HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2001-04-04
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for April 4, 2001
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 Apri/4, 2001
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 MA TIERS: 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 April 4, 2001
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for April 4, 2001
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; andlor
(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 March 21,2001.
2. Minor Plan Review 01-4
809 Ocean Avenue, #3
Applicant/Owner'
Request:
Alan & Lorraine Chavez
To add approximately 35 square feet to an existing non-conforming
structure. Specifically, the applicant is proposing to enclose a deck.
Currently there are 4 Units on the property, making the property non-
conforming due to density.
Recommendation:
Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 01-13.
VI SCHEDULED MATTERS
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Conditional Use Permit 01-4
1110 Electric Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request.
John K Pertulla, Architect / Richard King
To perform a major addrtlonlremodel to a non-conforming single-family
dwelling. The property is non-conforming due to an inadequate rear yard
3
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of April 4, 2001
Recommendation.
setback. The proposal includes the addition of approximately 607
square feet, including a new second floor. The Planning Commission
approved this request in 1999, however, the owner did not build and the
CUP expired. The applicant IS requesting to reinstate the CUP at this
time.
Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 01-14.
4. Variance 01-1
500-550 Pacific Coast Highway, Suites 0101 & 0102
Applicant/Owner'
Request:
Recommendation.
Merle Monzon / Jim Watson
To expand a hair/nail salon without the required on-site parking In a legal
non-conforming shopping center (Bay City Center). Specifically, the
applicant IS intensifying the use within a shopping center that currently
does not have enough on-site parking.
Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 01-15.
5. Conditional Use Permit 01-2 & 01-3
227 - 10th Street
Applicant/Owner.
Request:
Recommendation:
Chris & Diana Linskey
To demolish and re-bUlld a "Locally Recognized Historic Structure" in
substantially the same manner. The original house IS 2,463 square feet
and will be located in substantially the same place as the house IS
currently located. If this request IS approved, CUP 01-3 Will be required
to allow an expansion to a legal non-conforming structure. The addition
will be approximately 1,131 square feet.
Approval, subject to conditions, and adoptIon of Resolutions 01-10 and
01-11.
6 Site Plan Review 01-1 (Continued from meeting of March 21,2001)
East side of Seal Beach Boulevard, between northbound 1-405 Freeway Off-ramp and
Lampson Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Recommendation:
VIII. STAFF CONCERNS
IX COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Russell Stout & Associates / Kitchell Development Corporation
Site Plan Review of Parcel 2, Parcel Map 97-165, located on the east
side of Seal Beach Boulevard, between the northbound 1-405 Freeway
Off-ramp and Lampson Avenue for a proposed 9,000 square foot
retail/commerciallrestaurant building.
Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 01-12
4
.
Apr 18
May 09
May 23
Jun 06
Jun 20
July 04
July 18
Aug 08
. Aug 22
Sept 05
Sept 19
Oct 03
Oct 17
Nay 07
Nay 21
Dee 05
Dee 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of April 4, 2001
2001 Aaenda Forecast
CUP 98-6 at 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard (Yucatan Grill) Review
Minor Plan Review 01-2 - 72 Riversea
Tentative Parcel Map 2000-134 (Boeing)
ADA Handicapped-Accessible Restrooms
Study Session - Housing Element
Public Hearing - Housing Element
HOLIDAY - No Meeting Scheduled
TO BE SCHEDULED:
.
o
o
o
o
o
Study Session.
Study Session:
Study Session:
Staff Report:
Study Session:
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
Retaining Walls
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 April 4, 2001
Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 4, 2001. 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, Ladner, and Sharp
Also
Present:
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Absent:
None
AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Cutuli to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Ladner, and Sharp
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Hood opened oral communications.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed oral
communications.
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-Q4-Q1 PC Minutes.doc
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
CONSENT CALENDAR
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of Apnl 4, 2001
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 21, 2001.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that because Commissioner Ladner was not present at the
meeting of March 21,2001, he would abstain from voting on this item.
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Sharp to approve Minutes of March 21, 2001 as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
4-0-1
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, and Sharp
None
None
Ladner
2. Minor Plan Review 01-4
809 Ocean Avenue, #3
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Recommendation:
Alan & Lorraine Chavez
To add approximately 35 square feet to an existing non-
conforming structure. Specifically, the applicant is
proposing to enclose a deck. Currently there are 4 units
on the property, making the property non-conforming due
to density.
Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 01-13.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brown to approve Minor Plan Review 01-4 and
adopt Resolution 01-13 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Ladner, and Sharp
None
None
Chairperson Hood welcomed Commissioner Phil Ladner as the new Commissioner
for District 5.
