
17 proposed the compromise of having a ZC that permits 3 stories, but does not provide a
18 financial incentive for building them. He recommended doing away with the Additional
rd
19 Floor Area Ration for 3 stories in the RHD 20 District and setting a FAR for the whole
20 structure, and the PC could then determine to increase the base and maximum FARs.
21 He noted that this would have to create more open space around structures. He
rd
22 reiterated that a ZC that is neutral to financial incentives for 3 stories would best serve
23 the community.
24
rd
25 Eldon Alexander stated that the history of Old Town is that not many 3 story homes
26 have been constructed due to concerns over mansionization. He said that usually it is
27 developers who construct homes based upon the potential for profit, but families are
28 concerned with building a comfortable home that meets their needs.
29
30 Mr. Morton referred to Page 17 of the presentation and questioned the FARs and asked
rd
31 how for a 37.5 x 100-ft. lot could he be granted a 3 story FAR of 562 sq. ft. Mr.
32 Whittenberg referred to Page 22-24 and explained that incorporating some of these
33 design incentives would provide for a greater FAR. Mr. Morton noted that for a 50 x
rd
34 117.5-ft. lot the 0.15 FAR for a 3 story is 881 sq. ft., which is huge, and he believes
35 that a standard FAR of 0.10 should be used regardless of the size of a lot.
36
37 Mike Bubbe stated that after talking with many people in Old Town, 80 percent do not
rd
38 want 3 stories. He indicated that Mr. Goldberg’s recommendations are very
39 reasonable, and noted that through the years as the City has grown and evolved
40 property rights have also changed, with regard to what people can and cannot do with
41 or on their properties. He stated that with more lots being combined and larger homes
42 being constructed, the community is concerned with preserving sunshine, breezes, and
43 privacy.
44
45 Joyce Parque stated that she was in agreement with Mr. Alexander’s comments
46 regarding taking away property rights. She noted that most of the 3-story structures in
12 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 Old Town are apartment complexes, and people with larger lots are being discriminated
rd
2 against by limiting 3 stories.
3
4 Commissioner Roberts stated his concern with Mr. Goldberg’s recommendation is that
5 the PC would immediately have to address the issue of increasing the FAR and would
rd
6 find that because of the cost involved in building a 3 story, homeowners would then
nd
7 maximize the first and 2 floor to get the most square footage. He noted that this would
nd
8 hinder what the City is attempting to do in terms of “canyon effects” with first and 2
9 stories. He said that although he believes a FAR of 375 sq. ft. is a bit small, he is
10 comfortable with the proposed FARs and the bonus incentives are reasonable enough
11 to allow for a FAR of 0.15.
12
rd
13 Chairperson Deaton stated that the PC got to addressing the issue of 3 stories as a
rd
14 result of an argument among Old Town residents on whether 3 stories are desirable,
rd
15 and City Council (CC) made the decision to pass an ordinance prohibiting 3 stories,
16 and a petition drive promising to take this to a vote was launched, and the issue was
17 then passed on to the PC for resolution. She continued by noting that proponents on
18 both sides of the issue were asked to come to a compromise, and she believes that
19 over the last 13 months a lot of hard work has gone into this process. She agreed that
rd
20 people like to build recreation rooms and master suites on 3 floors, but if neighbors are
21 being harmed by this, it is not right, as both people have property rights, and how do
22 you divide down the middle? She said that the PC has essentially been asked “to cut
23 the baby in half,” and the result is that no one is going to be happy. She congratulated
24 Mr. Whittenberg on his work on the FAR Table, and stated that this was a very creative
25 and constructive way to handle this problem, and is the product of a lot of thought that
26 gives people alternatives and allows for diversity. She said if someone really wants that
rd
27 large 3 story, they will have to incorporate the bonus incentives. She continued by
28 stating that she stands by all of the phone calls and comments she received in
rd
29 opposition to 3 stories and she is willing to stand behind this product that has resulted
30 from 13 months of work. Chairperson Deaton then stated that she knows the people of
rd
31 Old Town have asked for no 3 stories, and apologized that it has not ended up this
32 way.
