HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2000-01-05
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for January 5, 2000
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Brian Brown
District 2 - John Larson
District 3 - Len Cutuli
District 4 - David Hood
District 5 - Thomas Lyon
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
Q
City Hall office hours are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Closed noon to 1:00 p.m.
Q
The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you
need assistance to attend this meeting please telephone the City Clerk's Office at
least 48 hours in advance of the meeting (562) 431-2527.
Q
Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m.
Q
Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
Q
Copies of staff reports and/or written materials on each agenda item are on file in
the Department of Development Services and City libraries for public inspection.
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of January 5, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
The following Is a brief explanation of the Planning Commission agenda
structure:
AGENDA APPROVAL: The Planning Commission may wish to change the order of the
items on the agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, only
on items not on tonight's agenda, may do so during this time period. No action can be
taken by the Planning Commission on these communications on this date, unless
agendized.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Public Hearings allow citizens the opportunity to speak in
favor of or against agendized items. More detailed information is found in the actual
agenda attached. If you have documents to distribute, you should have enough copies
for all Planning Commissioners, City staff and the public. Please give one to the
secretary for the City files. The documents become part of the public record and will not
be returned.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar items are considered routine items that
normally do not require separate consideration. The Planning Commission may make
one motion for approval of all the items listed on the Consent Calendar.
SCHEDULED MATTERS: These items are considered by the Planning Commission
separately and require separate motions. These transactions are considered
administrative and public testimony is not heard.
STAFF CONCERNS: Updates and reports from the Director of Development Services
(Planning and Building Departments) are presented for information to the Planning
Commission and the public.
COMMISSION CONCERNS: Items of concern are presented by the Planning
Commissioners and discussed with staff.
All proceedings are recorded.
2
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission - Agenda of January 5, 2000
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
January 5, 2000 Agenda
I.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II.
ROLL CALL
AGENDA APPROVAL
III.
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to:
(a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda;
(b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda; and/or
(c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or public to
request an item 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 considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless
prior to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission, staff, or the public requests a specific
item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1999.
2. Receive and File: -Receipt of Orange County Council of Governments Staff Report Re:
Livable Communities Phase III Scope of Work"
3. Receive and File: aOraft Groundwater Feasibility Study Report, Installation Restoration
Program Sites 40 and 70, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach"
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Conditional Use Permit 98-12 (Indefinite Extension)
1101 Pacific Coast Highway
Applicant/OWner:
Request:
Von's Company rio Keith Lam
Indefinite extension to operate commercial activities between 2 a.m. and 6
a.m. at Von's Market, thereby remaining open 24 hours a day. Existing
use of the site will not change. No structural improvements are required.
Recommendation: Recommend approval and adoption of Resolution 00-4.
3
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of January 5, 2000
5. Zone Text Amendment 00-1
Old Town
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
City of Seal Beach
To amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish the "Residential Conservation
Overlay Zone" pennittlng bed and breakfast facilities within this zone
subject to certain conditions and tenns.
Recommendation: Recommend approval and adoption of Resolution 00-1.
6. Zone Change 00-1
308 - 7th Street
Applicant/Owner.
Request:
Chris Verhulst
To establish the "Residential Conservation Overlay Zone" on the subject
property, pennlttlng bed and breakfast facilities subject to certain
conditions and tenns as set forth In the "Residential Conservation Overlay
Zone"
Recommendation: Recommend approval and adoption of Resolution 00-2.
7. Minor Plan Review 00-1
308 - 7'h Street
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Chris Verhulst
To establish the "Residential Conservation Overlay Zone" on the subject
property, pennlttlng bed and breakfast facilities subject to certain
conditions and tenns as set forth In the "Residential Conservation Overlay
Zone"
Recommendation: Recommend approval and adoption of Resolution 00-3.
VIII. STAFF CONCERNS
IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ADJOURNMENT
4
. 2000 Agenda Forecast
JAN 19 Zone Text Amendment 99-4 - 2nd and 3rd Story Decks In Surfslde
Study Session: Retaining Walls
FEB 09
FEB 23
MAR 08
MAR 22
APR 05
APR 19
MAY 03 CUP 99-5 Sav-On Drugs - 12-Month Review
MAY 17
JUN 07
JUN 21
.
JUL 05
JUL 19
AUG 09
AUG 23
SEP 06 CUP 99-9 Faith Christian Assembly -12-Month Review
SEP 20
OCT 04
OCT 18
NOV 08
NOV 22
DEC 06
DEC 20
.
.~
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
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of January 5, 2000
Chairman Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to
order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 5,2000. 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, and Larson
Also
Present: Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terrence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Absent: Commissioner Lyon
Mr. Whittenberg noted that he had received a telephone call from Commissioner Lyon
requesting that he be excused from attending tonight's meeting, as he was ill with the
flu.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Larson to excuse Commissioner Lyon.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Larson
None
Lyon
AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Brown to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Larson
None
Lyon
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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 17, 1999.
2. Receive and File: "Receipt of Orange County Council of Governments Staff Report
Re: Livable Communities Phase III Scope of Work. "
3. Receive and File: "Draft Groundwater Feasibility Study Report, Installation
Restoration Program Sites 40 and 70, Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach."
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Larson to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Larson
None
Lyon
SCHEDULED MATTERS
.
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Conditional Use Permit 98-12 (Indefinite Extension)
1101 Pacific Coast Highway
ApplicanUOwner:
Request:
Von's Company c/o Keith Lam
Indefinite extension to operate commercial activities between
2 a.m. and 6 a.m. at Von's Market, thereby remaining open 24
hours a day. Existing use of the site will not change. No
structural improvements are required.
Recommendation: Recommend approval and adoption of Resolution 00-4.
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided background information on the application and
.
2
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
stated that specifically, the applicant is requesting approval for Von's Market to continue
operation during the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. He stated that Captain Maiten of
the Seal Beach Police Department (SBPD) had reviewed the application and has no
reservations about approving it. Mr. Cummins stated that Captain Maiten reported that
there had been no significant increase in complaints. reported at this location. Mr.
Cummins listed the surrounding land uses as follows:
NORTH & EAST Residential Low Density Housing (RLD).
SOUTH & WEST Commercial areas located in a Service Commercial and General
Commercial (C-2) Zone.
Mr. Cummins stated that some concerns were raised when the initial application for
extended hours of operation was made, with the primary concerns being noise levels
associated with commercial deliveries and trash disposal, and potentially objectionable
activities that might be associated with the sale of alcohol beverages. He stated that
Staff felt that these concerns could be addressed by making it a condition for approval
that any trash dumping or deliveries be restricted to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
He stated that this, in fact, was one of the conditions of the original Conditional Use
Permit (CUP), and there had been no problems with deliveries or dumping of trash. Mr.