Mr. Boga advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 01-13 begins a 10-day
calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-o4-o1 PC Minutes.doc
2
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Mmutes of April 4, 2001
SCHEDULED MATTERS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Conditional Use Permit 01-4
1110 Electric Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
John K. Pertulla, Architect / Richard King
To perform a major addition/remodel to a non-conforming
single-family dwelling. The property is nonconforming
due to an inadequate rear yard setback. The proposal
includes the addition of approximately 607 square feet,
including a new second floor. The Planning Commission
approved this request in 1999, however, the owner did
not build and the CUP expired. The applicant is
requesting to reinstate the CUP at this time.
Recommendation:
Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 01-14.
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 this application had presented before the Planning Commission in 1998
and had been approved on a 5-0 vote. He explained that one of the standard
Condition of Approval is that if a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is not exercised
within one year from the date of approval, it becomes null and void. He said that the
applicant is requesting a renewal of approval for the same application with one minor
change. He stated that when the CUP was approved in 1998 the Planning
Commission attached a condition to the approval that called for an easement area to
run along one of the property lines to allow sewer and water lines to get to an
adjacent property. He said that the new set of plans shows the structure being
moved to allow for the 3-foot required setback for that property to allow those sewer
lines to run along the property line through that easement area.
Commissioner Questions
None.
Public Hearinq
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-04-01 PC Minutes.doc
3
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of April 4, 2001
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
None.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Ladner to approve Conditional Use Permit 01-4
and adopt Resolution 01-14 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Ladner, and Sharp
None
None
Mr. Boga advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 01-14 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 01-1
500-550 Pacific Coast Highway, Suites 0101 & 0102
Applicant/Owner:
Req uest:
Merle Monzon / Jim Watson
To expand a hair/nail salon without the required on-site
parking in a legal non-conforming shopping center (Bay
City Center). Specifically, the applicant is intensifying the
use within a shopping center that currently does not have
enough on-site parking.
Recommendation:
Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 01-15.
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 applicant wished to add an additional nail or hair station to the
existing business, which would intensify the land use in terms of parking. He
reported that there was an entitlement granted on the property for a reduction in the
required amount of parking through Conditional Use Permit 15-77, which granted a
15% reduction in the total number of parking spaces for the center.
Mr. Cummins described the surrounding land uses as follows:
NORTH & WEST:
Residential housing in a Residential Low Density (RLD)
Zone.
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-04-01 PC Minutes.doc
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 April 4, 2001
NORTH:
Residential housing in a Residential Low Density (RLD)
Zone.
EAST:
Commercial businesses along Pacific Coast Highway in a
General Commercial Zone.
He noted that when an applicant applies for a business license for a new business
use, the City will issue a "credit" for what the old land use would have demanded.
He said that this was done for this application and the applicant received credit for
nine (9) parking spaces. He said that City Code requires two (2) parking spaces per
operator, this would have allowed for four operators and one (1) additional parking
space. At that time the applicant wished to have a total of five operators and was
told by Staff that given the parking credit ratio, this would not be possible. She
agreed to open the store with four operators and to try out the additional space for
some type of retail sales. She subsequently decided that this was not working well
and applied to the City to be able to add a fifth operator. He referred the
Commissioners to an attached parking survey completed as a part of the application
made approximately 1 ~ years ago by Patty's Place within the same shopping
center. He said that at that time the shopping center was deficient in parking by
approximately 77 spaces. He said that with the 15% reduction granted in 1977, this
is equal to a deficiency of 51 spaces. He stated that this does not include the
existing hair and nail salon spaces. He said that there are approximately 23
operators in other hair and nail salons in this center, which represents an additional
deficiency of 46 parking spaces, equaling a total deficiency of 97 spaces. Mr.
Cummins noted that in order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must
make the following findings:
1. The Variance will not adversely affect the General Plan.
2. Special circumstances applicable to the property that somehow deprive the
property owner from enjoying the same privileges enjoyed by other property
owners within the same vicinity and zone.
3. Granting of the Variance does not constitute the granting of special privileges.
He stated that when the Planning Commission had considered the application for
Patty's Place, it had made the finding that since Patty's Place did the majority of their
business in the evening hours, the extra demand on parking would not be a problem.
Given that finding, Staff determined that because the vast majority of business at
Skin Essentials is done during the daytime hours, it would be appropriate to
recommend denial of this Variance.
Commissioner Questions
None.
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-04-01 PC Minutes.doc
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
City of Seal Beach Planmng Commission
Meeting Mmutes of Apnl 4, 2001
Public Hearing
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Ms. Merle Monzon, owner/operator of Skin Essentials, stated that this was an
upscale salon specializing in skin care and nails. She said that currently she has
two skin care rooms and two nail stations, and that the peak periods in her business
tend to be early morning and late afternoon. She reported that most of her
employees are independent contractors who are generally gone by 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
She noted that the salon is closed on Sundays. Ms. Monzon stated that she had
been at this location for 9 months and that originally the business included a small
retail boutique area selling fine clothing and accessories, which had not been a
success. She said that currently there is a growing need to better service her nail
clientele. For this reason, she would like to replace the boutique area with another
nail service station. She stated that the Bay City Center has been successful largely
because of the wide variety of services it offers. She noted that because of the
mixture of uses by businesses in the center, the shared parking concept works well.
