HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1999-11-03
.
'-------'
'---
e
city of Seal Beach Planning Commission' Agenda of November 3, 1999
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
November 3, 1999 Agenda
I.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II.
ROLL CALL
III.
AGENDA APPROVAL
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to:
(a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda;
(b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda; and/or
(c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or public to
request an item is removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any items
within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, provided that the Planning
Commission may undertake no action or discussion unless otherwise authorized by law.
V. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are qonsidered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless
prior to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission, staff or the public requests a specific
item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999.
2. Receive and File: "Receipt of Orange County Council of Governments Report on Performance
Indicators. .
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
3. Conditional Use Permit 99-3 (Request for Clarification of Approved Condition #4 and #5 of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-7)
140 Main Street
Recommendation: Provide direction to Staff.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Variance 99-3
1605 Seal Way
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Jim McCoy
Addition of new bedroom and bathroom to third floor of existing legal
non-conforming residence in a RHO Zone located in Old Town.
Recommendation: Recommend item to be continued to meeting of November 17,1999.
3
4
.
.
.
City o( Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda o( November 3, 1999
5. Variance 99-4
Conditional Use Pennit 99-11
1001 Electric Avenue
ApplicanVOwner:
Request:
Doug & Ashley West
Addition of a second floor to an existing, legal non-confonning building in
the Old Town area. Variance is required to maintain current side yard
setback of three (3) feet on a side yard abutting street (garage only), when
the current code requires 3.75 feet. Conditional Use Pennit is required for
a major structural expansion to an existing non-conforming residential
building.
Recommendation: Recommend approval and adoption of Resolution Nos. 99-40 and 99-41
VIII. STAFF CONCERNS
IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ADJOURNMENT
4
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of November 3, 1999
1999 Aaenda Forecast
NOV 03
NOV17
Study Session - Retaining Walls
Zone Text Amendment 99-4
DEC 08
DEC 22
TO BE SCHEDULED:
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
Study Session:
Study Session:
Study Session:
Staff Report:
Study Session:
Permitted Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Seal Beach Boulevard (10n/98)
Anaheim Bay Villas (1 on 198)
Undergrounding of Utilities
Retaining Walls
And Beyond
Calendar: CUP 98-6 at 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard (Yucatan GrilO Review (April 2001)
ADA handicapped-accessible restrooms (April 2001)
5
, .
1
2
.~
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
... 24
.25
"26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of November 3, 1999
Chairman Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to
order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 3, 1999. The meeting was held in the City
Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Hood
Commissioners Brown, Cutuli, Larson, and Lyon
Also
Present: Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terrence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Absent: None
AGENDA APPROVAL
Mr. Whittenberg pointed out that for Item 4, Variance 99-3, Staff was recommending
that this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 17, 1999.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that the Planning Commission meeting for November 17, 1999
was already "over agendized." He said that there were too many items on the agenda.
Chairman Hood responded that should there not be sufficient time to cover all agenda
items during the November 17 meeting, then a decision would be made at that time as
to which items should be continued to the December 8, 1999 meeting.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Larson to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairman Hood opened oral communications.
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
1
1
2
- 3
.4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
.48
Mr. Clewley inquired as to how the City would be addressing the issue of parking
vehicles in residential driveways for extended periods of time. He said that the concept
of requiring vans be parked inside garages is "anatomically unlikely." He stated that a
standard two-car garage has a clearance of approximately 5 feet 9 inches, and a van
will not fit into this size garage. He said that this would require an 8-foot garage door.
Mr. Clewley stated that he did not believe City had the authority to require any resident
to install an 8-foot garage door in order to accommodate a van. He also questioned the
concept of how often residents must move a vehicle that is parked in their driveway. He
stated that he had photographed several occurrences within the last several days of
"literally dozens" of vehicles parked in driveways that were in complete operating order
yet seldom ever moved. He pointed out that many motor boats were also stored in
driveways and in side yards. He speculated as to how the City would respond when a
complaint was filed within the next week regarding some 40 different vehicles parked in
driveways. Mr. Clewley stated that he believed it to be "politically improbable" that the
City would require that all of these vehicles be moved. He said that he did not
understand the "selective enforcement" of this regulation against anyone property
owner and challenged the City Attorney to respond to this inquiry.