Cummins said that the original CUP allowed Von's to sell alcohol beverages until 12:00
midnight, and when the CUP to remain open 24 hours was approved, the store
management, in accordance with state laws, did not allow the sale of alcohol between
the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Therefore, the extended hours have not created
an additional demand on law enforcement staff.
Mr. Cummins stated that Staff recommends approval of an indefinite extension of CUP
98-12 subject to conditions. He noted that the use is consistent with the Land Use
Element of the General Plan, and the building and property are adequate in size, shape,
topography, and location for the proposed use. Von's Market has been in operation on
the 24-hour schedule for almost a year with no extraordinary demands for law
enforcement.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Brown noted that the Staff Report states that Von's management was
unaware that it had been granted this CUP and was not operating on the 24 hour-a-day
schedule for approximately 5 months. Mr. Cummins responded that due to a
miscommunication" Von's management assumed that after the approval of the CUP and
return of the Acceptance of Conditions form, they still had to await confirmation from the
Department of Development Services before beginning to operate on the 24-hour
schedule.
Public Hearina
Chairman Hood opened the public hearing.
3
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
1 No representative for the applicant was present to speak at the public hearing.
2 .
3 Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he had opposed this application when it came before the
4 commission a year ago, and he was still in opposition to it. He stated that the reason
5 there had been no extraordinary demands for law enforcement was because the store
6 had not remained open 24 hours a day. He said that this did not allow for accurate
7 comparison from the previous usage. He noted that the restriction of alcohol sales to
8 the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. did not allow for the possibility of customers who
9 might "shoplift" alcohol beverages for consumption. He also expressed his concern for
10 the safety of store employees working the all night shift with regard to being threatened
11 by transients or possible perpetrators of crime. Mr. Clewley stated that the "smash and
12 grab" element would be eliminated if an earlier closing time were required. He said that
13 he would like to see Seal Beach remain a low crime community and that allowing a
14 24-hour market that stocks alcohol beverages could increase the crime rate. He stated
15 that a 24-hour market was not needed and did not serve the local community.
16
17 Mr. Art Warner stated that he was a 25-year resident of the neighborhood directly
18 behind the Von's Pavillions Market and he has had to deal with noise from trash
19 disposal for a long time. He stated that he has been unsuccessful in attempting to deal
20 with the store management, the Seal Beach Police Department (SBPD), and Mayor
21 Paul Yost regarding this issue. He described the various noises he was confronted with
22 during the night hours. He also noted that the market had added very bright lighting that
23 shines against the residences along Marble Cove Way. He stated that he had gone to
24 considerable expense in attempting to "soundproof' his home against these noises,
25 which has helped, but that when he opens his windows during the summer months, the .
26 noise comes in. Mr. Warner stated that because he had been unsuccessful in
27 petitioning the City and Pavillion's management in addressing the noise issue, he
28 believes that this application should be denied. Commissioner Larson inquired as to
29 when the bright lighting was added. Mr. Warner stated that it had been changed
30 approximately 8 or 9 months ago. He said that they use halogen lights that shine very
31 brightly to the homes across the street. He said it was like having stadium lights shining
32 into your house. He said that a 12-14 foot soundwall constructed behind the store
33 would help deflect some of the lighting. Mr. Warner noted that the Chief of Police might
34 not have heard about any complaints, but that several calls had been made by various
35 residents regarding the noise levels at the market. Chairperson Hood asked if Mr.
36 Warner had made calls to SBPD and if these calls had been recorded as complaints.
37 Mr. Warner responded that his wife had spent a good part of last year, from April to
38 July, making calls to the SBPD. He said that she had maintained a log of these
39 telephone calls and had given a copy to Mayor Yost. He said that he didn't feel that
40 they had achieved much of anything other than reporting the problem. Commissioner
41 Cutuli inquired as to whether Mr. Warner had noticed a difference in the noise level
42 before and after May 1999. Mr. Warner responded that it was very difficult to tell, as
43 when you have periodic noise throughout the night on various nights of the week, it is
44 hard to say. Commissioner Brown asked if there were commercial deliveries made
45 between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Mr. Warner responded that occasionally there were
46 deliveries made. He said that Von's had given him a $25.00 gift certificate in an effort to
.
4
1
.~
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
.
,... . "1: r..
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
offset some of the disruption. He said that although store personnel were always
extremely courteous, there was not much that could be done to address this issue as
delivery schedules are handled at the corporate office.
Chairman Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Cutuli stated that he had spoken to the Director of Development Services
and requested that he provide the exact figures from SBPD regarding complaints or
reported disturbances. He said that Mr. Whittenberg had stated that he had requested
this information from SBPD, but they said that with such short notice there was no easy
way to quickly compile this information in readiness for tonight's meeting.
Commissioner Cutuli noted that he believed it would be quite disconcerting to live near
the market and have to be subjected to the noise and glare from the lights. He stated
that with the delivery schedules being dictated by Vons's corporate management, it
appeared that the hours that the store was open would not have an affect on minimizing
the noise from early morning or late night deliveries. He asked Mr. Whittenberg if it
would be possible to get the information from SBPD on complaints about the noise at
the Von's Pavilions market. Mr. Whittenberg responded that although it was not
possible to have the figures available for this evening's meeting, given adequate notice
SBPO could compile this information and make it available to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that because it would take some time to gather the information,
he recommended that this item be continued for two weeks so that the figures could be
compiled. Commissioner Cutuli asked that statistics be provided from the date that
Von's actually began the extended hours in May 1999 as compared to the previous year
for the same calendar time. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this could be done and that in
the meantime, Staff would speak with the management at Von's Pavilions regarding the
lighting. He noted that City Code states that outdoor lighting should not exceed a
specific candlepower and should not reflect beyond the property line. He stated that the
City could require that Von's provide screens for the light fixtures to diffuse the bright
light and help restrict the light to the property line. Commissioner Cutuli commented
that he had been out walking one evening at approximately 10:00 p.m. and had noticed
a truck making a delivery. He said that the truck had some type of generator or cooling
unit attached to it and it was operating and was very loud and noisy. Commissioner
Cutuli asked' if there were any rules regarding deliveries being made by trucks with
these types of refrigeration units attached to them. Mr. Whittenberg responded that as
far as the conditions for approval under the CUP, there were none, but that the City
Noise Ordinance provisions might apply to this type of continuous noise over a certain
period of time. He stated that he believed it would be more effective to meet with store
management and notify them that if deliveries are being made during late night or early
morning hours, the delivery trucks will need to park at the front of the store until they are
able to unload the stock during the appropriate hours.
