HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2000-12-06
ti
'.
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for December 6, 2000
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Brian Brown
District 2 - Jim Sharp
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 December 6, 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 December 6, 2000
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for December 6, 2000
7:30 p.m.
I.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II.
ROLL CALL
III.
AGENDA APPROVAL
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to:
(a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda;
(b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda; and/or
(c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or public to
request an item is removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any items
within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, provided that the Planning
Commission may undertake no action or discussion unless otherwise authorized by law.
V.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are 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 8, 2000.
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
2. Adopt Resolution No. 00-36 for 143 Main Street (Hennessey's Tavern) for Conditional Use
Permit 98-18 (6-Month Extension) allowing continued use of a previously approved outdoor
dining area and denying requests for expanded operating hours and live entertainment.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Site Plan Review 00-4 (Continued from November 8, 2000)
Centex Homes, Seal Beach Boulevard
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Centex Homes
To approve a Site Plan Review for a proposed 75-home single-family,
detached housing project. Proposed lot sizes range between 4,400 and
7, 148 square feet. The proposed single-family homes are all 2-story,
between 2,934 and 3,286 square feet of living area, and between 23' -8"
and 24' -9" in height. The Site Plan Review is required as a condition of
a development agreement between the City and the property owner.
The subject property is located on the easterly side of Seal Beach
Boulevard at Rossmoor Center Way. The subject property has
3
.
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of December 6, 2000
previously received approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15797, and
contains approximately 15.64 acres, located between the Rossmoor
Highlands residential neighborhood in the City of Los Alamitos to the
north, and the Old Ranch Towne Center, currently under construction, in
the City of Seal Beach on the south.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-37.
4. Variance 00-4 & Conditional Use Permit 00-12
617 Ocean Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Recommendation:
John P. Smith
To add approximately 356 square feet to a legal, non-conforming 5-unit
structure at 617 Ocean Avenue. Specifically, the applicant proposes to
reduce the density of the property from 5 units to 4 units by combining
units "C" and "0" and then adding approximately 356 square feet to that
unit. In addition, the applicant proposes a major remodel including new
decks and major interior remodel work. Also, the applicant proposes to
add a 5th parking space in the form of a tandem "carport" space. A
variance is required to add additional space to the westerly side of the
property, which is legal, non-conforming due to current side yard
setbacks.
Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-38 and
00-39.
5. Conditional Use Permit 00-13
333 First Street (Oakwood Apartments)
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Recommendation:
VIII. STAFF CONCERNS
IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Dennis Stout / Oakwood Worldwide
To approve a Planned Sign Program at the Oakwood Apartment
Complex. Program will include a monument sign and a wall sign.
Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-42.
4
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of December 6, 2000
DEC 20
TO BE SCHEDULED:
o
o
o
o
Study Session:
Study Session:
Study Session:
Staff Report:
2000 Aaenda Forecast
Permitted Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Seal Beach Boulevard (10/7/98)
Anaheim Bay Villas (10/7/98)
Undergrounding of Utilities
And Beyond
Calendar: Study Session - Retaining Walls (February 2001)
CUP 98-6 at 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard (Yucatan Grill) Review (April 2001)
ADA Handicapped-accessible Restrooms (April 2001)
\.
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
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of December 6, 2000
Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, December 6, 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, Lyon, and Sharp
Also
Present: Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Quinn Barrow, City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Absent: Terence Boga
AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Cutuli to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Hood opened oral communications.
None.
Chairperson Hood closed oral communications.
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
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 December 6, 2000
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 8, 2000.
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0
AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
SCHEDULED MATTERS
2. Adopt Resolution No. 00-36 for 143 Main Street (Hennessey's Tavern) for
Conditional Use Permit 98-18 (6-Month Extension) allowing continued use of a
previously approved outdoor dining area and denying requests for expanded
operating hours and live entertainment.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff had prepared Resolution 00-36 based upon
direction provided by the Planning Commission at the public hearing held at the
November 8, 2000 meeting. He noted that if further modification is necessary, that
could be addressed now.
Commissioner Cutuli stated that a few days after the November 8, 2000 meeting he
had witnessed that Hennessey's was open for breakfast before the officially
approved hours of operation. He said that several of his constituents also called him
to complain about the fact that Hennessey's continued to ignore the designated
operating hours of 11 :00 a.m. to 1 :00 a.m. and were opening earlier. He asked the
Director of Development Services if Staff was aware of this. Mr. Whittenberg
reported that for approximately one week Staff was aware that Hennessey's was
opening for breakfast, at which time they contacted Hennessey's to make them
aware that they were in violation. He stated that the management of Hennessey's
was under the impression that they could continue to operate before 11 :00 a.m. until
they completed filing of an appeal. Staff made them aware that this was not
accurate and notified them that they needed to cease operations before 11 :00 a.m.,
and they have complied with this directive.
Chairperson Hood asked what code enforcement authority the City had at this point
in time with regard to violation of conditions of approval. Mr. Whittenberg responded
that a hearing for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit would be an option.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to adopt Resolution 00-36 as presented.
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
MOTION CARRIED:
AVES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2000
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 00-36 begins a 10-day
calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Site Plan Review 00-4 (Continued from November 8, 2000)
Centex Homes, Seal Beach Boulevard
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Centex Homes
To approve a Site Plan Review for a proposed 75-home
single-family, detached housing project. Proposed lot
sizes range between 4,400 and 7, 148 square feet. The
proposed single-family homes are all 2-story, between
2,934 and 3,286 square feet of living area, and between
231 -8" and 241 -911 in height. The Site Plan Review is
required as a condition of a development agreement
between the City and the property owner.
