Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1992-03-18 , , .. . . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MARCH 18, 1992 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of March 4, 1992 IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. Minor Plan Review #92-1 Address: 229 Seal Beach Boulevard Applicant: Walter Miller Property Owner: Walter M11ler Request: Architectural Review 3. M1nor Plan Review #92-6 Address: 413 Ocean Avenue Applicant: Daniel Lawrence Property Owner: Charloma Schwankovsky Request: General interior remodel of residence; enlargement of two existing dormer windows and addition of two dormer windows at second floor. 4. Minor Plan Rev1ew #92-5 Address: 126 Cottonwood Lane Applicant: KS Designs, Irvine Tra1ler Owner: Mark Cunningham Property Owner: Bill Dawson Request: Two-story cabana (for a deck). Add a kitchen nook, living room, master bedroom, one bathroom and upstairs deck. 5. M1nor Plan Review #92-4 Address: 1017 & 1017~ Seal Way Applicant: Freddie Leonard Property Owner: Aram & Margarita Keusawan Request: To add 505 square feet to eX1sting living space. Add two-car carport. Restucco exter10r & reroof. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Negative Declaration #92-1 Applicant: City of Seal Beach Request: Archaeological Element Note: To Be continued to Apr11 1, 1992 Plann1ng Commission Meeting. , J ~ Page 2 of 2 * Planning Commission Agenda * March 18, 1992 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS VII. STAFF CONCERNS VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT Agenda Forecast: April 1 Negative Declaration #92-1 Archaeological Element . Minor Plan Review #92-7 Address: A-36 Surfs ide Applicant: Sears. Young Architects Property Owner: Fred Reed & Cheryl Hernandez Request: New 3-story SFD w/roof deck. April 15 CUP #92-1 (701 OceanlTootsie's Restaurant Beer & Wine) CUP #12-89 (Super Saver C1nema Seven). . . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of MARCH 18, 1992 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of March 18, 1992 was called to order by Chairman Fife at 7:30 p.m. in City council Chambers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissloner Orsini. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife Commlssioners Dahlman, Law, Orsinl, Sharp Staff Present: Department of Development Services: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of March 4, 1992 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the Planning commission Minutes of March 4, 1992 as presented. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: ABSTAIN: 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Dahlman, Law, Orsini Fife SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. Minor Plan Review #92-1 227 Seal Beach Boulevard Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Walt Miller, is requesting an archltectural review of a proposed mixed use commercial/residential structure at 227 Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed structure would provide a first floor retail/service business and parking area, two second floor artist studios and two third floor apartments. Staff recommended approval SUbject to three conditions of approval. commission Comments Parking v. Storage Commissioner Dahlman expressed concerns the applicant's storage area could expand into the parklng area. Staff explained four parking spaces are shown on the plans and, in addition, beyond the . . . Page 2 - P~anning Commisaion Minutes of March 18, 1992 area required for parking, there is storage area. The plans show a possible tandem parking space which the new Code would allow for parking on the residential uses. staff replied the City is cognizant people use garages for storage areas but staff has not been enforcing this violation (the mun1cipal Code gives staff this authority) because the city doesn't have the staff to do this enforcement. Landscaping Commissioner Law noting one courtyard is completely paved and another courtyard is landscaped asked if the paved area was included in the landscaping requirement? Mr. Whittenberg said port1ons of it could be if the paved area was broken up with planter areas. Setbacks The Commission discussed setbacks at length. It was stated the applicant needs 6~' setback because the lot width is 62~'. The applicant has a side setback problem on the residential/third floor where the exterior walls would have to be brought in. The applicant needs a 6'3" setback and is proposing between 4'to 5~'. A setback requirement is necessary for a third floor because the municipal QQ.dg requires a certain amount of private open space for the residential units and part of the setback area could be used for a balcony or deck situation. The project could be redesigned to achieve enough square footage for decent sized rooms by expanding the units out towards Seal Beach Boulevard. California Coastal Commission The Coastal Commission will not process the application because of the City's proposed utilization of on-street park1ng. There was a meeting at City Hall attended by Coastal Commission representatives, Planning Department staff, City officials and the applicant. After the meeting, staff took Coastal Commission representatives on a 45 minute drive of the Old Town area, showing them the properties along Seal Beach Boulevard, the problems associated with alley access, pointed out the distance from the Seal Beach Boulevard on-street parking areas down to the beach (walking distance was one of their concerns), and