Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1989-02-01 . . . . , .- CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1, 1989 MEETING The Plann1ng Comm1ssion of the C1ty of Seal Beach met 1n regular seSS1on, 1n C1ty Council Chambers, w1th Cha1rman Sharp call1ng the meet1ng to order at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Alleg1ance was led by Comm1SS1oner Jessner. ROLL CAT.T. Present: Chairman Sharp Comm1SS1oners Rullo, F1fe, Suggs, Jessner Staff: Ed Kn1ght, D1rector, Development Serv1ces Dept. Barry Curt1s, Adm1n. A1de, Development Srvcs.Dept. CONSENT CALENDAR A. M1nutes of January 18, 1989 MOTION by Suggs to approve the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of January 18, 1989 as presented; SECOND by Rullo. MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. General Plan Amendment 1-89 Zone Change 1-89 Tentat1ve Tract Map 13867 F1rst Street, Seal Beach Mr. Kn1ght presented the staff report. This 1S a request by James R. Watson to amend the Land Use Element of the C1 ty' s General Plan from 011 Extraction to Med1um Dens1ty Res1dent1al, to change the C1ty'S zon1ng map accord1ngly, to approve a subd1v1s1on map for the construction of f1ve (5) s1ngle family homes for condom1n1um purposes. Staff recommended the Planning Comm1SS1on recommend to the C1ty Counc11 the adopt1on of GPA 1- 89, Zone Change 1-89 and TTM 13867 sUbJect to cond1t1ons. Mr. Knight presented a letter 1n Oppos1t1on from John C. Morrow, dated 1/29/89, wh1ch was read and entered 1nto the Record. . Page 4 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of February 1, 1989 2. If thlS parcells owned by the Clty (WhlCh lt doesn't appear to be because 1 t doesn' t show ln the tl tIe lnsurance and the Clty'S only record lS a Corporate Grant Deed WhlCh kept lt as an easement) then the parcel would have to be abandoned. The property owner would have to buy lt from the Clty and lt would have to be abandoned by the Councll. The developer would be requlred to landscape and malntaln 1 t. The CC&R's and HOA By-Laws would hold the requlrement and fundlng. Slgnage & Trafflc Flow The PubllC Works Dept. staff lS recommendlng a "Rlght Turn Only" onto Flrst street. They would allow a left turn from Flrst street onto thls proJect. PubllC Hearlng Opened Jlm Watson * 101 Maln st.. SUlte "A". Seal Beach Mr. Watson, the appllcant, sald the staff report presented was acceptable to hlm wlth the followlng exceptlons: . 1. Helqht limlt: Retaln the 35' helght 11mlti not 25'. 2. Sldewalk: Sldewalk reduced to 4' or ellmlnated. He agreed to post a cash bond Wl th Cl ty for cost of dOlng sldewalk. Landscaplng would look better along Flrst Street than a sldewalk. 3. ~: Prefer 6' wall separatlng the proJect from the 011 separatlon plant. Elght feet lS unnecessary for sound attenuatlon and would block 11ght. He suggested a sound study be completed. 1986 Sound Study The CommlSSlon noted there was a sound study done about 1986. At that tlme the nOlse complaints stemmed not from the normal operatlon of the facl1lty but from actlvltles occurrlng durlng ltS operatlon --- 11ke large trucks and equlpment comlng and gOlng. Also, there was a bell or alarm system that would go off at all hours of the day or nlght. Mr. Jessner recollected the normal operatlon was not outslde the regulatory declbel ratlngs. The fence was recommended to be elght feet (8') with addltlonal landscaplng that would be taller than the fence for sound mltlgatlon. . Developer Indemnlfy Clty Mr. Jessner asked Mr. Watson lf he would be wll1lng to lndemnlfy the Clty ln some manner --- ln case some problem from the 011 facl1lty should pose a 11abl1lty to the Clty. Mr. Watson sald he was not sure this could be accompllshed by an lnsurance POllCY . Page 2 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of February 1, 1989 Commlsslon Concerns Rezonlng 4.3 Acres Mr. Jessner asked staff lf the adJacent 011 separatlon property could be rezoned by the Clty now or ln the future wlthout thlS appllcant comlng before the Commlsslon? Mr. Knlght said yes, the Clty Councl1 or Plannlng CommlSSlon has the rlght to lnltlate a zone change. They