Commissioner Larson suggested that Staff consider imposing a fine on trucks making
deliveries after 10:00 p.m. or adding a condition for approval stating that should a
5
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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
certain number of complaints be received regarding late hour noise or disruptions, the
CUP would be withdrawn. He stated that some type of enforceable rules should be
incorporated, as it was not uncommon for business owners/operators to take the stance
of having no control over truck delivery schedules.
e
Commissioner Brown stated that he was happy to deny this CUP now and he had voted
against it when it was first approved. He said that he did not feel there was a big need
for the extended hour of operation. He noted that the same complaints about the noise
had been presented at that time and that nothing had changed. Commissioner Brown
said that he did not believe that the noise was related to the store being open 24 hours,
because there were not supposed to be late night deliveries anyway. He said that if
Von's cannot even follow the basic rules, he does not feel that they should be rewarded
with additional privileges. He said he was happy to support a two-week continuance to
get the report from SBPO, but it would not change his vote. He noted that another area
of concern for him was that if the Commission is hearing that several complaints have
been made and the Chief of Police is saying that SBPO is not aware of any problems,
then this reflects a big problem with the process.
Commissioner Cutuli stated that he had voted for approval of the CUP because of the
convenience factor. He stated that his family does a lot of camping and it is convenient
to be able to stop in at 4:00 a.m. to shop for food supplies for the camping trip.
MOTION by Cutuli; SECONO by Larson to re-open the Public Hearing and to continue
the Public Hearing without additional notice for Conditional Use Permit 98-12 to the
Planning Commission meeting of January 19, 1999.
e
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Larson
None
Lyon
5. Zone Text Amendment 00-1
Old Town
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
City of Seal Beach
To amend the Zoning Ordinance to establish the "Residential
Conservation Overlay Zone" permitting bed and breakfast
facilities within this zone subject to certain conditions and
terms.
Recommendation: Recommend approval subject to conditions and adoption of
Resolution 00-1.
e.
I
6
1
.;
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 January 5, 2000
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided background information on this item and stated that
the amendment proposes four major components.
1. Establish a definition within the Zoning Ordinance of a bed and breakfast (8&8)
facility.
2. Establish a Residential Conservation Overlay Zone that would permit only bed and
breakfast facilities within the Zone.
3. Establish standards for the conversion of Ulocally significant historic structures"
from a residential use to a bed and breakfast use.
4. Establish procedural standards for the specific application of the overlay zone to a
specific property within the City itself.
Mr. Whittenberg reported that the City had been contacted regarding two locally
significant historic structures with the request to relocate them to a property on the 300
block of ih Street. He stated that the two homes are the Krenwinkel House, currently
located at 106 Central Avenue, and the Proctor House, located at 227 10th Street. He
stated that the property on 10th Street had recently sold and the new owners had
expressed the desire to demolish the Proctor House structure and build two new single
family homes on the property. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the intent in proposing
this Zone Text Amendment (ZT A) was to allow these structures to be converted to
another economically viable use. He said that Staff had included a definition of a 8&8
facility to limit the types of uses that could be made in a specific zone and also to limit
the size of the 8&8 facility. He stated that Staff was proposing limiting the use for a
8&8 facility to those structures within Old Town that are over 75 years old at the time
the permit application is submitted to the City. He explained that there would be a limit
of no more than six guestrooms within a particular 8&8 structure, and that the owner
must reside on the property. He said that the primary objective was preservation of
these historic residential structures, and to restrict the number of guestrooms to show
compatibility with the existing neighborhoods.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that several years ago the Seal 8each Historical Society had
prepared a walking tour of the Old Town area and had listed a number of historic homes
that were built during the period of 1910 to 1925. He stated that when Staff had gone
out to photograph these homes last week, four of the homes on this list were no longer
in existence. He said that some have been demolished and others were extensively
remodeled so that they no longer resemble the original house. He stated that the ZT A
was also an attempt to promote public health, safety, and welfare, by integrating the
preservation of locally significant structures into the City land use management system
to encourage the preservation of complementary new development in the Old Town
area. Mr. Whittenberg explained that this would preserve the diverse architectural
styles of many of the older homes within the City and would stabilize neighborhoods
and not have these homes replaced by the standard ucookie cutter" type new home. He
said that this zone change would encourage rehabilitation and continuec;f use of these
7
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
1 structures rather than merely demolishing them. He emphasized that Staff was
2 proposing a very tight definition of a B&B facility, which would limit this use to certain .
3 types of structures and limits the number of rooms that can be used for guests so that
4 any adjoining properties would not be adversely affected. Mr. Whittenberg then
5 reviewed the provisions for B&B facilities as outlined on Pages 4 and 5 of the Staff
6 Report, and he also noted the development standards for existing structures listed on
7 Pages 5 and 6.
8
9 Mr. Whittenberg emphasized that the purpose of the RC-O Overlay Zone was to
10 establish the procedure for how the Overlay Zone would be applied to a particular
11 property in town. He stated that Staff suggested that the Zone Change (ZC) be
12 approved to replace the Overlay Zone. He stated that a Public Hearing before the
13 Planning Commission and the City Council would be required before this Zone Change
14 could be voted upon for approval. He stated that for approval of the site development
15 plans for the property Staff was recommending a Minor Plan Review process. Mr.
16 Whittenberg then presented several photographs of older structures within the City.
17
18 Commissioner Questions
19
20 Commissioner Larson confirmed that the City did not currently allow B&B facilities. Mr.
21 Whittenberg responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Larson stated that with this
22 application and the proposed changes to the ordinance this could lead to substantial
23 changes. Mr. Whittenberg responded that currently there was pressure to deal with the
24 issue at 227 10th Street (Proctor House), as the new owners are anxious to begin
25 building. As such, the City is interested in resolving this issue to determine whether the .
26 Proctor House will be preserved. Commissioner Larson confirmed that for this type of
27 zoning the property owner would have to come in and apply. Mr. Whittenberg
28 confirmed that this zoning would only be applied to a property at the property owner's
29 request. He explained that an Overlay Zone was used when a city wants to take certain
30 types of structures and have them used for specific purposes. He stated that the zoning
31 would not affect entire blocks of a city but only specific properties as requested in an
32 effort to preserve these structures.
33
34 Commissioner Brown asked why the overlay zone was necessary if the City would
35 change the ordinance to allow B&B facilities. He asked why the B&Bs could not be
36 allowed within a Residential High Density (RHO) Zone subject to a Conditional Use
37 Permit (CUP). Mr. Whittenberg explained that the intent was to allow the B&B facilities
38 to be established only in structures that were at least 75 years old to preserve these
39 historic structures within Old Town. Commissioner Brown asked if you could not
40 accomplish the same objective by simply allowing B&B facilities within a RHO Zone.
41 Mr. Whittenberg responded that he was not certain that you could do this and place the
42 condition of the structure having to be at least 75 years old. Commissioner Brown
43 stated that the definition of a B&B as it appeared in the staff report specified that the
44 building had to be at least 75 years old, which he felt was a "weird definition to begin
45 with." He said that he was not comfortable with the idea of the B&B property as a "free
46 floating" zone that could "land anywhere." Mr. Whittenberg emphasized that a B&B
.