She stated that she and her employees park their vehicles on the street to allow for
more parking spaces within the center. Ms. Monzon reported that there is space
available for approximately 80 parking spaces along Marina Drive, Pacific Coast
Highway, and 5th Street. She said that there has always been ample parking
available, and patrons have never been observed circling the parking lot unable to
find parking. She stated that adding one additional nail station in her salon would
not create additional demand for on-site parking spaces. She referred to the
Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow Patty's
Place to add an outdoor dining area, stating that because 70-80% of the restaurant's
business is in the evening, the new patio would not create a demand for additional
parking spaces. She noted that because of this, the shared parking concept would
complement the Planning Commission's finding in approving the CUP for Patty's
Place. She stated that the owner of the restaurant, Patty Sessler, had expressed
her support for Variance 01-1 to Ms. Monzon. She said that she had provided Staff
with copies of several letters from her clients and surrounding businesses written in
support of Skin Essentials, along with a petition signed by 109 of her clients stating
that they have not had problems with parking when visiting the Bay City Center. She
also noted that colored copies of photographs of the parking lot taken during random
times over a 14-day period had been provided to the Commission, showing that
there is ample parking throughout the day. She stated that she had also conducted
a parking survey from March 26, 2001 through April 3, 2001. She apologized for not
including a copy of the survey prior to tonight's meeting but stated that she had
copies for distribution to the Commission along with copies of more letters written in
support of this application. She briefly reviewed the site map and the parking
survey. (Copies of these documents are on file for inspection in the Planning
Department.) Ms. Monzon said she was aware of the City's concern with parking
issues, but that granting this Variance would not be a special privilege, nor would it
cause a negative impact. She said that her clients generate revenues for the other
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-o4-01 PC Mlnutes.doc
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 April 4, 2001
businesses in the center and are good neighbors. She requested approval of
Variance 01-1.
Mr. James Watson, owner of the Bay City Center, stated that he supports this
request and that there is more than adequate justification to approve the request.
He provided some background on the Bay City Center and noted that it has always
been a mixed-use center with businesses requiring use of the parking at different
times during the day. He said that this concept has proven to be successful since
1979 when the center opened. He repeated some of the statistics conveyed by Ms.
Monzon and remarked that he visits the center frequently throughout the day and
has never had a problem in finding a parking space. He said that when the Center
was approved it dedicated approximately 10,000 square feet of land at the comer of
5th and Marina for a public park. He said that this dedication was not a condition of
approval, and if it had been used for parking, it would have provided approximately
30 additional parking spaces. He said that the land had been dedicated because
Watson & Associates did not believe that the land would be needed in the future for
parking. He said that in 1994 Red Lobster was rebuilt and the square footage was
reduced from the original square footage of 7,550 square feet to 6,560 square feet,
creating an increase in parking of 8 spaces. He stated that a provision of leasing
space in the center is that the owners and employees are required to park off-site.
He noted that this is exercised only when parking begins to be impacted. Mr.
Watson noted that mixed-use planning is considered very good planning and is
promoted by government and private planners. He said that one of the benefits of
mixed-uses is having to provide less parking to serve a project than would be
required under strict interpretation of parking based on each business requiring a
certain number of parking spaces, then adding all of the individual parking
requirements of each business to come to a total required parking. He said that
Staff had correctly used this method to arrive at the calculation of required parking
for Bay City Center, but from a practical standpoint in a mixed-use project, that
amount of parking would be in excess. He stated that there were numerous
examples of the parking requirement being reduced based on when the different
businesses require parking. He said that the addition of one nail station would not
have any adverse effect on the parking, and would help Ms. Monzon's business. He
recommended approval of Variance 01-1.
Dr. James Flick spoke in opposition to Variance 01-1, stating that although he did
not believe that one additional nail station would adversely affect the center, he
believes that demand for parking has recently increased as a result of the opening of
the Beach Buffet Restaurant. He said that with the number of salons in the center,
parking during the day on Tuesday through Friday has been hard to find. He said
that many of his elderly patients have complained of having to park far away from
Dr. Flick's office as they are unable to find a space that is close. He stated that an
overall review of parking in this center should be completed to curtail the
applications for Conditional Use Permits and Variances for uses in this center.
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-Q4-01 PC Minutes.doc
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 April 4, 2001
Ms. Karen Simmons spoke in favor of Variance 01-1. She stated that she has been
a client of Skin Essential since it opened for business and has never had a problem
with parking.
Ms. Hope Lange stated that she visits the Bay City Center at least once a week, and
is sometimes there all day, and has never had a problem with parking.
Ms. Heidi Miller stated that she also supported approval of Variance 01-1.
Ms. Jean Dennisen, a client of Ms. Monzon, spoke in support of Variance 01-1. She
stated that she has never had a problem with parking when visiting Bay City Center.
She said that she lives directly across the street and has never had problems with
traffic or parking.