showed them all the existing beach and City-owned parking lots. The Coastal Commission has requested the Planning Department provide them 1nformat1on on the number of available parking spaces for beach visi tors; staff is compil1ng this information. The Coastal Commiss1on's position at th1S time is that they would not look favorably on this application/request until they have a clear understanding of the parking situation as it relates to beach visitors. Their concern was that if the City starts designating parking spaces on the street for the commercial uses they are taking it away from potential visitor parking. Staff will attempt to relate to the Coastal Commission that there is sufficient . . . page 3 - P1ann~ng Comm~BB~on M~nutes of March 18, 1992 numbers of parking spaces in the Old Town area, both in parking lots and on the local residential streets, to meet the general day- to-day and peak demands for beach utilization. staff will attempt to persuade the Coastal Commission to accept the concept for the street itself rather than going to the Coastal Commission on an application-by-application basis. Commissioner orsini said the Coastal Commission stated they would favor a tram service within the City, to be run by in-lieu parking fees. Height Measurement The Commission asked how the building height was measured? said it was measured as defined by Code, which is the average covered by the pad of the structure. staff grade Revisit The Commission discussed the room sizes resulting from setback requirements. Mr. Whittenberg said this application is beJ.ng processed under newly developed Code standards which stipulate 10% residential setbacks. To change that requirement would entail a Zone Text Amendment and coming up with a different formula to determine side yard setbacks. Staff would prefer doing that as opposed to attempting to grant a Variance to this fJ.rst application under those standards. Staff said they could process a Code amendment sooner than final Coastal Commission determinations would be received. The CommissJ.on determined they would like to hear from the applicant, Walt Miller. Walt Miller * 227 Seal Beach Boulevard Mr. Miller said the setback issue bothered him because the ~ as it is written seems to condone "shoe box" buildings --- narrow, stretched out to the front. Meeting setback requirements and retaining the same square footage in this case would require diminishing the public area between the two buildings thus attacking the separation they tried to create. He desires a pedestrian attraction, that's why he designed a public access deck designed to replicate the Seal Beach pier. ChaJ.rman Fife said he was surprised Mr. Miller's design immedJ.ately creates a conflict with a brand new ordinance. He asked how this happened? Mr. Miller said he was not aware of the ordinance. The project was designed to code specifications. It went through the City's engineering plan check and no problem was dJ.scovered. The fJ.rst time he was aware of the new ordinance was when he receJ.ved his copy of the March 18th staff report. He said "Barry Curtis caught thJ.s". He said "Maybe if I'd followed the Seal Beach Journal and been a regular attendant at every meeting I would have obJected to this 10% thing but I don't remember that being an issue until I got this". He stated he asked Barry Curtis at tonight's meeting what QQgg section the 10% setback was in. His architect did not recognize the QQgg section either. No one had . page 4 - P1anning Commission Kinutes of Karch 18, 1992 mentioned this issue before he received the staff report although he had been in the Building and Planning Departments many times. Regarding the parapet wall at the west elevation, Mr. Miller explained that wall is necessary for fire protection. The UBC mandates this parapet wall be 3' higher than the building. Mr. Miller was concerned this parapet wall would cross in front of Mrs. Fielding's building (blocking her window view) which he thought is historic building and he did not want to put his parapet wall in that location; this is in debate with the Building Department and J.S currently unresolved. Mr. Whittenberg said this is a state-wide building code (~) requirement and is not easy to vary from as it is a minimum state standard. This issue is different from the setback issue because it's a state requirement. When you have a 3' setback the parapet requirement does not exist. Mr. Miller feels the Fielding building could be a historical bUJ.lding. Mr. Whittenberg said it is not on the City's list of historical buildings. Also, building code provJ.sions for variances would apply only to the historical buildings and not to adjacent structures. . Commissioner Sharp asked staff to distinguish between the Planning Department and the plan check engineering process. Mr. Whittenberg said the Planning Department reviews plans for compliance with local zoning ordinance requirements. The plan check engineering firm reviews plans to ensure the plans meet ~ requirements. The Commission asked Mr. Miller if he would prefer to wait for a Zone Text Amendment? Mr. Miller said he would prefer to wait because it would be right architecturally. It would be beneficial to the street to set a proper standard for development. He has paid the Coastal Commission fees and has been told they are delaying his hearing until the City has an opportunity to address the various parking issues with the Coastal Commission. Mr. WhJ.ttenberg said in talking with the Coastal