Ms. Sue Corbin made reference to what she described as the Commission's "odd
interpretation of the Brown Act." She questioned the instruction from the Chairman
regarding addressing only items on the agenda. Ms. Corbin stated that The Brown Act
states that agenda items may be addressed before or during the public hearing. She
stated that the Commission was in violation of The Brown Act by telling the public not to
speak to agenda items before the scheduled public hearing. She said that Item No. 3
for Conditional Use Permit 99-3, listed under "Scheduled Matters," should be
rescheduled so that the public can have a chance to review this. She stated that listing
this item under "Scheduled Matters" was Staffs way of attempting to get the
Commission to change their clarification for O'Malley's. Ms. Corbin stated that she was
very much in favor of O'Malley's, and contrasted this with Hennessey's across the street
which she stated was strictly a drinking establishment. She accused Staff of "moving
walnuts around" with regard to the parking situation for O'Malley's, Hennessey's, and
Grace Community Church.
Ms. Corbin then commented on a meeting between the City Manager and Mr. Ron
Bennett, which she states resulted in a letter being sent by the City to Mr. Clewley (a
neighbor of Mr. Bennett) declaring Mr. Clewley a public nuisance. She stated that this
was meant to silence Mr. Clewley from speaking out against the City Manager. Ms.
Corbin stated that Mr. Clewley's van was properly licensed and that there was no debris
in his yard as stated in the letter from the City. She stated that there was debris located
along the side yard of the City Manager's property. She said that this was simply
retaliation for free speech. She stated that her efforts in speaking before the
Commission and the Council week after week were to spark civic activism among the
citizens of Seal Beach. She also stated that the Sun Newspaper carefully screens its
stories and operates as a "Chamber of Commerce newsletter," that refuses to cover
what it labels as "controversial" news. She called the public to action in preventing what
she described as the destruction of the City's sovereignty by the incompetence of City
Staff.
2
1
2
.~
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
.48
Chairman Hood asked to clarify a mistake that he made in accidentally stating "all
scheduled matters" when he meant to state "all public hearing items." He then closed
oral communications
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 20, 1999.
2. Receive and File: "Receipt of Orange County Council of Governments Report on
Performance Indicators."
MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Cutuli to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
SCHEDULED MATTERS
3. Conditional Use Permit 99-3 (Request for Clarification of Approved Condition #4 and
#5 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-7)
140 Main Street
Recommendation:
Provide direction to Staff.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that this matter was placed on the agenda in response to a
request from the applicant, Mr. Brian Kyle, on how to proceed with his project based on
the terms of these two conditions and the letter from Grace Community Church
declining the option of placing signs stating use of the designated parking spaces within
the church parking lot. He noted that each of the Commissioners had been provided a
copy of a letter from Mrs. Michelle Brendel requesting that this item be continued for a
period of one month to allow further information to be provided to the Commission. He
stated that Mrs. Brendel had requested that her letter be read into the record in its
entirety, and that although this was not the general procedure, if the Commissioners
requested that this be done, Staff would comply by reading the letter. Chairman Hood
inquired of the Commissioners as to whether there were any objections to continuing
this item. Commissioner Brown noted that unless the item was noticed incorrectly, he
had no objection to the item being continued. He stated that the Brendel letter
appeared to object to the item having been noticed as 140 Main Street rather than as
O'Malley's. Mr. Whittenberg responded that agenda items were normally listed by the
address with information on the name of the applicant and the business owner included.
Chairman Hood inquired of the Commission as to how the letter was to be received.
Commissioner Brown stated that the letter was already read into the record.
Commissioner Larson asked that the letter be received without being read aloud as all
3
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meetmg Minutes of November 3, 1999
Commissioners had a copy of the letter. Chairman Hood called for presentation of the
Staff Report.
