Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2004-01-21 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA for January 21, 2004 7:30 p.m. District 1 - Ellery Deaton Distnct 2 - Jim Sharp Distnct 3 - Gordon Shanks District 4 - Henry Eagar District 5 - Phil Ladner Deoartment of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney Mac Cummins, AICP, Associate 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 wntten materials on each agenda Item are on file In the Department of Development Services and City Iibranes for public inspection. Page 1 of 6 . . . CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon · Agenda of January 21, 2004 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 Plannrng Commission, only on Items not on tonrght's agenda, may do so dunng this time penod. No action can be taken by the Planning Commission on these communications on this date, unless agendlzed. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Public Hearings allow citizens the opportunity to speak in favor of or against agendlzed Items More detailed Information is found in the actual agenda attached. If you have documents to distnbute, 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 Plannrng 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 Plannrng Commission separately and require separate motions. These transactions are considered admlnrstratlv~ 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 Plannrng Commissioners and discussed with staff. All proceedings are recorded. Page 2 of 6 . . . City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda for January 21, 2004 7:30 p.m. 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 be 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 Junsdictlon 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 January 7, 2004. VI SCHEDULED MATTERS VII PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. / Conditional Use Permit 04-1 Leisure World Shopping Center/Seal Beach Boulevard & Westminster Avenue Applicant/Owner: Request: Lorenzo Reyes for Carl's Jr. / Burnham USA To operate a dnve-thru Window In conjunction With a proposed restaurant fronting Seal Beach Boulevard Page 3 of 6 City of Seal Beach Planmng Commission. Agenda of January 21,2004 . Recommendation: The proposed location is located on Seal Beach Boulevard approximately 600 feet north of Westminster Avenue. Within the City of Seal Beach any drive-thru operation requires a Conditional Use Permit. Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 04-4 3. Residential Conservation Overlay Zone 04-1 & Conditional Use Permit 04-2 308 - 7th Street Applicant/Owner. Request: . Chris Verhulst To operate a Bed and Breakfast faCIlity at a requested Residential Conservation Overlay Zone property at 308 Seventh Street In April 2000 City Council of the City of Seal Beach adopted Ordinance 1455 allowing - Bed & Breakfast facilities within the Residential Conservation Overlay Zone, subject to approval of a Zone Change request for a ReSidential Conservation Overlay Zone and approval of a Conditional Use Permit The proposed house is designated a locally historic structure by the City Council {Policy Statement} and is generally referred to as the Krenweinkle House. The proposed faCIlity will have 4,300 square feet, and 6 guest rooms. It is proposed to have 5 guest rooms upstairs, and 1 downstairs. Also proposed are 6 on-site parking spaces Recommendation: Approval subject to condItions and adoption of Resolution Nos. 04-3 and 04-2 4. Zone Text Amendment 04-1 Expansions and Additions to Legal Non-Conforming Residential Structures Citywide Applicant/Owner' Request: . Recommendation City of Seal Beach To consider elimination or amendments to certain portions of Section 28-2407 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, which sets forth the current standards of the City regarding allowable expansions and additions to legal non-conforming reSidential structures Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 04-9 Page 4 of 6 . . . City of Seal Beach Plannmg CommissIon · Agenda of January 21, 2004 VIII STAFF CONCERNS IX COMMISSION CONCERNS X ADJOURNMENT The following alternatives will be considered at the public hearing: Alternative 1 - Eliminate All Provisions Allowing For Expansion Of Non-Conforming Residential Structures Alternative 2 - Revisions To Allow Expansions Of Nonconforming Residential Structures Only If The Nonconformity Is A Setback Alternative 3 - RevIsions To Allowable Size Of Additions To Nonconforming Residential Structures Alternative 4 - No Amendments to Code Regarding Structural Alterations and Enlargements to Nonconforming Residential BUildings and Uses Page 5 of 6 . Feb 04 Feb 18 Mar 03 Mar 17 ADr07 ADr 21 Mav 05 Mav 19 Jun 09 Jun 23 Jul07 . Jul21 Aua 04 Aua 18 SeD 08 SeD 22 Oct 06 Oct 20 Nov 03 Nov 17 Dec 08 Dec 22 . CIty of Seal Beach Planmng CommIssion · Agenda of January 21, 2004 2004 Agenda Forecast Minor Plan Review - 48 Rlversea (Two-Storv Cabana) Page 6 of 6 ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 * 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 I CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of January 21,2004 Chairperson Sharp called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 21, 2004. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1 ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Sharp, Commissioners Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks Also Present: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mac Cummins, Associate Planner Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney Absent: None. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks None None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Sharp opened oral communications. There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Sharp closed oral communications. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2004 1 These Minutes were transcnbed from audiotape of the meeting Page 1 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . Cdy of Seal Beach Planmng Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Deaton to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks None None SCHEDULED MATTERS None. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Use Permit 04-1 Leisure World Shopping Center/Seal Beach Boulevard & Westminster Avenue Applicant/Owner: Request: Lorenzo Reyes for Carl's Jr. / Burnham USA To operate a drive-thru window in conjunction with a proposed restaurant front Seal Beach Boulevard. The proposed location is located on Seal Beach Boulevard approximately 600 feet north of Westminster Avenue. Within the City of Seal Beach any drive-thru operation requires a Conditional Use Permit. Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 04-4. 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 explained that the request tonight is for approval for the drive-thru window only. He stated that the ability of the restaurant owners to construct a restaurant is permitted by nght within this zone, provided all development standards and parking requirements are met. He indicated that the proposed restaurant would measure approximately 3,177 square feet, with the proposed property containing a little less than 87,000 square feet of commercial development, which would be inclusive of the proposed restaurant He noted that the subject property is located on the northwest corner of Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue He described the surrounding land uses as follows: SOUTH: Commercial businesses in a Commercial (C-1) Zone. Page 2 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 EAST: Naval Weapons Station in a Public Land Use Zone. NORTH & WEST: Residential housing units within Leisure World, which is a Residential High Density (RHO) Zone. Mr. Cummins stated that when a request for a drive-thru window comes before the Planning Commission (PC), the primary issues Include traffic flow into the site and the surrounding parking lot and late night noise impacts associated with the drive-thru window. He reported that Staff conducted an analysis of the proposed location for the drive-thru window and noted that the closest residential structures are over 400 feet away with existing commercial development between the proposed drive-thru and these residences. He stated that Staff considers anything over 300 feet to be a significant buffer preventing any noticeable impact from the drive-thru window. Mr. Cummins stated that after analysis of the site plan Staff recommends the follo\ll{ing modification: 1. I n order to prevent stacking of cars in the queue, proposed landscape buffer along the main drive aisle should be extended out towards Seal Beach Boulevard (SBB) creating one long dnve aisle towards the center of the existing commercial development, at which point cars could turn around and come back in via a secondary drive aisle to get to the restaurant and drive-thru window. The Associate Planner then indicated that the proposed hours of operation are: 6:00 a.m. to Midnight for the dining room. 24-Hour operation for the drive-thru window. He stated that 24-hour operation is typical of drive-thru restaurants on major arterial roads the size of SBB. He noted that Staff has attached draft conditions to specifically address noise issues, which include using a lowest possible volume on the menu board during the nighttime hours. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions. Commissioner Questions Chairperson Sharp asked for clarification as to whether this was to be a drive-thru only restaurant. Mr. Cummins clarified that thiS would be a dine-in restaurant with a drive- thru window. He noted that the restaurant and the existing commercial development meet all city standards related to parking, setbacks, height, etc. He stated that the only Item up for consideration by the PC is approval of the location of the drive-thru window. Commissioner Ladner asked how audible the microphone at the dnve-thru window would be at ItS lowest volume. Mr. Cummins stated that he did not know the exact decibel level, but it would be a lower volume than that used dunng the daytime hours, as there is less traffic on the streets during the night creating less noise for the menu board operator. He indicated that the volume would be low enough so that the impact would not be heard outside the immediate vicinity. Page 3 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 Commissioner Deaton asked if the menu board would be towards the front of the restaurant adjacent to SBB. Mr. Cummins confirmed that this was correct. Commissioner Deaton confirmed that aside from the buffer of the restaurant building, the parking lot and existing commercial buildings would also help buffer any noise. Mr. Cummins confirmed that this was also correct. Commissioner Eagar asked if a study of traffic flow had been completed for this restaurant. Mr. Cummins stated that perhaps the applicant could respond to this question. Chairperson Sharp expressed his concern with the midway cut on the right-side of the main drive aisle, as this shopping center is frequented by Leisure World (LW) residents of an average age or 78-79 years, and he wants to ensure that this does not create a traffic hazard within the commercial center parking lot. Public Hearing Chairperson Sharp opened the public heanng. Mr. Lorenzo Reyes, a representative of Carl Karcher Enterprises (CKE), stated that they are in agreement with all of the Conditions of Approval except for the issue of the drive aisle. He said that typically the layout for a Carl's Jr. restaurant must have a counter clockwise layout around the building so that the driver is next to the building. He said they are happy with a 6-car queue with the menu board at the 4th position. He noted that when placing an order, customers are talking to a speaker post that is positioned on the curb at car window level. This prevents customers having to shout at a menu board. He said that state-of-the-art speakers are used that automatically raise and lower the volume depending upon the ambient noise outside. He noted that the decibel level would be approximately the same as that of two people having a conversation within 3 feet of one another. Mr. Reyes noted that the current configuration for the restaurant includes a 7 -car queue and two parking stalls facing SBB. He stated that closing the drive cut at the right middle of the main drive aisle would essentially kill this project because it would create a dead-end traffic aisle. He said that an alternative is to consider designating the two parking stalls that face SBB as "Employee Only" stalls or eliminating them altogether, which would prevent the queue from backing up into the main drive aisle, even if 9 cars were in the queue. He stated that the busiest business hours would be from 11 :45 a.m. to 1 :15 p.m. and from 5:15 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. He indicated that the restaurant would have approximately 85 seats inside to accommodate dine-in customers. He said that CKE is flexible with regard to 24-hour operation of the drive-thru window. He recommended that the PC reconsider closing the dnve cut in the main drive aisle. Chairperson Sharp asked whether a 24-hour survey of the parking lot had been conducted. Mr. Reyes stated that he had not. Chairperson Sharp asked If any survey had been done prior to deciding where the restaurant was to be located. Mr. Reyes stated that demographic studies which survey population, income, and traffic counts were done. Chairperson Sharp asked whether CKE has considered home Page 4 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 delivery services. Mr. Reyes stated that he does not believe this has been considered; however, CKE allows the neighborhood dictate what the business does. Chairperson Sharp stated that many of the LW residents no longer drive and during the daytime they use the LW bus system, but many of the LW residents do not wish to drive in the evening. Mr. Reyes stated that he knows of Carl's Jr. restaurants that take phone orders, but he is not aware of any that do home deliveries. Commissioner Ladner asked if the drive-thru were to be open 24 hours a day, but customers stop coming after 10:00 p.m., would the window remain open for 24 hours. Mr. Reyes stated that he did not wish to make a commitment on a closing time, but depending upon what the neighborhood demands, Carl's Jr. would be flexible to meet the need. He noted that if the business is not there, the window would not be open 24 hours. Mr. Whittenberg Interjected that in reviewed the public hearing notice Staff found that it did not include the request for a 24-hour operation. He stated that this would also require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He noted that what the PC would be considering tonight would be the drive-thru window and the allowable hours of operation from 6:00 a m. to 2:00 a.m. without the CUP request for 24-hour operation. He stated that by right Carl's Jr. could have the business open during these hours regardless of what the PC decides on the drive-thru window. Mr. Reyes stated that the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. would be adequate for this particular store location. Ms. Therese Hoffa, a representative of the property owner, spoke in support of the application. She stated that the shopping center has been remodeled and the property owner has always expected to do the remodel in two phases with Phase 1 being the remodel of the buildings. She said that this is a long-term investment project with the owners having spent more than anticipated In the remodel. She stated that approval of Carl's Jr. would facilitate completion of the remodel project. She noted that economically it makes no sense to continue to put money into the project until they have a fully approved tenant. She recommended keeping the mid-entry cut in the main drive aisle and encouraged the approval of this application. Chairperson Sharp complimented the work done on the shopping center remodel. Mr. Reyes proposed that the hours of operation be as follows: Sun - Thurs Fri - Sat Dinino Room 6:00 a.m. - 11 :00 p.m. 6:00 a.m. - Midnight Drive- Thru 6:00 a.m. - Midnight 6:00 a.m. - 2:00 a.m. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the hours for the dining room are all allowable by right. He said that the hours for the drive-thru would be discretionary. He noted that this approval would be for one year at which point CKE would have to re-apply for an indefinite extension of this CUP. Chairperson Sharp stated that he did not believe there would be a problem with the hours of operation. Mr. Reyes emphaSized that circulation is key and the cut in the main drive aisle would facilitate this. Commissioner Ladner asked the number of employees to be working at this site. Mr. Reyes reported that the restaurant would have Page 5 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 25 employees. Commissioner Ladner asked what the busiest hours would be. Mr. Reyes stated that the hours from 11 :45 a.m. to 1 :15 p.m. and 5:15 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Ladner asked if a parking study had been conducted. Mr. Reyes stated that a typical Car's Jr. restaurant with a 6-car queue would require approximately 30-35 parking stalls. Commissioner Ladner asked how many employees would be driving to work. Mr. Reyes noted that the majority of employees come from the local area and he estimated that approximately 50-75 percent of the employees would drive their own cars with the remainder using public transportation. Commissioner Ladner inquired as to where employees would park. Mr. Reyes stated that this is something that Carl's Jr. would have to work out with the shopping center management. Mr. Reyes asked where employees of the businesses in the center currently park. Commissioner Ladner stated that he did not know, but the parking lot is usually filled to capacity. Mr. Reyes emphasized that although the restaurant is to have 25 employees, each shift would be comprised of 6-8 employees. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Sharp closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Mr. Cummins explained that Staff and the City Engineer had reviewed the drive aisle issue to determine whether there would be any potential problems with car queuing. He stated that the City cannot dictate what type of restaurant a shopping center owner can have as a tenant, but can only restrict whether or not the restaurant has a drive-thru. He noted that Staff had evaluated the scenario of the PC approving the drive-thru in its current configuration and after a time Carl's Jr. deciding to move to another location followed by In-N-Out Burger moving into this site. He indicated that Staff had to consider whether this configuration would be adequate for the longer queue lines experienced at In-N-Out Burger locations. Mr. Cummins stated that if the PC is comfortable with the current layout, it could be approved with a 12-month review. Mr. Whittenberg interjected that Staff would have no objection to the hours as proposed by Mr. Reyes. Commissioner Ladner asked for further clarification on the site plan of the cut into the drive aisle. Mr. Reyes demonstrated on the site map where the cut would be made. Mr. Abbe recommended that the applicant speak to the entire Commission and to the audience rather than to one individual. He recommended re-opening the public hearing. Commissioner Deaton suggested that the PC make a motion to approve CUP 04-1 and have the applicant and shopping center management work with Staff to come up with the best configuration for the drive-thru. Mr. Whittenberg recommended continuing this item if the PC agreed With Commissioner Deaton's recommendation. He then suggested that the PC approve the parking lot layout as proposed by the applicant at this time with the clear understanding that the approval is for one year at which time CUP 04-1 will come back for reconsideration, and possible recommendations for Page 6 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 modification to the drive aisle. Commissioner Ladner stated that the modifications as presented by Mr. Reyes make a lot of sense and he would vote to approve CUP 04-1. Mr. Whittenberg stated that since Mr. Reyes explanation is not on the public record this would have to be done. He recommended that Chairperson Sharp re-open the public hearing. Chairperson Sharp re-opened the public hearing. Using the site plan, Mr. Reyes then presented his proposal for the parking lot configuration, leaving the cut in the right side of the main drive aisle. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Sharp closed the public hearing. Mr. Cummins confirmed the hours of operation as proposed by Mr. Reyes, and he also noted that Condition NO.2 is to be removed from Resolution 04-4. MOTION by Ladner; SECOND by Deaton to approve Conditional Use Permit 04-1 and adopt Resolution 04-4 as amended. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks None None Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 04-4 begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. 3. Residential Conservation Overlay Zone 04-1 & Conditional Use Permit 04-2 308 - 7th Street Applicant/Owner: Request: Chris Verhulst To operate a Bed and Breakfast facility at a requested Residential Conservation Overlay Zone property at 308 Seventh Street. In April 2000 City Council of the City of Seal Beach adopted Ordinance 1455 allowing Bed & Breakfast facilities within the Residential Conservation Overlay Zone, subject to approval of a Zone Change request for a Residential Conservation Overlay Zone and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed house is designated a locally historic structure by the City Council (Policy Statement) and is generally referred to as the Krenwinkle House. The proposed facility will have 4,300 square feet, and 6 guest rooms. It is proposed to Page 7 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . 47 City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 21. 2004 Recommendation' have 5 guest rooms upstairs, and 1 downstairs. Also proposed are 6 on-site parking spaces. Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution Nos. 04-3 and 04-2 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 approval of both the Residential Conservation Overlay Zone (RCOZ) and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are required in order to operate a bed and breakfast (B&B) establishment within the City of Seal Beach. He stated that currently the proposed property is located within the Residential High Density (RHO) Zone and under the provisions of the Bed & Breakfast Ordinance there are a number of restrictions and criteria that a property must meet in order to apply for a CUP to operate a B&B. He emphasized that under this ordinance the structure proposed for the B&B must have been designated as a historically significant building. He stated that this home was constructed prior to 1925 and meets the rest of the criteria as outlined in Section 28-852 of the City Code. He indicated that in August 2000 City Council (CC) adopted a Policy Statement listing this house as historically significant. He noted that it has a dining room, living room, kitchen, and six guest rooms, including one downstairs, with a bathroom for each guest room and an additional half bath on the ground floor. He stated that the property contains approximately 5,800 square feet, making it a double lot downtown with 50 feet of frontage along 7th Street. He described the surrounding land uses as follows: NORTH: Apartments in a Residential High Density (RHO) Zone and commercial bUSinesses along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in a General Commercial (C-2) Zone. SOUTH & EAST: A number of single and multi-family residential developments in a Residential High Density (RHO) Zone. WEST: Commercial businesses including the Pacific Inn Hotel and the Bay City Center in the General Commercial (C-2) Zone. Mr. Cummins reported that in 2000 the CC began discussion on creating a RCOZ as a means to preserve older historic structures within the City. He said that at that time the City designated two homes on the list of historically significant structures and created the ordinance that became the B&B Ordinance, which set forth the criteria for Intent of why this was done. He indicated that one of the ideas CC had was that potentially these hlstonc structures could be salvaged if there were some economic incentive to do this. The Associate Planner described the Krenwinkle House as having a front setback of approximately 12 feet from the front property line with a 10-foot deep front porch and 5-foot side yard setbacks. He noted that the owner's residence would be a 2-story structure above the 3-car garage located to the rear of the property. He said that the Page 8 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 parking requirement is for one parking space per guest room and one for the B&B operator, for a total requirement of 7 parking spaces. He stated that six on-site parking spaces are to be provided, and the applicant is to receive one space credit for closing up what was an eXisting curb cut on the property. Mr. Cummins then stated that within the ordinance there are a number of provisions allOWing a B&B operator to vary from development standards and be subject the Uniform Building Code (UBC) with respect to historic structures. He noted that in this case the operator would meet all current development standards. He said that the PC has the right to alter the site plan, as it deems appropriate; however, Staff would like to note that the structure already exists on the site and any changes would be difficult to make at this point. Staff, therefore, recommends approval of CUP 04-2 with the existing floor plan. Mr. Cummins then referred to Condition 29 of the draft resolution and noted that Staff has provided clarification regarding calculation of the Transient Occupancy Tax. He then explained that the PC has two resolutions before them tonight: One to designate the property to be within the RCOZ, and the second to approve CUP 04-2. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Shanks stated that since the back unit is not yet constructed, approval of thiS application would require that the unit above the garage be a single-family residence (SFR) and not any type of apartments. He noted that there could only be one other unit on the property as parking for a third or fourth unit could not be provided. Mr. Cummins stated that whether or not additional parking could be provided, there could be no more than one other unit on the property because the City's density standard does not allow for more than two units on the lot. Public Hearing Chairperson Sharp opened the public hearing. Mr. Chris Verhulst provided a brief history on the Krenwinkle House and stated that in 2000 he had proposed the B&B plan, which would have included the Proctor House, which was in probate at the time. He said his plan was to move both homes onto the property at 308 - 7th Street; however, the person who had purchased the Proctor House had made plans to demolish the house and replicate it, so he redrew his plans to make only the Krenwinkle House the B&B, which are the plans before the PC tonight. He stated that the front house is near completion and with time the parking and the owner's home will be completed. He projected December 2004 as an opening date for the B&B. Ms. Diana Jacoby stated that her family owns the property at 301 - 7th Street. She stated that the property is currently being leased by Seal Beach Auto, Mr. McKenly Nguyen, Proprietor. She said that they have had a business at that location for 47 years and the auto repair business has been there for 13 years and there have never been any complaints until last year. She said she had polled all the business owners in this neighborhood and found that no one other than the applicant has any problems with her property. She said when the applicant purchased the property at 308 - th Street he Page 9 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . CIty of Seal Beach Planmng CommIssIon Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 was fully aware that this was a mixed-use neighborhood. She indicated that since Mr. Verhulst had moved onto the property there have been numerous complaints regarding operation of the auto shop, including security lighting at night, closing the shop at 7:00 p.m., notifying customers that they cannot park on his side of a public street, and Mr. Nguyen "working outside" the auto repair structure. She noted that in an effort to be a good neighbor they have complied with all of Mr. Verhulst's requests. She noted that her family have not complained that it has taken 4 years to complete the project when they had to deal with construction noise, or when he placed a boat on a public sidewalk for weeks, or when he parks an oversized commercial landscape vehicle on the street next to the auto shop property every night, or when he parked his personal vehicle on the auto shop property without permission, or after Mr. Verhulst has lived on the property for years without providing one usable parking space. She cited incidences of the Code Enforcement Officer visiting her property and taking photographs. She stated that this because they have received no correspondence from the City since September 2003, it is beginning to feel like this is bordering on harassment. She said the B&B is a beautiful building and would be an asset to the neighborhood, but she questions the wisdom of granting a permit to someone who appears to be so unhappy with his decision to place his business at its current location. She recommended denial of this application until such time as the applicant is able to provide one usable parking space per sleeping unit including the owner's quarters, and that the property be cleared of debris and paved with cement or asphalt as City Code requires. She requested clarity on the City's Code Enforcement Policy. She asked if there is to be one parking space per sleeping unit and one for the owner's unit, where would the owner and any employees park their vehicles? Where will the owner park his commercial vehicle? Ms. Jacoby then requested that she be provided with a legal description of what constitutes working outside. She said that she had previously made a request for this information, but had received nothing. Mr. Jim Caviola said that he is not speaking against the project, but he is concerned that the City got so involved in a zoning issue to save a house that was never saved. He said that although the home is beautiful, originally the Krenwinkle House measured approximately 1,000 square feet and it now measures 4,400 square feet. He said that construction a B&B under the guise of saving a historic structure, when two-thirds of the building as it stands now was constructed from scratch Within the last three years, none of which is historical. He cautioned that in the future the City must have better standards to prevent someone putting a cupola at the top of a structure and build a 10,000 square foot B&B simply to preserve the histonc front door of a house. Mr. Caviola stated that allowing this was reckless and inconsistent. Mr. Thomas Wilson spoke in opposition to this application. He stated that parking in Old Town is already at a premium and with metered parking going into Electric Avenue from Main Street to 6th Street and permitted 2-hour parking on 7th Street; thiS will further reduce the number of on-street parking spaces available. He expressed his concern that adequate parking would be provided for guests of the B&B as well as parking for the owners personal and business vehicles and for employees of Mr. Verhulst's landscaping business. He noted that on many occasions construction work on the B&B Page 10 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 has taken place before 7:00 a.m. Mr. Wilson inquired as to whether the proposed parking in the 3-car garage is included in the 6 parking spaces for B&B guests? Mr. Warren Morton stated that in driving by the B&B he could not see where the parking area is to be located. He questioned how 8 parking spaces would fit in a 50-foot area? He recommended denial of RCaZ 04-1 and CUP 04-2. Ms. Mitzi Morton stated that she is appalled to learn that Mr. Verhulst is running a landscaping out of the property at 308 - ih Street. She said cited a similar situation on 13th Street where one of the owners operates a landscaping business. She stated that the employees gather there every morning and they have three large trucks. She indicated that this would be the same thing that would occur on 7th Street. Ms. Morton commented that she did not believe that Mr. Verhulst should be able to operate a B&B, live on the property, and also run a landscaping off the same property. Mr. Michael Newton stated that he is acquainted with both Mr. Nguyen of Seal Beach Auto and with Mr. Verhulst. He stated that Mr. Nguyen is a good mechanic and has been able to triple his business. He then commented that Mr. Verhulst has done a great Job on the B&B and he believes it is a nice idea to have a B&B in Seal Beach, as it would be convenient for having his relatives stay when they visit. He stated that although he understands Mr. Verhulst complaint about the bright lighting at the auto shop, he believes Mr. Nguyen and Mr. Verhulst must work together to come to a friendly agreement. He noted that he has never heard construction going on at 308 - ih Street before 7:00 a.m. He recommended approval of RCaZ 04-1 and CUP 04-2. Mr. Verhulst stated that on September 7, 2000 the Krenwinkle house was relocated from Central Avenue to its present location. He said that he moved into the home