8
1
.~
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
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
could only be established on properties on which homes that were at least 75 years old
were located. Commissioner Brown argued that the first application for a B&B was for a
house that was going to be moved to another property. Mr. Whittenberg stated that it
was to be moved to a lot that was currently vacant. Commissioner Brown retorted that it
was then, in fact, a free-floating zone. Mr. Whittenberg responded that Staff was trying
to allow for new property owners not wanting to keep an older home on the lot they had
purchased, and who might choose to give the home to another party interested in
preserving the structure. He stated that Staff felt this was a reasonable process, but
that the Commission was certainly welcome to offer other suggestions. Commissioner
Brown then stated that the way the zone change was proposed, any property owner
within the city could suddenly end up with a B&B right next door. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that this would only be possible if the house next door were 75 years old or older.
Commissioner Brown responded that the owner could raze the property creating a
vacant lot and then move a 75-year old home in from another part of town. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that as the zone change is currently written an application
would have to be made to the Planning Commission for approval of the zone change.
He explained that the zone change process gives both the Planning Commission and
the City Council greater leeway in their discretion to approve or deny an application than
does the CUP process. He stated that under the CUP process if the use complies with
the criteria established, and if the Commission cannot find that it is somehow
detrimental to the neighborhood, then the Commission is for the most part bound to
approve the CUP. He continued that under the zone change process the Commission
could look at the property and state whether or not it is an appropriate location for a
particular use. Commissioner Brown noted that in the Staff Report, one of the
exceptions to the Code was for the side yard setback, and he inquired as to why this
was so. Mr. Whittenberg responded that there were two separate side yard setbacks in
the Code. One was for an existing structure on an existing lot that is not going to be
moved. If the structure does not comply with the current setback requirement, it would
be allowed to remain as it is. The second exception was when a structure is to be
relocated from one lot to another, the Code currently requires a minimum 3-foot side
yard setback on any lot within the Old Town area, and as the lot gets wider the setback
is 10% of the lot width. He explained that most historic homes are larger and usually
located on a 50-foot lot. When these homes are moved to another lot, some side yard
issues may arise, but a minimum 3-foot side yard setback is still required. If the setback
requirements could not be met, some kind of an exemption would have to be approved.
Mr. Whittenberg continued that the other alternative would be to require a variance. He
stated that Staff felt the exemption was not too detrimental to adjoining properties
because a side yard setback of at least 4 feet was still being maintained.
Commissioner Brown then inquired as to whether a 25% reduction in the required
parking of 1 parking space per guestroom was to be permitted. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that this was subject to approval by the City Council. Commissioner Brown
asked how the Commission could approve the application if the parking requirement
could only be approved by City Council. Mr. Whittenberg responded that when
application was made requesting the exemption, the Planning Commission would then
9
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
1 make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether or not the Commission
~ thought this was appropriate. City Council would then make a final decision. . .
4 Commissioner Brown then asked where in the City hotels were allowed. Mr.
5 Whittenberg responded that hotels were allowed in a Commercial C-2 Zone.
6
7 Commissioner Cutuli asked if the City had considered the Historic Preservation Act to
8 designate specific houses as historic buildings and in this way preserve these
9 structures. Mr. Whittenberg responded that there is a process for designating homes as
10 historically significant, but this does not allow the City to require that these structures
11 remain as a standard structure. The process does allow for modification or remodeling
12 of these structures by applying the Building Conservation Code and/or the National
13 Historic Preservation Act requirements. He stated that the formal process for
14 designating homes as historic structures could be a very long, time consuming, and
15 controversial process. Mr. Whittenberg continued by stating that currently the City has
16 no process for formally listing locally significant residential and commercial structures.
17 He said that this process was initiated a number of years ago by the Seal Beach
18 Historical Society, but because of some of the issues of complying with all of the federal
19 and state requirements, the project was abandoned.
20
21 Commissioner Cutuli asked if there was a way of listing all of the homes that might
22 potentially be converted to a B&B facility before creating a specific Overlay Zone. Mr.
23 Whittenberg reported that Staff had used its best guess to date some of the homes that
24 appeared in the photo presentation. He explained that this was because many of these ..
25 homes had been constructed prior to 1933 when building permits were not required. He
26 stated that the homes that would most likely be eligible for conversion to B&B facilities
27 would be the large, 2-story homes that usually have 4-5 bedrooms. Commissioner
28 Cutuli commented that although he liked the idea of B&B facilities within the City, he
29 wondered what the response would be to an applicanUowner wanting to convert an old,
30 ugly building that meets the 75-year criteria into a B&B. He asked if there would be any
31 way of preventing this from happening. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the process of
32 the applicant having to apply for a Zone Change would include a public hearing and
33 provide the Commission the opportunity to evaluate the proposal to make a decision to
34 approve or disapprove it.
35
36 Chairperson Hood asked who determines whether a building is historically significant.
37 Mr. Whittenberg responded that Staff was defining any building constructed before 1925
38 as historically significant. He added that the Commission could change that definition, if
39 they so desired. Chairperson Hood inquired if Staff had consulted with a historical
40 architect. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff had reviewed approximately 75 B&B
41 ordinances for cities nationwide, the majority of them in California, and most of the
42 ordinances specified a 75-year building age requirement. Chairperson Hood asked if
43 any of them had the criteria for selection written into the ordinance. Mr. Whittenberg
44 responded that some did and that is why Staff was using the process presented this
45 evening. Chairperson Hood inquired if any of the ordinances indicated a building age of
46 more than 75 years. Mr. Whittenberg stated that many ordinances simply allowed B&Bs
.
10
1
2
.3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
with no specifications for the age of the building. He said that Staff did not want to just
allow B&B facilities within the City, but wanted to limit these facilities to the historically
significant homes.
Public Hearina
Chairman Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jim Caviola stated that this was a classic example of "empire building." He said that
simply because the applicant was getting a free house that has been categorized as
historically significant, it was not right to approve a zone change to make it a hotel. He
questioned why the owners of the Krenwinkel House, who own 5 other lots in the City,
did not simply move the home to one of their other lots. He said it was not fait that as a
citizen and owner of a single-family residence he should have to pay for more dense
uses of property. He said that this was not logical and that homes are not hotels. He
pointed out the problem with the possibility of having a B&B in one of the boardwalk
homes where property owners have invested in million dollar homes. Mr. Caviola
began to comment on the parking spaces as designated in the site development plan
when Mr. Whittenberg interjected that the public hearing had to be restricted to the Zone
Text Amendment (ZTA) proposal. Chairperson Hood advised the public and Mr.