Staff Reoort
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background on the application and stated
that the Mr. Kyle was requesting clarification on how to proceed with Conditions #4 and
#5 of Resolution No. 99-7, approved by the Planning Commission at the July 7, 1999
meeting. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the Commission had agreed that should the
church not approve signage designating the parking spaces to be used by O'Malley's
patrons, the applicant could again come before the Commission for consideration of
other alternatives. He stated that Mr. Kyle had approached the church to acquire
authorization for signage and had received a letter in response stating that the church
would not consent to such signage. He said that now Staff and the applicant were
requesting clarification as to whether this was the only option available or whether the
Mr. Kyle could apply for modification of the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner
Brown clarified whether Staff wanted to know if the Commission was going to allow the
applicant to return with a request for a formal modification of the Conditional of Approval
with a public hearing that has been properly noticed. Mr. Whittenberg reiterated that the
conditions as stated in Resolution 99-7 did not fully reflect the discussion held during
the July 7 meeting of alternatives for a parking management program. He said that for
this reason, Staff was requesting clarification as to whether the option of placing a sign
inside O'Malley's and providing a pass or permit to patrons who park in the church
parking lot was still a viable one. Commissioner Brown stated that his intent in making
the statements that he had made was to have signage for the parking spaces and if this
was not possible, the applicant could again come before the Commission for
reconsideration of this issue. He stated that he thought the Commission would be
reconsidering the parking issue tonight, but that if it needed to return as a public hearing
item, that was fine. Mr. Whittenberg stated that clarification was needed on whether the
applicant had to present his alternatives for a parking management program through a
public hearing process. Commissioner Brown inquired if there were a mechanism for
revisiting this item short of a public hearing. Mr. Whittenberg responded that a public
hearing was the primary way of receiving input from the public regarding projects within
the City and the detrimental or beneficial aspects of each project. He stated that Staff
was simply seeking direction on which vehicle of petition to take in proceeding with the
issue of parking for O'Malley's.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Larson stated that it was his understanding that the Commission was not
granting anything but had decided that should the church refuse to allow signage, Mr.
Kyle could then return to the Planning Commission to discuss other alternatives for
parking. He stated that it appeared that a public hearing would be necessary to resolve
this issue.
4
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of November 3, 1999
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Larson to revisit this item as a Public Hearing item.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that Staff would draft a letter to be mailed to the applicant
advising him of the need to submit a formal application for modification of conditions of
approval to be heard at a public hearing that has been properly noticed and published.
He stated that should the applicant decide that he did not want to proceed with a public
hearing, then this issue would not come before the Commission. Chairman Hood
emphasized that Staff should ensure that everyone within the required radius is properly
noticed. Mr. Whittenberg assured the Commission that this would be done.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Variance 99-3
1605 Seal Way
ApplicanUOwner:
Request:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
Jim McCoy
Addition of new bedroom and bathroom to third floor of
existing legal non-conforming residence in a RHO Zone
located in Old Town.
Recommendation: Recommend item to be continued to meeting of November 17,
1999.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Larson to continue to the November 17. 1999
meeting.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
5. Variance 99-4
Conditional Use Permit 99-11
1001 Electric Avenue
ApplicanUOwner:
Request:
Doug & Ashley West
Addition of a second floor to an existing, legal non-conforming
building in the Old Town area. Variance is required to
maintain current side yard setback of three (3) feet on a side
5
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 3, 1999
yard abutting street (garage only), when the current code
requires 3.75 feet. Conditional Use Permit is required for a
major structural expansion to an existing non-conforming
residential building.
Recommendation: Recommend approval and adoption of Resolution Nos. 99-40
and 99-41
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background on the application and stated
that the property was currently developed with a single family home with a detached
garage. He stated that the existing structure was non-conforming because it has 3-foot
setbacks on both sides of the house and the corner side of the property should have a
3.75-foot setback and encroaches 9 inches into the required setback. Mr. Whittenberg
explained that the applicant was seeking approval to construct a new home on the
property and to build a non-conforming structure due to the side-yard setback of the
proposed garage. He stated that Code require a 3 foot setback on each side of the
property, except on the street side which requires a 3.75-foot setback. The proposed
garage would be a 19-foot wide structure, which would encroach the 3.75-foot setback
requirement for the street side. Mr. Whittenberg provided a description of the
surrounding area of the property and noted that City Code allowed for expansion for a
non-conforming use if required parking is provided. In this case the ~Ian is to turn the
two-car garage so that the entrance would no longer be on the 10t Street side, but
would be off the alley as required. This would allow for an additional on-street parking
space in this area.
