HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2000-03-08
..
..
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for March 8, 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
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
o
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.
o
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.
o
Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m.
o
Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
o
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 March 8, 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 March 8, 2000
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
March 8, 2000 Agenda
I.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
AGENDA APPROVAL
II.
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.
VI.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
1. Consideration of Staff memorandum regarding MPR 99-10 for 209 - 13th Street
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Height Variation 00-1
1230 Catalina
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Jay Golison / Erick Sick and Danielle Sick-Collodi
To construct a non-habitable architectural feature of a tower to extend
above the height limit by approximately 2 feet within the zone in which the
subject property is located.
Recommendation: Recommend approval of Height Variation 00-1 and adoption of Resolution
00-8.
3. Variance 00-1
301 - 14th Street
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Wai Lee / Jeff & Jane Paquin
Addition of square footage on the second floor, which would encroach into
the required side yard setback of a legal non-conforming building.
Recommendation: Recommend approval of Variance 00-1 and adoption of Resolution 00-7.
3
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of March 8, 2000
VIII. STAFF CONCERNS
IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ADJOURNMENT
4
.
.
.
MAR 22
APR 05
APR 19
MAY 03
MAY 17
JUN 07
JUN 21
JUL 05
JUL 19
AUG 09
AUG 23
SEP 06
SEP 20
OCT 04
OCT 18
NOV 08
NOV 22
DEC 06
DEC 20
TO BE SCHEDULED:
o
o
o
o
Study Session:
Study Session:
Study Session:
Staff Report:
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of March 8, 2000
2000 Aaenda Forecast
Minor Plan Review 00-2
Conditional Use Permit 98-12
CUP 99-5 Sav-On Drugs - 12-Month Review
CUP 99-9 Faith Christian Assembly - 12-Month Review
Permitted Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Seal Beach Boulevard (10n/98)
Anaheim Bay Villas (10n/98)
Undergrounding of Utilities
And Beyond
Calendar: CUP 98-6 at 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard (Yucatan GrllO Review (April 2001)
ADA Handicapped-accessible Restrooms (April 2001)
5
'i
.~
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 March 8, 2000
Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 8, 2000. The meeting was
held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Hood
Commissioners Brown, Cutuli, Larson, and Lyon
Also
Present: Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Absent: None
AGENDA APPROVAL
Chairperson Hood noted that on Item No.3, the recommended action reflected
denial. Mr. Whittenberg responded that an error had been made and the correct
recommendation should be for approval
MOTION by Larson; SECOND by Cutuli to approve the Agenda as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
1
1
.~
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 March 8, 2000
SCHEDULED MATTERS
1. Consideration of Staff memorandum regarding MPR 99-10 for 209 - 13th Street.
Chairperson Hood noted that a communication from Michele Brendel regarding the
above matter was received. He stated that it was a long letter and he did not wish to
take the public's time to read it into the record. He encouraged the public to appear
in person to make presentations before the Commission as opposed to writing a
lengthy letter. Chairperson Hood noted that Ms. Brendel has requested that work at
209 13th Street be stopped. He asked the Assistant City Attorney if this was within
the authority of the Planning Commission. Mr. Boga responded that the City
Attorney's office had reviewed the letter and the prior Staff Report for this item and it
is their position that the Staff Report was legally adequate. He stated that by
adopting Resolution 99-44 at the meeting of November 17, 1999, the Planning
Commission had approved the entire expansion including the bathroom, because
the bathroom was described in the plans. He noted that if the Planning Commission
decided that it were necessary, Staff could be directed to in the future provide the
Commission with more detailed plans and descriptions of projects. He stated that
the Planning Commission could not stop work on this project as the plans and
Resolution 99-44 had already been approved. Chairperson Hood asked if this
meant that a response to the correspondence was not required. Mr. Boga confirmed
that no reply was required. Chairperson Hood noted that Ms. Brendel's letter would
be entered into the record. He asked Staff if there was a presentation regarding this
item. Mr. Whittenberg responded that Staff did not have a presentation to make on
this item. He stated that Staff felt the project was adequately described in the Staff
Report and that if the Commission had questions or additional information to add
Staff would respond to these questions. Mr. Whittenberg noted that as Mr. Boga
had indicated, a copy of the plans for projects submitted for approval are always
provided along with the copy of the Staff Report; therefore, Staff does not feel the
need to go into specific detail when writing the Staff Report. He said that if this were
done, the Staff Reports would be much more convoluted than they already are. He
stated that Staff attempts to summarize the request in the Staff Report and includes
a copy of the plans to provide specific details. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
resolutions adopted by the Planning Commission are adopted after a project has
been approved as being in substantial conformance with the plans as submitted. He
said that both Staff and the City Attorney had reviewed Ms. Brendel's letter and felt
that there was nothing necessary to respond to at this time. He noted that Staff was
simply requesting that the Planning Commission receive and file Item NO.1.