The subject property is located on the easterly side of
Seal Beach Boulevard at Rossmoor Center Way. The
subject property has previously received approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 15797, and contains
approximately 15.64 acres, located between the
Rossmoor Highlands residential neighborhood in the City
of Los Alamitos to the north, and the Old Ranch Towne
Center, currently under construction, in the City of Seal
Beach on the south.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 00-37.
Staff ReDort
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in
the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item
and stated that after having a number of people address the Planning Commission
at the November 8, 2000 meeting requesting that this matter be referred to the
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and that additional time be provided to allow
the Armed Forces Reserve Center (AFRC) to review the development plans the
3
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2000
Planning Commission had continued this item to the January 3, 2001 meeting. He
stated that at the November 8 meeting there were concerns expressed that the
development was not in compliance with the previous approvals as granted by
ALUC in 1998. He said that Staff had contacted the City Attorney regarding the
action of the Commission, and several issues were raised regarding the provisions
of the development agreement and the proper capabilities of the ALUC to review this
project when they had already reviewed the General Land Use Entitlements as far
as General Plan and Zone Change uses were concerned. Mr. Whittenberg stated
that as a result, this item has been placed back on the agenda tonight at the request
of the City Manager to deal with these issues. He noted that the Commissioners
have been provided with documentation from the CitY Attorney's office and Staff
would attempt to address any concerns the Commissioners might have. Mr.
Whittenberg noted for the record that Staff had received a letter from Colonel William
F. Wheeler, Chief Counsel of the California National Guard indicating that previous
requests by Major Michael Wells for additional time to consider the project may now
be considered withdrawn.
Mr. Barrow stated that after becoming aware of the Planning Commission's decision
to continue this item, the City Attorney's office completed some research on this
matter and had received a letter from the Bixby Company. He said that based upon
this information, the City believes that the questions raised at the November 8, 2000
meeting have been answered. He said that he would respond tonight to any other
questions related to Site Plan Review 00-4.
Chairperson Hood asked if a copy of the letter from the Bixby Company had been
forwarded to the Planning Commission. Mr. Barrow stated that he was not sure as
the letter was addressed to the City Manager. Chairperson Hood noted that the
letter from the Air Force was also addressed to the City Manager, but copies were
immediately distributed to the Commissioners. He asked if this letter was from
Barrister Bornholdt. Mr. Barrow responded that Mr. Bornholdt, who was present
tonight, authored the letter. Chairperson Hood asked if this was to be the extent of
the Staff Report. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he could review the information
presented at the November 8 meeting, but he did not believe that this would address
the issue before the Commission tonight.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Ms. Janice Shackle, Project Manager for Centex Homes, stated that the architect,
vice-president of product development, vice-president of land development, and civil
engineer for Centex were present tonight and available to respond to questions from
the Commission.
Chairperson Hood recommended beginning with questions about the site plan. He
asked what the setbacks for the homes were. Ms. Shackle stated that the rear yard
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 December 6, 2000
setbacks range from approximately 14 feet to 25 feet, and noted that the minimum
setback requirement is 10 feet. Chairperson Hood asked about the setback for
driveways that head straight into the garages. Ms. Shackle responded that the front
yard setback is 18 feet. Chairperson Hood confirmed that this was the minimum
required front yard setback for Seal Beach. Ms. Shackle confirmed that this was
correct. Chairperson Hood asked from where the front yard setback begins. Ms.
Shackle stated that the setback measurement begins from the curb. Mr.
Whittenberg interjected that the front yard setback does not start from the curb line
but begins from the property line, not from the curb or the public sidewalk area.
Chairperson Hood asked if the sidewalk was not considered an easement onto a
property. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. Chairperson Hood stated
that in reviewing the tract map for his property, it reflected that his property begins at
the center of the street and that he was allowed an easement for the street and the
sidewalk. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would be a very unusual situation if this
were in fact the case. Chairperson Hood stated that a sports utility vehicle (SUV)
measures approximately 20 feet in length. He questioned how an SUV would fit
into an 18-foot front yard setback. Ms. Shackle stated that Centex had complied
with the minimum 18-foot front yard setback.
Mr. Ken Bornholdt of the law firm of Walter & Bornholdt clarified that he does not
represent the applicant, but represents the Bixby Ranch Company. He said that he
was in possession of a copy of the aforementioned letter and would be happy to
offer it to the Commissioners for perusal. He noted that the letter had been
addressed to the Planning Commission and had initially been sent by fax with
another copy sent by U.S. mail. Chairperson Hood asked the Director of
Development Services if copies could be provided to the Planning Commission. Mr.
Bornholdt summarized the letter and stated that the concerns expressed by the
National Guard were thoroughly reviewed and considered by the Planning
Commission as well as the City Council in conjunction with the EIR proceedings and
all of the issues relating to impacts from the air base, including flight tracts, were
extensively reviewed and the EIR has been certified and completed. He stated that
the City had entered into a development agreement and pursuant to the terms of
that agreement, the City obligated itself to process all applications for site plan
approvals consistent with the rules and regulations that the City had at that time. He
noted that the City Staff Report points out that this application is consistent with all of
these rules and regulations and under the terms of the development agreement as
well as the Tentative Tract Map that the applicant's project should be approved.