Mr. Whittenberg noted the conditions for approval for Variance 99-4 as follows:
1. Approval of Variance 99-4 would not adversely affect the General Plan.
2. There are special circumstances, which deprive the property owner of uses of the
property, as most other properties in the area would have.
3. Granting of this variance would not provide any special privileges not enjoyed by the
majority of the properties in the area.
He then provided a visual presentation of the plans for redevelopment of the property
and displayed photographs of the existing property. He stated that Staff is
recommending approval subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of
Resolution No. 99-40. Mr. Whittenberg noted that all the new residential living space of
this new structure, other than the garage, would comply with City standards. He stated
that once Variance 99-4 was approved then Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 99-11 could
be approved for the major expansion of the residential structure because it will still be a
non-conforming property due to the garage setback situation. He stated that Staff is also
6
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.~~
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 3, 1999
recommending approval of this CUP subject to conditions of approval and adoption of
Resolution No. 99-41.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Brown asked why the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would be required
since the approval of the Variance would make the structure a legally conforming one.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that were the Variance not granted, then the Commission could
still consider the CUP application as a non-conforming structure with the setback. He
stated that if the Variance were granted, then the CUP would not be required.
Commissioner Brown then inquired why a Variance was required for an existing garage
structure, and could this be labeled a remodeling because the door to the garage was
simply being relocated. Mr. Whittenberg stated that in order to reconfigure the entrance
to the garage, the existing garage would have to be torn down and a new garage built at
a non-conforming setback location. Commissioner Brown confirmed that if the existing
garage were simply being remodeled, then the Variance would not be required. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that this could be the case, but that with the interior dimensions
of the existing garage the only way to reconfigure the entrance to the alley side would
be to expand the garage. He stated that currently the garage was not deep enough to
meet City requirements and would have to be remodeled along with the house.
Chairman Brown confirmed that the current residence was to be completely torn down
and a new structure built to replace it. Mr. Whittenberg affirmed this.
Commissioner Larson inquired whether the current setback requirements provided for
setbacks based upon percentages. Mr. Whittenberg responded that on a street comer
lot the requirement was for a 15% side yard setback on the street side. On the interior
side the requirement is 10% with a minimum of 3 feet. Commissioner Larson then
confirmed that the other option would be to meet the setback requirement and end up
with a garage that is 9 inches too narrow to meet requirements. Mr. Whittenberg
affirmed this and stated that the City felt it was more important to have a garage that
could accommodate two cars.
Chairman Hood asked if the driveway on 10th Street would no longer be available. Mr.
Whittenberg confirmed that this entrance would no longer exist after the project is
complete. Chairman Hood asked if the resident owned a van, where would he park it.
Mr. Whittenberg responded that he would have to park it on the street.
Public Hearing
Chairman Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Steven Wen, Architect for the owner of the property, stated that the owner would
prefer to leave the garage in its current location with the driveway entrance on 10th
Street, but after meeting with Staff the applicant was informed that he would have to
make the entrance to the garage from the alley side. He noted that the interior of the
existing garage measures 18 feet by 20 feet deep so simply relocating the door to the
7
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.~~
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meetmg Minutes of November 3, 1999
alley side would not be suitable to accommodate the parking of automobiles. He stated
that reconstructing the garage to comply with City requirements would be the best
option for everyone concerned. He added that construction of a new residence would
enhance the appearance of the neighborhood and would be profitable for both the city
and the property owner.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that no information on this variance was provided in the agenda
packet that he was given. He stated that the guidelines for non-conforming structures
had been presented several months ago and they clearly stated that new construction
was to be brought into conformance with City Code, not the other way around to bring
the Code into conformance with non-conforming structures. He stated that no
information had been provided as to the size of the new structure to be constructed on
this property, so he could only assume the new construction would at least double the
size of the dwelling on this property. Mr. Clewley recommended that the yard setbacks
be brought into conformance and that all new construction be required to meet City
Code. He stated his concern with the City being "paved over" with no green space
remaining for parks or plants. He said that in this case there were no special
circumstances and that the applicant could simply subtract inches from the proposed
structure.