Ms. Eileen Lee spoke in support of Variance 01-1. She said she had been a client of
Ms. Monzon's for a number of years and spoke highly of Ms. Monzon and her
business. She stated that in a beach community like Seal Beach land is at a
premium and parking can be a problem; however, to survive the community needs to
have businesses. Ms. Lee noted that the community must ensure that even the
smaller businesses can prosper. She said that you can drive through the Bay City
Center parking lot at any time of day and observe that shared parking does work.
She reiterated that both from the parking survey and the photographs, it was evident
that ample parking is available throughout the day. She emphasized that clients of
Skin Essentials will usually visit other businesses in the center. She stated that
approval of Variance 01-1 would not only benefit Ms. Monzon, but future clients,
other businesses, and the City.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that the letters, the petition, the colored photographs, and
other documents received tonight related to Variance 01-1 would be entered into the
record.
Commissioner Comment
Commissioner Cutuli stated that he visits the Bay City Center frequently and has
never had a problem finding parking. He said he is concerned about future
businesses that might require more parking creating a greater impact on traffic. He
stated that although this is a small request, he is still undecided about whether or not
to approve. He said that before approving the Variance he would like to see a
longer-standing survey of the parking situation provided by an objective third party
agency.
Commissioner Sharp stated that he has never had a problem with parking when
visiting the Bay City Center. He said that Seal Beach has fought vigorously to keep
big business out along Pacific Coast Highway, and has tried to encourage small
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-o4-01 PC Minutes.doc
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 April 4, 2001
neighborhood businesses. He said that he would hate to do damage to a small
business by denying approval due to the lack of one parking space.
Commissioner Cutuli stated that because Dr. Flick is a friend of his, he would
abstain from voting on this item.
Commissioner Brown said that the key issue as identified by Staff is to understand
the difference between a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Variance. He stated
that if this were a CUP, it would allow the Commission some latitude as far as
considering the public comments. He noted that a Variance requires specific
findings, and Staff has conveyed, and he does not see how the Planning
Commission can make a finding to approve this Variance. Commissioner Brown
reiterated that to have a Variance the Commission must find special circumstances
applicable to the property that somehow deprive the property owner from enjoying
the same privileges enjoyed by other similar property owners within the same vicinity
and zone. He said that under these circumstances granting of the Variance then
does constitute the granting of special privileges. He noted that Patty's Place
applied for a CUP, which allowed more latitude and discretion on the part of the
Planning Commission. He stated that the Commission does not have that latitude
tonight.
Commissioner Brown stated that regarding the mixed-use parking concept, this
property has already had some consideration, which allowed for the 15% reduction
in required parking spaces. He said that if there is too much parking, then the thing
to do is to change the requirements for parking rather than simply granting a
Variance. He stated that this would be the wrong way to fix the problem. He noted
that as he recalled, the issue of creating parking regulations for mixed-uses had
been discussed when reviewing the CUP for Patty's Place. He said that it was not
valid to cite the CUP for Patty's Place in attempting to gain approval of a Variance.
He stated that he has always been against granting variances unless specific
findings can be made, which usually involve the size and shape of the property that
deny the property owner the same privileges as other similar property owners.
Commissioner Brown stated that although he fully supports helping small
businesses, he does not believe that as a matter of principle, the Planning
Commission has to make the findings for a Variance.
Chairperson Hood asked that the Director of Development Services and the
Assistant City Attorney comment at this time regarding the differences between a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and a Variance.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that the City Code requirements for a Variance are very
similar to those under State law. He reiterated that there are very specific findings
that must be made in order to grant a Variance in the State of California. He
explained that a CUP is a mechanism that cities use to review uses that are
generally acceptable in a particular zoned portion of the city that because of unique
operational characteristics of that type of use, cities have used a determination to a
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-04-01 PC Minutes.doc
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
Meetmg Minutes of April 4, 2001
specific use to ensure that it does not become detrimental to the neighborhood. He
said that the criteria are different. With a CUP there is the compatibility criteria with
the neighborhood and surrounding zoning and uses. He explained that a Variance
request is a specific request to vary from a standard requirement of the City. He
said that these types of considerations by both State law and the zoning ordinance
provisions, can only be granted when there are very unique circumstances that exist
on that particular property in question, that don't apply generally to the other
properties in the same zoning classification. He gave the example of oddly shaped
properties that deal with lot coverage issues and setbacks.
Commissioner Cutuli asked if the applicant could apply under a Conditional Use
Permit for this request. Mr. Whittenberg responded that she could not since CUPs
are specified in the ordinance for certain uses. He explained that hair and nail
salons are permitted uses under a commercial zone and do no require a CUP, but
are required to provide 2 parking spaces per operator station.