would have to follow the procedures of Notice and PubllC Hearlng. Slze of Parcel The Exxon facl1lty plus the Chevron facl1lty equal about 4 acres. The subJect property lS about 1/2 acre. Helght Llmltatlons AdJacent homes are 11mlted to two-storles or 25 feet. . Flre Safety and Emergencles The CommlSSlon expressed concern at the narrowness of the common drlveway and accesslbl1lty to unlts numbered four and flve ln case of emergency. Two of the unlts wl11 access from the alley and three from a drlveway on Flrst Street. Cars parked ln the two guest spaces would make that drlve more narrow to emergency vehlcles. Staff sald they were comfortable that emergency vehlcles could get down the drl veway --- the Flre Department requlres 20' clear and thlS drl veway lS 23' clear. The Flre Department could flght a flre from the alley or from Flrst street. The Flre Department revlewed the TTM and requested a flre hydrant be placed wlthln 250 'of the homes; and the depth of thlS lS 241'. Mr. Knlght lS to check lf there wl11 be a flre hydrant ln the alley. Staff lS requestlng an elght foot (8') wall between the 011 area and the homes. ThlS meets the Code, serves privacy and nOlse mltlgatlon measures. 011 Area The Commlsslon asked staff what exactly lS stored here. Mr. Knlght sald the purpose of thlS area lS not to store 011. It does have tanks on slte. It's purpose lS to separate what comes lnto the area as crude 011, natural gas and salt water; these elements mlX and are then separated. The salt water lS sent back to an off-shore ls1and and the crude 011 lS pumped on to a reflnery along wlth the natural gas. . The closest Ii vlng area lS approxlmately 40' 50' from the closest tank contalnlng stored petroleum products. Brldgeport lS located 24' from the property 11ne, about 50' - 60' away from the tanks. There are the townhomes across the street (Rlverbeach) and the homes on the old Clty parcel. . Page 3 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of February I, 1989 The CommlSSlon wanted to know lf that presented any klnd of speclal flre hazard. Mr. Knlght sald staff revlewed this sltuatlon In preparlng the Negatlve Declaratlon. The concluslon was there's always the chance of a flre In the separatlon faclllty. Accordlng to the Chevron people, the exploslve potentlal lS nll; crude 011 does not explode but lt could catch flre. The 011 separatlon facillty has been operatlng Slnce 1955 and has had an excellent safety record. Over the years lt has put on addltlonal safety equlpment WhlCh would make lt safer than lt was In 1955. . 1986 Plannlng Commisslon Hearlngs Mr. Jessner referenced Plannlng CommlSSlon Mlnutes of August 1986. At that tlme there were two hearlngs at the request of Chevron all Co. to rebuild thelr facllity on the land next door to thlS subJect slte. PubllC comment lncluded complalnts regardlng odor and nOlse WhlCh were taklng place as a matter of the operatlon of the faclll ty. It also came out at these hearlngs that the materials belng stored there do have a potentlal for flre and exploslon but Chevron downplayed thlS as belng very remote. Durlng the hearlngs the maJorlty of the CommlSSlon felt they wouldn't llke to see thlS facllity contlnue, lt was out of date Slnce the surroundlng property is resldentlal. Clty's Llablllty The CommlSSlon asked what the Clty's potentlal llablllty would be (In case of flre, exploslon etc.), consldering the Cl ty knows these condltlons eXlst? Mr. Knlght replled that the Clty Attorney has advlsed there lS no liablll ty to the city, Cl ty Councll, Planning CommlSSlon or staff In any discretlonary actlon they undertake. Hlgh Pressure Gas Llnes The Commlsslon asked lf there were any hlgh pressure gas or 011 Ilnes that run under thls property? Mr. Knight sald no, the Ilnes are all under publlC rlght-of-ways. Length of Tlme Needed The Commlsslon asked how long the Exxon Corporatlon wlll be need thlS property for 011 separatlon? Mr. Knlght sald he dldn't know but would contact someone at Exxon to get thlS lnformatlon. Ten-Foot-Rlght-Of-Way-strlp The Commlssion asked staff who owns the ten foot wlde rlght-of- way strlp? Mr. Knlght sald the ownershlp was In question: . 