Ms. Sue Corbin stated that she thought Staff's presentation to be peculiar, as there was
more information left out than was included. She stated that it was important to know
what is being built in order to know if the applicant is entitled to a variance. She stated
that she came down to City Hall twice to get a copy of the agenda and on both
occasions was told that she had been given the complete agenda. She stated that
without all of the pertinent data the public has no ability to speak on these matters. She
said that the agenda was not posted outside Council Chambers, and that it was odd that
Staff had not described the structure to be constructed on this property. She noted that
there was a boat parked on the lot and that the applicant could not store a boat on the
lot. She said it was the "height of arrogance" for Staff, as the City's Code Enforcement
Agency, to present photos of this property with a boat illegally parked on the lot. She
reiterated that something very odd was going on and that if the Commission approved
this variance, they might discover, after the fact, that something totally unexpected is
being constructed on this lot.
Chairman Hood inquired if the applicant wished to rebut any of the comments made.
No rebuttal was made.
Chairman Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Lyons stated that he had clearly understood Staffs presentation. He
said that this is the only lot in this location that has this condition. He stated that he did
not believe 9 inches was going to greatly affect anyone. He stated that it seemed
logical to him to allow the owner to complete the construction.
8
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
CIty of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 3, 1999
Commissioner Cutuli stated that as a rule, he didn't like variances; however, in this case
there were two conflicting rules regarding the width of the garage and the yard
setbacks. He stated that he agreed with Staff in recommending approval of this
variance.
Commissioner Brown noted that there were many 25-foot wide lots in Seal Beach, and
the one thing that bothers him about this was that this couldn't be that unique a
property. Mr. Whittenberg responded that many of the comer lots between the
greenbelt and the ocean are wider than 25 feet, and most of the properties north of the
greenbelt are 25-foot lots. He said that there were approximately 12 to 14 lots on the
north side of the greenbelt that have this situation. He stated that these lots would have
to be dealt with on an individual basis, as the only way to provide the required width for
garages would be to grant a variance. Commissioner Brown commented that the
properties already have garages on them. Mr. Whittenberg responded that some of
them do and some don't. Commissioner Brown asked if another way to approach this
would have been to leave the garage alone and build a structure, which would have
required a CUP for the non-conforming structure, but that the CUP would only allow a
10% expansion. Mr. Whittenberg responded that a CUP could allow for a major
expansion, which could be for up to any size an applicant might request. He noted that
City Code no longer allows driveways to access a property from a street in Old Town.
All driveway access must be via an alley. He stated that in order to avoid complete
demolition of the current structure, another option would be to approve a variance to
maintain the driveway off of 10th Street as opposed to the alley. Commissioner Brown
inquired that should they decide to keep the existing garage, then the applicant would
only be allowed a 10% expansion with approval of a CUP. Mr. Whittenberg noted that
the applicant could request a variance and a CUP and could then expand more than
10%. Commissioner Brown stated that the whole point of requiring approval of this type
of Variance and CUP was to allow for special circumstances and not to grant special
privileges to a particular applicant. He stated that he believed this case to have a
unique situation and he had no problems in approving this request, and that the
Commission needed to determine if approval of this request would make things better or
worse. He stated that having a standard garage in Old Town was always making things
better when adequate parking could be provided. He stated that although a new public
street parking space would be created, one parking space on the property was also
being lost, as instead of three parking spaces on the lot there would now only be the
two garage spaces. Commissioner Brown stated that he would vote for approval of the
variance. He said that although he felt that the CUP was not required if the Variance is
approved, he would vote to approve the CUP also.
Commissioner Larson stated that if this situation of lot size was unique to only 12 to 14
lots, he felt that the Variance should be approved. He stated that although he didn't like
to grant variances, he felt that this request merited approval.
MOTION by Lyon; SECOND by Brown to approve Variance 99-4 and Conditional Use
Permit 99-11 and adopt Resolution Nos. 99-40 and 99-41.
9
, .
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 3, 1999
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution Nos. 99-40 and 99-41 begins a
10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is
final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg noted that a copy of Negative Declaration 99-2 on the Boeing
Company property, which is scheduled to appear on the next agenda for the November
17, 1999 meeting, had been provided ahead of time to each Commissioner so that the
Commission would have a chance to review the information prior to the public hearing.
He stated that this item had been noticed and advertised in the newspapers and has
been distributed to the libraries for public review. He described this project as a 36,000
square foot temporary office installation on the Boeing property for employees that need
to be relocated in a timely manner.