Commissioner Sharp questioned Commissioner Cutuli's comment that he would
abstain from voting on this issue, as he was a friend of Dr. Flick's. He"noted that if
this were a valid procedure, all member of the Planning Commission would have a
problem in voting on many of the applications presented for review. Mr. Boga stated
that friendship with an applicant is not a legal criterion for abstention from voting. He
said that if the Commissioner felt that his friendship prevents him from casting an
impartial vote, he could voluntarily abstain. He reported that under State law
abstention is required only when a Commissioner's property falls within a certain
proximity to the subject property or if he/she has an interest in the business entity
making application.
Commissioner Sharp asked if the Planning Commission could legally grant this
Variance.
The Director of Development Services reported that under the provisions of City
Code specific findings had to be made in order to approve a Variance as previously
explained. He said that as Commissioner Brown had stated, this particular business
is no different from the other businesses in the center and presents no special
circumstances.
Commissioner Sharp stated that because of the parking problem south of Pacific
Coast Highway, almost anything that comes before the Planning Commission will
present a parking problem. He said that this particular application appears to
present a very minor parking problem in comparison to most other applications
within this area of town.
Chairperson Hood reviewed the comments and information presented and asked if
there were a way that the Planning Commission could get around "the legality" of
this issue, or questioned whether the Commission should recommend to City
Council that the requirements for a Variance be modified.
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-04-01 PC Minutes.doc
10
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of Apnl 4, 2001
Commissioner Ladner stated that because this was his first meeting he would simply
listen and abstain from commenting, but to state that he has never had a problem
with parking at Bay City Center.
Commissioner Cutuli asked if an allowance could be made for the reduction in the
size of the Red Lobster restaurant as reported by Mr. Watson, making room for 8
more parking spaces. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the parking analysis completed
by Mr. Cummins for the Staff Report does take into account the extra 8 spaces.
MOTION by Brown to deny Variance 01-1.
Motion dies for lack of a second.
MOTION by Sharp to approve Variance 01-1.
Motion dies for lack of a second.
Chairperson Hood inquired of the Assistant City Attorney as to what the best way to
proceed would be. Mr. Boga stated that under State law a decision has to be made
within a certain period of time otherwise, failure by the Planning Commission to act
is deemed as an approval.
Commissioner Brown stated that although he would vote against Variance 01-1, he
would second Commissioner Sharp's motion to approve.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brown to approve Variance 01-1 and adopt
Resolution 01-15.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
3-1-1
Hood, Ladner, and Sharp
Brown
None
Cutuli
Mr. Whittenberg reported that Staff would prepare Resolution 01-15 with tonight's
findings for action at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Boga stated that the action of the Planning Commission tonight will not be final
until a resolution is brought before the Commission and adopted.
At 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Sharp requested a 5-minute recess.
The Planning Commission reconvened at 8:42 p.m.
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-04-01 PC Minutes.doc
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 April 4, 2001
5. Conditional Use Permit 01-2 & 01-3
227 - 10th Street
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Chris & Diana Linskey
To demolish and re-build a "Locally Recognized Historic
Structure" in substantially the same manner. The original
house is 2,463 square feet and will be located in
substantially the same place as the house is currently
located. If this request is approved, CUP 01-3 will be
required to allow an expansion to a legal non-conforming
structure. The addition will be approximately 1,131
square feet.
Recommendation:
Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolutions 01-10 and 01-11.
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
noted that this home had formerly been known as the Proctor House.
He described the surrounding land uses as follows:
NORTH, EAST
& SOUTH:
Residential housing in a Residential High Density (RHD)
Zone.
WEST:
Commercial businesses in the Main Street Specific Plan
(MSSP) Zone.
He reported that on August 14, 2000, the City Council adopted a policy statement
that designated this property as a Locally Recognized Historic Building or Structure.
He said that this designation allows a property to fall within Section 28-2403.1 of the
City Code, which permits certain actions to take place on these types of properties.
He explained that Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 01-2 would permit the applicant to
completely demolish the existing structure and rebuild substantially the same
structure. He then read from Section 28-2403.1 of the City Code and noted that in
reviewing this application the Planning Commission shall evaluate and make
findings on the following:
1. The local historic significance of the building or structure.
a. How to preserve diverse architectural styles reflecting the City's history and
encourage a more livable urban environment.
b. Stabilize the neighborhoods through the preservation of locally significant
buildings.
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-04-01 PC Minutes.doc
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 Planmng Commission
Meeting Minutes of April 4, 2001
c. Preserve, protect, and enhance streetscapes
Mr. Cummins stated that Staff has noted that house has long been
recognized as an older home with a distinct architectural style from
the newer long, narrow stucco structures in Old Town. He noted
that the property has a higher elevation than surrounding
properties.
2. The existing structure.
a. Is the existing structure safe.
After discussion with the applicant, Staff has concluded that it is not
economically viable to recommend that the applicant attempt to
save the structure, which is in total disrepair.