1. If thlS parcells an easement, then the Clty Manager could abandon 1 t with the concurrence of the Cl ty Englneer. The ownershlp would fall back to the people who own thlS lot. . Page 5 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of February 1, 1989 once he has sold the property. Mr. Watson sald he felt the CC&R's should clearly dlsclose there mlght be hazardous waste, potentlal for exploslon and flre and the Homeowner's Assoclatlon should carry a substantlal lnsurance POllCY ($1 - 5 ml11lon) coverlng the entlre development. Mr. Knlght wl11 ask the Clty Attorney lf there could be indemnlflcatlon through the CC&R's for the Clty. One Plan for Entire Parcel Mr. Jessner told Mr. Watson that, In hlS oplnlon, the proposed five homes made the proJect too crowded. He would rather see a plan for the entlre property. ThlS parcel may be developed at thlS tlme, the 011 separatlon property belng developed at a future tlme but, lts all flttlng together as one plan. Mr. Watson sald this proposed proJect would be less developed than Brldgeport, wlth a larger lot Slzes and slde yard separatlons. He would agree to buildlng four versus flve houses. The CC&R's would deslgnate the guest parklng. Mr. Watson sald he disliked common areas for thlS proJect and would prefer lncreased yards. . Stalned Drlveways The Commlsslon asked how stalned drl veways would be ml tlgated? Mr. Watson sald these drl veways wl11 be of tl1e, pavers or stamped concrete. For example, dark charcoal cobblestone. Wlndows and Prlvacy Mr. Fife asked lf there Mr. Watson sald thlS archltect needs to flne would be wlndows on all four walls? lS an error In the renderlngs. tune the drawlngs. The The following persons spoke In favor of thlS proJect. Jlm Funk * 105 1/2 Tenth street. Seal Beach Mr. Funk noted the proJect's Ellzabethan archl tecture and that the proJect would brlng lncreased taxes, school fees and QUlmby fees to the Clty. . Jlm Ml11er * Huntlngton Beach Mr. Ml11er stated that he has been one-half owner of thlS property Slnce 1972. Mr. Ml11er notlng Mr. Morrow's letter of OppOSl tlon, stated that Mr. Morrow had approached hlm to bUl1d storage unlts on thlS land but he decllned the proposal statlng 1 t was not an approprlate use of the property. He was also approached by another bUl1der (15 years ago) to develop 12 condomlnlums. ThlS was a venture capltal proJect; he decllned lt on that basis. Mr. Ml11er sald he has had many occaSlons of vandallsm and thlevery to boats and tral1ers on thls property. He sald he belleved thlS proJect was the best use of thls parcel. . Page 6 - Plann1ng Comm1SS10n M1nutes of February 1, 1989 C11fford A. Youngman * 6750 E. Kentucky Ave.. Anahe1m. CA Mr. Youngman said he's a potent1al home buyer 1n th1s project. B111 Bennett * 311 Ocean. Seal Beach Mr. Bennett spoke 1n favor of th1s proJect and comp11mented Mr. Watson on h1s other proJects 1n Seal Beach. Bruce Stark * 204 Ocean Ave.. Seal Beach Mr. Stark spoke 1n favor of th1s proJect 1mprovement over what's there now. Mr. C1ty'S zon1ng map and spot zon1ng. saY1ng 1t would be an Stark quest10ned the . Dan Wampole * 118 Electr1c. Seal Beach Mr. Wampole sa1d he 11 ves d1rectly beh1nd the proposed proJect and favors develop1ng th1s p1ece of property together w1th the 011 extract10n property all at one t1me. He sa1d that 1n July 1988 he not1ced extreme natural gas odors 1n h1s home. He telephoned the Orange County F1re Department and when they came to h1s home he was told "ref1ned, h1gh test fuel was 1n those tanks. And the reason 1t got there was an emergency. A p1pe had burst under the street at approx1mately Pac1f1c Coast H1ghway and 7th Street. Apparently Exxon d1 verted that fuel 1nto those tanks. I was qU1 te concerned at that t1me and had the Fire Department out tW1ce that day. What was happen1ng was ... as the tanks were f1111ng up w1th fuel, 1t was bU11d1ng up pressure and they were bleed1ng off that pressure into the a1r. I would personally 11ke to see those tanks removed. I def1n1tely do not be11eve any addit10nal residences should be put closer to those tanks". He sa1d he d1d not