MOTION by Larson; SECOND b~ Cutuli to receive and file Staff memorandum
regarding MPR 99-10 for 209 - 13t Street. .
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
None
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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2000
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Height Variation 00-1
1230 Catalina
ApplicanUOwner:
Request:
Jay Golison I Erick Sick and Danielle Sick-Collodi
To construct a non-habitable architectural feature of a tower
to extend above the height limit by approximately 2 feet
within the zone in which the subject property is located.
Recommendation: Recommend approval of Height Variation 00-1 and adoption
of Resolution 00-8.
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He stated the assessors Parcel No. for this property as 199-
194-01 and noted that it is located in The Hill area of town. He described the
property is rectangular with a lot area of approximately 5800 square feet. He
presented several' photographs of the subject property and noted the surrounding
land uses to be as follows:
NORTH:
SOUTH, EAST &
WEST:
Single family housing in a Residential Low Density Zone and the
Hellman Property.
Single family housing in a Residential Low Density Zone.
He stated that Section 28-2317 allows for non-habitable architectural features to a
maximum of 7 feet above the height limit, subject to the following criteria:
1. The height variance is appropriate to the architecture in which it will be
constructed.
2.' It is appropriate for the neighborhood in which it will be located.
3. The height variance will not significantly affect the primary view from any
property located within 300 feet.
Mr. Cummins noted that in reviewing this case, Staff felt that the architecture of the
proposed height variation is in substantial conformity with what is being proposed for
the structure, and that the non-habitable architectural feature will complement the
neighborhood. Staff states that properties across the street sit on a higher grade
than the Sick's house and no primary view will be blocked.
Staff also recommends approval subject to conditions based on the fact that Height
Variation 00-1 is consistent with the General Plan, no habitable living space is being
added to the structure, and it will not significantly impact the primary view of any
property within 300 feet.
3
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1-1
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 March 8, 2000
Commissioner Questions
None.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Jay Golison, architect for this project, stated that he was available to respond to
any questions related to this item.
Commissioner Lyon asked if there were any other properties within this area that
had structures that exceed the height limit. Mr. Golison responded that on Catalina
Avenue there are some homes that have structures above the 25-foot height limit.
Commissioner Lyon asked if a new form of construction was being established in
this area. Mr. Golison responded that he did not believe this to be the case.
Commissioner Lyon asked how far away from the Sick's home was the other home
that Mr. Golison had mentioned. Mr. Golison responded that it was approximately 6
homes away. He stated that the variation in height for this project was very small.
He noted that there was no vertical wall surface involved, but was all low roof
portion. Commissioner Lyon stated that the reason he was inquiring about this was
that if the Planning Commission approves this variation for this project, all of the
other property owners in this area may wish to receive approval for the same type of
height variation. Mr. Golison responded that the general layout of the house was
within the height limit. He stated that the non-habitable structure is designed to go
up to the eave in an area above a stairway where there currently are no windows.
This will allow installation of clear story windows around the center of the stairway to
allow light to the center of the home. Mr. Golison stated that the 2-foot projection
above the height limit would strictly be the four sides to a four-sided hip roof.