Caviola to confine their comments to the zone change issue. Commissioner Brown
commented that because Staff had listed the three proposals on the agenda, (Item 5:
Zone Text Amendment 00-1, Item 6: Zone Change 00-1, and Item 7: Minor Plan
Review 00-1) he believed that it would be appropriate for the public to speak on any of
these items. Commissioner Larson stated that the issue under discussion was what the
ordinance was going to allow, and that any discussion of the site plans or other details
of the project would not be appropriate at this time. He said that this would not happen
until the Commission has voted and made a recommendation to City Council. He
continued by stating that when City Council has voted on the issue, the Commission
could then come back to discuss the specifics of the project. He stated that the
objective of the City was to try to preserve historical buildings, rather than the
establishment of a city of B&8s. Commissioner Larson noted that he did have a
problem with the idea that if someone wants to move a historic home into a
neighborhood, they would have to comply with all of the building requirements, unless
they want to convert the home to a B&8. Commissioner Brown stated that he believed
that during the public hearing citizens should be allowed to discuss issues related to a
ZT A that is directed at specific structures. He requested that the Chairperson give
those members of the public living within the vicinity of the proposed ZT A the freedom
to discuss the related items. Chairperson Hood stated that the discussion was
regarding a ZT A in the abstract. He stated that if the public wished to use possible
future scenarios as examples this would be permissible, but he asked that the public not
speak against these scenarios in specific terms.
Mr. Caviola described his expense and efforts to restore his home to its original historic
state. He again stated that he believed that this was a completely ridiculous idea for
preserving older homes. He said that he had no objection to moving the homes and to
11
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
1 allowing variances to fit the home on the lot, but that the City should not allow the home
2 to be converted to a hotel.
3
4 Chairperson Hood read into the record two letters from Michelle Brendel, Ph.D.
5 speaking in opposition to the ZT A. A copy of these letters is on file in the Department of
6 Development Services.
7
8 Mr. Ron Bennett stated that the Seal Beach Garden Inn used to be the Seal Beach
9 Hotel. It was converted from a hotel to a B&B. He said that he was in favor or
10 preserving significant buildings and that he himself had purchased an older home
11 located at 141 _13th Street. He said that he had restored the home and had lived in it for
12 several years before selling it, and commented that he would hate to see it become a
13 B&B. Mr. Bennett said that he had nothing against B&Bs, but he objected to the
14 intensification of use and would not like to see this happen in his neighborhood, as it
15 would in fact be a hotel, as Mr. Caviola stated. Mr. Bennett questioned the ability of
16 Staff to keep up with verification of compliance for the B&B facilities with regard to the
17 number of guestrooms. He also noted the discrepancy from City Code requirements in
18 the front yard setback for the proposed project. He then questioned whether the
19 tandem and handicapped parking spaces designated in the site plan meet the
20 standards for compliance. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that the plan for the parking
21 spaces did meet the standard requirement of the City Code for the backup area.
22 Chairperson Hood interjected that back and forth questioning would not be allowed
23 during the public hearing. Mr. Bennett commented that he did not believe that tandem
24 parking spaces were allowed in the City.
25
26 Mr. Bill Ayres asked whether the home or the shell of the house constitutes a 75-year
27 old home, as a 75-year old home could be gutted, have more bedrooms added, and
28 then be moved to another location. He said that if this was the case, then the
29 architectural integrity of the inside of the house was not being preserved. He stated that
30 in Napa Valley a B&B was limited to 3 bedrooms. He inquired as to how many homes
31 in Old Town are 70 years old. He commented that in 5 years they would all be eligible
32 to be converted to B&B facilities.
33
34 Ms. Sally Frate, General Manager at the Radisson Inn, stated she did welcome moving
35 these homes to the lot across the street from the inn, as it would be much better than
36 having the business that was there before. She expressed her concern with the parking
37 situation. She stated that she had problems with people parking on the Radisson lot
38 and guests returning to their hotel rooms late at night and not being able to locate a
39 parking spot within the hotel parking lot. She also questioned who would be managing
40 the B&B. She asked about their experience and stated that she did not want to see the
41 homes just sitting there with little or no guests. She said that of the Radisson guests,
42 48% come from Radisson worldwide, and the other 40% from Boeing. She stated that
43 the corporate traveler does not want to stay in a B&B. She said that the Radisson
44 works very well with the B&B in the City and that they send people there during the
45 summer. She said that 88% of the Radisson business is corporate travelers. She said
46 that the average stay at the Radisson is 2.5 days. She stated that her main concern
12
.
.
.
1
.;
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 January 5, 2000
was that there might be a problem if the B&B were having difficulty keeping the rooms
rented they might drop their rates considerably, which might attract a bad element.
Ms. Tami Borlan, owner of a property abutting the proposed lot for the B&B, stated that
although she was in favor of preserving significant buildings, she did not believe that
moving both homes to the same lot would reflect a "pretty historic house" that would
enhance the City vista. She said that from the street the view would look like it were
one house on top of the other, and that the houses should be relocated to separate lots.
She also expressed her concern that with 8 guestrooms altogether, there could be up to
20 guests present on the lot at one time creating noise from guests arriving, parking
cars, unloading baggage, etc. She speculated that with the limited yard area, she did
not see guests wanting to come to spend their vacation in a B&B that did not provide a
green outdoor sitting area. She also stated that the 4-foot side yard setbacks would
make for little privacy from neighboring homes for the B&B guests.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he supported the restoration and preservation of older
buildings, but he was in opposition to Agenda Items 5, 6, and 7. He commented that
the homes could not truly be historically preserved if when they were remodeled
structural items were replaced with cheaper or more energy efficient and modern
materials. . He expressed his objection to what he referred to as the "rubber stamp"
process with which items are brought before the Planning Commission. He said that
once an ordinance is passed, citizens are expected to abide by it. He speculated as to
what the situation would be within the City 20-25 years from now as more homes qualify
for the 75-year requirement for historically significant buildings. He stated that the City
was simply opening other avenues for people to circumvent and thwart the intent of the
policy guidelines. Mr. Clewley stated that there was not enough time to comment on all
of the issues he wished to address regarding this proposed change in the zoning
ordinance.
Ms. Sue Corbin stated that she was glad to see that there were many other citizens
present at tonight's meeting wanting to express their opposition to the proposed ZT A.
She said that simply because the City has a "yellow elephant" that they should not have
accepted, this did not mean that the zoning for the whole town should be changed. She
said that property values for homes next to hotels would go down. She questioned what
the City was preserving, and cited the background and questionable uses of other
historical buildings which had been a part of the City but had been demolished. She
commented that now that Mr. Larson was running for office, he was beginning to think
like the people of the City. Ms. Corbin stated that much of the land in Seal Beach was
held in estates or trusts, and she believes that speculators and real estate people will
encourage landowners to convert their homes to a B&B in order to make more money
from their properties. She said that there would not be adequate parking for guests of
the proposed B&B. She noted that people usually travel late and get up early to
continue their journey and this would create a noise problem for neighbors during the
late night or early morning hours. She recommended that the item be continued and
noted that several pages were missing from the copy of the Staff Report that she had
been given.