33
34 Commissioner Bello stated that the PC and Staff have worked very hard and from the
35 beginning have known what the people of Old Town wanted, and that there would have
36 to be a compromise. She also complimented the Director of Development Services for
37 all of the hard work done on the new ZC.
38
39 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that Mr. Whittenberg has done an astounding job,
40 and she does know that she could have done anything as good.
41
42 Commissioner DeLay asked if it were possible to have some flexibility to change the
43 ZC. Mr. Whittenberg stated that all of the proposals will be revisited during the public
44 hearings and the PC will make recommendations to CC for modifications to items within
45 the ZC until the CC adopts an ordinance on the ZC. At that point the only way to amend
46 the ZC would be to conduct further public hearings. Commissioner DeLay stated that
13 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 he is satisfied with the FARs and complimented Mr. Whittenberg on a “wonderful job,”
2 and stated that he believes Staff has come up with the best solution.
3
4 Eldon Alexander said that we are not here to congratulate Mr. Whittenberg, but to study
5 the ZC, and he is getting perturbed when it appears that all discussions end with a
6 statement on all the work Mr. Whittenberg has done. He stated that he also has done a
7 lot of work, but the PC has failed to come up with a definition of “mansionization” in
8 order to “get rid of this big bugaboo.” Chairperson Deaton interjected that Mr.
9 Alexander knows what the process is: he has been a huge part of this process, the PC
10 has taken his input, and the ZC has been changed based upon that input, and for him
11 now to say that the PC has not studied this in the last 13 months, listening to what he
12 has to say, is not accurate. Mr. Alexander stated that the PC has only listened to a
13 small faction in town, and this is how this process began, and the PC has not looked at
14 what this actually requires. Chairperson Deaton thanked Mr. Alexander for his opinion.
15
16 Chairperson Deaton requested a consensus from the PC for the table of FARs on Page
17 17 of the presentation handout using the range of 0.10 to 0.15. The Commission was
18 unanimous in moving forward with this proposal. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the actual
19 language for this proposal appears on Page 19 of the handout. He then referred to
20 Page 22-26 where the proposed design incentives and deductions tables appear.
21 Chairperson Deaton asked if there were any questions from the Commission.
22 Commissioner Roberts asked if daylight planes feed into the incentives. Mr.
rd
23 Whittenberg explained that daylight planes restrict the roof pitch of what is built on 3
24 floors, but does not necessarily limit the FAR. Commissioner Roberts asked if it is
25 possible to get around the daylight plane with setbacks. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
26 increasing setbacks is one of the basic ways to meet the daylight plane. Commissioner
27 Roberts asked if Mr. Whittenberg was comfortable in having two standards do the same
28 thing. Mr. Whittenberg stated that what Staff has attempted to do is to create a
29 reasonable size area for buildings while encouraging people to move the structure in
30 towards the center of the lot, allowing for more open space. Commissioner Roberts
31 then referred to Item 5 on Page 24 and noted that this is a very important item in terms
32 of privacy and he could see moving the FAR bonus up to .02 or .03 to encourage this
rd
33 type of window on 3 floors. Mr. Whittenberg stated he would use .02 in the proposal
34 and see where this goes. The Commission agreed. Mr. Whittenberg added that Staff
rd
35 could present more ideas on how to deal with privacy incursion from 3 floor windows.
rd
36 Chairperson Deaton suggested using a .02 FAR bonus for all 3 story side windows.
37 The Commission concurred.
38
39 Robert Goldberg referred to No. 7 on Page 24, which provides for a FAR bonus for
rd
40 having fewer windows and stated that visually many 3 stories project a large mass
41 effect from the rear, and windows help to break up this solid mass. Chairperson Deaton
42 stated that plantings of vines help cover these walls and provide relief from the mass.
43 Mr. Goldberg recommended removing No. 7.
44
14 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 Joyce Parque stated that these standards should also be applied to two-story homes
nd
2 and to the homes in Bridgeport, as they are covering 2 story balconies and converting
3 them to living space, and creating more wall mass.