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that he lives on Catalina Avenue, approximately 3 blocks
from the house in question. He said that he was wondering about the horizontal
dimensions of the proposed structure. He wondered if they were in compliance with
City Code for covered roof access structures (CRAS). He stated that if the project
were a CRAS in a tower, this would not be allowable in a CRAS. He stated that a
tower might reflect a habitable living space. He asked if he could build a similar
tower on his home to the same elevation, or perhaps, 5 feet higher than the height
limit. He stated that if wheelchair access to the tower were anticipated, the tower
could be quite wide, up to several hundred feet in horizontal dimensions, in order to
accommodate a wheelchair. He noted that with a standard staircase the dimensions
would be limited to 75 square feet. Mr. Clewley stated that he had nothing against
this type of architectural feature, in fact, he believes they are a benefit to the
neighborhood. He stated that towers that exceed the 25-foot height limit should be
visually pleasing. He asked why approval of a height variance was necessary for
construction of an interesting looking architectural feature on top of a house. He
said that because of the 25-foot height limit, property owners construct homes with a
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
Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2000
10-foot first and second floor, creating a box look to the home, with no pitch to the
roof. Mr. Clewley stated that the height limit should be inclusive of special
architectural features on top of homes.
Chairperson Hood asked if the applicant wished to rebut. The applicant declined.
Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Golison if the structure was a CRAS or if there is no
roof access. Mr. Golison responded that the structure was strictly a roof for the
stairwell, but there was no access to the roof from this structure. Mr. Whittenberg
interjected that the stairwell that is enclosed by the tower is the stairway that goes
from the first floor to the second floor of the house. He said there is no stairway from
the second floor of the house to the roof. Mr. Golison noted that there is a stair that
is strictly a mechanical access stair that goes from the deck up to the flat section of
the roof, but it is not within this structure.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown asked if there was a specific area requirement for a CRAS.
Mr. Whittenberg responded that there were guidelines for the area that is allowable
for CRAS stairways. Commissioner Brown stated that this was a non-habitable
architectural feature. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed this and noted that the Planning
Commission has not adopted design standards for the size of these structures.
Commissioner Brown noted that there is wording that does mention open stairwells
to open roof decks. Mr. Whittenberg noted that that section of the Code applies to
both. Commissioner Brown asked if there is a separate section of the Code for
CRAS. Mr. Whittenberg responded that it is a subsection of the Code that allows the
towers. He said that this is where the guidelines come in for architectural
compatibility of the roofing, and that the stairwell be located on the side of the
structure, and the maximum size for a CRAS. He noted that this structure does not
fall under this criteria, so there is no size limitation other than what the Planning
Commission feels is appropriate as part of the review of a particular application.
Commissioner Brown noted that the Staff Report refers several times to lithe
proposed CRAS." Mr. Whittenberg stated that this should have read "non-habitable
architectural feature," and stated that this would be corrected both in the Staff Report
and Resolution No. 00-8.
Mr. Whittenberg called attention to letters received from Mr. Alan Shields requesting
denial of this application, and Mr. Jerry Anderson, recommending approval.
Commissioner Cutuli stated that this was a nice looking project and since the City
allows for this type of architectural structure to exceed the height limit by 7 feet, he
had no objection to approving this project.
Commissioner Lyon was in agreement.
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
47
City of Seal Beach Planning C.ommission
Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2000
Commissioner Larson stated that if the project is in accordance with the plan as set
forth in the zoning ordinance, he saw no problem in approving the project.
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Larson to approve Height Variation 00-1 subject to
conditions, and adopt Resolution 00-8.
MOTION CARRIED:
AY~S:
NOES:
ABSENT: None
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that adoption of Resolution No. 00-8 begins a 10-day
calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
4. Variance 00-1
301 - 14th Street
ApplicanUOwner:
Request:
Wai Lee I Jeff & Jane Paquin
Addition of square footage on the second floor, which would
encroach into the required side yard setback of a legal non-
conforming building.
Recommendation: Recommend approval of Variance 00-1 and adoption of
Resolution 00-7.