CommJ.ssion they would process the application as it currently stands but their staff recommendation would be for denial because of the proposed utilization of street parking to meet a portion of the requirement for commercial parking. The Coastal Commission would probably support their staff and deny the application. Commissioner Sharp said at that meeting the Coastal Commission was very explicit stating they will not allow any public parking to be used for private business. Mr. Whittenberg said staff hoped to have its information to the Coastal CommissJ.on by April 1st but was not sure what their timetable would be from that point. Staff WJ.II inform the Commission and the applicant when it hears anything. . Prior to the vote Commissioner Dahlman stated he was surprised there is no on-site parking for the commercial and that it's all coming from off-site credits. Mr. Miller said he had made a very restricted application and that's why he has only 58% lot coverage. . . . Page 5 - P1ann~n9 commission Minutes of Karch 18, 1992 Commiss1oner Dahlman addressed another area of design flexibility, stating the artists he knows value non-conformity. He could envision an artist/resident looking at the second floor and saying he had a two-story residential and occupy and use it as two residential floors. He asked staff if this would change the parking requirement or any other requirement? staff advised it would change the commercial requirement because it would reduce the total square footage of the commercial area. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to table Minor Plan Review #92-1, asking the staff to review the side yard setback issue for third stories and schedule the required Public Hearings rather than to deny this application. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Orsini, Fife, Dahlman, Law Prior to the vote Mr. Whittenberg said the motion should be to "table" the matter unt11 such t1me as the necessary Public Hearings have been completed regarding potential amendments to the City's municipal ~ regarding resident1al setbacks; Commissioner Sharp agreed. Mr. Whittenberg said at the time this application is to come back to the Planning Commission the Planning Department will re-Notice the application. *** 3. Minor Plan Review #92-6 413 OCean Avenue Staff Report Mr. curtis del1vered the staff report. [staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Daniel Lawrence, is requesting (on behalf of property owner Charloma Schwankovsky) a general interior remodel of a non-conforming duplex at 413 Ocean Avenue. Staff recommended approval, SUbject to five conditions of approval. Commission Comments commissioner Dahlman asked how many parking spaces are on the property? Staff said two spaces are in the garage. commissioner Dahlman asked what currently lies in the rear and side yard setbacks that creates a violation? Staff said the rear unit 1S in side yard setback. The garage is too close to the rear property line, it needs to be nine feet from the alley but is 4' - 5'. . . . Page 6 - P1anning Commission Kinutes of Karch 18, 1992 Commissioner Dahlman asked what is bringing this non-conforming property 1nto more conformity with the current Codes? Mr. curtis said the property is not being brought into more conformity. The applicat10n is being processed under section 28-2407 which is designed to allow minor additions, alterations and enlargements to eX1sting non-conform1ng structures. The applicant will not touch the rear unit; staff is requiring the garage be drywalled. Demolish1ng the front unit would be the only manner to bring it into more conforming --- it would make the density more conform1ng. commissioner Dahlman sa1d he didn't believe Sect10n 28-2407 meant to allow non-conforming units to exist in perpetuity. The ~ would have been written to allow duplexes 1n this area. Mr. Whittenberg said there are two separate issues here --- (1) the eX1sting Code provisions allow for this proposal; (2) the Commission dealt with proposed changes to this ~ section relating to expansion of non-conforming uses (Commission-Council study Session February 19, 1992) and staff is preparing revisions to the proposals presented at that session. Staff anticipates bringing those back as Public Hearing before the Planning Commission to develop some new standards 1n May. The City did have a moratorium on receiving requests for expansions to non-conforming structures but the City Council allowed that to expire without an extension. The City is using the current ~ provisions and people can apply for additions in accordance with these provisions. commissioner Sharp said th1S application complies with current munic1pal Codes and the Commission would not have a right to deny 1t. Cha1rman Fife said this application is not close to being a problem, no square footage 1S being added, there is no intensificat10n of use. Commissioner orsini agreed, stating the remodel is making the property safer. Commissioner Law said she saw no problems. Mr. Whittenberg estimated this structure was bU1lt 1n 1910. In 1910 the City didn't exist and there were no setback requirements --- they just built the structure where they wanted to. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Fife to approve Minor Plan Review #92-6 subject to the five (5) conditions of approval outlined in the staff report. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Fife, Dahlman, Law, Orsini *** Chairman Fife declared a break from 8:45 p.m. to 8:55 p.m. . . . page 7 - P1anning commiaaion Hinu~es o~ March 18, 1992 4. Minor Plan Review #92-5 126 Cottonwood Lane staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, K.S. Deslgns of Irvine, requests (on behalf of trailer owner Mark cunningham) to provide a total of 1,240 square feet of living area. The applicant proposes to add a new cabana around his existing trailer. The proposed second story structure is actually a covered stairwell and landing to a roof deck over the first floor. The proposed cabana would add approximately 840 square feet to the subject structure. Staff recommended approval subject to six (6) conditions of approval outlined in the staff report. commission Comments commissioner orsini said the structure at 125 Cottonwood was mlscalculated and had to be moved over six inches. Mr. curtis said this application for 126 Cottonwood was designed with the moving of 125 Cottonwood in mind. There is 6' separation between 125 and 126 Cottonwood and 6' separation between 126 and 127 Cottonwood. Commissioner orsini asked again if the City could require a tract map showing the property lines in the Seal Beach Trailer Park. Director Whittenberg explained Title 25 of the California Administrative Code regulate the location of mobile homes/trailers in mobile home parks. Those requirements specify a distance between the structures, it does not specify a setback distance from a property line. The Redevelopment Agency, which is the City Council, has asked the City Attorney's Office to review the previous approval for the Trailer Park to determine if the Clty has the legal right to require a Parcel Map defining parcels of land for these purposes. That issue is still under review and Mr. Whittenberg did not know when the attorneys anticipate reporting back to the City Council. The report will go to the Redevelopment Agency as the City Council. They will make a determination regarding the issue of a Parcel Map for the Traller Park. commissioner Orsini asked if a map of Cottonwood Lane could be required from the Trailer Park owner to be sure the end trailer will still have the required distances as the trailers are being moved? Mr. Whittenberg said he was not sure because it would be difficult to state what each owner on that street would propose to do. commissioner Dahlman said he has been receiving numerous phone calls and asked when the City Attorney might respond? Mr. Whi ttenberg said the City Attorney's Off ice was extremely busy defending against the Mola Development Corporation lawsuit. Commissioner Dahlman said he understood that but things are happening in the Trailer Park, for example, fences are being built apparently into other peoples yards. Mr. Whittenberg said people . . . Page 8 - P1anning COmmission Minutes of March 18, 1992 in the Trailer Park can put a fence any place they want to as long as lt is structurally sound, meets building requirements and they get permission from the Park owner; Title 25 does not cover fences. Commissioner Dahlman sald that would make a lot of people upset because they thought they had certain rlghts. Mr. Whittenberg said that's an issue between the Park owner and his tenants. The City has no control. Commlssioner Dahlman asked if the adjacent two-story cabana was 20' away? He said staff had shown hlm a letter of authority which was not very official because the letter was not typed on letterhead and appeared to be an off-the-cuff opinion by a Santa Ana fireman about four years ago. He asked staff if progress had been made in obtaining a more official document? Mr. curtis said he will get another letter; he will contact the City's fire lnspector. Mr. Whittenberg explained the Orange County Fire Department assigns certain inspectors to each of their contract cities so they become familiar wi th the communi ty requirements plus their own requirements. In this case it was a Fire Department requirement that had been agreed to by the State. commissioner Orsini noted the required separation was 6' between trailers and asked about the fireplace and balcony intrusions to within four feet. Mr. Curtis explalned permitted intrusions are allowed to intrude one foot lnto the setback. The balcony and chimney must be cut back to one foot. commissioner orsini said "Is someone going to be there to check this while they're doing it?". Mr. Whittenberg said the Building Inspectors are there to inspect the trenching for the foundations. That's how the City became aware the setbacks at 125 Cottonwood were incorrect. The plans showed them at 6' but field measurements demonstrated them less. They had poured sub-surface footings to support a grade beam. That grade beam was too close to the other unit. The plans for 125 Cottonwood were drawn incorrectly. Chairman Fife said right now there is no Trailer Park requirement to have designated lots. Therefore, on a de facto basis are we gradually developing lots through the addition of these permanent two-story cabanas and the required structure separation rule? Mr. Whittenberg said no, because the structures are constructed under Title 25 requirements. The cabana itself it not considered a residential structure like a single family home. Mr. Fife asked that if once enough cabanas are built the requirement for separations between structures effectively begins to define some permanent locations? Mr. Whittenberg said it will define permanent locations for the structures, it will not define, for example, fences between the structures. commissioner orsini mentloned the Park map, asking about