The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Min 1992-07-01 1:30 P.M. * city council Cb811lhers 211 Eighth street, Seal Beach, CA I. PLEDGE OF ALLBGIARCE II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of June 3, 1992 IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. Election of Chairman and vice-Chairman . Determination of Compatibility 320 Main street, suite .C"fVetinary Cat Clinic 4. Policy statement: CRAS Dimensions 3. V. PUBLIC BEARINGS 5. CornU tional Address: Applicant: owner: Request: Resolution: 6. Conditional Address: Applicant: owner : Request: . Resolutions: Use Permit #1-91 303/305 Main street Main street Deli Tom Charara Thomas Hy8lllS Indefinite extension of #41 license (On-sale beer & wine Eating Place). #92-12 ABC Use Permit #92-3 and #92-4 333 First street John Abboud Seal Beach country Club, dba Oakwood Apartments Approval of a convenience store with a #20 ABC license (Off-Sale Beer & Wine) within a residential co.plex with more than 150 units (Oakwood Apartments) . #92-13 and #92-14 ~ Page 2 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on Agenda for July 1, 1992 Resolut1on: Use Permit #92-5 117 First street Hellman Propert1es F. Jerome Tone IV (Partner) Installt10n of a modular office structure (24' x 60') on oil production site with1n the Hellman Ranch property. #92-19 7. Condit1onal Address: Appl1cant: OWner: Request: . Resolut1on: Resolution: Resolut1on: Resolution: Zone Change #92-1 General Plan Amendments #92-3A * 192-3B Negative Declaration #92-3 Address: 1 Anderson street Applicant: Jeff OVereem OWner: Jeff OVereem Request: To allow one three-story condomin1WD containing two un1ts of approx1mately 3,000 square feet each. #92-20 for Zone Change #92-1 #92-21 for GPA #92-3A #92-22 for GPA #92-4A #92-23 for Negat1ve Declarat10n #92-3 8. 9. Zone Text Amendment #92-3 Applicant: City of Seal Beach Request: Amendment to Sect10n 28-2000 of the Code of The Ci ty of Seal Beach changing the title of the Publ1c Land Use zone (PLU) to Public Land Use/Recreation zone (PLU/R) and an amendment to section 28-2002(1) to spec1f1cally include open space and parks as permitted uses w1thin the PLU/R. Resolution: #92-15 . 10. Zone Text Amendment #92-4 Applicant: City of Seal Beach Request: Amendment to section 28-1155(B)(4) of the Code of the Ci ty of Seal Beach changing the m1n1mWD residential setback for yards not abutting a street or alley from 10% of the lot width to three (3') feet. Resolution: #92-16 ~ Page 3 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on Agenda * July 1, 1992 11. Conditional Use Permit #12-89 Address: 12343 Seal Beach Blvd. Super Saver Cinema Seven Report [Cont1nued from May 20 Comm1SS1on meeting]. Resolution: #92-11 VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS VII. STAFF CONCERNS VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT . . I I I CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 1, 1992 The regularly scheduled Plannlng Commisslon meetlng of July 1, 1992 was called to order by Vlce Chalrman Dahlman at 7:30 p.m. In City Council Chambers. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Alleglance was said. ROLL CALL Present: Vlce Chalrman Dahlman Commissioners Law, Sharp, Orslni Absent: Chalrman Flfe. There belng no Ob]ectlon, Vlce Chalrman Dahlman so ordered Mr. Flfe's absence excused. Staff Present: Department of Development SerVlces: Lee Whlttenberg, Dlrector Barry Curtls, Admlnlstratlve Asslstant Joan Flllmann, Executlve Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of June 3, 1992 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to accept the Planning Commission Minutes of June 3, 1992 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4 - 0 - 1 Dahlman, Sharp, Law, orsini Fife SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to hold over the election of Planning Commission Chairman and Vice Chairman to the July 15, 1992 commission meeting when a full Planning Commission will be present. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4 - 0 - 1 Dahlman, Sharp, Law, Orsini Fife I I I 3. Determination of Compatibility 320 Main street, suite "C" veterinary Cat Clinic staff Report Mr. curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on f1le 1n the Planning Department]. Staff requested a Plann1ng Comm1SS1on determ1nat1on on whether a veter1nary cat cl1n1c 1S compat1ble w1th the other uses 1n the C-1 zone. Also, because th1s bus1ness may have extended hours to cover emergencies (wh1ch could mean the clin1c would be open from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) staff requested a Plann1ng Commiss1on determinat10n on whether a CUP would be requ1red pursuant to newly adopted (February 1992) mun1c1pal Code section 28-1300(8)(]). This Code sect10n addresses bus1nesses wh1ch normally have bUS1ness hours between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. and not Just on an emergency basis. If approved, staff requested plans be subm1tted for approval for all tenant 1mprovements and that no dwel11ng units w111 be perm1tted on the site. Comm1ss1on Comments V1ce Cha1rman Dahlman noted mun1c1pal Code Sect10n 28-1300(8) (]) is a new