Mr. Cummins then discussed the third criteria for the City's Historic
Ordinance, which states:
In approving a Historic Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission may
authorize such deviations from the Seal Beach Municipal Code necessary to
preserve the structure and its historical significance. In doing so the Planning
Commission must find:
1. All deviations from the Seal Beach Municipal Code, necessary to preserve the
existing structure architecture, including, but not limited to: Zoning, building,
engineering, and fire.
He stated that the applicant wishes to deviate from the Zoning Code because the
second story balcony on the Electric Avenue side of the property extends well into
the setback area near the property line. He also noted that because this property is
recognized as a Locally Historic Structure, it falls within the classification of the 1997
Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Building Conservation, which allows for minor
deviations from the UBC in terms of stairway widths, etc.
He stated that the next three issues are not necessarily applicable to this property
but he noted them as:
2. All needed agreements, contracts, or conditions between the owner or lessee
and any public agency, which involves said building or structure are executed to
insure compliance between all parties.
3. Any other appropriate conditions deemed necessary to the approval of the
application are required.
4. The waivers from Code must still render the structure safe and sound.
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-04-01 PC Minutes.doc
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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Mmutes of April 4, 2001
He stated that Staff is recommending approval of CUP 01-2 and noted that because
the applicant would like to add approximately 1,131 square footage on the southerly
side of the property to expand the living room and dining area and to add a back
porch and a two-car garage, CUP 01-3 has been submitted for approval of this
request. He noted that this application falls within Section 28-2407 dealing with
additions to legal non-conforming residential structures.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Brown asked Staff for the number of legally historic structures in
town. Mr. Cummins reported that currently there are two: The Proctor House and
The Krenwinkle House. Commissioner Brown asked about a previous proposal for
moving the Proctor House to the same property as the Krenwinkle House. Mr.
Whittenberg reported that because the Linskey's purchased the Proctor Home, the
individual who had previously discussed moving the structure was not able to come
to agreement with City Council for the acquisition of the Proctor House.
Commissioner Brown asked if the Krenwinkle House would be used as a Bed &
Breakfast (B&B) site. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the home is being remodeled
for use as a single-family home. Commissioner Brown commented that the
Krenwinkle home is located in the one spot in the City where a B&B would be
allowed. Mr. Whittenberg that in the future the Krenwinkle House might be a part of
an application to convert to a B&B.
Commissioner Brown asked why the applicant had not requested a Variance rather
than a CUP since they were attempting to vary from the zoning. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that under the provisions of the Code there is a section that allows for historic
CUPs subject to the City having designated structures as Locally Significant Historic
Structures. Commissioner Brown confirmed that this supercedes the requirement
for a Variance. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this was correct. Commissioner Brown
questioned whether a Variance held a higher legal point than a CUP. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that they are co-equal uses, but the Variance has a stricter set of
standards for findings. He noted that when the City Council established the Historic
CUP specified that this CUP can vary from building, zoning, and other provisions, in
order to preserve or rebuild a historic structure. Commissioner Brown asked if other
buildings in the City would be added to the list of historic structures. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that when City Council adopted the policy statement for these two homes, it
was because they had been identified as historic and were under the threat of
demolition. He stated that Council had directed Staff to identify other structures in
town for future addition to the list, but funds for doing so have not been included in
the current City budget, but will be in the future. Commissioner Brown asked
whether the Planning Commission could hold a hearing for nominations for additions
to the list to be forwarded to City Council. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he believed
Council had initially directed Staff to prepare a report on the process for identifying
historic structures.
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-o4-o1 PC Minutes.doc
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 April 4, 2001
Commissioner Cutuli asked if there were a limit to the square footage that could be
added to an existing legal non-conforming structure that is to be modified. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that there is a square footage limit under the Minor Plan Review
process for non-conforming structures that do not comply with parking. He said that
because a two-car garage is to be added, this meets the parking requirement and,
therefore, there is no limit to additional square footage.
Public Hearinq
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown stated that he found it curious that a historic structure had to
be demolished in order to save it, but he said that if this request were denied the City
would lose one of its more interesting local structures and might end up with 2 or 3
"bread boxes." He said that he would vote to approve.
Commissioner Cutuli stated that he was "not too crazy about the concept." He
likened it to the changing a great painting or vintage car, which lowers it's worth, as it
is no longer in its original state. He said that it appeared that the applicant was
using the homes "originality" to skirt the laws.