on April 15, 2001, and at that time Seal Beach Auto was being run as an automobile repair shop. He stated that up until recently Mr. Nguyen followed the C-2 Zone guidelines and has conducted all repair work inside the shop. He said that with the increase in business the work is overflowing onto the parking lot and onto the street. He noted that many times tow trucks will drop cars off in front of the B&B and the handicapped approach for the sidewalk is being used as a driveway. He stated that he had spoken to Mr. Nguyen about these issues and cautioned that he would contact the City if these practices continued. Mr. Verhulst indicated that as long Seal Beach Auto conforms to the C-2 Zone guidelines, he has no complaints. He noted that another neighbor has a van filled with used furniture that he leaves parked on the street and moves it only when the street sweeper comes around. In response to Mr. Caviola's comments, Mr. Verhulst stated that the Staff Report includes a copy of the original floor plan for the house, which reflect 2,550 square feet. He said that he added 1,130 square feet to the house, and the 4,400 square feet quoted by Mr. Cummins does include the 3-car garage that will be used for parking on the property. He stated that Staff acquired the zoning requirement for B&Bs from 44 different cities and the information overwhelmingly reflected the requirement of 1 parking space for each guest room, and one space for the owner/occupant. He indicated that he and his wife would occupy one single-family dwelling over the garages in the rear. He said that 6 on site parking spaces would be Page 11 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 provided; the curb cut in the front will create another parking space on the street for a total of 7 spaces. Mr. Verhulst then noted that he had approached the owner of the Proctor House regarding purchasing that home, but the owner did not wish to sell, but instead chose to demolish the original home and construct a replica of the Proctor House. He said it is a nice fixture in Seal Beach and the Krenwinkle house ;s also a great addition to town. He stated that he receives daily inquiries as to when the B&B will be in operation and believes it will be a positive addition and will generate revenue for the City. He noted that the profile of people frequenting B&Bs shows that above and beyond the cost of the room, they will spend an average of $250 a day in restaurants and shops. He emphasized that the B&B would not impact parking on the street, as there is sufficient parking on the site. Mr. Verhulst noted that he could have constructed two new homes on this double lot, but this would have had a greater impact on parking. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Sharp closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comments Mr. Whittenberg referred to Mr. Wilson's comments regarding parking and noted that the City currently has an application before the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for approval to install parking meters on Main Street, Electric Avenue, Central Avenue, and Ocean Avenue between Main Street and the alleys on the side of Main Street. He stated that the parking meters would not go beyond the alleys on the east and west sides of Main Street. He stated that CCC approved the application last Friday. He said that the City had initially proposed to restrict parking on both sides of all the streets between 5th and 12th Streets; however, the CCC denied this part of the request. Commissioner Shanks noted a correction to Condition No. 35 to state "bed and breakfast" rather than "restaurant." Mr. Cummins noted the correction. Commissioner Deaton stated that she is concerned with historic preservation and how the City defines what is historically significant. She asked how many other structures in town would be eligible for historic preservation. Mr. Whittenberg stated that after completing a survey of the building within the City, Staff identified 18-20 structures built prior to 1920 that would qualify as historically significant. He noted that some of these have been demolished since 2000. He indicated that the provisions of the RCOZ only allow for an expansion of less than 50 percent of the existing floor area of a significant structure. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Ladner to approve Residential Conservation Overlay Zone 04-1 and Conditional Use Permit 04-2 and adopt Resolution Nos. 04-3 and 04-2 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks Page 12 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . NOES: ABSENT: City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 None None Commissioner Deaton asked if the Commission should have taken a separate vote on each Item. Mr. Abbe stated that this should have been the procedure and recommended that the Commission rescind its vote and take a separate vote on RCOZ 04-1 and CUP 04-2. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Sharp to rescind the prior decision to approve Residential Conservation Overlay Zone 04-1 and Conditional Use Permit 04-2 and adopt Resolution Nos. 04-3 and 04-2 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks None None MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Ladner to approve Residential Conservation Overlay Zone 04-1 and adopt Resolution Nos. 04-3 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks None None MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Ladner to approve Conditional Use Permit 04-2 and adopt Resolution Nos. 04-2 as amended in the addendum. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks None None Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution Nos. 04-3 and 4-2 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. Zone Text Amendment 04-1 Expansions and Additions to Legal Non-Conforming Residential Structures Citywide Applicant/Owner: Request: City of Seal Beach To consider elimination or amendments to certain portions of Section 28-2407 of the Code of the Citv of Seal Beach, which sets forth the current standards regarding allowable Page 13 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 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 Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2004 expansions and additions to legal non-conforming residential structures. Recommendation: Approval subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 04-10 The following alternatives will be considered: Alternative 1 - Eliminate All Provisions Allowing For Expansion of Nonconforming Residential Structures. Alternative 2 - Revisions to Allow Expansions of Nonconforming Residential Structures Only If the Nonconformity Is A Setback. Alternative 3 - Revisions to Allowable Size of Additions to Nonconforming Residential Structures. Alternative 4 - No Amendments to Code Regarding Structural Alterations and Enlargements to Nonconforming Residential Structures. 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 Zone Text Amendment (ZTA) 04-1 is a follow up of approximately one year of process the City has undertaken to address the issue of how to deal with expansions to nonconforming residential structures (NRS). He stated that the Planning Commission (PC) could elect any of the 4 Alternatives and or amalgamate them in any manner it feels is appropriate once the public hearing has concluded. He then reviewed the alternatives beginning with Alternative 1 (A-1) and noted that City Code currently allows for specific types of maintenance activities and additions of non-habitable living space to NRS subject to building permits or a Minor Plan Review (MPR) process. He said that A- 1 would maintain those provisions of the Code but would eliminate all provisions that allow for any consideration of expansion of living area for a NRS, He noted that A-1 reflects the PC's recommendation to City Council (CC) back in July 2003. He then explained that A-2 would revise the nonconforming section of the Code to allow for consideration of additions or expansion to living area onlv if the nonconforming issue IS related to an existing setback of the existing NRS. He indicated that if the property were nonconforming due to density, parking, exceeding the height limit, or lot coverage, it would not be eligible for expansion under this category. A-3 would maintain the current process in the Code that allows for expansions to be considered under a 2-tier process: Page 14 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommissIon Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 1. A Minor Plan Review (MPR) that has certain size limitations to it, and 2. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process that does not have a size limitation imposed. He stated that Staff recommends that the PC slightly modify this existing process and establish the criteria based upon the ability to provide more than 1 % parking spaces per unit on the property or less than 1 % parking spaces per unit. He said that Staff is suggesting that if they cannot provide at least 1 % parking spaces, there would be a cap on the size of the addition that could be requested, and this would be considered through a CUP process. Mr. Whittenberg noted that is an applicant is willing or can provide on his property at least 1 % parking spaces per unit on the property, then they should be able to request a CUP for an unlimited size expansion as long as it meets all current setback, lot coverage, and other City development standards. The Director of Development Services then explained that A-4 would make no changes to the Code. He reminded the PC of this issue coming to the forefront as a result of a CUP application for 1210 Electnc Avenue for a substantial addition of an owner's unit on this 4-unit property. He noted that the PC approved this request and this decision was subsequently appealed to CC who denied the request. CC referred the issue back to the PC and at that point the Commission directed Staff to study the issue and prepare changes to the Code as appropriate. He continued by stating that CC then adopted an interim ordinance that "froze" City Staff from accepting applications for new additions to NRS until the City had time to review its Code provisions to determine whether any changes were necessary. He noted that since the 45-day interim ordinance was adopted, it has been extended for 10 months and 15 days and will expire in March 2004, unless it is again extended. He referred to pages 7-9 of the Staff Report in which the particulars of three examples of applications for expansions to NRS are cited. He noted that the case at 236 - 5th Street in which the only nonconformity is that it has a 3-foot setback on the side property lines instead of the required 3.75 feet for that lot width. He stated that under current provisions, prior to the adoption of the interim ordinance, the Director of Development Services would have been authorized to automatically approve this request by building permit because the difference in the setbacks is less than 10 percent of what is required. He continued by noting that for the property at 222 - 17th Street that has a number of nonconformities and prior to the moratorium a request to do an expansion on this type of property would have come before the PC under either the MPR process or the CUP process based upon the size of the addition requested. For 705 Bayside Drive he stated that the front yard setback is 15 feet 6 inches and the standard setback requirement for this zoning area of the City is 18 feet. He said that in 1957 the City adopted Ordinance No. 509, which established a 15-foot setback requirement for 31 lots in that particular tract. He indicated that after Ordinance 509 was adopted, the City adopted a revision to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in 1963 that stated the setback should be 18 feet and did not exempt the 31 lots covered under Ordinance 509. He stated that Staff has come across some situations in College Park East (CPE) where some of the garage setbacks are not in conformance with today's standards. He said that some of them have a patio area Page 15 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 above the garage and there have been applications to enclose that patio area to create livable space. He noted that these homes are considered NRS and are now under the moratorium. He indicated that given the age of the tract and the way the City has done things in the past, there may be similar issues in College Park West (CPW). Mr. Whittenberg noted that the PC should take these types of situations into consideration in making a determination on this issue. He indicated that although Staff understands the PC's concerns and its recommendations that expansions to NRS should not occur, and generally Staff agrees with this, Staff is of the opinion that if the nonconforming issue is related only to setbacks for an existing structure, and all other developments standards are met, it would senously limit the ability of an owner to expand a SFR that already meets density, lot coverage, and parking requirements. He said that Staff recommends that the PC strongly consider A-2. The Director of Development Services then indicated that Staff has prepared for each of the proposed alternatives a redline strikeout versions of the existing sections of the Code that applies to NRS so that the Commission can see what the exact language would be as proposed by Staff. Commissioner Questions Commissioner Deaton asked if A-2 could be designated to apply only to SFRs and not to multi-family structures? Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would be at the discretion of the PC. He noted that if the multi-unit complies with all of the density, parking, and lot coverage standards, and can still meet all of these standards after the addition is made, he would not be certain what the adverse impact would be in allowing this. Commissioner Shanks stated that he is familiar with at least two other situations; one in CPE and one on The Hill, where tracts that were nonconforming when they were built were later made conforming via a "blanket" ruling by the City. He asked if there might be any way of doing this for the 31 units on The Hill. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the PC could recommend that the City make a finding that these specific lots be determined to be conforming due to setbacks based upon the adoption of Ordinance 509 in 1957. He said that his only concern is that there may be other tracts in that same neighborhood with similar ordinance adopted along the way that Staff is not aware of at this point. This might make it necessary to come back and amend the Zoning Ordinance to include these exceptions. He indicated that this might not be the most productive way to handle this. He stated that if the PC is comfortable with the idea that as long as the property meets all other City standards, with the exception of setbacks, expansions to the NRS should be permitted. He noted that the current provision of that section of the Code only allows this variation to be 10 percent of the required setback. He commented that right now the 10 percent variation would not solve the problem for 705 Bayside Drive because 18 feet is a 1.8-inch setback variation that the Director of Development Services would be able to approve and the setback variation on this property is 2.5 feet. Public Hearina Chairperson Sharp opened the public hearing. Page 16 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 Mr. Warren Morton stated that he had visited 15 or more of the sites listed in the Staff Report and that although some were in conformance with City Code. most of them stretched the density, parking and setback requirements impacting the neighborhood and the surrounding properties. He said that if properties do not meet the setback, parking, or density requirements, they should not be any large-scale expansion. He stated he favors A-2 with the added requirement that the 12-foot alley setback standard is met in all cases. Mr. Morton noted that Staff should carefully review any application presented before any commitment is made to allow expansions to NRS. He said that Alternative 3 might be acceptable with the inclusion of a restriction of minimum size for additions. He stated that Staff is on the right track in attempting to come up with a sIngle solution that everyone can live with. Mr. Rick Gordon of 705 Bayside Drive stated that his home is located in a tract that was constructed in 1957. He said that 31 home in this tract have the same model design, with 5 of these now upgraded to 2-story dwellings. He indicated that his residence, although legal when built, is prohibited from upgrades as it is now categorized and a NRS. Mr. Gordon requested the Commission's support in making it possible to upgrade his home to match the homes that surround his. He stated that the moratorium was intended to