lot lines. Mr. Whittenberg said again that the City does not deal with lot lines in the Traller Park. The ~ only allows the City to deal . . . Page 9 - P1anning COmmission Minutes of March 18, 1992 with separat10ns between build1ngs. "The lines that are on that map have absolutely no bearing to anything that could be built on the property those lines were shown to give the city an indication as to how... the property could be laid out and to give you a general idea where trailers could be put ... now you have a situation where all we can require is that the 6' separation be maintained between the units and that is what you need to deal with". Commissioner Dahlman disagreed, saying that for the neighbors of these applicants the space has to come from somewhere and Park residents telephone h1m stating their spaces are shrinking. Implying that 1t is be1ng taken from them because they are "out of favor" or whatever reason. Mr. Whittenberg said the Commission has to deal with different issues in the Trailer Park versus the community as a whole. In the Park the trailer owners are leasing a portion of land to place their trailer on. They do not own the property. The land is owned by the Park owner. The state of California has said that for trailers and cabanas in mobile home parks the requirements for separat10n are based on distance from structure to structure not on lot 11nes unless the trailer park has a full subdivision. Some parks allow people to buy the land within them. Mr. Whittenberg said he would contact the City Attorney's Office to see if he could get a time-line on when something might be coming to the City Council on their request. He will prov1de that informat1on to the Commission. Commissioner Orsini said that for Seal Beach Trailer Park residents there is no way for them to know their lot dimensions because there is no point "A" to point "B" to measure from. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Minor Plan Review #92-5 subject to the six (6) conditions of approval outlined in the staff report . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Fife, Orsini *** 4. Minor Plan Review #92-4 1017 & 1017~ Seal Way Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The appl1cant, Freddie Leonard 1S requesting (on behalf of the owners, Adam and Margarita Keusayan) to add approximately 505 square feet to a non-conforming duplex at 1017 and 1017~ Seal Way. The proposed addition would include enlargement of both living rooms, a new laundry room in the lower unit and a new two-car carport with an open deck above. Staff recommended approval subject to three (3) conditions of approval. . . . Page 10 - Plann~ng Commission ~nutes of March 18, 1992 Commisslon Comments The Commission discussed guard rails at 11th street, asking who installed them and whether they were on City or private property or both. The question was asked how can those rails be removed to build a carport? Mr. curtis said he would have to re-inspect the site. The Commlssion asked if the City has plans to install curbs and sidewalks at 11th street? Mr. curtis said the City's Engineering Department has advised him they do not intend to install curbs and sidewalks on stub streets. commissioner Orsini said he objected to a carport on the beach side of this property. He asked what this would do to the value of the adjacent homes? Mr. curtis said staff would reinspect the site and report back to the Commission. If it became apparent that they could not have a carport they would perhaps put a deck in and be two spaces substandard in parking --- that would meet the Code requirements. The applicants are trying to bring the property closer to meeting the parking requirements. staff will also obtain a report from the Engineering Department on these issues. Commissioner Sharp asked about the construction of the wall encloslng the carport, noting the view of the carport from the beach could be screened. Mr. Whlttenberg said the plans indicate it will be an open carport but the Commission could require a false wall be constructed along the beach side that would match the architectural style of the building itself so it would appear to be a residential wall. MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Sharp to have a limited Public Hearing to hear from the applicant and/or his architect. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 orsini, Sharp, Dahlman, Law, Fife Paul Geijer * [512 Calle Malaguena. San Clemente. CA] Mr. Geijer said his clients have agreed to building a screening wall to cover the carport view from Seal Way. Commissioner Orsini asked for the Commission to have an Architectural Review on any wall that was planned for this property, stating he wanted something that blends in with what is already built and something that is conforming to the neighborhood. Mr. Whittenberg said he thought a carport must be open on three sides to meet Fire Code requirements; a garage could be required by the Commission. Additionally, if a garage were required it would not look like the rest of the house because the garage wall that faces the beach cannot have the amount of glass that is shown for the second story. Mr. Gei jer said the property owners have assured hlm the guard rails and posts are on their property. They had the property . . Paqe 11 - P1anninq COmmission Kinutes of Karch 18, 1992 surveyed before they purchased it. A copy of that survey was requested by Mr. Wh1ttenberg. Mr. Whittenberg said he thought it would be most appropr1ate for the