Chairperson Hood asked Mr. Bornholdt who the property owner is. Mr. Bornholdt
responded that the owner is the Bixby Ranch Company. Chairperson Hood asked if
there were going to be a transfer of ownership. Mr. Bornholdt confirmed that this
was correct. Chairperson Hood asked if the property owner in the near future would
be Centex Homes. Mr. Bornholdt confirmed that this was correct.
John Smith, Deputy Commander of the Joint Forces Training Base stated that he
was accompanied by the Airfield Commander, Tom Lasser. He said that they were
present on behalf of the Adjutant General of California to share concerns regarding
5
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2000
the planned residential development adjacent to their runway. For the record, he
read a letter from William F. Weir, Colonel and Chief Council, California National
Guard, addressed to the City of Seal Beach City Manager and dated December 6,
2000, as follows:
'The Adjutant General of the California National Guard has
asked me to clarify the position of the California National Guard
with respect to our operation of the Los Alamitos Army Airfield and
the relationship between the installation and the surrounding area.
This includes changes and developments outside the installation.
We have previously published and distributed a Los Alamitos
Reserve Training Center (now The Joint Forces Training Base) Air
Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) 1994 study to identify
and examine the impacts of aircraft noise and accident potential
from flight operations. AICUZ studies identify land uses which are
compatible with flight operations. The primary use of this study is
to guide the installation commander for activities on his installation.
An additional important purpose is to advise the surrounding
community of the conclusions and recommendations and any
impact on the general area. Surrounding communities may use an
AICUZ study as they deem appropriate when considering land use
proposals in their jurisdiction.
We recognize as a general policy matter certain structures,
developments, or land uses in the vicinity of airfields must be
reviewed and considered carefully by government agencies
because of safety, sound, and general compatibility or
considerations. Our purpose is to remind you that we believe that
the activities on Los Alamitos Airfield and their effect on the
surrounding community are sufficiently and accurately described in
the AICUZ study. You should consider this or any other
development projects in light of their impact on the installation as
well as the installation effect on the proposed project. "
We will continue to monitor the effects of flight operations
and keep you advised of any significant changes that may affect
land use on or around the installation and airfield. "
Mr. Whittenberg asked if Staff could be provided with a copy of the letter for the
record. Commander Smith stated that he had been asked not to leave the letter
tonight, but that a copy of the letter was to be mailed to the City Manager. (Copy of
this letter is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) Commander Smith
thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to express their concerns.
Chairperson Hood asked Commander Smith if he had any official opinion on the Site
Plan. Commander Smith stated that he believed the import of the letter is to go back
to the AICUZ and this is the most thorough record pending on this. Commissioner
Brown asked if Commander Smith and Major Wells were withdrawing their request
for more time to review the site plan. Commander Smith stated that it was his
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
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2000
impression that the request for more time had been overridden by events leading to
tonight's meeting. Commissioner Brown said he thought Commander Smith had
appeared at the last meeting because he had concerns about having homes directly
under the runway. He asked Commander Smith if he were now stating that this
issue had already been addressed in the AICUZ study. Commander Smith said that
it would be more accurate to state that the AICUZ study is a more accurate and
more useful document for understanding the military's concerns. Chairperson Hood
stated that he had noted that Letter 1 specifically withdraws the request, and Letter
2, which was read tonight, does not make this statement of withdrawal. Commander
Smith again stated that he thought his request had been overcome by events, and
he was not the author of the letter. He said that it was. his understanding from his
discussions today with Colonel Weir and the JAG Office and with his commander
General Portante, that the request had been overcome by events, and that tonight's
meeting was in part because of this. He said that the letter was created to at this
time state the position of the military.
Mr. Ken Bornholdt stated that he did not understand why there were two signed
letters. He said that part of the testimony of the National Guard is consistent with
what has been said about the air base over the years in terms of land use
compatibility, and that is to look to the 1994 AICUZ study, incorporated into the
ALUC study, which states that there are no accident potential zones that extend
beyond the base boundary line, and there are no safety issues involved in this
project, and never have been. Mr. Bornholdt continued by stating that the he
believes the National Guard is saying that the noise contours that are shown in the
AICUZ are the ones that control in terms of their concerns of land use compatibility.
He said that these noise contours were incorporated into the ALUC Land Use Plan
and show a 65 CNEL noise contour line that stops short of this project. He stated
that the EIR completed for this project and certified by the Planning Commission
reflected that these noise contours were overly conservative, and that the 65 CNEL
is far away from this residential project. Commissioner Brown asked if Mr. Bornholdt
agreed that a public hearing on a Site Plan Review was conducted and members of
the. public came before the Commission to make a request to continue this hearing
due to inadequate time to review the site plan. Mr. Bornholdt responded that he was
not present, but had viewed the videotape. He said that the gentlemen who were
present at the last meeting had not been involved in any of the previous hearings on
this project, and they did request a continuance of the hearing to study the site plan.