mun1c1pal Code section applY1ng to bus1nesses that want to stay open between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. It requ1res those bus1nesses to obtain a Cond1t1onal Use Perm1t. Commiss1oner OrS1n1 sa1d he was concerned W1 th the appl1cant' s proposal for a furnished set of rooms for personal use when circumstances require around-the-clock care for the cats. Wh1le he favored someone always be1ng there w1th the animals he d1d not want living quarters there. Dr. Robert Dawson, the applicant, explained he was w1thdraw1ng h1s request for the furn1shed set of rooms because the square footage would not allow for them. Comm1ssioner Orsin1 asked Dr. Dawson wh1ch State agenc1es regulate veter1nary cl1n1cs? Dr. Dawson sa1d the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Board of Veter1nary Medical Exam1ners. The Plann1ng Commission decided a CUP 1S necessary for bus1nesses who are open from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. The Comm1ss1on 1nd1cated th1s was for both bus1nesses who regularly are open from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. and/or those bus1nesses who occas1onally are open from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. Dr. Dawson asked 1f his business could open in forty-five to ninety days? Mr. Curt1s expla1ned he could open h1s bus1ness r1ght away but he could not be open from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. unt11 he obta1ned a CUP from the City. The CUP will take approximately f1ve weeks to process. *** I I I Page 3 - Planning commission Minutes of July 1, 1992 4. policy statement: CRAS Dimensions At the June 3, 1992 Plannlng Commlssion meetlng Mr. curtis presented the proposed POllCY statement to the Plannlng Commisslon. [Policy statement on flle in the Planning Department]. ThlS POllCY statement will prevent the Plannlng Commlssion from spendlng exceSSlve tlme revlewing covered roof access structures (CRAS) proposals WhlCh clearly exceed the reasonable Slze 11mits for a CRAS. Mr. Curtls explalned, lf adopted, this would be a Clty Councl1 POllCY establlshlng maXlmum dimenslons for rectangular, circular, L-shaped and stralght CRASIs would be establlshed. Any proposed CRASIs WhlCh exceed these maXlmum dlmenslons would be subJect to denial by Planning Department staff at the counter. Proposed CRAS's WhlCh meet the maXlmum dlmenslons, or those which staff feels may be acceptable due to creative deslgn elements, wll1 come before the Plannlng Commisslon as a Helght Varlatlon for approval or denlal. The Planning CommlSSlon wll1 stll1 reVlew all CRASs. Commisslon Comments The CommlSSlon discussed the new policy statement, noting they felt more comfortable knowing an appeal process lS ln place and that the CRAS's helght wlll be monitored by the CommlSSlon through the Helght Varlatlon process. It was noted the POllCY statement wll1 be numbered at the City Council level. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to forward to the City Council Planning Commission approval on the policy Statement for Maximum CRAS sizes. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Law, Dahlman, orsini Fife *** 5. Conditional Use Permit #7-91 303/305 Main Street * Main Street Deli Resolution No. #92-12 staff Report Mr. Whittenberg dellvered the staff report. [Staff report on flle in the Planning Department]. The appllcant, Tom Charara, requests Plannlng Commlsslon reVlew and lndeflnlte extenslon of CUP #7-91, for a #41 ABC license (On-Sale Beer and Wlne -- Eatlng Place) for his restaurant, Main Street Dell. Commlss1on Comments Vlce Chairman Dahlman indlcated a typographlcal error on page 4, condltlon #12. ThlS wll1 be corrected. I I I Page 4 - Planning commission Minutes of July 1, 1992 PubllC Hearlnq Vlce Chalrman Dahlman opened the PubllC Hearlng. Tom Charara * 303/305 Maln street. Seal Beach Mr. Charara introduced hlmself as the owner of the Maln Street Deli. He agreed with the hours In the Condltlons of Approval. However, he questioned Condltlon #5 (5. No alcohollC beverages shall be advertlsed in the wlndow areas). He sald hlS wlndows were tinted and patrons can't see the restaurant lS open. He sald he would llke to have llghted beer slgns In the wlndows. Mr. Charara sald he worked at the Maln Street Dell for SlX years prlor to bUYlng the buslness. Durlng those SlX years the owner had llghted llquor slgns in the wlndows and he thought the prlvllege was 'grandfathered' in. He removed the slgns because the Condl tions of Approval sald to do so but he thought lt was unfalr because other merchants have llghted alcohol slgns in the wlndows. Vlce Chalrman Dahlman suggested a llghted "Open" slgn. Commissioner OrSlnl explalned the ABC lS placlng slgnage restrlctlons on new licenses not allowlng advertlslng alcohollC beverages in windows. The Clty POllCY lS to agree wlth no advertising of alcoholic beverages In wlndows. No one wlshed to speak In favor or In Opposltlon. rebuttal. The PubllC Hearlng was closed. There was no MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Sharp to approve, thus indefinitely extending, Conditional Use Permit #7-91 by the adoption of Resolution #92-12. Condition #5 is to be left in place. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4 - 0 - 1 orsini, Sharp, Law, Dahlman Fife The staff report requested Plannlng CommlSSlon dlrectlon on whether the condltlon to mandate serVlce of alcoholic beverages In glass containers at outdoor patlo dinlng areas. The Commlsslon sald thlS should become a standard Clty condltlon for CUP requests wlth outdoor dlnlng facllltles. Staff wlll formulate thls lnto a formal POllCY and bring lt back to the CommlSSlon for review and approval. *** 6. Conditional Use Permit #92-3 and #92-4 333 First Street Staff Report Mr. Whlttenberg stated staff had recelved letters from the applicant, John Abboud, and the property owner, Seal Beach Country Club Apartmentsjdba Oakwood Apartments, requesting thlS matter be I I I Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes of July 1, 1992 cont1nued to the July 15, 1992 Plann1ng Comm1ss10n meet1ng. [Staff report on f11e in the Plann1ng Department]. Comm1ss10n Comments Comm1SS10ner OrS1n1 asked 1f the door rema1n open to the pub11c or be closed? and report back to the Comm1ssion. by the outs1de gates would Staff w111 reV1ew with ABC Pub11c Hearinq Opened V1ce Chairman Dahlman opened the Pub11c Hear1ng. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to continue Condi t10nal Use Permits #92-3 and #92-4 to the July 15, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Orsini, Law, Dahlman Fife ... 7. Conditional Use Permit #92-5 711 First Street Resolutions #92-13 and #92-14 Staff Report Mr. Wh1ttenberg de11vered the staff report. [Staff report on f11e in the Planning Department]. The app11cant, Hellman Propert1es, requests approval to 1nstall a mob11e off1ce structure on the oil product10n s1te w1th1n the Hellman Ranch property. Staff recommended approval through adopt10n of Resolut10n No. 92-19 w1th seven Cond1t10ns of Approval. Commiss10n Comments V1ce Cha1rman Dahlman asked 1f th1s s1te was a h1stor1c wetland? Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d lots of th1ngs are h1stor1c wetlands 1n Southern Ca11forn1a. The ErR done for the Mola proposal sa1d there were no 1dent1f1ed degraded or severely degraded wetlands on that port10n of the Hellman property. The 011 product10n areas were shown as ruderal f1eld areas w1th no wetland value. V1ce Cha1rman Dahlman asked how far from the fault 11ne would th1s mob11e off1ce be? Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d 350' - 400' and 1t's not 1n an AlqU1St Pr1010 zone. V1ce Cha1rman Dahlman asked 1f the app11cable zon1ng was the Spec1f1c Plan? And 1f th1s area 1sn' t on the port10n of the Hellman property covered by the Mola proposal how can th1s be governed by the Spec1f1c Plan? Mr. Whittenberg expla1ned the Spec1f1c Plan covers the ent1re Hellman property. There are d1fferent land use des1gnat10ns on the Spec1f1c Plan. The Specif1c Plan reviewed by the C1ty pr10r to 1989 is the Specif1c Plan that's I I I Page 6 - Planning commission Minutes of July 1, 1992 st111 in effect. It shows 660 condom1n1um units and 113 s1ngle fam1ly homes for a total of 773 un1ts on the port1on of land cons1dered to be the Mola proposal s1te. That Spec1f1c Plan was proposed to be amended as part of the Mola appl1cat1ons. S1nce the Mola appl1cat1ons were never approved the Specif1c Plan was not amended. The Comm1SS1on asked why the Cond1tions of Approval call for paved parking spaces and landscap1ng? Mr. Whittenberg sa1d the municipal Code requ1res a certa1n percentage of a park1ng lot area to be landscaped and staff doesn't feel the applicant should be exempt from that prov1s1on. The AQMD 1S becom1ng more str1ct on air qual1ty standards. Because of the dust generated from unpaved roads they w111 proh1b1t unpaved roads. Publ1c Hear1ng Vice Cha1rman Dahlman opened the Publ1c Hear1ng. The appl1cant was not present. No one w1shed to speak in favor of or 1n Oppos1t1on to this request. The Public Hearing was closed. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Conditional Use Permit #92-5 by adopting Resolution No. 92-19, subject to seven (7) Conditions of Approval as outlined in the staff report. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Orsini Fife ... 7. Zone Change #92-1 General Plan Amendment #92-3A General Plan Amendment #92-3B Negative Declaration #92-3 1 Anderson Street, Seal Beach Resolution #92-20 Resolution #92-21 Resolution #92-22 Resolution #92-23 staff Report Mr. Curt1s presented the staff report. [Staff report on f1le 1n the Plann1ng Department]. The applicant and property owner, Jeff Overeem, requests approval to change the zoning of a 4,775 square foot parcel from General Cornmerc1al (C-2) to Res1dent1al Med1um Dens1ty (RMD). To amend the land use table of both the Land Use Element and the Hous1ng Element of the Seal Beach General Plan to account for an 1ncrease of 4,775 square feet of med1um dens1ty res1dential land and a s1m1lar decrease of general commercial land. Staff recommended approval w1th ten (10) Condit1ons of Approval. Comm1SS1on Comments Commiss1oner Sharp asked how many feet were there from the roof of the proposed condos to the floor of the Water Tower's f1rst level? Mr. Curt1s sa1d about twenty feet. I I I Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of July 1, 1992 Comm1ss1oner OrS1n1 asked staff what the equ1valent to 45 dec1bels was? Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d 45 dBa was equ1valent to persons be1ng able to carryon a normal conversat1on at a S1X foot d1stance. Comm1SS1oner Ors1ni asked what 50 dec1bels would be? Mr. Wh1ttenberg Joked "Maybe a husband and a wife hav1ng a heated conversat1on at a S1X foot d1stance". V1ce Cha1rman Dahlman asked why there were some "Yes" answers on the Negat1ve Declarat1on? Mr. Wh1ttenberg said staff 1nd1cated several areas 1n the in1t1al study that could have a potent1al 1mpact. Through the Negat1ve Declarat10n process 1f you are able to m1t1gate those 1mpacts to a level of 1ns1gn1f1cance w1th Cond1t1ons of Approval that would not requ1re the C1ty to prepare an EIR. In th1s case, the proposed m1t1gat1on measures would do just that and that' 5 why staff felt a Negat1ve Declarat10n was appropr1ate. Commiss1oner OrS1n1 clar1f1ed, for the v1ew1ng aud1ence, what the "Yes" answers were. V1ce Cha1rman Dahlman noted the two condo un1ts would not be low 1ncome un1ts and asked about subd1v1s1on fees. Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d that could be a cons1derat1on. It was cons1dered as part of the Rum Runner approvals when the parcel was converted to resident1al land uses. At that time an 1mpact fee w1th a formula was developed. That same formula would probably be used for th1s project. The most appropr1ate t1me for these cond1t1ons to be cons1dered 15 at the t1me the parcel maps are recorded. If they are not bU1lt as condomin1ums, the cond1t1ons would be cons1dered as part of the Zone Change. vice Cha1rman Dahlman ind1cated the response date to the Negat1ve Declaration 15 July 17th. Mr. Wh1ttenberg said the Negat1ve Declarat10n was made ava1lable June 26th and the review per10d w111 be through July 17th. No comments have been rece1ved to date. Publ1c Hear1nq V1ce Cha1rman Dahlman opened the Publ1c Hear1ng. Jeff Overeem * 2176 Sycamore Canyon Road. Santa Barbara. CA Mr. Overeem spoke 1n favor of h1s proJect. He sa1d that as the property owner he could bU1ld commerc1al on the s1te now. He said h1s proposed proJect would not 1mpact the Water Tower from Pac1fic Coast H1ghway and not much of the Water Tower's substructure was seen from the Surfs1de s1de. He sa1d he d1d not obJect to the $20,000 park m1t1gat1on fees. Georqe Armstronq * No Address G1ven Mr. Armstrong sa1d that 1n 1982 the people of Seal Beach and Sunset Beach carne to h1m and asked h1m 1f he would be w1l11ng to des1gn and bU1ld a home 1n the histor1cally sign1f1cant Water Tower. After two or three years of arduous work, g01ng through arch1tectural control comm1ttees and putting up a $100,000 I I I Page 8 - Planning commission Minutes of July 1, 1992 performance bond and $50,000 bonds for ma1ntenance on the Water Tower, he was given the r1ght to bU1ld 1n the Water Tower. One of the cond1t1ons at that t1me was he was not allowed to bU1ld more than the f1rst story for the conven1ence of garages and the noth1ng would be allowed to be bU1lt so as to obstruct the sub-structure of the Water Tower; the Water Tower residence was to appear as the original water tower. He felt th1s new proposal would slgn1f1cantly effect the V1ew of the sub-structure. He sa1d he felt Mr. Overeem's des1re to bU1ld condom1n1ums would 1ncrease the property's value by double what it's worth as commercial property. Clar1fY1ng h1S obJections, Mr. Armstrong said he obJected to a three-story res1dent1al structure (1) on behalf of the Water Tower and (2) it would negat1vely impact the commerc1al auto deta1l shop he owns adJacent to 1t. He would prefer commerc1al construct1on over res1dent1al. If 1t had to be res1dent1al he would prefer noth1ng h1gher than 20'. Sol John * 330 Ma1n Street. Seal Beach Mr. John sa1d the Water Tower has been there a long time, 1t'S h1stor1c. He talked about the soundness of the ground 1n certa1n areas and other areas that would need fill to stab1l1ze them. Dr. Bob O'Dell * Water Tower. Seal Beach Dr. O'Dell sa1d he 1S the owner of the Water Tower. He said the rules have changed from when 1t was bU1lt 1n 1982 and now, 1n 1992. He sa1d in 1982 there were many restr1ct1ons placed on the construct1on to preserve the h1stor1cal 1ntegr1ty of the structure. He sa1d the proposal would destroy the aesthet1cs of the Water Tower. He noted the deta1l shop 1S 18' tall and the proposed condos are at 35'. He sa1d the property owner purchased the lot know1ng 1t 1S zoned commerc1al. Regard1ng the growth 1ssue, Dr. O'Dell sa1d the proposed construct1on would be "throw1ng two houses in w1th a bunch of stuff". He felt the enterta1nment at Noel's restaurant would bother the proposed construct1on. And lastly, he talked about a sense of commun1ty, saY1ng th1s proJect was prepared and presented w1thout talk1ng to h1m. It sa1d he felt 1t was a slap 1n the face, 1t would be morally and eth1cally wrong to approve 1t and added it would be putt1ng money 1n the appl1cant's pockets by 1ncreasing the value of that land. When the