13
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
1 Mr. Dave Rosenman declared that the City has not done a good job of code
2 enforcement. He stated that approval of this ZT A would create a nightmare. He also .
3 noted that his copies of the Staff Reports were also incomplete. He recommended
4 placing this item on hold and acquiring more documentation regarding this ZT A.
5
6 Mr. Dave Bartlett asked Mr. Lee Whittenberg to read a letter received from the Seal
7 Beach Historical Society. Mr. Whittenberg apologized for the incomplete copies of the
8 Staff Reports and then proceeded to read the letter. A copy of the letter is on file in the
9 Department of Development Services.
10
11 Mr. Bartlett stated that he and the applicant, Mr. Chris Verhulst, had been working with
12 Staff and the Seal Beach Historical Society for approximately 6-8 weeks. He stated that
13 this was a great opportunity to preserve these locally significant structures. He said that
14 there should be something that could be done to accomplish this. Mr. Bartlett noted that
15 it was unfortunate that this type of mechanism was not in place before the Stanton
16 House and the Hellman Ranch House were razed for new development. He said that
17 this was a chance to preserve an important portion of the City's heritage by converting
18 these structures from a private use to a public use. He stated that this would also foster
19 architectural diversity and maintain a variety of architectures in Old Town. He continued
20 that he was in agreement with the fact that not all of the historical structures would be
21 appropriate for this type of land use, but he believes Staff has come up with a
22 mechanism for the zone change process that would assure that these issues would be
23 dealt with and that the appropriate land use would be established for the B&B. Mr.
24 Bartlett noted that this was a project about preservation, restoration, and public use,
25 which he said, are good things for society and the community. He stated that this .
26 particular location was appropriate for this type of use and that when adopted, the ZT A
27 provides for appropriate restrictions for this type of use. He said that the research done
28 by Staff confirms that this type of use is accepted in other communities. He stated that
29 the objective was to allow for the restoration and conservation of the two homes that
30 would provide the incentive for this to be done and still be compatible with surrounding
31 land uses. Mr. Bartlett expressed his surprise at so many people coming out in
32 opposition to this project. He countered the comments made earlier regarding there
33 being inadequate yard space for B&B guests by stating that usually guests will only
34 sleep and have breakfast at the B&B and will spend the rest of the time out exploring
35 the community. Regarding the concern over the rate reductions, Mr. Bartlett noted that
36 the owner's intent was that the B&B rates would be more expensive than the Radisson
37 Inn though not as expensive as the Seal Beach Inn.
38
39 Mr. Mike Comfort stated that he wished to applaud Staff for encouraging the
40 entrepreneurial spirit within the community and for helping to preserve these historical
41 homes. He said that he had visited the proposed location and commended Staff for
42 creating a vehicle that would allow review of each application on a case by case basis
43 to prevent a "helter skelter" of B&Bs throughout the community. He stated that he was
44 in favor of this proposal moving forward quickly and easily.
45
.
14
1
-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
Ms. Janet Haley stated that she lives next door to the proposed site and although she
applauds the intent to preserve historic buildings, she feels that this is a misguided way
to go about it.
Mr. Ken Huck said that the proposed project was a good way to preserve older homes
and was better than having a hotel in the area. He stated that B&Bs like the Seal Beach
Inn more closely reflect what Seal Beach is all about. He stated that the applicant had
"done his homework" on this project and that it was a good way to preserve these
homes.
Mr. Chris Verhulst stated that he and his wife had previously been involved in relocating
a home within Seal Beach and are familiar with the process. He said that approximately
6 months ago he became aware that the Krenwinkel House had no location to which to
be moved. He stated that he and his wife felt that the architectural styles of both the
Krenwinkel and Proctor homes would lend themselves well to this type of use. He said
that parking was a consideration and would be valet style. He noted that the site plans
reflect 8 guestrooms with 6 on-site parking spaces and one parking space on the street
after elimination of the curb cut in front of the property. He stated that he would have to
find 2 more parking spaces within a 150-foot radius in order to rent out the other two
rooms, and he believes he has found those. He addressed the issue of the front and
side yard setback and stated that the side yard setback on the entire south side is 15
feet and that from the curb to the back of the house is 62 feet allowing for almost 1000
square feet of patio area. He also noted that the back house has a large porch
measuring 340 square feet. Mr. Verhulst continued by noting that this use would allow
for the Krenwinkel House to remain available for the general public to visit. He said that
based upon the present condition of these homes, he did not foresee investing further
into renovation of these structures unless the outcome would be using them as a B&B.
He said that although the homes had to conform to City building and safety codes, the
plan was to maintain the outside architectural style of the homes and to save as many
interior walls as possible. In response to the comment that it would appear that one
house was sitting atop the other, he stated that the back house was 3 feet higher than
the front house and he did not see how this would be the case. He said that City zoning
currently allows two buildings on properties and that by merging two lots together into a
50-foot wide lot, there is adequate space to place both homes on the lot and preserve
them both.
Rene Bolan stated that he is in favor of preserving the homes, but he does not see why
they have to make them into B&Bs. He stated that parking would be a problem and he
did not see why the homes had to be placed over garages rather than having
underground parking. He said that only one house should be relocated to this property
and used as a single-family residence only. He again emphasized that parking was
already a problem at this location and having the B&B would only exacerbate the
problem.
Mr. Dave Rosenman cautioned the Commission to "beware of a wolf in sheep's
clothing." He reminded them of the experience with the Hellman Property project and
15
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
1 the failure to receive approval for the wetlands restoration portion of this project. He
2 said that if the Commission wanted to approve a B&B at this location, they should do
3 that and not get into a ZT A.
4
5 Mr. Dave Bartlett addressed the concerns regarding parking. He stated that if two
6 single-family homes were constructed on this property, the requirement would be 2
7 covered parking spaces per home. He stated that many times the occupants have
8 teenage children and they eventually end up with 3-4 cars per house, which can create
9 a substantial street parking problem. He said that what was being proposed was to
10 contain all of the parking on site, and any off-site parking would be off the street at a
11 location 150 feet from the B&B facility. He stated that he did not believe that the 8-unit
12 apartment complex on that block had 16 parking spaces as it is an older complex and is
13 not expected to meet the current code requirements. Mr. Bartlett also commented that
14 this project was in no way related to the Hellman Ranch Project and to attempt to make
15 a comparison between that project and the proposed B&B would be very unfair and very
16 unprofessional.