He said that he did not understand why. Commissioner Brown stated that if
members of the public request a continuance to study a public hearing item and if
the Planning Commission agrees that this is a reasonable request, then an action
taken to grant this request would not be arbitrary or capricious. Mr. Bornholdt stated
that this would depend upon the nature of the request. He said if there is a legal and
factual basis for this request, Commissioner Brown would be absolutely correct,
however in this particular case there was not. Mr. Bornholdt said that he found it
interesting that the National Guard representatives who had previously presented
did not refer to the 1994 AICUZ Study, which several of them had referred to and
upon which decisions have been based. He noted that these same representatives
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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2000
have now referred to the 1994 study and now realize that this is their statement, and
it is compatible with this development and, therefore, they have realized that their
objections or concerns were probably unwarranted. Commissioner Brown stated
that he wanted to make sure that Mr. Bornholdt was in agreement that the Planning
Commission has the right to continue a hearing when the public requests that this be
done. Mr. Bornholdt said that with one exception, he was in agreement with
Commissioner Brown. He noted that Commissioner Brown had been present during
the Planning Commission review of this project, and compatibility issues with the Air
Base were extensively discussed, and the development plan, the vesting tentative
map, and the development agreement were approved. He continued that with
knowledge of these facts, to have someone stand up and state that they have
concerns based upon the same information which was extensively reviewed during
several public hearings, makes it difficult to accept that, given that knowledge and
those circumstances, that this truly constitutes valid grounds to request a
continuance. Commissioner Brown stated that he could disagree with this. Mr.
Bornholdt pointed out that there are covenants contained within the Development
Agreement that now bind the City and the Bixby Ranch Company, which provide for
good faith in processing permits and provides for cooperation and obligations on the
part of the City to do whatever they can to make sure that everything is processed in
an expedient manner as long as it is consistent with the ordinance and regulations,
which he understands the Site Plan to be.
Commissioner Sharp stated that one of the problems that the Planning Commission
had was that when they were approached by three people in uniform at the meeting
of November 8, 2000, the Commissioners thought them to be ''the powers that be
and had the authority of everybody behind them." He stated that he personally
would not have voted for an extension, and he does not believe that some of the
other Commissioners would have. He said that he ''thinks it boils down to we were a
little bit mislead."
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown asked that since the meeting was continued, and it was
publicly announced, how could they be having this public hearing tonight. He asked
if the item had been re-noticed. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that it had been re-
noticed.
Chairperson Hood stated that there appeared to be a difference about civility. He
said that at the March 2000 meeting there was discussion on the issue of the City of
Seal Beach being "neighborly," and said that "we care about our neighbors
concerns." He noted that because some men in uniform came before the
Commission stating that they had not been notified that the church had been
replaced by a housing development, the Planning Commission felt constrained to act
on this. He said that it is possible that some people think that politics is the art of
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
Cffy of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2000
what you can get away with, and some people believe that politics is the art of
making as many people as possible as happy as possible. He stated that he agreed
with the latter, and although there may be a letter of the law that can be followed,
and the Planning Commission can "ride roughshod over other people's interests," he
believes that it is more civil to be a good neighbor. He said that he hopes that every
business entity and land owner in Seal Beach wishes to be a good neighbor, and
this means sometimes taking into account other people's need for information or
other people's need to make compromises. He said the Commission would not
have agreed to the continuance had they not heard that some information had not
been adequately conveyed. He stated that he did not regret this decision, although
he was sorry it may have distressed some of the members of the community.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Cutuli to approve Site Plan Review 00-4 adopt
Resolution 00-37.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 00-37 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 00-4 & Conditional Use Permit 00-12
617 Ocean Avenue
ApplicanVOwner:
Request:
John P. Smith
To add approximately 356 square feet to a legal, non-
conforming 5-unit structure at 617 Ocean Avenue.
Specifically, the applicant proposes to reduce the density
of the property from 5 units to 4 units by combining units
"C" and "0" and then adding approximately 356 square
feet to that unit. In addition, the applicant proposes a
major remodel including new decks and major interior
remodel work. Also, the applicant proposes to add a 5th
parking space in the form of a tandem "carport" space. A
variance is required to add additional space to the
. westerly side of the property, which is legal, non-
conforming due to current side yard setbacks.
Recommendation:
Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 00-38 and 00-39.
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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2000
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
stated that the structure is non-conforming due to side yard setbacks, parking, and
density. He stated that currently there are 5 units on the property and 4 parking
spaces. He described the property as rectangular and measuring approximately
5,550 square feet.
He described the surrounding land uses as follows:
NORTH:
Residential housing in a Residential High Density (RHO)
Zone.
SOUTH:
Residential housing in a Residential Low Density (RLD)
Zone (the Gold Coast).
EAST & WEST:
Residential housing in a Residential High Density (RHO)
Zone.
Mr. Cummins explained that for the request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Section
28-2407 of the City Code set up provisions by which an applicant can add habitable
space to a legal, nonconforming structure, and allows for a one time major expansion
provided there is at least one parking space per housing unit. He stated that the
applicant is proposing to reduce the density on the property from 5 to 4 units by
combining two of the units on the second floor to create one main housing unit that the
owner will occupy. Mr. Cummins reported that in addition, the applicant proposes to
construct a tandem garage to increase the parking from 4 to 5 spaces. He explained
that the Variance (V AR) is needed because the side yard encroaches into the side yard
setback area. He stated that all new construction will meet current side yard setback
restrictions. He said that in order to grant the Variance the Planning Commission must
make specific findings as follows:
1. The Variance will not adversely affect the General Plan.
2. Some special circumstance deprives the property owner.
3. The granting of a Variance does not constitute a special privilege.
Mr. Cummins presented photographs of the property and described the proposed
construction. He stated that Staff recommends approval of VAR 00-4 and CUP 00-12
as both requests are consistent with the General Plan. For the record, Mr. Cummins
reported that a letter from Patrick Cronin was received speaking in opposition to V AR
00-4 and CUP 00-12. Mr. Cronin is the owner of the property at 615 Ocean Avenue. (A
copy of this letter is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He said that Mr.