Commissioner Sharp that older things do deteriorate and become "unusable." He
said that if Staff is has determined that the original structure cannot be preserved, he
would vote to approve reconstruction of the home.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to approve Conditional Use Permit 01-2 and
adopt Resolution 01-10.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-1
Brown, Hood, Ladner, and Sharp
Cutuli
None
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to approve Conditional Use Permit 01-3 and
adopt Resolution 01-11.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-1
Brown, Hood, Ladner, and Sharp
Cutuli
None
Q \PC Minutes\2001\04-04-01 PC Mlnutes.doc
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 April 4, 2001
Mr. Boga advised that the adoption of Resolution Nos. 01-10 and 01-11 begins a
10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight
is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
6. Site Plan Review 01-1 (Continued from meeting of March 21,2001)
East side of Seal Beach Boulevard, between northbound 1-405 Freeway Off-
ramp and Lampson Avenue
Applicant/Owner: Russell Stout & Associates / Kitchell Development
Corporation
Request: Site Plan Review of Parcel 2, Parcel Map 97-165, located
on the east side of Seal Beach Boulevard, between the
northbound 1-405 Freeway Off-ramp and Lampson
Avenue for a proposed 9,000 square foot
retail/commercial/restaurant building.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 01-12
Staff Report
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 this was request to change land uses as part of the Bixby Old Ranch
Towne Center Development approved by City Council in 1999. He noted that at that
time Council had certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approved the
land use entitlements for the property at Lampson Avenue and Seal Beach
Boulevard (SBB). He stated that the land uses that were evaluated at that time were
for a 104-room hotel and up to 15, 000 square feet of restaurant space. He said that
last year the Planning Commission had considered a Site Plan Review for the corner
parcel at Lampson Avenue and SBB to change the use from a 7,500 square foot
high quality restaurant to a combination of uses for 10,000 square foot building that
would include banking facilities and restaurant and retail uses. He stated that this
was approved after the City's traffic engineers re-evaluated traffic impacts and the
Environmental Consultant looked at other issues to determine if there were any new
impacts created that had not been evaluated under the previous EIR. The Director
of Development Services reported that the basic proposal of this application is to
convert the land use from 7,5000 square feet of turnover restaurants that were
evaluated in the EIR to a 9,000 square foot building that would include 6,000 square
feet of banking facilities and 3,000 square feet of high turnover restaurants. He said
that an additional traffic analysis was prepared that indicates that a change in uses
cumulatively is sufficient enough to require that a traffic signal be placed off of
Lampson Avenue at the entrance to this project, which is about midway between
Lampson and the end of the property as you go towards the 1-405 Freeway. The
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-o4-o1 PC Minutes.doc
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
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of April 4, 2001
Engineering Department has also proposed that the additional condition be included
requiring that a right turn lane be included at this signal light to serve traffic entering
and exiting the area. He noted that City Council had previously approved a 10,000
square foot retail/banking building immediately north and the Planning Commission
and City Council had previously approved a 3-story 104-unit hotel immediately south
of this property, and to the east a 3-story 162-bed senior care facility has been
approved. He reported that the project for the senior care facility is no longer to be
developed by the Marriott Corporation and the Bixby Company is currently in
negotiations with other senior care providers for a similar facility. He related that the
primary concerns for Staff were related to traffic impacts and any additional
environmental impacts from a different type of building that what was originally
proposed and approved. Commissioner Brown clarified that the change was from a
7,500 square foot restaurant to a 9,000 retail building. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed
that this was correct. Commissioner Brown asked how a bank could create a higher
demand for traffic than a restaurant. Mr. Whittenberg stated that a bank generates
more traffic throughout the day than a restaurant would. The restaurant would
generate more traffic in the evenings. Commissioner Brown asked if overall the
traffic count were decreasing. Mr. Whittenberg said it would be increasing creating
the need for the signal light. He reported that, as submitted, the project exceeds the
City's parking requirements by approximately 50 percent. He stated that Staff
recommends approval subject to the conditions noted in the Staff Report. He said
that there were several mitigation measures that were imposed upon this area by
City Council and many of those would also be applicable to this project as outlined in
Resolution 01-12.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Sharp said that he thought the driving range was going to have the
facility from west to east, but he has observed that it is going to east to west and the
parking lot is to be used for the Old Ranch Country Club driving range. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that the project as approved by City Council has a double-ended
driving range. He said that what has been developed at this point is the private end
going from east to west for the country club members. He stated that the plans for
the public end of the driving range going from west to east would be developed and
submitted within a month for building permit approval. Commissioner Sharp if left
turn lanes would be included for the road improvements. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that this had already been included in the plans.
Commissioner Brown asked what a 2-phase signal was. Mr. Whittenberg reported
that this was a signal that would basically allow east-west traffic movements with
green lights for the left turn lanes.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-04-01 PC Minutes.doc
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 April 4, 2001
Mr. Don Glatthorn of Kitchell Development Company stated that when Kitchell
purchased the original 25-acre site from the Bixby Ranch Company, they also
purchased Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, both measuring approximately 1 acre each. He
said that when the EIR was initially studied it was projected that two restaurants
would be located on this site, but based upon the Bixby Office Park and their
experience in attempting to replace the restaurant next to Spaghettini's, it is difficult
to attract high quality restaurants to this area near the freeway offramp. He said that
at one time Islands Restaurant had expressed a strong interest to locate on Parcel
2, unfortunately, negotiations terminated due to economic constraints in their ability
to pay enough rent to support the economics for the value of this land. He stated
that since that time an agreement was reached in concluding negotiations with
Islands to locate on the 25-acre site. Mr. Glatthorn reported that last week a letter of
intent was signed with Macaroni Grill to locate on the 25-acre site. He noted that
looking at the parcels collectively, it would not be unreasonable to say that in some
respects the City is still getting what was originally proposed, with different
positioning. He said that the benefits to Kitchell are that these uses will
economically support fairly substantial land valuation. In addition, he said that there
has not been a high level of interest from the restaurant tenants to locate on Parcel
2. He reported that there is a stronger desire for restaurants to locate on the 25-acre
parcel where a critical mass of approximately 300,000 square feet of other retail. He
said that he felt the Director of Development Services had done an excellent job of
summarizing the issues surrounding the proposal. He stated that he would be
available to respond to questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Brown asked how many fast-food restaurants would be included in
the retail area. Mr. Glatthorn said that these would not be a fast food drive-through
such as McDonalds, but a two 1,500 square foot high turnover food such as a pizza
shop or bagel shop.