not1fy the C1ty nor any of 1tS staff. He stated the F1re Department personnel told h1m they d1d not know about th1s d1vers10n unt11 they came out and they were able to get hold of an Exxon person at the sp111 s1te. He noted also that the n01se from the operat10n of those pumps has 1ncreased lately, saY1ng there 1S a new alarm system wh1ch sounds 11ke a car alarm that goes off at all hours of the day and n1ght. He has not had the t1me to get hold of Exxon nor has he compla1ned to the C1ty to get someth1ng done about th1s alarm g01ng off. Mr. Jessner asked staff 1f Exxon could use th1s fac111ty, on an emergency bas1s, for other than 011 separat1ng purposes? Mr. Kn1ght sa1d the fac111ty 1S an 011 separat10n fac111ty and that 1S 1tS only funct10n. Mr. Kn1ght stated he had telephoned the Orange County F1re Department, Capta1n House at Stat10n 44. Stat10n 44 1S where such a report or record would be held. Capta1n House rev1ewed the past three years and was unable to f1nd any 1nc1dent report. Th1s could mean that they d1dn't document 1t or they simply couldn't f1nd 1t; 1t doesn't mean 1t d1dn't occur. . . Page 7 - Plann1ng Comm1ss10n M1nutes of February 1, 1989 The follow1ng people spoke aga1nst th1S proJect. M11t Ste1n * 240 Corsa1r, Seal Beach Mr. Ste1n sa1d he has been a Bridgeport res1dent for twenty years. He sa1d boat storage yard was put there for a reason--- for ne1ghbors to store small boats and he would 11ke 1 t to rema1n. Nancy M1ntz * 154 Electr1c. Seal Beach Ms. M1ntz sa1d she lS a res1dent of Br1dgeport. She has had numerous contacts w1th Exxon regard1ng certa1n odors. Exxon told her they had renewed a contract for twenty years. She sa1d add1 t10nal houses would block the a1r flow to her house. She presented a letter (to Ed Kn1ght) from Ronald J. Mol1nare of 163 Electr1c Avenue. Seal Beach Wh1Ch was read 1nto the Record. Th1S letter stated h1S obJect10n to this proJect for safety reasons. Loyd1ne Laz1ch * 100 Electr1c, Seal Beach Ms. Laz1ch sa1d she was concerned about the dens1ty (RLD to RMD), stat1ng that f1ve un1ts are too many, and that 35'he1ght 11m1 tat10n would block a1r flow to eX1st1ng un1 ts. She urged meet1ng w1th Mr. Watson to d1SCUSS concerns. . The Publ1C Hear1ng was closed. Comm1ss10n D1Scuss10n Staff addressed the left turn only lane lssue. A break already eX1sts 1n F1rst Street at th1S 10cat10n by the Trailer Park. Island mod1f1cat10ns to the r1ght are 1nd1cated on the tract map. The developer would bear the cost for that 1mprovement. The Plann1ng Comm1SS10n asked staff to 1nvest1gate and report back to the Comm1SS10n re the capabil1ty (of the owner of the 011 separat10n fac111ty) of d1vert1ng anyth1ng except low flammab11i ty mater1als to th1S fac111 ty. Mr. Kn1ght lS to contact Exxon representat1ves re the1r lease on th1S slte. Mr. F1fe sa1d 1f Exxon lS gOlng beyond what they are allowed to do, the proper penalty should be appl1ed to Exxon and not to the owners of the ne1ghbor1ng property. The Comm1SS10n needs to take 1nto account what Exxon lS d01ng or lS capable of d01ng before they approve development here. Mr. Suggs sa1d he would 11ke to urge Mr. Watson to have all the fence poss1ble between h1S proJect and the 011 process1ng fac111ty to muffle n01se and m1t1gate f1re hazards. . Mr. Jessner quest10ned what alley setbacks were. Staff sa1d alley setbacks vary these alleys are 25' so the rear requ1rement can go up to 0' and st111 prov1de for an adequate turn1ng rad1us. Br1dgeport allows bU11d1ng to the property 11ne. . . . Page 8 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of February 1, 1989 Mr. Jessner proposed a dlfferent layout for thlS proJect. He would favor four homes ln a stralght Ilne wlth a street ln front (between the houses and the 011 faclllty) or a cul-de-sac. The homes would face toward the ocean. Mr. Jessner would llke to see thlS ltem held over and new plans brought before the Commlsslon. Mr. Watson sald he would not have obJectlons to holdlng thlS ltem over to the February 15 or March 1 meetlng. H1S only problem was the tlme frame on purchaslng the property WhlCh lS subJect to approvals. Mr. Miller sald he would