Cronin's letter expressed concerns dealing with the openness of the carport tandem
parking spot. After receiving the letter, Staff spoke with the property owner who has
10
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2000
agreed to completely enclose the tandem parking space, mitigating the impacts listed in
Mr. Cronin's letter.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Brown stated that if the new construction was coming within setback
requirements, what was the purpose for granting the V AR. He noted that a CUP allows
you to build on a legally non-conforming structure. Mr. Whittenberg reported that in
previous applications of this nature, Staff has required that a V AR be obtained to
maintain that existing legal non-conforming setback as a part of a major expansion
project. Commissioner Brown asked if the Commission would be granting a V AR for
something that already exists. Mr. Whittenberg responded that currently the structure is
legal, non-conforming and City Code states that if a legal, non-conforming structure is to
be expanded, the setbacks need to meet the current standards. He said that the
process for expansions does not allow for setback variances. He stated that in order to
leave the existing structure where it is, a V AR must be granted for the existing portions
of the structure that don't need to meet setback standards, otherwise the property
owner would have to tear down portions of the structure to meet the current setback
standard. Commissioner Brown asked if the structure would be "grandfathered in?" Mr.
Whittenberg stated that this was correct, but once the expansion is completed, the non-
conforming allows certain expansion to a structure subject to meeting certain criteria.
He noted that one of the criteria does not allow a non-conforming setback without a
V AR. Commissioner Brown stated that he does not recall approving a V AR on an
existing structure. Mr. Whittenberg reported that there have been several applications
of this type that have come before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Whittenberg reported that the City Attorney had reviewed Resolution 00-39 and
had recommended some revisions. He noted that a copy of the revised resolution
had been provided to the Commissioners.
Public Hearing
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. John Smith, property owner of 617 Ocean, stated that this would be their
permanent residence. He said that he had worked. very hard to comply with the
letter from Mr. Cronin and to demonstrate that he wants to be a good neighbor.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Lyon said that it appeared that Mr. Smith was doing a good job with
this project.
11
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
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 December 6, 2000
Commissioner Cutuli stated that since many other applications of this type had been
approved before, he had no objections to approval.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that on Resolution No. 00-38 and 00-39 Condition of
Approval ~o. 2 states "4 living units and 5 off-street parking spaces." He
recommended that this text be changed to reflect "4 living units and 5 fully-enclosed
off-street parking spaces."
Commissioner Brown said he had no objection to the project and he is happy to see
that the density is to be reduced and the number of parking spaces increased. He
said he did not recall ever approving a V AR for an existing structure, but he said that
he could discuss this later with the Director of Development Services. He noted that
usually people will request a V AR for setbacks for a new construction, and the
Planning Commission will always deny these requests. Mr. Whittenberg stated that
Staff could provide a memorandum with data on previously approved applications of
this type. He also suggested the possibility of revising the Code to recognize non-
conforming setbacks and not require the Variance process as a part of an
expansion, as long as the new construction complies with the standards.
Commissioner Brown noted that with major expansions the Code states what people
can and cannot do and these could almost be "rubber stamped" as long as they are
within the requirements. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was the difference
between a Minor Plan Review (MPR) process and a CUP; a MPR allows expansions
of up to a certain size (approximately 188 square feet). He said that over 188
square feet would be considered a major expansion, and the Code provisions would
then make a VAR necessary. Commissioner Brown stated that a CUP could be
used for this. Mr. Whittenberg responded that once you go for a CUP you also need
the VAR for the setback, because the language of an MPR as opposed to a major
expansion does not "grandfather in" the existing non-conforming setback.
MOTION by Lyon; SECOND by Brown to approve Variance 00-4 and Conditional
Use Permit 00-12 and adopt Resolutions 00-38 and 00-39.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
The adoption of Resolution Nos. 00-38 and 00-39 begins a 10-day calendar appeal
period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the appeal
period begins tomorrow morning.
5. Conditional Use Permit 00-13
333 First Street (Oakwood Apartments)
Applicant/Owner:
Dennis Stout / Oakwood Worldwide
12
.~
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 December 6, 2000
Request: To approve a Planned Sign Program at the Oakwood
Apartment Complex. Program will include a monument
sign and a wall sign.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 00-42.
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Depart'ment.) He provided some background information on this item and
stated that the applicant is requesting to have a Planned Sign Program (PSP). He
reported that the property has 549 units on approximately 11.3 acres of land. The
applicant proposes to add two additional signs: one wall sign to be located on the
wall of the Recreation Building facing First Street, and one monument sign to be
located at the corner of First Street and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). Mr. Cummins
reported that City Code sets out fairly specific restrictions for PSPs in commercial
and industrial spaces, but does not set out specific guidelines for residential zones
other than to say that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required. He presented
photographs of the property in question and described the existing signs and the
areas for the proposed signs. He stated that there are 2 rental office parking signs
that face First Street and one very large billboard that faces PCH and displays the
words OAKWOOD.COM. Commissioner Sharp asked what the approximate sizes
of the signs were. Mr. Cummins responded that he did not have the size of the
billboard, but the building identification signs measure approximately 2' x 2'. He said
that Staff had reviewed the issues related to approving a PSP within a residential
area and noted them as follows:
1. Would the signs be appropriate in a residential area?
He stated that the monument sign would be located along very large right-of-
ways (First Street and PCH) with landscaped medians. He said that because
this is a very large complex, Staff feels that the two signs they are requesting
would be appropriate.