Mr. Whittenberg also noted that Staff has subscribed to The Plannina Commissioner's
Journal and that a copy of the most recent journal had been provided for each of the
Commissioners. He also stated that at the request of Commissioner Cutuli, each
Commissioner had been provided with a copy of the City District Map designating which
areas within the City are within each Commissioner's district.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that a memo had been provided to City Council regarding the
request issued by the Department of Water and Power (DWP) requesting proposals for
the sale of the DWP site at First Street and Marina Avenue. Proposals will be accepted
up until November 15, 1999, and at that point the DWP should contact Staff to discuss
those agencies expressing an interest in this property. He stated that the City does
have a specific plan for hotel development and it appears that several different hotel
chains are expressing an interest in this site.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Cutuli stated that perhaps a Zone Text Amendment should be
considered regarding adequate size garages and yard setbacks for comer lots.
Commissioner Brown complimented the Tree Committee and, in particular, Mr. Jim
Caviola who used his own money for planting a lawn along Ocean Avenue near the
pier. He stated that Mr. Caviola was his nominee for man of the year in Seal Beach.
He also stated that the new design for the development at Pacific Coast Highway and
Main Street with the parking lot at the front of the development, was in violation of the
10
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
. .
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 3, 1999
Main Street Pacific Plan. He stated that he believed it was a better design to have the
buildings on the street side and the parking on the interior. He stated that this made the
development more visitor and pedestrian friendly. He said that he would like to know
how approval of this plan was possible if it is in violation of the Main Street Specific
Plan. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the project does not require any discretionary
approval at this point. He stated that Starbucks has dropped out of the project
altogether. He noted that the front of the building would face Main Street and that the
primary entrance into the building would be on Main Street with a parking area along
Pacific Coast Highway. He stated that Staff has approved the plan in concept, and it is
now going before the Coastal Commission for their consideration. He noted that this
project would not come before the Planning Commission again unless there were a
future tenant requiring a conditional use permit.
Commissioner Larson inquired as to who the tenants for this new development would
be. Mr. Whittenberg responded that at this time Staff had no idea who the tenants
would be.
Commissioner Brown stated that many people were under the misconception that the
Planning Commission selects the tenants for new developments. He stated that in the
United States there was freedom of business and although we can do things to try to
keep the City beautiful, this does not mean that we would be able to prohibit a
MacDnonald's. He stated that public control could only go so far. He said that although
he did not like Starbucks coffee, he felt that they would be good tenants who would
improve Main Street business, as opposed to having a 99 Cents Store as a tenant in the
City gateway. He emphasized that the public should carefully consider what the would
like to see on Main Street before voting something down, as they could end up with
something far worse.
Commissioner Larson noted that having the parking facing Pacific Coast Highway would
prevent late night disruptions to local residents by noise from patrons congregating in
the parking lot of this development.
Commissioner Brown stated that some of the traffic studies were very influential in
terms of having Starbucks as a tenant, where customer counts were estimated at 200 to
400 transactions an hour. He stated that if you assume that 50% of these customers
have cars, this would have been a major influence on his decision to approve the
Conditional Use Permit for this tenant. He noted that this type of information should be
provided to help the Commission make the best decision in these cases.
Commissioner Lyon stated that he did not believe that a gas station was an attractive
business to have on the Main Street/Pacific Coast Highway entrance to the City.
Chairman Hood inquired as to whether the allegation that the Agenda Packet was not
available to the public was true. Mr. Whittenberg stated that a complete Agenda Packet
is posted outside Council Chambers every Friday before 5:00. He stated that it is not
unusual for this document to disappear over the weekend. Wnhen it is discovered that
11
.., '"",
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
.
Cily of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of November 3, 1999
the Agenda Packet has been taken, a replacement copy is posted. He noted that a
copy of the Agenda Packet is also available at the local libraries. Chairman Hood
inquired if a copy could be requested from the Department of Development Services.
Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was possible and stated that when Ms. Corbin came
in she had requested a copy of the minutes to the last meeting and this was provided to
her.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman ~~~ adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
~^"'~~.
is
Carmen Alvarez
Executive Secretary
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on November 17, 1999 approved the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of Wednesday, November 3, 1999. ~ .
12