4
nd
5 Chairperson Deaton asked if there are FAR bonuses for first and 2 stories. Mr.
6 Whittenberg noted that these are listed in Attachment 1 of the Staff Report.
7 Chairperson Deaton polled the Commission regarding eliminating Item 7 on Page 24.
8 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt also recommended deleting Item 7 and increasing the FAR
9 bonus for Item 5 from .01 to .02 and Item 6 from .02 to .03. The Commission was in
10 agreement. Commissioner Roberts noted that this would eliminate the need to impose
rd
11 3 floor setbacks. Chairperson Deaton asked if this would affect the daylight plane. Mr.
12 Whittenberg stated that this would depend upon the roof pitch. Chairperson Deaton
13 proposed increasing the FAR bonus for Item 5 from .01 to .02 and leaving Item 6 as
14 proposed at .02 and deleting Item 7. The Commission agreed.
15
16 Mr. Whittenberg then referred to the proposed design incentives on Pages 25-26 and
17 noted that a FAR deduction would be imposed if construction is at the minimum setback
rd
18 for more than 40% of a 3 floor side yard wall. He suggested that, based upon this
19 discussion, Item 6 on Page 26 should be removed. The Commission agreed.
20
21 The Director of Development Services then referred to Page 28 and noted that the
ndst
22 proposed ratio of 2 story building area to 1 story building area for the RHD 20 District
23 is 120-140. He explained that a 120 ratio for ground floor living space for a 25-ft. wide
nd
24 lot would equal a maximum of 1,000 sq. ft. and on the 2 floor the maximum would be
25 1,200 sq. ft. Chairperson Deaton asked what Staff would recommend after conducting
26 discussions with the architects. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it doesn’t make a
27 difference. He added that the smaller number probably encourages more ground floor
nd
28 space to be built, so that the percentage can be maxed out on the 2 floor, so the
nd
29 smaller the number the larger the ground floor and the smaller the 2 floor.
30 Chairperson Deaton then stated that the PC must decide how much ground floor space
31 should be allowed. Mr. Whittenberg noted that there are other standards that will
st
32 prevent 1 floors taking up all of the ground space.
33
34 Eldon Alexander proposed eliminating the ratio altogether, as this would already be
35 addressed by all of the other proposed standards. He cautioned that imposing design
36 incentives could limit creativity and diversity of design. Chairperson Deaton agreed with
37 Mr. Alexander. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this is a discretionary item, and if the PC
38 feels the other standards are sufficient to address this, then this ratio would not be
39 needed. He recommended maintaining this for the low density areas of town, to prevent
40 construction of “boxes” on The Hill or College Park East/West, and on the 50-ft. lots that
41 are being created in Old Town, which leaves the potential for 4,000 sq. ft. of ground
42 floor living space. Chairperson Deaton confirmed that in this case a second story could
43 not be constructed. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this home could have a second
44 story. Chairperson Deaton asked how the FAR comes into play here. Mr. Whittenberg
45 explained that the FAR is going to be based upon lot size. He noted that this may not
46 be as necessary for the RHD-20 District as for some of the other districts.
15 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 Commissioner Roberts stated that in reviewing some of the tables, he does not believe
2 that the PC has ever analyzed that number with the examples provided. He suggested
3 eliminating the ratio. Mr. Whittenberg suggested removing it and addressing it in the
4 Staff Report during the public hearings. Chairperson Deaton stated that she would like
5 to know if the new ZC is addressed without this ratio, and whether having it will
6 complicate matters. She noted that Mr. Whittenberg’s recommendations would be
7 helpful when removing this ration and preparing the Staff Report for the public hearings.
8 The Commission was in agreement.
9
10 Mr. Whittenberg then referred to Page 33, Elevator Shaft Structures, which states that
rd
11 elevator shaft structures above the 25-ft. height limit must be incorporated into the 3
12 floor living area. Chairperson Deaton asked if the ZC prevents elevators from being
13 constructed on the sides of homes. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the ZC stipulates that
14 the structure must be in the interior of the home and the opening must face either the
15 front or rear of the lot. He noted that the 7-ft. allowance above the 25-ft. maximum
16 would apply to 2-story homes and would be subject to the AUP process.