2. Would the signs create any adverse aesthetic impact?
The apartment complex borders PCH and the homes across the street have a
6-foot high block wall that faces out to PCH.
3. Will there be an overconcentration of signs?
Given the fact that there are currently only 3 relatively large signs on the
property, Staff does not feel that 2 additional signs will create an
overconcentration.
4. Will this set a precedent?
13
.~
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 December 6, 2000
Yes, as currently there are no PSPs in residential areas. Mr. Cummins noted
that the Oakwood Complex is drastically different than any other high density
complex within the City.
Mr. Cummins stated that Staff recommends approval of CUP 00-13 as it is
consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and approval of the PSP
will have no adverse affects on the aesthetic nature of the area.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Brown asked if the billboard is to be removed. Mr. Cummins stated
that it would remain. Commissioner Brown asked how the Oakwood Apartments
management had received approval to put up this billboard. Mr. Whittenberg
reported that this was a legal, on-premises sign under existing sign code provisions,
and it has been there for a number of years. He said that he believed at one point it
was an outdoor advertisement sign that Oakwood leased to a private company.
Commissioner Brown asked if the billboard or anything like it would be allowed now.
Mr. Whittenberg responded that under the current zoning for Residential High
Density (RHO) it would not be allowed. Commissioner Brown if a billboard of this
type would be allowed anywhere else within the City. Mr. Whittenberg responded
that for a business that is on the property there are certain provisions for
Commercial/Industrial Zones that allow that type of sign, subject to certain sign
restrictions. Commissioner Brown noted that Boeing has a PSP, but does not have
a sign of this size. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Boeing could have a sign of this type
and noted that Rossmoor Center has very large pylon signs that were done through
a PSP, and could have had signs similar to the Oakwood billboard without going
through the PSP.
Commissioner Cutuli clarified whether Mr. Cummins was reporting on CUP 00-12 or
CUP 00-13. Mr. Cummins corrected himself and stated that it should be CUP 00-13.
Commissioner Cutuli asked what it would take to create standardization of signage
for all residential areas, rather than dealing with one application setting precedent.
Mr. Whittenberg responded that the City has sets of sign provisions for standard size
residential lots within the community. He stated that this property complies with the
standards with the signs it currently has on site, given the large size of the property.
He said that the PSP has provisions that allow an individual to seek approval for
properties that are at least 2 acres or more in size, regardless of the zone
designation. He noted that Staff had addressed this issue in the Staff Report
because within the Code there is specific criteria for properties over 2 acres in size
within a Commercial/ Industrial zone, but there is none for properties over 2 acres
within a residential zone. He said that Staff believes this property warrants this type
of consideration by the Planning Commission as it is significantly different from other
properties in town of a residential nature. Commissioner Cutuli asked how many
other properties in town would qualify under the over 2 acre size. Mr. Whittenberg
reported that the only other properties that he could think of would be the mutual
14
.~
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 December 6, 2000
properties within leisure World and possibly the condominium property behind the
Rossmoor Center. Commissioner Sharp interjected that the City might allow this
type of signage in leisure World, but anyone wanting to place a sign would still have
to receive approval from leisure World management. Commissioner Cutuli asked
that even though this might set a precedent that is not based on anything done in the
past, it should not be a recurring variation of this type of theme, or other people
might want to have the same privilege granted to them. Mr. Whittenberg responded
that he could not recall any other residential developments in town that are over 2
acres in size.
Chairperson Hood asked if there were any indication of what the signs would be
made of. He suggested oak wood.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Dennis Stout, a representative of Oakwood Apartments, stated that they
believed the proposed signs were tastefully designed. He noted that they were
constructed of aluminum and have dimensional push-through letters. He said the
monument would" not be internally illuminated but would have floodlights, and the
wall sign would have an opaque background with halo type illumination around the
letters. He stated that the property manager and the regional property manager
were available tonight to respond to questions.
Commissioner Cutuli asked how the size for the sign was determined. He said the
sign was designed by Pilot Graphics who worked with the Regional Manager to
come up with the design.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Cutuli said that he thought the sign was tastefully done, but that it
appeared to be very large, and it was difficult to envision how large it actually would
be. He asked if there were some way to scale down the sign. Mr. Whittenberg
noted that this was to serve primarily as an identification sign for the complex with
dimensions of 5 feet 2 inches tall, and a total length of 17 feet. He said that for cars
driving 50 mph along PCH this would not be a very big sign. He compared this to
the monument sign at Rossmoor Center on Seal Beach Boulevard that was probably
larger than this proposed sign. He said that Staff does not feel that this is a large
sign for the location, traffic characteristics, and the size of the property. He stated
that when designing signs for readability for motorists, the faster the speed limit is,
the larger the letters must be to make them readable. Commissioner Cutuli said that
in his opinion, the larger the sign, the "cheaper" the neighborhood looks. He said
large signs block the scenery and create less of a "cozy, home town look" and more
15
.~
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 December 6, 2000
of a commercial zone look that is not residential. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he
understood, but that some of this would be a personal preference issue and the
ability to recognize and read the sign while traveling along First Street and PCH
should be taken into consideration. He said that although this was a residential use
area, there is a higher intensity of traffic patterns surrounding it.