grant an extenslon of one month --- to elther meetlng. Mr. Knight sald you have 50 days to render a declslon on a map to the Clty Councll. Mr. Watson asked the Plannlng CommlSSlon for speclflc directlon. Two plans are to be drawn, showlng the drlveway ln the current posltlon and one showlng the drlveway on the 011 extractlon slde. Both plans are to show four (4) houses. Thought should be shown to a landscaped berm to act as a contalner in case of tank splllage. Mr. Watson sald thlS site would be ralsed one foot (I') over what lt is now thereby reduclng any spillage to come onto thlS site. MOTION by Flfe to carry over General Plan Amendment 1-89, Zone Change 1-89, Tentatlve Tract Map 13867 to the Plannlng Commisslon meetlng of February 15 or March I, 1989; SECOND by Jessner. MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 5. SCHEDULED MATTERS A. Mlnor Plan Revlew 1-89 113 Welcome Lane Seal Beach Traller Park Barry Curtls dellvered the staff report. ThlS lS a request by applicant Carolyn E. Stltes to add a second story cabana to an 8 x 12 foot travel traller ln the Seal Beach Traller Park. Mr. Curtls sald this appllcatlon would be precedent settlng lf approved because thlS lS the flrst case of a proposed two-story cabana encroachlng lnto the twenty (20) foot setback area of an eXlstlng two-story cabana. Commlsslon Concerns Mr. Sharp asked lf thls cabana would be closer than 20' to another eXlstlng cabana. Barry Curtls sald yes, the bedroom and bathroom of the second floor are actually 20' away from the nearest two-story cabana, but the flrst floor roof Ilne slopes up to it and does lntrude lnto the 20' setback. Mr. Sharp sald the . Page 9 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of February 1, 1989 20' setback was set by the Orange County F1re Department because of the tremendous f1re hazard poss1b111t1es 1n a tra11er park. Rev1ew of T1tle 25 The Seal Beach Tra11er Park is the only tra11er park 1n the State of Ca11forn1a allowed to have two stor1es. T1tle 25 allows tra11ers and cabanas of one-story to be as close as 6' feet to each other W1 th the height not exceed1ng 14'. Two-story cabanas cannot be located closer than 20' from another two-story cabana. Mr. Kn1ght sa1d those port1ons of th1s proposal wh1ch are two stor1es (such as th1s bedroom and bath) have to be located 20' away from another eX1st1ng two-story cabana. The f1rst floor does encroach but 1S perm1ss1ble under Title 25, 1t can go as close as 6' to that two-story cabana. . Mr. Kn1ght sa1d to prov1de the clearest d1rect1on to the res1dents 1n the Tra11er Park 1S to tell them that anyth1ng over 14' 1S g01ng to be cons1dered two-stor1es. T1tle 25 allows you 14' for a one-story cabana and anyth1ng above that he1ght 1S g01ng to be cons1dered two-story and cannot encroach 1nto that 20' setback." Mr. Kn1ght sa1d the prev10us records d1d not 1nd1cate 14' as be1ng the height for a one-story cabana. Mr. F1fe asked staff what the d1fference was between a "cabana" and a "house" . Mr. Kn1ght sa1d T1 tIe 25 has very spec1f1c def1n1t1ons for "mob11e homes" (examples: must have an axle, must be transportable, must have a temporary foundat1on) and allows for add1 t10ns to be made to 1 t. A "hab1 table floor area" add1t1on to your mob11e home 1S known as a "cabana". There are two or three d1fferent types of cabanas under T1 tIe 25. But T1tle 25 does not allow two-story cabanas. Mr. Fife asked why does the C1ty of Seal Beach allow them? Mr. Kn1ght rep11ed that th1s Park was 1n1t1ally adopted under an unclass1f1ed use perm1t that the C1ty approved. The State prov1ded an except10n for the Seal Beach Tra11er Park and the C1ty developed a local ordinance govern1ng arch1tectural reV1ew and 11fe safety issues. Mr. Fife asked about the connect1on between a tra11er and second story cabana; are there two dwel11ng un1ts that are loosely coupled together? Mr. Kn1ght sa1d Title 25 mandates 1ndependent foundat1ons for tra11ers and tra11ers are not structurally capable of support1ng cabanas. Cabanas must be 1ndependent of tra11ers and therefore have the1r own foundat1on and structural support system and are connected