17
18 Continuing with Page 34, Required Garage Exception – RLD-9 District, Mr. Whittenberg
19 stated that Staff recommends garage parking standards be on a sliding scale based
20 upon the number of bedrooms in the home, and increased once there are more than 5
21 bedrooms. He noted that exceptions would be granted for homes with 18-ft. wide by
22 20-ft. deep driveways, where the driveway could count for one of the required off street
23 parking spaces. Chairperson Deaton asked how many spaces would be required for a
24 5-bedroom home. Mr. Whittenberg stated that 3 spaces would be required with the
25 driveway counting for one space with a 2-car garage; and for a 6 bedroom home, 4
26 spaces would be required, with one on the driveway and 3 in the garage. Eldon
27 Alexander asked what the definition of a “bedroom” would be. Mr. Whittenberg stated
28 that a bedroom is a room with a closet. Joyce Parque asked how the short driveways in
29 CPE could be counted for parking. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the driveway must
30 measure 18-ft. wide by 20-ft. deep in order to take advantage of this. Ms. Parque noted
31 that in Old Town, cars are required to be parked inside garages. Chairperson Deaton
32 asked what the pleasure of the PC would be. Commissioner Roberts asked if the
33 standard could be 18 ft. deep x 18 ft. wide. Mr. Whittenberg stated that under the
34 Vehicle Code there are prohibitions against parked cars blocking the sidewalk.
35 Commissioner Roberts stated that parking in CPE is not a problem, and never will be.
36 Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff is attempting to allow credit for people that do park
37 their cars on their property. Commissioner Roberts stated that he does not want this to
38 be so restrictive since 95% of the car population can fit on an 18-ft. driveway, but the
39 driveway would not be inconformity because it does not have the 20-ft. depth. Mr.
40 Whittenberg stated that Staff is comfortable with the 18-ft. by 18 ft. dimensions, as many
41 of the homes in CPE have an 18-ft. setback. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt added that
42 those garages that have doors that swing upward could be a problem. Commissioner
43 Roberts recommended allowing the 18-ft. by 18 ft. dimensions for the RLD-9 District.
44 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that she believes it needs to be 20 feet deep, as
45 even if the garage has a roll-up door, residents are not going to pull right up to the
46 garage door when parking, and there are a lot of SUVs out there. Mr. Whittenberg
16 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 noted that if residents can’t get their SUV in or out of their own garage, they would
2 probably park along the curb in front of the house. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated
3 that this is not meant for people living in CPE now with the existing conditions, but for
th
4 when someone wants to add a 5 bedroom. Commissioner Roberts reiterated that he
5 does not see a problem. Mr. Whittenberg suggested allowing the smaller dimensions
6 with the requirement for a roll-up door. Commission Roberts stated that he does not
7 see the need for roll-up doors. Chairperson Deaton stated that the bottom line is that if
8 their car is overhanging the sidewalk, it is a police violation, and they will get ticketed.
9 She then noted that most people have gone to roll-up garage doors anyway.
10 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt added that the PC does not want to create the potential for
11 people wanting to count the driveway as a legal parking space getting ticketed for
12 having their car hanging over the sidewalk. Chairperson Deaton polled the Commission
13 on allowing the 18-ft. by 18 ft. dimensions subject to the requirement of a roll-up door.
14 The Commission agreed.
15
16 Eldon Alexander asked if the same standards would apply for garages in Old Town. Mr.
17 Whittenberg stated that this only applies to the RLD-9 District, and noted that it could be
18 applicable in the RHD-20 District, but homes would have to provide a 24-ft. turning
19 radius from the end of the 18-ft. area in front of the garage in order to get out onto the
20 alley, which would require setting the garage in 27 feet as opposed to 9 feet.
21 Chairperson Deaton asked that Staff provide Mr. Alexander with the reference page for
22 the garage requirements in Old Town. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the same standard
23 applies as for the rest of Seal Beach. Mr. Alexander suggested that an exception be
24 made for the RHD-20 District, as a parking space could be provided on the driveway
25 pad in front of a 2-car garage. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Mr. Alexander is referring to
26 a parallel space across the front of the garage, so that the car blocks the garage, and
27 the other option is one that allows for entry into one of the garage spaces, even with a
28 car on the driveway. He added that tandem parking is allowed under the new ZC.