17
18 Mr. Harold Pasch, a resident of 8th Street in Seal Beach, stated that residents should
19 think twice about living next to a business as he does and having to put up with parking
20 problems that are created by these businesses. He stated that employee parking also
21 had to be taken into consideration, as they usually park on the street. He said that the
22 Ci~ needs to seriously consider the issue of parking, particularly on 7th, 8th, 1ih, and
23 13 streets. He said the City needs more parking not more businesses. He stated that
24 the property at the corner of Main and Pacific Coast Highway should be used for a city
25 parking lot rather than for another business.
26
27 Chairman Hood closed the public hearing.
28
29 Commissioner Comments
30
31 Chairperson Hood asked the Commissioners if they wished to continue with the meeting
32 or would like to take a short break. The Commission elected to finish the meeting
33 without taking a break.
34
35 Mr. Whittenberg elected to respond to some of the issues raised during the public
36 hearing. He explained that if the CUP entitlement process were used for this type of
37 project, the item would come before the Planning Commission only and would come
38 before City Council only if an appeal were filed.
39
40 He stated that the setback of the Proctor House complies with City Code as the front
41 sidewalk is inside the property line and not on public property.
42
43 He noted an error in the Brendel Letter and stated that the correct addresses for the
44 proposed project are 308 and 310 Seventh Street, not 301, which is across the street.
45
16
"
.
.
.
1
.~
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 January 5, 2000
Mr. Whittenberg also addressed the comment in the Brendel letter regarding favoritism
and City Council proceeding with the sale of this house in an improper manner. He
stated that the Council had authorized the sale of the Krenwinkel House and notice was
published in the local newspaper. Mr. Verhulst was the only individual to respond to the
invitation to bid on the house.
Regarding the interior modifications, he stated that most historic ordinances require that
the exterior of the structure maintain the historical style. Many ordinances require the
interior to be remodeled to meet the current requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
As far as impact on adjoining property values, Staff researched B&B ordinances from
many cities and B&B facilities located in residential areas and does not believe that this
type of use would severely impact adjoining property values.
Regarding limiting the number of occupants, this is an option that Planning Commission
can consider in deciding whether or not to approve this type of use. Mr. Whittenberg
indicated that the State Housing Code does limit the number of occupants per bedroom
and allows ,1 occupant per 75 square feet of space in a bedroom.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown stated that this was a ZT A with a mission and it is difficult to
separate the issue of the homes and the property vs. the overall wisdom of the ZT A. He
stated that it appeared that even Staff was confused because they placed the site plans
for the houses within the ZT A Staff Report. Mr. Whittenberg commented that Staff was
not confused, but had purposely placed a copy of the site plans in the Staff Report so
that the Commissioners and the public would have a better idea of what the proposed
standards and the ZT A could accommodate. Commissioner Brown said that he was
concerned about having a free-floating zone where a B&B could appear anywhere in
the City. He mentioned that while attending a New Year's gathering with several former
and current holders of city office, no mention was made of this proposal and he was
curious as to how well informed the citizens were regarding this. He said that this was
an important issue and should be looked at more carefully. Commissioner Brown stated
that he was in favor of historic preservation and that it might be more appropriate to
determine whether there are alternatives that would allow a B&B on this site without
adopting a ZTA. Mr. Whittenberg stated that City Code as it is currently written does not
allow B&Bs anywhere within the city, so to change the Code to allow B&Bs under
whatever criteria the Commission may find appropriate, a ZT A must be adopted in some
manner. He said that an alternative would be to put the definition section into the Code,
define what the Commission feels a B&B facility should be, and put into the Residential
High Density Zone (RHO) within the coastal area a CUP requirement for B&B facilities.
He stated that the Commission would still have to go through a ZT A to add this
definition into to the Code, and to add under the conditionally permitted uses of RHO or
Residential Medium Density (RMD). Mr. Whittenberg stated that under the CUP the
Commission could set forth the design standards as are suggested or as the
Commission feels they should be modified. He said that to do a B&B facility someplace
17
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
1 in some manner in town is going to require a ZT A of some sort. Commissioner 8rown
2 asked if this was something City Council could do without the ZT A. Mr. Whittenberg .
3 responded that as he understood the law, Council could not do this.
4
5 Terrence 80ga confirmed what Mr. Whittenberg had explained regarding the ZTA. He
6 stated that the options were to adopt an amendment that would create a floating zone
7 that would be applied later on a case-by-case basis. The other alternative would be the
8 CUP process.
9
10 Commissioner Brown stated that he did not like the method of the floating zone and he
11 believed that the term Uspot zoning" really could apply here. Mr. Whittenberg asked if
12 the Commission would object to the Overlay Zone if it could only apply to an existing
13 residence without it being relocated. Commissioner Brown said that this sounded
14 better, but he was not sure how the population feels about B&Bs. He said he was
15 happy to put a B&B up on The Hill, but he certainly did not want one next door to his
16 home. Mr. Whittenberg said that in either type of scenario, the Commission would have
17 the discretion to say that this particular proposal at this particular location will not be
18 allowed, given the significant impact they believe it would have in the neighborhood. He
19 said that this could be done either under the ZTA or through the CUP process. He said
20 that the Zone Change process offered the Commission greater flexibility to make this
21 decision as opposed to the CUP process. He stated that Staff felt giving this greater
22 flexibility to both the Commission and the City Council, and having the additional review
23 of the proposal before both bodies without the necessity of an appeal, would provide
24 greater protection to the community as a whole to review projects that come before the .
25 City. He continued that if the Commission preferred to use the CUP process, they
26 should be aware that essentially it would be the same as the Overlay Zone process, as
27 they would be approving applications for B&B facilities on a case-by-case basis.
28 Commissioner Brown stated that he would still like to see the mechanism for approval
29 tightened up as he feels that as it is proposed it creates an awful big opportunity for
30 unlimited use. He clarified that the limit on guestroom was 6 rooms per structure.
31 Commissioner Brown stated that what was being presented was a ZT A combined with a
32 proposal that does not match the ZT A.
33
34 Mr. Whittenberg explained that the City was attempting to come up with standards that
35 could also be applied to future applications. He stated that the issue was whether the
36 City wants to create an alternate mechanism for maintaining historic structures, if the
37 owners no longer choose to maintain them as single family homes or want to sell their
38 property. He said that Staff felt that a B&B facility would not be detrimental to
39 neighborhoods and would be the best use for these structures. He stated that in the
40 opinion of Staff a B&B facility, if properly conditioned, should not adversely affect the
41 surrounding residential neighborhood. Commissioner Brown stated that he likes B&Bs,
42 he likes preservation, restoration, and conservation, but it doesn't make sense to do all
43 of these things in one fell swoop. He said that his hesitation was that he was not sure if
44 he had a good gage of how the people of the City feel about having B&Bs within the
45 City. He recommended continuing this item to allow more input from the public.
46
.