Commissioner Sharp asked if the public hearing could be reopened to ask the
Property Manger some questions.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood reopened the public hearing.
Commissioner Sharp asked if the Property Manager had received any complaints or
objections from residents regarding the sign. Ms. Patricia Cook stated that she had
not received any complaints about the billboard sign. She said it stands beyond the
actual line of the property and does not hamper or interfere on the property itself, but
allows for motorists to be aware of the complex.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown asked if the Planning Commission had any authority to
remove the billboard. Mr. Whittenberg said that if he understood Ms. Cook correctly,
it appeared that the billboard sign was not located on the Oakwood property. He
said that if the billboard is not on the property, the Planning Commission has no
authority to remove it. Commissioner Brown noted that the PSP allows for a certain
square footage for signs. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the PSP was designed to
allow for variations from this requirement upon review from the Planning
Commission. Commissioner Brown asked whether a monument sign were needed
in addition to "a giant, ugly billboard sign with a big arrow?" Mr. Whittenberg
responded that this was an issue that the Planning Commission could consider, but
that they could not require as a part of this approval that the billboard be removed,
as it is not situated on the property. He stated that the Planning Commission might
encourage that Oakwood remove the billboard, but could not require this.
Commissioner Sharp clarified that the applicant is seeking approval of a proposed
sign and not the one that is already there. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed this.
Commissioner Sharp asked if the new sign would be located on the Oakwood
property. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that it would be. Commissioner Sharp stated
that the Planning Commission had no control over the billboard sign, as it was not
located on the Oakwood property. Commissioner Brown stated that the Planning
Commission did not have to approve a new sign if they did not like the old one.
Commissioner Sharp said that the old sign should not be considered at all in relation
to the new sign, as it had nothing to do with this application. Commissioner Brown
said that he thought he had read in this application that the billboard would be taken
16
.~
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 December 6, 2000
down and replaced with a new, more tasteful sign, which he thought was a good
idea as the billboard sign is "tacky and ugly," and does not help property values in
Seal Beach. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this had never been Staff's impression of
the application. Commissioner Brown said that he would be in favor of the Planning
Commission withholding approval for the PSP as a way of negotiating the removal of
the billboard sign. Mr. Barrow interjected that because this is a discretionary CUP,
the Planning Commission would have to make certain findings pursuant to the CUP
criteria, and does have the discretion to deny this application or impose
unreasonable conditions. He continued by stating that, unfortunately, if the billboard
is off site he would feel more comfortable with the Planning Commission denying this
request as opposed to trying to condition the approval on removal of the billboard
sign. He said that the choices were to approve the request or deny the request
based upon the finding that the additional sign is not compatible with the area.
Commissioner Brown asked if the monument sign were denied what rights would the
applicant have to place signage. Mr. Whittenberg stated that they would have the
right to appeal to City Council, but basically they would be pretty well tied to the
existing signage that is already there. He said he would look at the calculations, but
he believed the proposed building sign is small enough to fit under the criteria, and
that they could also return with a monument sign in a smaller scale that meets the
requirements. Commissioner Brown recommended that this request either be
denied or be continued to find out who owns the billboard sign. Mr. Whittenberg
suggested that it might be appropriate to reopen the hearing to allow the applicant to
comment, and then based on that information, Planning Commission could continue
the item. In the meantime, Staff can confirm whether or not the sign is on the
Oakwood Apartments property and what the provisions would allow under a PSP
without having to come back before the Planning Commission for approval of
additional signage on the property. Commissioner Sharp asked if it would be
possible to approve the building signage and withhold approval of the monument
sign until further information is acquired. Chairperson Hood confirmed that the
Planning Commission felt that the smaller on-building sign would be compatible, and
that the large monument sign would be incompatible with the existing billboard sign.
Commissioner Sharp interjected that he was not stating this but simply wanted to
know if approval of the two types of signs could be separated.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Dennis Stout stated that there was some confusion and that Ms. Cook's
statement that this sign was not on Oakwood property was misleading. He said that
the Oakwood Marketing Manager had just today discovered that the sign is, in fact,
located on Oakwood property, however, a portion of the property is located in Los
Angeles County. Commissioner Cutuli asked if there had been any discussion on
removing the billboard sign once the monument sign was approved and set in place.
Mr. Stout responded that he had asked the Regional Manager about this and he had
17
.~
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 December 6, 2000
stated that if possible he would like to keep the sign. Comm,issioner Lyon stated that
the picture he had of the sign location indicates ''the new property line."
Ms. Stacy Mosier, Marketing Manager for Oakwood, stated that they do realize that
the billboard sign is unattractive and they are in the process of coming up with a
new, esthetically pleasing design to replace the existing design. Commissioner
Brown asked if Oakwood owns the property on which the sign sits. Ms. Mosher
stated that she believed Oakwood owns the sign, but was not sure. Mr. Whittenberg
asked if Ms. Mosher would be able to return in 6 months with a redesign for the sign.