29 Commissioner Roberts asked if it were illegal to park parallel to the garage door.
30 Chairperson Deaton said it is not, but it is not counted as a parking space. Mr.
31 Alexander stated that the same problem would exist in CPE and The Hill, if a car is
32 parked on an 18 ft. x 20 ft. pad. Mr. Whittenberg noted that parking parallel in front of
33 alley garages does create a problem for neighbors when residents are having difficulty
34 backing their cars out of their garages. Chairperson Deaton agreed. Mr. Whittenberg
35 noted that most of the 5 bedroom homes in Old Town are being constructed on the
36 wider lots, making it easier to provide a 3-car garage. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that
37 the garage exception would apply only to the RLD-9 District with the 18-ft. by 18 ft.
38 dimensions and the requirement for a roll-up door.
39
40 Mr. Whittenberg then referred to Page 39, Roof Decks, and reviewed the language
41 stating that the required deck railing cannot exceed the main building envelope sides.
42 He noted that for a 2-story home, the building envelope would force the required railing
43 to be moved inward, depending upon the roof pitch of the home, so that the deck will
44 not reach to the edge of the home. He added that roof decks will not be allowed above
45 a height of 21.5 feet for lots more than 37.5 feet wide.
46
17 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 Mr. Whittenberg then continued with Page 40, Elevator Shafts, and explained that these
2 would be subject to the AUP process if they exceed the maximum height within a
3 particular district. He then reviewed the standards for each district as listed on Pages
4 43-44.
5
6 Chairperson Deaton noted that the time was 11:00 p.m. and requested a motion to
7 continue the meeting beyond 11:00 p.m.
8
9 MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Bello to proceed with the Planning Commission
10 meeting of March 5, 2008 beyond 11:00 p.m. until all business has been completed.
11
MOTION CARRIED: 5 – 0
12
AYES: Deaton, Bello, DeLay, Massa-Lavitt, and Roberts
13
NOES: None
14
ABSENT: None
15
16
17 Mr. Whittenberg continued with the Commercial Zone standards on Page 45 related to
18 Public Open Space and stated that for commercial buildings over 25,000 sq. ft. open
19 space must be provided at a ratio of 25 sq. ft. per 1,000 sq. ft. of building area, with
20 minimum dimensions of 15 ft. and within 40 ft. of and visible from a street-facing
21 property line. He added that AUP approval would be required for commercial buildings
22 that are not within 40 ft. of and visible form a street-facing property line. Commissioner
23 Massa-Lavitt asked what would be in the open space. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the
24 space would include street furniture and seating areas. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt
25 asked if this open space would have to be located in one area, or could it be spread
26 throughout the property. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the open space must have a
27 minimum dimension of 15 ft. in any direction and could be spread throughout a center.
28
29 With regard to Building Orientation on Page 49, Mr. Whittenberg noted the ZC states
30 that the main entrance must face a public street, but this may not always be the best
31 design for shopping centers, so Staff is suggesting that this be done through an AUP to
32 allow Staff to determine designs for street-facing elevations. Chairperson Deaton
33 requested that language be included requiring that rear-facing buildings provide some
34 type of screening for elevations facing the street. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff
35 could add language addressing the design treatment of the exterior of walls facing the
36 street.
37
38 Mr. Whittenberg then discussed proposed language for the Recreation-Golf District that
39 states that any residential use on a recreational golf property would be subject to a
40 Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and must meet the design standards for a single-family
41 residence (SFR) or for multi-family residence if there are multiple living units.
42
43 With regard to Accessory Business Uses and Activities on Page 56, the Director of
44 Development Services referred to Page 60 and noted the permitted types of
45 entertainment activities that can occur by right, 7 nights a week on a business property.
18 of 20
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
1 He noted that for amplified, live music or something on a stage, a CUP would be
2 required.