18
.~
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 January 5, 2000
Commissioner Cutuli stated that there is always some resistance to change and many
people will resist change no matter what. He said that the Commission should first
approve or disapprove the concept of having B&Bs within the City. He stated that once
this was done the Commission could go ahead and evaluate the particular sites one-by-
one. He said that B&Bs usually bring interesting, upscale people into a city, and he
feels that having B&Bs adds to the quaintness and ambiance of the City. He said that if
the City was going to allow B&Bs, it was important to make sure that they present a nice
appearance and are well operated. He commented that there were many very nice
B&Bs throughout the residential areas of Santa Barbara. He said that there did not
appear to be a deterioration of the neighborhoods as a result of having these B&Bs.
Commissioner Cutuli stated that he believed there was room for a B&B concept with the
City. He said that cities with nothing but housing tracts could be "pretty boring." He
suggested establishing a Historic Site Preservation Fund from which owners of historic
structures could borrow to pay for repairs and preservation of these structures.
Commissioner Larson stated that he did not understand why the whole issue of whether
or not to allow B&Bs within the City was being driven by the need to preserve 2 or 3
older homes. He speculated as to what would prevent a builder in the future from
constructing a new B&B facility to look exactly like one of the older homes. He did not
feel that a project of this type could be denied simply because the home is not 75 years
old or older. He stated that he was not ready to vote until other alternatives for historic
preservation were discussed.
Chairperson Hood stated that there were two good issues at stake:
1. The preservation of historic buildings.
2. The preservation of the privacy and the property rights of the property owners of the
City.
He stated that tonight's high turnout and the emotionally charged testimony heard is as
much or more as has occurred over any issue that has come before the Commission.
He said that perhaps the City's desire for preservation is not necessarily in keeping with
the community's desire for preserving their property values and their privacy. He stated
that in view of these facts, perhaps it would be wise to continue this matter to make sure
that it is publicized and to work on sharpening the ordinance in some way.
Commissioner Brown commented that he was in agreement with Commissioner
Larson's question as to why the B&B facility had to be 75 years old. He stated that
maybe the citizens would want a new B&B facility that maintains the architectural style
of the older historic structures. He recommended continuing the item and re-opening
the public hearing on the issue of whether B&Bs should be allowed in Seal Beach. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that this was the intent of the ZT A; to determine whether the City
wants B&Bs and, if so, are the restrictions adequate or should another set of guidelines
be established. He again stated that Staff's objective was to provide a mechanism for
preserving existing historic structures within the City. He said that he would feel very
uncomfortable coming before the Commission with a proposal to allow new structures to
19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
1 be built in Old Town for B&B purposes. He stated that he did not feel that this was an
2 appropriate use within the City. Mr. Whittenberg commented that he b~lieved. the~e .
3 should be some accommodation made to prevent the loss of long-time, histone
4 structures within the Old Town area. He stated that a mechanism should be created
5 that would allow these structures to be recycled for some. other use that makes it
6 economically viable to go to the expense to refurbish these structures and bring them
7 up to a proper living standard. In particular where it may not be feasible to do this and
8 maintain it as a single family home. He said that if the Commission believes that land
9 values in town are such that people will buy these older homes and pay to refurbish
10 them and maintain them as single family residences, then it is best to not make any
11 amendment to the City Code.
12
13 Chairperson Hood noted that preservation would have to be a citywide goal and tonight
14 the Commission did not hear that many people who said that they were willing to give
15 up their privacy in return for preserving these buildings. He said that to have purchased
16 a home in a RHO Zone and 10 years later be notified that a B&B is moving in next door
17 is shoving someone else's ideas on a property owner's porch. Mr. Whittenberg stated
18 his objection to the term "shoving," as anything that would be proposed would come
19 before the Planning Commission for review, so it is not something that is automatically
20 "shoved," but is taken under careful consideration.
21
22 Commissioner Larson cited the example of some citizens of the City of Long Beach
23 arguing that the Old Long Beach Naval Station was worthy of preservation. He said it
24 was "a dump" built during World War II for those purposes and did not comply with
25 code, and it would have cost millions of dollars to refurbish it. He said it was just an .
26 officers club, a swimming pool, and a basketball court. He said everyone got all excited
27 and said it was worthy of preservation, but no one could say why. He asked what the
28 definition was of something that was historically significant. He said that just getting old
29 was not enough.
30
31 Mr. Whittenberg asked if the Commission would like to provide direction as to
32 alternative methods to accomplish this objective. Commissioner Brown stated that he
33 was not opposed to B&Bs within the City and mentioned that he could think of a few
34 homes that would lend themselves nicely to this use. He said that he would like to see
35 an alternative prepared with some restrictions but that he was not sure how this would
36 be accomplished.
37
38 Chairperson Hood asked if it would be appropriate to schedule a study session to
39 discuss this further. Commissioner Brown responded that a study session would be
40 nothing more than a free-flowing public hearing. Chairperson Hood noted the late hour
41 and asked for recommendations to provide direction for Staff. Commissioner Brown
42 stated that what the Commission want to do is "put their ears to the ground" and hear
43 what the public has to say. He also stated that alternatives to the ZT A should be
44 prepared to help determine whether the city wants to allow B&Bs in Old Town, and if so,
45 how this will be done. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff could prepare a proposal that
46 reflects the CUP process. Commissioner Brown countered that this was an issue that
..
20
r:
1
.~
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
:.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
needed to be heard by both the City Council and the Planning Commission, and the
CUP process would not allow for this. Commissioner Larson said that first it was
necessary to forget about B&Bs and to focus on a mechanism for historic preservation.
Chairperson Hood commented that a proposal for saving historic structures that is not
tied to a specific B&B might work better. Commissioner Brown stated that he had heard
that if your took the site plan for the proposed B&B and eliminated the back house to
re'duce the density, this would lend a much more palatable structure to all concerned
parties.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Larson to re-open the Public Hearing and to continue
the Public Hearing for one month for Zone Text Amendment 00-1, Zone Change 00-1,
and Minor Plan Review 00-1, and direct Staff to return with alternative proposals for
preservation of historic structures to the Planning Commission meeting of February 9,
1999.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Larson
None
Lyon
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg reminded the Commission if they still wished to schedule a field tour of
retaining walls within the City, as was discussed during the Study Session for Retaining
Walls. Commissioner Brown requested that a list of a variety of retaining walls be
prepared for the Commissioners so that they could visit these locations individually.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Hood adjourned the meeting at 10:29 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
C\b. l-.J.. ^ ~~ ,,~ C\ '0J\tr ~ !, Cs
Carmen Alvarez
Executive Secretary
Planning Department
21
"
City of Seal Beach Planning Commi{.sion
Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2000
t'
1 APPROVAL
~ The Commission on January 19, 2000 approved the Minutes of the Planning .'
4 Commission Meeting of Wednesday, January 5, 2000. ~
.
.;
22