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 project and
stated that the applicant was requesting to add a bedroom, bathroom, and closet to
his home. He noted that the building is non-conforming due to side yard setbacks
on the street side of the property as well as parking. He noted that currently there is
only 1 parking space for this single-family residence. Mr. Cummins described the
property as rectangular, measuring approximately 3750 square feet. He provided
the Orange County Assessor Parcel No. as 043-133-09 and noted that it is located
in the Residential Low-Density (RLD) section of Old Town. He presented
photographs of the property and described the surrounding lanlJ uses as follows:
NORTH:
SOUTH:
WEST:
Residential Medium Density (RMD) Zone 'and General
Commercial in a C-2 Zone.
Residential Medium Density (RMD) and Residential High
Density (RHO)
Residential High-Density (RHO) and public land use.
6
.~
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 March 8, 2000
Mr. Cummins noted that because this was a second-floor addition, which
encroaches into the side yard, this new construction requires approval of a variance
in order to proceed. He stated that the second story is on a landing that currently
requires a 15% lot width side yard setback. He said that the project as proposed
would meet the current side yard setback as the structure will be stepped back in to
the 15% at the top of the landing from where the door would have to open. Mr.
Cummins described the criteria established by City Code for approval of a variance
as follows:
1. The structure will not adversely affect the General Plan.
2. There are special circumstances that deprive the property owner of usage of the
property that someone else in a similar situation may have.
3. Granting of the variance would not grant special privilege to the property owner.
Mr. Cummins noted that as the stairwell currently sits, it is not feasible for the
property owner to move the stairwell to create a second access to the second floor.
Staff recommends approval of Variance 00-1 because it is consistent with the
General Plan. He stated that there is a special unique characteristic of the stairwell
leading to the landing, but Staff believes the granting of this variance will not
constitute a special privilege.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Brown asked what the actual footage for the side yard setback should
be. Mr. Cummins responded that the required side yard setback is 5.75 feet.
Commissioner Brown asked what the actual setback was for this project. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that it was 3.75. Commissioner Brown noted that this was
for an interior setback. Mr. Cummins confirmed that this would be required as the
minimum on an interior yard setback. He stated that the actual setback for this
project was currently 5 feet 3 inches, and the required measurement would be 5 feet
9 inches.
Public Hearing
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Wai Lee, the architect for Mr. & Mrs. Paquin, stated that he would be happy to
answer any questions related to this project.
Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the existing side yard setback from the side property
line along Landing Avenue is currently 4 feet. He stated that the requirement is 5
feet 5 inches. He said that the area for the variance in length for the stairway is 5
feet 3 inches.
7
.~
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
CRy of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2000
Mr. Reg Clewley stated that Staff appears to be changing the rules without telling
anyone. He said that the special or unique characteristics of a property must, be
related to size, shape, or topography of the land, which somehow deprive the
property owner of other uses that a property owner would be able to have. He gave
the example of a 15-foot wide piece of property left over after construction of a
freeway through the property, and another 15-foot wide property owned by another
person. He stated that they may not be required to maintain the side yard setback
due to the extenuating circumstances as this would not allow them to construct a
building of more than 6 feet. He stated that there were no special circumstances to
this property related to size, shape, or topography. He said that Staff is playing
tricks by changing the rules without the passing of any laws. He voiced his
opposition to this variance.
Chairperson Hood asked if the applicant wished to rebut. The applicant declined.
Commissioner Cutuli asked Mr. Lee if other ways for constructing this addition were
examined, without having the requirement of the encroachment into the side yard.
Mr. Lee noted that the house was very small and in a house of this size, there can
only be one stairwell going to the second floor. He stated that construction of a
second stairwell would be impractical for this size house. He emphasized that the
variance was requested for the landing going to the second floor, but the rest of the
addition is within the setback requirement.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Mr. Whittenberg read from Section 28-2502, Subparagraph 2 of the findings required
under the Municipal Code as follows:
... because the special circumstances applicable to the property
including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the
strict application of this chapter deprives such property of privileges
enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone.