3
4 Mr. Whittenberg then moved on to Home Occupations on Page 61 and stated that these
5 would also be allowed through the AUP process. Chairperson Deaton suggested that
6 AUPs be subject to a 12-month review. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff will provide
7 notice of AUPs and people will have an opportunity to express concerns, and based
8 upon that Staff will issue or deny a permit. He noted that the option to revoke these
9 permits will always be available. The Commission agreed that a 12-month review be
10 imposed on AUPs.
11
12 The Director of Development Services then referred to Page 69, Warehouse Retail and
13 Large-Scale Commercial Projects, and noted that in several places in the ZC there is
14 language about the amount of square footage that would define this type of use. He
15 said that Staff needs direction from the PC on a maximum square footage for this type
16 of use. He indicated that 20,000 square feet was proposed at one time. Chairperson
17 Deaton stated that she was fine with 20,000 sq. ft. and Commissioner Massa-Lavitt
18 agreed. The Commission was in agreement.
19
20 Mr. Whittenberg briefly reviewed the standards for off street loading noting that the
21 proposed standards provide for at least 2 customer loading spaces per business
22 establishment or 1 customer loading space per 20,000 sq. ft. Commissioner Roberts
23 stated that 20,000 sq. ft. is very large, and proposed 10,000 sq. ft.
24
25 On Areas to be Landscaped on Page 79, Staff proposes when a street side or rear
26 property line wall over 6 ft. high is constructed, that landscape pockets with minimum
27 dimensions of 1-ft. deep by 5 ft. long are provided every 25 ft. along the length of the
28 wall. The Commission was in agreement.
29
30 Mr. Whittenberg then referred to Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots on Page 82
31 and noted that a CUP may be granted to rebuild a home as it was without it having to
32 meet the standards for façade articulation and the additional front stepback above 14
33 feet. He then explained that the ZC standards for restoration of nonconforming
34 residential structures with damage of less than 50% would not change, and if damage is
35 greater than 50% the structure can be rebuilt but would have to meet FAR and Main
36 Building Envelope standards as part of the reconstruction. Commissioner Roberts
37 asked if this applied to both single-family residence (SFR) and multi-unit structures. Mr.
38 Whittenberg confirmed that it applies to both and stated that for SFRs there are
39 provisions for rebuilding, but the required parking must then be provided.
40 Commissioner Roberts stated that it appears that individuals are being punished for
41 having experienced this type of disaster. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that this is
42 pretty typical for most cities. Mr. Whittenberg stated that many cities will require that
43 any rebuilds of nonconforming structures be completed to current city standards.
44 Commissioner Roberts stated that he would vote against this. Chairperson Deaton
45 confirmed that the current ZC states that for damage greater than 50% in order to
46 rebuild as was, you must provide the minimum number of required parking spaces,
19 of 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2008
meet minimum setbacks, meet height standards, etc. Chairperson Deaton stated that
she is fine with this. Mr. Whittenberg noted that all homes in CPE, CPW, and the Hill
are in conformance with the existing code. Mr. Whittenberg suggested that these items
be left out and that the ZC remain as is for damage to nonconforming structures. The
Commissioners all agreed to leave the ZC as is.
Chairperson Deaton then thanked everyone for participating in this process tonight.
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Flower stated that he does have the information requested by Chairperson Deaton
related to a legal case involving the City of Half Moon Bay, but he will defer his report
until the next scheduled meeting. Chairperson Deaton requested that Mr. Flower
prepare a memo to forward to the Commissioners.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Massa-Lavitt requested an update on the Seal Beach Townhomes
Project. Mr. Whittenberg reported that the application had been withdrawn.
Commissioner Bello requested a rundown of the future scheduled meetings. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that the March 19, 2007, will entail a public hearing for the entire
Zoning Code. Chairperson Deaton added that the March 19th meeting would begin with
the ZC section on Residential Uses, and she is committed to getting through it on that
evening.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Final Draft Zoning Code would be provided to the
Commissioners on Friday or Monday and after that members of the public may request
a copy.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Deaton adjourned the meeting at 11 :30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
0~~~}.SU.~Q.,
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secr~ry
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on April 9, 2008, approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of Wednesday, March 5, 2008.~ .
-
20 of 20