C1ty's plan check Engineer meet with Mr. Ge1jer and discuss the proposed treatment of that wall, to meet all code requirements and to leave both ends open as a carport structure with a glass screen wall. A report will be made to the Comm1ssion at their next meeting. Serg10 Keusavan * 1713 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach Mr. Keusayan sa1d 1f curbs were installed on 11th Street it would not allow enough room to make a three-point turn. He suggested using an opaque glass to screen the carport from the beach. He said the front of the home could arguably be on the street side and not the beach side. Chi Kredel * 1633 Seal Way Mr. Kredel sa1d his major concern was seeing a carport on the beach side of this property. He felt the plans were not aesthetically pleasing, noting the downstairs apartment looks into the proposed carport. This property 1S non-conforming and the City is allowing changes without bringing 1 t up to ~; the City will never improve. He said he felt the owners are improving the property piecemeal and suggested a complete demolition with a new house. Bruce Stark * Seal Beach [No Address Given] Mr. Stark noted the applicant was listed as Freddie Leonard and Mr. Leonard is Mr. Cox's foreman; why wasn't Cox Construct10n listed as the applicant? He said the City should place a condition of approval on this application for the contractor to pull perm1ts. The Commission advised Mr. Stark that pulling the requ1red building permits is ult1mately the property owner's responsibility. Sergio Keusavan * 1713 Electric Avenue, Seal Beach Mr. Keusayan said the family had seriously considered demolishing the home when they purchased the property since it was bU1lt before 1950. They had been advised they could build a third story because the lot was 37~ feet wide. If the lot is 37 4/8' wide they would need to purchase two inches (2") of property from the adjoining lot so they could build three stories which would be about a 7000 square foot home. They currently live in a 2800 square feet home and want a smaller home. This application would allow the fam1ly's four cars to be parked on the property. The like the present structure's size and want to improve on the aesthetics. Comm1ssioner orsini asked staff if the adjacent property could sell any port10n of the1r side setbacks to the Keusayan's? Mr. Curtis said no, because it would reduce a 25' wide lot to below the requ1red min1mum lot width. Therefore, it will not be possible for the Keusayan's to build a third story. . Public Hearing was closed. . . . Page ~2 - Pl.annl.ng comml.ssl.on M.inutes of March ~8, ~992 MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Sharp to continue consideration of Minor Plan Review 192-4 to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of April 1, 1992 to obtain: (1) a report from staff on the guard railings at 11th Street; (2) whether the archi tectural treatment on the beach side of the carport would disqualify it as a carport and make it a garage; (3) a rendering of what the carport would look like if a screen wall were built on the beach side; (3) a copy of the applicant's survey. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Orsini, Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Fife *** PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Negative Declaration 192-1 Archaeological Element Mr. Whittenberg said staff is recommending this agenda item be continued to the April 1st meetlng. The Public Hearing will be on the Negative Declaration and the Archaeological Element itself. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to continue Negative Declaration #92-1 to the Planning Commission meeting of April 1, 1992. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Dahlman, Law, Orsini, Fife *** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications from the audience. STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS CommlSSloner Dahlman said he would refer a resident letter he had received to the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Whittenberg said if he would provlde staff a copy of the letter staff would take care of it for him. Commlssion Sharp asked for a copy of the Minutes of the February 19, 1992 Joint Study Session. Mr. Whittenberg said those Minutes were City Council Minutes and he was not sure anyone has received them to date; they will be provided. Chairman Flfe asked if anyone has slgned up for the Planning Insti tute in Anaheim? Mr. Whl ttenberg said not to date. The League of California Citles' Planning Commlssion Institute is April 9 -11, 1992. Staff will deliver the information to the Commission. . . . .. page 13 - P1ann~ng COmmission Minutes of Karch 18, 1992 The cost will be $150 registration fee. Commissioner Sharp asked for a copy of the agenda. Chalrman Fife asked if any Planning Commissloners were going to attend the Orange County Water District State Water Project Tour March 27 and 28, 1992? Mrs. Flllmann said only Commissioner Orsini had given her an application to attend. Commissioner Sharp said he had replied directly by himself. Commissioner Dahlman said he did not complete his form himself. Mr. Whittenberg said staff will check and get back to the Commission tomorrow. ADJOURNMENT Chalrman Fife adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted ~o~ Jo n Fillmann Recording Secretary -- *** These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission Minutes of March 18, l~~~ere approved by the Planning Commission on April ~,1992. ~