He explained that the Commission was not limited to certain issues, but could
include others that might not normally be focused upon. He stated that in the past
when the Planning Commission has dealt with variances on properties related to
structures that do not meet the current side yard setback requirements, it has
normally been the practice of the Commission to grant the variance for the existing
side yard, but require that the new portions of the structure comply with the current
setback requirements. He stated that in this case, the only area that does not
comply is the area above the existing stairway at the landing on the second floor
where the doorway to the new addition on the second floor is located. He said that
Staff feels that because the existing side yard setbaqk was legally permitted a
number of years ago, ~nd because of the interior arrangement of the house, there is
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 March 8, 2000
no other way of providing an additional stairway without destroying the interior of the
existing residence.
Commissioner Brown stated that he agreed with Mr. Clewley that the City has
applied variances to the concept of a unique feature of the land rather than the
building. Yet the Commission has never required that a property owner take down
an existing non-conforming structure, but has required that all new construction meet
the Code setback requirements. He stated that although he was conflicted on this
project as some new construction was being allowed in the setback, he agreed that
there was no other way that this could be done.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to approve Variance 00-1 subject to
conditions, and adopt Resolution 00-7.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT: None
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Larson, and Lyon
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that adoption of Resolution No. 00-7 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 he had distributed a memorandum to all members of the
Commission regarding the Southern California Association of Governments
preparing for the 2000 Regional Transportation Plan, which looks at long-range
transportation improvements within the Southern California Region. Staff will be
following this to determine what is envisioned for areas within the City of Seal
Beach.
Mr. Whittenberg also extended congratulations on behalf of Staff to Council person
Elect Larson for his successful campaign for a seat on the Seal Beach City Council.
He expressed that Commissioner Larson's expertise and dedication would be
missed, but that Staff was looking forward to working with him at the City Council
level.
Mr. Whittenberg referred to the agenda forecast for April 19, 2000. He announced
that Chairperson Hood would be out of the country on that date. He stated that Staff
would attempt to reschedule the item listed under the April 19 forecast date and not
schedule anything else for that date.
Mr. Whittenberg then announced that with the defeat of Measure M the Bixby Project
would be allowed to proceed. He stated that Staff received telephone calls today
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 March 8, 2000
from the hotel developer and a developer for one of the restaurants, asking that their
project requests be placed on the agenda for the April 5 or May 3, 2000 Planning
Commission meeting. Commissioner Larson asked if the commercial uses for this
project would require a conditional use permit (CUP). Mr. Whittenberg responded
that there were certain commercial uses that do not require anything other than
building permits. He noted that for the 25-acre shopping center area, most of those
CUPs have already been granted, so there would not be anything significant coming
back before the Commission, unless an application is received from a restaurant.
He stated that restaurants do require a CUP, but at this point, Staff has received
nothing for restaurants in this development. He said that a hotel and restaurant use
at Lampson and Seal Beach Boulevard would be coming before the Planning
Commission in the near future.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Councilperson Elect Larson stated that he had been advised by the City Attorney
that he would not be able to participate in any matter for any item that he had heard
at the Commission level that is appealed to the City Council. He noted that as the
time for his transition to City Council nears, he would probably not be participating
for specific issues, assuming they might be appealed. He wanted to reassure the
Commission that if he missed a meeting, it was not due to lack of interest, but rather
to prevent a conflict of interest. Commission Brown stated that it would be more
appropriate to hear the item at the Commission level, and reclude himself at the
Council level. '
Chairperson Hood extended his congratulations to Council person Elect Larson for
garnering 99.9% of the vote. He noted that the City Council would now have 3
former Planning Commissioners on board, and this means that they can incorporate
their knowledge of land use planning. He expressed his hope that with these former
Planning Commissioners participating in the decision making on the City Council
level, that the City and people of Seal Beach could work better together in
accomplishing common goals. He thanked Council person Elect Larson for sharing
his expertise and wished him well.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secret
Planning Department
10
1
.2
3
4
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2000
APPROVAL
The Commission on April 5, 2000 approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of Wednesday, March 8, 2000. ~ .
11