There being no others wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Comment
Chairperson Hood stated that although this type of intensification of use is not
necessarily what a lot of people like, but it has been approved by City Council, and
the additional signal at this location was anticipated.
MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Sharp to approve Site Plan Review 01-1 and adopt
Resolution 01-12.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Ladner, and Sharp
None
None
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-04-01 PC Minutes.doc
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 Mmutes of April 4, 2001
Mr. Boga advised that the adoption of Resolution Nos. 01-12 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 welcomed Phil Ladner as the new Commissioner for District 5. He
also reported that the Agenda Forecast had reflected that the Parcel Map for the
Boeing Project would appear on the next meeting agenda. He stated that this item
will be continued indefinitely as on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) there
were some comments from the California Coastal Commission and the California
Department of Fish and Game that will require additional field evaluation on this site
for wetlands delineation issues. He estimated that it would be delayed for
approximately 2-3 months depending upon the time needed to complete this
evaluation.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Cutuli asked about the status of the Starbucks application and the
development at the corner of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Mr.
Whittenberg reported that the building permits were issued on the project at Main
Street and Pacific Coast Highway approximately two weeks ago. He said that at this
point no tenant improvement plans have been submitted. He also noted that the
Conditions of Approval had been sent to Starbucks, but the City has received no
response from them. Commissioner Cutuli then asked about the new sub-
development. Mr. Whittenberg responded that this project is ongoing and the final
map will be coming before City Council for approval at the end of April. He said that
once the Tract Map is approved, demolition and grading on the property could begin
followed by construction of the new homes.
Commissioner Sharp asked about the possibility of another exit from the Centex
housing development. Mr. Whittenberg responded that the only access and exit
point would be at the signal at Seal Beach Boulevard. Commissioner Sharp asked if
there would be an emergency exit at the other end of the development. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that neither the Fire Department nor the City requires this.
Commissioner Sharp if the Fire Department is aware of the traffic situation at this
location. Mr. Whittenberg said that they have reviewed this.
Commissioner Cutuli asked about the differences in grading levels between the City
of Los Alamitos boundary and the Centex Homes development. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that grading of the Centex Homes was approved by the City in compliance
with all the subdivision requirements and grading provisions of the County
Subdivision and Grading Ordinances. He noted that most of the grading that has
been created is for two purposes: 1) To raise the building pads for the homes above
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-04-01 PC Minutes.doc
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
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meetmg Minutes of April 4, 2001
the 1 OO-year flood plain level, and 2) to provide the necessary separation from street
levels to the depth of the sewer and storm drain lines that will be in the streets. He
said that the City of Los Alamitos and Centex Homes have been in discussion as to
how to address these concerns. He noted that the City of Seal Beach has not been
involved in these discussions.
Commissioner Brown stated that on a future agenda he-would like to see a study
session on mixed-use parking and also a nomination period for historic structures
within the City. He said that Staff could use a digital camera to photograph potential
structures and the public would probably have quite a few nominations.
Commissioner Sharp asked if such a study had not been completed approximately
5-6 years ago. Mr. Whittenberg reported that a Draft Policy Statement had been
prepared by the Department of Development Services approximately 10 years ago,
with a number of homes listed. He said he needed to review what the Council
direction was when they adopted the most recent Policy Statement. Commissioner
Sharp stated that he was almost positive that a committee had been appointed and
a report presented, but he could not recall the details. Commissioner Brown stated
that this list was mentioned during the hearings for the bed and breakfast. He stated
that several of the homes on the list are no longer in existence. Mr. Whittenberg
noted that there is a list that was completed a number of years ago by the Seal
Beach Women's Club, and many people assume this is a City list.
Chairperson Hood stated he was in favor of creating a list of the historic structures
within the City so that the criteria could be addressed all at once rather than on a
"piecemeal basis."
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
\:' ^"- \ ......"'-^""-~
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secr tary
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on April 18, 2001 approved the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of Wednesday, April 4,2001. ~ .
Q:\PC Minutes\2001\04-04-01 PC Minutes.doc
20