Ms. Mosher said that she could. Commissioner Brown stated that he was more
interested in ''trading one sign for the other." He noted that every day he drives
down First Street to PCH and he would have to see these two large signs every time
he turns onto PCH. He said that it does not matter whether the sign is in Seal Beach
or Long Beach, it is his feeling that the Planning Commission should not approve
two large monument signs at PCH. He said that when he read the Staff Report he
was happy to see the new monument sign because he thought it was replacing the
''temporary'' billboard sign. Ms. Cook responded that the difference between the
billboard sign and the monument sign is "completely instrumental." She noted that
the billboard sign is what brings in the business from traffic driving along PCH, and
that the monument sign, which is tastefully designed, will help identify the actual
property. She said that without this sign, people driving by will simply see the
billboard as an advertisement and not as the actual location sign. She said that both
signs are, necessary to enhance the capability of capturing customers, and that the
monument sign would identify the property without being intrusive.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Chairperson Hood stated that he believed the Commission was looking for a unified
program, with all of the signs looking similar, and that this would be more acceptable
than having a monument sign and the existing billboard sign. He asked
Commissioner Cutuli if he was in favor of approving the on-building sign and
withholding approval on the monument sign or whether he would favor continuing
this item for 6 months, as Mr. Whittenberg had suggested. Mr. Whittenberg
interjected that his initial suggestion was to continue the hearing on this item to
January 3, 2001, or the Commission could approve the wall sign and hold further
consideration of the monument sign within 6 months to prevent the applicant having
to file a new fee. Commissioner Cutuli stated that he would be in agreement with
this.
Chairperson Hood confirmed that the Planning Commission was in favor of receiving
a revised signage plan from Oakwood. He stated that although the Commission is
aware that they have no jurisdiction over the sign in Long Beach, if this sign is to
remain within Seal Beach, the City would like to see it look just as "classy" as the
monument sign. Commissioner Brown reiterated that he still questioned the need
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 December 6, 2000
for two "very large signs" advertising Oakwood Apartments, and his feeling was that
Oakwood could choose to have a "large, big old ugly billboard" or a classy
monument sign on the corner of PCH. Commissioner Sharp stated that when you
have traffic characteristic of that along PCH you must attempt to attract the eye of
motorists traveling both ways. He said that if this sign is only visible to motorists
traveling one way, then a disservice is being done. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the
monument sign would be placed at an angle and would only be visible to northbound
motorists on PCH. Commissioner Sharp said that as he understood it, the billboard
sign message is only visible to southbound motorists, so the new monument sign
would be visible to northbound traffic. He said that if only one sign were allowed the
Planning Commission would be doing a disservice to Oakwood. Mr. Whittenberg
interjected that the Oakwood's testimony had been that the existing billboard sign is
a double-faced sign visible to both northbound and southbound traffic.
Commissioner Brown asked if the monument sign would be a double-faced sign.
Mr. Whittenberg reported that it is a single-faced sign facing towards the southeast
and would only be visible to northbound traffic along PCH. Commissioner Sharp
stated that the Planning Commission needed to provide. specific guidelines for the
type of signage they wished to have Oakwood present. Mr. Whittenberg suggested
that it might be better that the Commission approve the building signage as
proposed and deny the monument sign without prejudice. He said the applicant
could then either appeal the decision or return within a period of less than a year
with an alternate design proposal for the monument sign. Commissioner Cutuli
stated that he was in agreement with this recommendation and noted that he felt that
"less is better" when Oakwood considers its new sign design.
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Sharp to approve the building sign and to deny
without prejudice the monument sign as presented. Direct Staff to prepare
Resolution 00-42 to reflect this action.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutull, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
Mr. Barrow recommended that if the Planning Commission felt it appropriate that
residential projects of this size have PSP approval, they could move for approval
tonight and forward this item to the City Council for determination. Commissioner
Brown asked if, with the exception of the condominiums in Rossmoor, this was the
only project of this type identified within the City. Mr. Whittenberg responded that
based on ''top of the head knowledge" this was the only one he could think of. Mr.
Barrow interjected that if the Planning Commission were to make this finding and
there are other properties that are big enough to fall within this category, this would
make it possible for them to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and
participate in a public hearing to review the proposed signage. Commissioner Cutuli
asked if this would be incorporated into the City Code. Mr. Barrow responded that if
the Commission approves the PSP tonight, it could come before City Council
. 19
.~
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 December 6, 2000
sooner. Commissioner Brown stated that he believed the Planning Commission
could do this tonight.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brown to recommend that apartment and
condominium projects that comply with Section 28-1803 of the City Code may apply
for a Conditional Use Permit through the Planned Sign Program.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would return at the January 3, 2001 meeting with a
Resolution to adopt the findings on the approval of the building sign and the denial
without prejudice of the monument sign.
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg stated that there were no business items scheduled for the
December 20, 2000 meeting, and on behalf of Staff he wished the Commissioners a
happy holiday season.
Commissioner Sharp reported that he would be out of town on January 3, 2001.
Chairperson Hood asked if there were any items pending for this meeting date. Mr.
Cummins reported that there were two applications for Variances.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Chairperson Hood stated that he was concerned about the delivery of mail to the
Commissioners. He also stated that he would be out of town until January 18, 2001.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
Planning Department
20
.~
3
4
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2000
APPROVAL
The Commission on January 17, 2001, approved the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of Wednesday, December 6, 2000. ~.
21