to the trailers. The cabana stands by 1tself. A cabana cannot be 1n place w1thout a tra11er. . . . . " Page 10 - Plann1ng Comrn1ss1on M1nutes of February 1, 1989 Mr. Jessner gave the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on h1stor1cal deta1ls on the Seal Beach Tra1ler Park. The reason for allow1ng two-story cabanas carne about because second stor1es, makesh1ft decks etc. started popp1ng up throughout the Tra1ler Park. Compla1nts were com1ng 1n to the C1ty. The Counc11 d1rected the Comm1SS1on to have hear1ngs to take a look at the poss1b1l1ty of allow1ng the second story cabana-type sltuat10ns to be developed there. There were several Comm1SS1on hear1ngs on th1S lssue. The ord1nance we have today evolved from these hear1ngs. The plans were sent to the F1re Department to see how they felt about two-story cabanas. The F1re Department sa1d they would have no Ob]ect1on to two- story cabanas as long as they were not closer than twenty feet (20') from one structure to another. It sa1d noth1ng about the roof 11ne. They sa1d they d1d not want a two-story cabana (the bU1ld1ng) w1th1n 20' of another two-story cabana. Mr. Jessner sa1d he felt th1S request was 1n complete v1olat1on of the ord1nance and th1S 1 tern should be pursued as a variance. The ord1nance was re-read: No two-story cabana shall be located closer than twenty feet (20') from another two-story cabana. Th1S does not say anyth1ng about the eX1st1ng tra1ler. The two- story cabana lS not cons1dered the ent1re structure. Mr. Jessner asked Mr. Kn1ght to expla1n th1S precedent. Mr. Kn1ght explained th1s precedent, saY1ng 1t'S the slop1ng roof that exceeds the 14' Ilm1t. T1tle 25 says that a one-story cabana cannot exceed 14' and th1S d1d. Staff lS cons1der1ng the sta1rway and roof 11ne as part of the two-story cabana not part of the eX1st1ng tra1ler and th1S lS the part that's encroaching. If the sta1rway and roof were to be changed they would not be encroach1ng. Mr. Kn1ght sa1d that when th1S lssue was f1rst cons1dered, Plann1ng Comm1SS1on made a recommendat1on to the C1 ty Counc11 that two-story cabanas could be on every other lot. When 1t got to the C1ty Counc11 the f1nal dec1s1on, on adV1ce of the C1ty Attorney, was that 1nstead of applY1ng an every-other-Iot- standard 1t would be twenty (20') feet between two-story cabanas. Th1S means that techn1cally there could be two-story cabanas on two ad]Oln1ng lots as long as that port1on Wh1Ch lS two stor1es lS twenty (20') feet away from any other port1on of a two-story cabana. . . . ( Page 11 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of February 1, 1989 Mr. Sharp verlfled wlth Mr. Knlght that, lf approved, the only new sltuatlon Plan ReVlew 1-89 was creatlng was the lmposltlon of the fourteen (14') foot one-story helght llmltatlon. Otherwlse, thlS Plan ReVlew for a second-story cabana lS the same as all others approved by the Plannlng CommlSSlon. PubllC Hearlng Opened James cophage * 16565 Salls Clrcle. Huntlngton Beach Mr. Cophage lntroduced hlmself as the representatlve of the appllcant, Ms. Stltes, and the Traller Park owner, Mr. Dawson. He sald the 14' helght requlrement was outllned In Chapter (SlC) 25 and he was taklng hlS gUldance on the lnltlal approach from the State. He acceded to the 14' helght requlrement as stlpulated by staff. The sprlnkler system lS run separately to the traller and cabana MOTION by Rullo to approve Plan Revlew 1-89 as wrltteni SECOND by Suggs. MOTION CARRIED 3 - 2 NOE VOTES: Jessner, Flfe ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communlcatlons from the audlence. STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS Mr. Flfe asked staff about the report on Rossmoor Center. Mr. Knlght sald he would try to have 1 t for the Commlsslon' s next meetlng on February 15th. ADJOURNMENT Chalrman Sharp adJourned the meetlng at 10:20 p.m. These Mlnutes are tentatlve and they're subJect to approval of the Plannlng CommlSSlon. Respectfully Submltted, <Jo~~~~ Joan Flllmann Secretary * * * The Plannlng CommlSSlon Mlnutes of February 1, 1989 were approved by the Plannlng CommlSSlon on '""'f"r\0J\~ \ S.:t _, 1989. Jvf