Comm1ssion asked how much the property value m1ght 1ncrease, George Anderson said about 40%. vice Cha1rman Dahlman 1nd1cated he thought 1t would be best to make zone changes for the commun1ty' s best 1nterests. Then 1f a developer wanted to bU1ld --- that would be another 1ssue. Charles Antos * 328 17th Street Mr. Antos sa1d he was work1ng for the C1ty of Seal Beach when the Water Tower was bU1lt and there were many concerns at that t1me. He noted there have been no comments from Surfs1de res1dents. He suggested hold1ng th1S matter over to allow the appl1cant and other II I I Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of July 1, 1992 resl.dents tl.me to talk about the l.mpacts. He suggested lettl.ng the prl.ncl.pals work it out. The applicant dl.d not Wl.sh a rebuttal period. The Publl.c Hearl.ng was closed. Comml.ssl.on Comments Comml.SSl.oner OrSl.nl. suggested an architectural reVl.ew and havl.ng the proposal blend l.n wl.th the Water Tower. Mr. Whl.ttenberg sal.d that as a condl. tl.on of the Zone Change the Plannl.ng Comml.SSl.on could make that requl.rement. The bUl.ldl.ng style would need to be clarl.fl.ed because the Water Tower l.S an unusual structure. Commissl.oner Sharp said he was not prepared to vote untl.l he could see drawl.ngs and suggested holding the matter over. Vl.ce Chal.rman Dahlman agreed, saYl.ng it should go back to the Plannl.ng Department for modl.fl.catl.ons and/or more l.nformatl.on. Commissl.oner Orsl.ni urged the Comml.SSl.on not to lose control of thl.s proJect because the appll.cant could go ahead and bUl.ld commercial without coml.ng before the Plannl.ng Commissl.on. Mr. Whl.ttenberg revl.ewed what the Plannl.ng Comml.SSl.on would ll.ke to see: (1) a site plan showl.ng the Water Tower and the appll.cant's property. The sl.te plan should be all-inclusl.ve, showl.ng all the commercl.al bUl.ldings, Surfsl.de, the ocean/beach areas; (2) an elevatl.on lookl.ng south on Pacl.f ic Coast Hl.ghway; (3) another proposal showl.ng a two-story bUl.lding wl.th perhaps three condos; (4) a sketch of the area wl.th the Water Tower l.n the background. Publl.c Hearinq Re-Opened Vl.ce Chal.rman Dahlman reopened the Publl.c Hearl.ng. MOTION by orsini; SECOND by Sharp to continue Negat1ve Declaration #92-3, General Plan Amendments #92-3A and #92-3B, Zone Change #92-1 to the Planning Commission meeting of August 5, 1992. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4 - 0 - 1 orsini, Sharp, Law, Dahlman Fife *** Vice Chairman Dahlman called a short recess. *** 9. Zone Text Amendment #92-3 City of Seal Beach Amendment to section 28-2000 of the Code of The City of Seal Beach changing the title of the Public Land Use zone (PLU) to Public Land Use/Recreation zone (PLU/R) and an amendment to section 28-2002 (1) to specifically include open space and parks as permitted uses within the PLU/R. Resolution: #92-15 , I I Page 10 - Planning commission Minutes of July 1, 1992 10. Zone Text Amendment #92-4 City of Seal Beach Amendment to section 28-11SS(B) (4) of the Code of the city of Seal Beach changing the minimum residential setback for yards not abutting a street or alley from 10% of the lot width to three (3') feet. Resolution: #92-16 Vlce Chalrman Dahlman asked the CommlSSlon if there were any obJectlons to combinlng the PubllC Hearlngs on these two agenda ltems; there were no obJectlons. staff Report Mr. Whlttenberg presented the two staff reports. [Staff reports on file ln the Plannlng Department]. The Clty of Seal Beach, Vla Zonlng Text Amendment #92-3 , lS requesting to amend Sectlon 28-2000 of The Code of The Clty of Seal Beach. CA, changlng the tltle of the PubllC Land Use zone (PLU) to PubllC Land Use/Recreation zone (PLU/R) and to amend section 28- 2002(1) of the Code to speclflcally lnclude open space, parks and recreatlon facl1ltles as permltted uses ln the PLU/R zone. ThlS Code amendment lS lntended to clarlfy that recreatlonal facl1ltles and open space are permitted uses. The Clty of Seal Beach, Vla Zonlng Text Amendment #92-4, lS requestlng to amend Sectlon 28-1155(B) (4) of The Code of The Clty of Seal Beach. CA, changlng the mlnlmum resldentlal setback for yards not abuttlng a street or alley (side yards) from 10% of the lot wldth to 3 feet. The proposed amendment wl11 only pertaln to the newly created Limlted Commerclal zone (L-C). Mr. Whittenberg stated he had recelved a letter from Walter Ml11er dated July 1, 1992. Coples were dlstrlbuted to each Plannlng CommlSSloner. Vice Chalrman Dahlman lndlcated the letter would be entered for the Record [copy attached to these Mlnutes for reference] wlthout readlng the entlre letter. Public Hearlnq Opened Vlce Chalrman Dahlman opened the Public Hearlng. Seretta Fleldlnq * 223 Seal Beach Boulevard. Seal Beach Mrs. Fleldlng asked how there could be a mlnlmum of SlX feet between resldentlal propertles Slnce commerclal property on Seal Beach Blvd. lS bUll t on the property 11ne? If a bUl1dlng lS already on the property 11ne there would only be a mlnlmum of three feet (3') between the propertles. Mr. Whlttenberg explalned Mrs. Fleldlng's structure lS a legal non- conforming two-story structure built on the property 11ne wlth the second level currently used for a resldentlal purpose. Mrs. Fleldlng's property is lmmediately adJacent to Mr. Ml11er's , I I Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes of July 1, 1992 property. If the Commission were to amend the setback requ1rement to allow a m1n1mum three foot setback from the property 11ne there would only be a three foot separat10n between structures. It would not be a normal situat10n allowed under the Code for the new standards. Mr. M11ler's proposed proJect w111 be bU1lt on the property 11ne for the f1rst story, the second and th1rd floors will be set back. Mrs. F1elding said that 1f Mr. M11ler's second story was bU1lt on the property 11ne 1t would block her w1ndows. Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d that 1ssue would be dealt w1th dur1ng the plan check process w1th the F1re Department. Mr. M11ler's walls may need to be relocated or he would have to prov1de Mrs. F1eld1ng's structure w1th adequate circulat10n systems. Comm1ss1oner Sharp asked staff why Mr. M11ler's proJect was delayed? Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d Mr. Miller's proposal came before the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on for architectural reV1ew of the plans. At that t1me Mr. M11ler sa1d he was not aware of the 10% Code setback requ1rementj that was late Apr11 1992. He thought he had a three foot setback requ1rement, the Code sa1d 10%. He subm1tted h1S plans w1th a three foot setback. Staff recommended adher1ng to the requ1red setback or cons1der a Code amendment based on the Plann1ng Commiss1on's d1scret1on. Mrs. F1eld1ng sa1d that when the new bU1ld1ng was bU1lt next to the Bay Theater on Ma1n Street, then-D1rector Ed Kn1ght told her a setback from one commerc1al bU1ld1ng to the next was mandatory for safety. She asked why on Seal Beach Boulevard were the commerc1al bU1ldings allowed to abut each other? Mr. Whittenberg sa1d he was not sure what Mr. Kn1ght was referr1ng to but, commerc1al structures can be built on the property line. Normally they are set back a b1t because the bU1ld1ng's foot1ng stays on the owner's property and the wall 1S set 1n about S1X 1nches. W1th new requ1rements for spr1nkler1ng new bU1ld1ngs that solves many safety problems. Charles Antos * 328 17th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Antos said on Ma1n Street you have an old S1 tuat10n commercial bU1ldings w1th some residential above. Th1ngs have not been bU1lt th1s way for about fifteen years. The zero lot 11ne was ma1nta1ned for both commerc1al and residential. Th1s could be a n1ghtmare with 3' setbacks. You could have a two-story commerc1al bU1lding be1ng bU1lt on the property 11ne. Next to 1t you have a bU1ld1ng that's commerc1al on the f1rst floor and res1dent1al on the second floor. Irrespect1ve of the lot s1ze, th1s w111 result in a three foot tunnel. Depend1ng on how th1s 1S bU1lt you could wind up w1th the w1ndow openings being bas1cally useless w1th no way to mainta1n them. Eventually they would probably be unused --- The 11ght and vent1lat1on w111 no longer be ava1lable from those w1ndows. He suggested talk1ng to the F1re Department about rescue 1mpacts and use. He would support a 10% rather than a 3' setback because 1t would support a balcony. I I I Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of July 1, 1992 Vice Cha1rman Dahlman asked Mr. Wh1ttenberg 1f the second and th1rd stor1es 1n all cases d1dn't have to be setback? Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d the current Code prov1s10n would allow a zero setback for second story commercial. It requ1res a setback of 10% for a second story if the second story 1S proposed for res1dent1al uses. V1ce Cha1rman Dahlman sa1d he had a problem w1th this, ask1ng what would happen 1f somebody changed a use. Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d they would not be allowed to change the structure's use because of the setbacks. Sol John * 330 Ma1n Street. Seal Beach Mr. John suggested hinged w1ndows for eaS1er clean1ng. He w1shed everyone a happy July 4th. Bruce Stark * 219 Seal Beach Boulevard. Seal Beach Mr. Stark talked about enforcement problems w1th commercialjresident1al uses, saY1ng a person could move furn1ture 1nto a commerc1al use and who would stop hlm? He suggested the Planning Comm1SS10n recons1der th1S 1ssue. Seretta F1eldinq * 223 Seal Beach Blvd.. Seal Beach Mrs. Field1ng said there must be sympathy for eX1st1ng structures. V1ce Cha1rman Dahlman closed the Pub11c Hear1ng. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve Zone Text Amendment #92-3 by adopting Resolution No. 92-15. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, orsini, Dahlman, Law F1fe *** MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve Zone Text Amendment #92-4 by adopting Resolution No. 92-16, to require a three foot (3') setback for the proposed residential uses on either the second or third floor and instruct Planning Department staff to schedule a future Public Hearing to prepare an amendment to require a three foot (3') setback for commercial uses on the second floor. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, orsini, Dahlman, Law Fife *** I I I Page 13 - Planning Commission Minutes of July 1, 1992 11. Conditional Use Permit #12-89 12343 Seal Beach Boulevard Super Saver Cinema 7 (Renewal/video Games) Resolution #92-11 staff Report Mr. Wh1ttenberg presented the staff report. [Staff report on f1le 1n the Plann1ng Department]. Mr. Wh1ttenberg 1nformed the Comm1SS10n that on June 25th a meet1ng was held 1n the C1ty Counc1l Chambers regarding the park1ng lot problems at Super Saver C1nema 7. In attendance was the theater Manager, the Pol1ce Department, representat1ves of the d1fferent condom1n1um projects that ad]01n the parking lot area by the theater 1tself and Counc1lman George Brown. The comm1ttee d1scussed l1m1t1ng the park1ng to 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. w1th enforcement to c1te those break1ng the law. On July 1st Mr. Whittenberg met w1th the Fire Department and the Pol1ce Department on the s1te. On July 2nd the comm1ttee w1ll meet aga1n 1n C1ty Counc1l Chambers. Staff w1ll keep the Comm1ss10n adv1sed by reports. V1ce Cha1rman Dahlman sa1d 1t would be very pos1t1ve 1f the Rossmoor Center management attended. He asked 1f Rossmoor Center cooperat10n was necessary to 1mplement a curfew 1n the park1ng lot? Staff said yes. Comm1ss10ner Sharp sa1d it would not be right for the Plann1ng Comm1ss10n to hold the v1deo arcade matter over the theater's head. Publ1c Hear1nq Cont1nued from Pr10r Meet1ng Seretta Fielding * 223 Seal Beach Blvd.. Seal Beach Sa1d her ch1ldren go to the Super Saver C1nema 7. She suggested the problem she perceives at the theater is a late n1ght problem. She asked the Rossmoor Center prov1de 1tS own secur1ty, rather than relY1ng on the C1ty of Seal Beach. She felt the1r bus1ness would 1ncrease when shoppers feel safe. She sa1d many of the k1ds that go there are ch1ldren and young adults that are out after the 10:00 p.m. curfew because the shows themselves are not out unt1l after the 10:00 a.m. curfew. We should cons1der protect1ng the1r interests too. vice Cha1rman Dahlman urged Mrs. F1eld1ng to wr1te to the Rossmoor Center management. Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d that on May 20, 1992 staff suggested two Cond1t10ns of Approval wh1ch he feels should be removed. These are #10 (secur1ty 1n park1ng lot areas) and #11 (concrete t1re stops). These are matters to be d1scussed w1th the Rossmoor Center management and should not have been t1ed to th1s request. The C1ty Attorney's Off1ce 1nd1cated to staff they would agree w1th th1s. Vice Cha1rman Dahlman sa1d he would l1ke to see a good fa1th effort from Rossmoor Center. So far the Center has told the C1ty (1) , \ , , page 14 - Planning Commission Minutes of July 1, 1992 there are no problems and (2) It'S none of your buslness. There has been a parade of people before the Plannlng CommlSSlon statlng the many problems In that area. Vlce Chalrman Dahlman sald he has met people who tell hlm about the problems there. Mr. Mahanev * District Manaqer. Super Saver Clnema 7 Mr. Mahaney said he has read the Condltlons of Approval and agrees that the Rossmoor Center should be lnvolved. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve thereby indefinitely extending Conditional Use Permit #12-89 by the adoption of Resolution No. 92-11. Conditions of Approval #10 and #11 are to be removed. The remaining eleven (11) Conditions of Approval remain in effect (as outlined 1n the staff report). MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Orsini Fife Mr. Whl ttenberg clar lf led the lssue regardlng the parklng lot problems around the Super Saver Clnema 7, saYlng that lf the Clty lS not able to come to some resolutlon of the problems belng experlenced In the parklng lot area through a co-operative effort that the Clty has told the Rossmoor Center management the Clty does have other actlons Whlch 1 t could undertake that would requlre formal reVlew of the operation of the theater through a Condltlonal Use Permlt process by a change In the munlclpal Code. They are aware the Clty will not let the issue die. Mr. Whlttenberg said the Clty is meetlng tomorrow, July 2nd, wlth the commlttee who has been worklng on this issue. Status reports will be provlded to the Commisslon. Vice Chalrman Dahlman lndlcated he had been notlfled of the meeting but was detalned In surgery and could not attend. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Charles Antos * 328 17th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Antos spoke about the pendlng appllcatlon for an ABC 11cense inside the Oakwood Apartment complex. Mr. Whlttenberg lnterrupted Mr. Antos, saYlng he could not glve testimony to the Planning Commisslon outslde a PubllC Hearlng. Sol John * 330 Maln Street. Seal Beach Mr. John wished everyone a happy Fourth of July. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whlttenberg advlsed the CommlSSlon that Walter Ml11er's appllcation for development on Seal Beach Boulevard has been scheduled for hearlng by the Callfornla Coastal CommlSSlon on Tuesday, July 7, 1992 In Long Beach. The Coastal Commlssion staff lS recommendlng denlal. The Clty lS preparing a formal letter to the Coastal Commlsslon expresslng the Cl ty' s concerns re thelr , I I Page lS - Planning Commission Minutes of July 1, 1992 recommendat10n as the C1ty feels the proJect should be approved 1n accordance w1th spec1f1c prov1s10ns of the Coastal Act that the C1ty feels the proJect comp11es w1th. The City Manager has 1nstructed Mr. Wh1ttenberg to attend the meet1ng to represent the C1ty and prov1de 1tS v1ewp01nt. vice Cha1rman Dahlman sa1d he would 11ke to be made aware of the Coastal Commission's concerns. staff w111 be prov1d1ng a packet to the Plann1ng Comm1SS10n and C1ty Counc11 the Coastal Comm1SS10n's staff report and the C1ty's response. COMMISSION CONCERNS Storaqe Tank Cleanup Comm1ss10ner Law sa1d she would 11ke to know what's g01ng on at the corner of Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard. Staff sa1d s011 remed1at10n 1S tak1ng place at the old serV1ce stat10n s1te. This 1S necessary because of old leak1ng underground gasoline storage tanks. The Orange County Health Department and the A1r Qua11ty Management D1str1ct have reviewed the proJect and 1ssued the proper permits. Bicvcle Path on Seal Beach Boulevard Comm1ss10ner Law asked what happened to the b1cycle path along Seal Beach Boulevard? Mr. Wh1ttenberg said staff 1S wa1t1ng to hear from the Navy Department re mov1ng back the1r fences to allow the bike path to proceed. Th1S 1S st111 be1ng d1scussed between the Navy and the C1ty. Bed and Breakfast Allowed in Seal Beach? Commiss10ner Ors1ni asked 1f a Bed and Breakfast fac111ty 1S allowed in a home 1n Seal Beach? Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d no. ADJOURNMENT V1ce Cha1rman Dahlman adJourned the meet1ng at 10:18 p.m. Respectfully Subm1tted, ~O~~~r-'\ Jo n F111mann Record1ng Secretary Note: These M1nutes are tentat1ve unt11 approved by the Plann1ng Comm1ss10n. Approval: The Plann1ng Commiss10n M1nutes of July 3, 1992 were approved by the Plann1ng Comm1ss10n on July 15, 1992. ~ ,. I I I WALTER F. MILLER (City of Seal Beach Planning CommissIon SUBMITTED FOR RECORD my Walt MlllIDite 7-1-Q? CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT July 1, 1992 231 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD, SUITE 2 SEAL BEACH. CAUFORNIA 90740-6598 AREA CODE 714 TELEPHONE 846 2122 PLANNING COMMISSION C1ty of Seal Beach C1ty Hall Seal Beach, Cal1forn1a 90740 Re: Meet1ng scheduled 7:30 pm July 1, 1992 REQUEST TO BE HEARD ON SIDE-YARD SETBACK LC ZONE Honorable Cha1rmen and Members of the Comm1ss1on: I have a meet1ng to attend 1n San Clemente th1S even1ng 1n connect1on w1th a C1ty of San Clemente proJect reach1ng 1tS f1nal complet1on stages. As a result I w1ll not be present ton1ght. I would llke my follow1ng comments read 1nto the record before you vote on the subJect of slde yard setback requ1rements for second and th1rd story res1dent1al 1n the newly formed Ilm1ted commerc1al (L-C) zon1ng prov1d1ng for m1xed commer1c1al/res1dent1al use. I bel1eve J1m Sharp, Comm1ssloner, d1d not bel1eve such setback was requ1red for th1rd story res1dent1al over f1rst and second story commerc1al Wh1Ch I have proposed 1n my proJect at 227 Seal Beach Boulevard, and Wh1Ch I brought before the Comm1ss1on on M1nor Plan Rev1ew 92-1. It appears that the 10% setback was approved in1t1ally because the Comm1ss1on d1d not cons1der the 1mpact on second and th1rd story over commerc1al, Wh1Ch can be bU1lt w1th 0% setback from the slde property Ilnes. The reason glven for setback was not safety nor f1re, but arch1tectural scale. It seems that the m1n1mum setback of 3 feet should be the only requ1rement between propert1es, regardless of the w1dth of the bU1ld1ng slte. One only needs to look at the arch1tectural features of the Shore Shop at the end of th1S street to see that 1t 1S a pleas1ng bU1ld1ng w1thout any setback on the second story at e1ther end. The present 10% slde yard setback takes 20% of the lot w1dth and compels a "shoebox" des1gn for all res1dent1al to be bU1lt over commerc1al 1n our new zone. Is that what we str1ve for? Th1S conf1gurat1on 1S compounded even more when one cons1ders the front and rear setback requ1rements. In my part1cular sltuat1on, I have subm1tted a work1ng draw1ngs to the C1ty and pa1d for a bU1ld1ng perm1t. My plans I I I SIDE-YARD SETBACK (cont~nued) July 1, 1992 were approved by the outslde plan checker h~red by the Clty. Nelther that flrm, my l~censed archltect, nor myself were aware of thls s~deyard setback 10% constra~nt untll I stood before the last plannlng commlSSlon meetlng. My two planned resldent~al un~ts are deslgned w~th only 938 sq ft each. If I must meet a 10% setback, It w~ll requ~re that these two unlts be reduced by 13% to 820 sq ft each. I bel~eve such a prov~s~on, If not repealed In your meet~ng, wlll cut the heart out of th~s flrst proposed development on Seal Beach Boulevard in the new zon~ng d~strlct. I urge you to reVlse the sldeyard setback for second and thlrd story ~n the L~lted Commerclal (L-C) zone to requlre only a three foot (3') sldeyard setback, and repeal the 10% sldeyard setback wlth a three foot (3') m~n~mum. Respectlvely, ~ Property owner 227 Seal Beach Boulevard 2 -