address the parking problem in Old Town and was never intended to impact upgrades to SFRs. He noted that the moratorium has impacted at least 50-100 homes. He stated that the focus of the moratorium up until now has been all about structural setbacks; however, in looking at Interim Ordinance 1498 it is so broadly written that legally it encompasses all nonconformity, which would include plumbing, electrical, energy, and earthquake standards in the Uniform BUilding Code (UBC). He indicated that it would be a conservative estimate that well over 80 percent of all homes in Seal Beach are legal nonconforming in some way since the UBC has significantly changed in many ways since these homes were constructed. He commented that it would be an interesting exercise to look at all current construction being done in the City today to see if building permits were issued considering the broad application of Interim Ordinance 1498. Mr. Gordon stated that a non-capricious application of this ordinance would bring many of the remodels currently underway to an immediate halt. He noted that he and his wife saw the upgrades performed on other homes identical to theirs and used those as a guide for the plans for their home, and they simply wish to provide more living space for their family. He indicated that when he initially approached the Department of Development Services Staff did not realize that tract homes on The Hill had been constructed with setbacks like the one on his home. He said that when he suggested that a dozen or so homes had the same situation, he was met with disbelief. He stated he personally found 31 such homes and he only covered half of The Hill area. He noted that this does not consider the many homes with side entry garages with less than the required setback of 10 feet. He estimated that the there could possible be well over 100 legal nonconforming homes on The HIli due to setbacks. He Cited the following reasons for allowing upgrades to legal nonconforming residences: 1. Even City Staff states "a complete ban on expansions would prohibit many existing single-family residences that are impacted only due to nonconforming setbacks, and that comply With all parking, density, and lot coverage Page 17 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 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 Meeting Mmutes of January 21, 2004 requirements, from ever being able to add additional living space, even when the additional living space is required to comply with current development standards of the City." 2. Real estate agents would be compelled to disclose by law the inability of numerous structures within the City that do not have the option of being remodeled or upgraded. This would impact housing values and may involve exposure to future litigation since housing have been sold during the term of Interim Ordinance 1498 and this disclosure was not made. 3. The inability to upgrade numerous properties in Seal Beach would significantly and negatively impact the growth of property tax revenue for the City. Denial of his upgrade that would have increased his property by approximately $2,500, and over a 10-year period would result in a revenue loss to the City of $25,000. Multiplied by 100-200 homeowners can result in a noteworthy loss of revenue. Mr. Gordon recommended approval of A-2 but change the 10 percent allowance for variation from the setback requirement to a 15 percent allowance. He said that either this should be done or allow homeowners to use the MPR review process of any setbacks exceeding the 10 percent variation. He asked how the use of 10 percent for the variation was determined? He noted that he liked Commissioner Shanks' suggestion that tracts that were nonconforming when built now be made conforming via a "blanket" ruling by the City. He cautioned that just as the City had found his home to be nonconforming after it had been determined to be legal and conforming when constructed, this same change in standards could affect anyone's home in the future. He asked that parking problems in Old Town not be allowed to affect the less congested areas of town. Mr. Caviola stated that he was faced with the issue of expansion in converting a duplex into a SFR. He said that over the years people have purchased properties in town and then try to expand them to 2,000 square feet, which is not permitted by the Code and have used the Conditional Use Permit process to circumvent the Code. He stated that this is a misuse of the system. He said that one standard rule must apply. He cited the example of a neighbor who has added two bedrooms to the interior of the home and there are only 4 parking spaces on the property. He then noted that his neighbor to the right of Mr. Caviola's property has an older home that has no rear yard setback and the home sits right on the back alley line. He stated that other owners of NRS should not be allowed to continue to add square feet when he is required to live by the Code. He said the CUP should be eliminated from the Zoning process and residents should apply for a Variance. He noted that Old Town is different from The Hill. He said he has no concerns about SFRs but is concerned about people who own multiple unit structures without adequate parking and who are then allowed to expand these structures. He stated he is in favor of banning all expansions to NRS in Old Town and these homes must be brought up to Code. He noted that generally many people that buy property in town are attempting to turn a profit. Page 18 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 David Rosenman stated that the lack of standard setbacks between homes in Old Town creates a serious fire hazard. He suggested using the Variance process to address unique situations. He cautioned that buyers must do their homework before making the purchase of a home in order to avoid these types of problems. He said that although he sympathized with particular circumstances, not taking the time to fully investigate the history of a property before making a purchase is not reason enough to put the rest of the City at risk. For the record, Mr. Roger West read a letter from his wife stating her opposition to the CUP process for any additions or expansion to NRS. (Mrs. West's letter is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) Mr. West added that many residents whose properties adhere to the Code requirements resent new buyers coming into town and wanting to be the exceptions from City Standards, particularly when once granted, these modifications to other properties ultimately affect the property values of those who have consistently abided by City standards. Mr. Steve Cole, owner of the property at 222 - 17th Street, stated that he purchased this property in 1976. He said that there are many multiple units on both sides of the street, but the changes he wishes to make to his property would not affect the density. He said that he has proposed various alternative floor plans, on of which would add a third parking space. He said he was not aware of where the alley setback requirement originated but he is able to park off the alley and not impede traffic. He stated that there is no question that some of the expectations presented by homeowners would be difficult to justify given the massive expansions some of them are doing. Mr. Cole stated that he wishes to convert a 2-bedroom house into a 2-bedroom house, but with some additional area. He said his neighborhood would not be adversely impacted by this improvement. He noted that the differences created by the odd-sized lots and some other characteristics of the town should be provided for by the ability to make exceptions to the Code. He stated the City would be doing a disservice in attempting to make everything conform to a rigid pattern. He encouraged adoption of an ordinance that would allow for some "intelligent interpretation" of individual requirements. He emphasized that not everyone has the same opinion on thiS matter. Ms. Mitzi Morton observed that throughout the past year as this issue has been addressed in multiple public hearings, only one owner of a nonconforming property has come forward. She noted that all the other people in town with nonconforming properties appear not to care what the City does. She stated that most cities do no allow legal nonconforming properties to make expansions and there should be no further expansions allowed within residential zones. She suggested that If expansions are to be allowed, there should be a maximum allowable square footage. She said that any request for an expansion should have to come before the PC, and If the property does not conform to the setback standards, then expansion should not be allowed at all as it would not be fair to neighboring homes. She said that the 5-foot side yard setbacks in Old Town make it difficult when work has to be done on your home, as after a fence goes in between two homes this leaves very little room to work. She recommended approving Alternative 1 and if owners of legal nonconforming lots wish to Page 19 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 expand, they should be required to bring the property up to Code. She stated that she believes that the standards for Old Town should be different from those for CPE or The Hill. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Sharp closed the public heanng. In response to some of the public comments, Mr. Whittenberg stated that Interim Ordinance deals only with expansions of living area to nonconforming structures. It does not prohibit anyone from upgrading the plumbing or electrical systems or any internal remodel that does not involve expanding the living area. He noted that there is a wide range of nonconformities in this town on residential properties because there is housing that was built prior to the establishment of a Zoning Ordinance and that housing still exists. He said that newer homes and homes on The Hill and CPE were developed under Zoning Ordinance provisions, but after the City approved a map for subdivision, they subsequently came back in some cases and made exceptions for certain models of homes. The Director of Development Services stated that he agreed with several of the comments from the public and generally Old Town multi-family properties are a different classification of issues to deal with as opposed to a SFR. He said that Staff would still suggest that the PC could clarify the language to the A-2 proposal to indicate that it only applies to properties developed with SFRs and make this recommendation to CC. He indicated that the PC could also consider amending the 10 percent variation or stipulate that all approvals for expansions to NRS must be subject to a MPR or CUP review before the PC. He clarified that a MPR is a Consent Calendar item on the PC Agenda and not subject to a public hearing. If no one speaks against the application and the PC does not remove it from the agenda for discussion, it is approved as a routine matter subject to conditions of approval in the Staff Report. With this type of an application notice is circulated to every property owner and occupant within a 100-foot radius of the property. Under the CUP process a 300-foot notice is provided and the application is subject to a public hearing and notice is published in the newspaper. He stated that the City has used the CUP process to consider additions to NRS since 1974. He said that between 1974 and the present the process has been modified as to what would be allowed for consideration. He commented that this provides the PC a great deal of flexibility as requests are considered. He noted that the PC may wish to consider separate standards for SFRs and multi-family properties in Old Town. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Deaton asked whether it would be practical to separate Old Town on this issue from the rest of the City. She said if the PC recommends A-2, this still would not solve the problem for those properties on The Hill. Mr. Whittenberg stated that as the language for A-2 currently exists, it would not solve this problem unless residents apply for a Variance (V AR). He said that the problem with the V AR is that the PC must make a determination that there are unique circumstances to that property that do no generally apply to other properties in the area, and so far it has been determined that there are 31 other properties on The Hill with the same situation making this a difficult Page 20 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . CTty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 finding. He said that if these are issues the PC wishes to address, Staff can review the language for A-2 and change the percentage allowable. Commissioner Deaton said that she would not wish to do this for Old Town. Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff could return with suggestions for the language. Commissioner Deaton asked if the MPR could be made a public hearing item. She said philosophically she disagrees with using the MPR for residential because there is nothing that can be taken away as when a CUP granted to a business can be rescinded. She said that the MPR would be a better process to use if it can be a public hearing item with the 300-foot notice. Mr. Whittenberg stated that as a part of the PC's recommendation to CC they could request that the MPRs not be Consent Calendar items and appear under Scheduled Matters. Commissioner Deaton stated that she did not believe that all MPR issues need to go to public hearing, but the most important thing is that the neighbors know what is going on. Mr. Whittenberg noted that for SFRs if the issue is setbacks, the neighbors have probably lived with for several years, and the addition would have to meet the new setback standards. Commissioner Deaton stated that A-2 does take care of Old Town, but does not address the problem on The Hill. Mr. Whittenberg stated that nothing will happen until CC adopts an ordinance that changes something and this process could be a long one. He noted that if the PC were to make a recommendation to CC tonight, it would probably be at least 3-3.5 months of public hearings and ordinance adoption before Staff can begin processing applications. He said that if the PC also wishes to address the problem on The Hill Staff could return at the next meeting with proposed language to help do this. Commissioner Shanks asked if the 10 percent variation were increased to 15 percent, this should take care of the problem. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this would solve the problem for the properties at 705 Bayside Drive, but if this change were to be limited to SFRs this would not solve the problem at 236 - 5th Street, which is a duplex. He suggested that Staff confer with the City Attorney to determine whether making an exception of Old Town would be feasible. He noted that this issue has always been a controversial one, particularly in a community with a large number of NRS. Commissioner Deaton referred to Page 47 of the Staff Report, Section 1, Item 3 and asked if items (c) and (d) were removed and this were revised to state that Minor Plan Review process would be necessary, would this take care of the problem on The Hill. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that what Commissioner Deaton is saying is that the MPR process would be used whenever there are inadequate setbacks. Mr. Abbe interjected that this would completely eliminate the Director of Development Services using his discretion to approve these, so if someone came in with a 1 percent variation, this would still have to come before the PC. Mr. Whittenberg stated that would not necessarily solve the problem, as anyone with nonconforming property due to a setback issue would still have to come before the PC to determine whether or not the request for an addition will be approved. Chairperson Sharp recommended that this item be continued to the next meeting to allow time for Staff to meet with the City Attorney to review the language and return to the next meetIng With the proposed language. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that PC is directing Staff to provide language that would allow for consideration of expansions only to single-family residence developments whether in Old Town, The Hill, College Park East, College Park West, or Surfside only if it is a setback issue and this would be considered under a Minor Plan Review process as a Scheduled Matter on the Planning Commission Agenda setting no limitations on the setback variation. Mr. Page 21 of 23 . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . 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 Meeting Minutes of January 21,2004 Abbe inquired whether the 3-foot minimum side yard setback requirement is to be maintained. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the only time an issue has arisen regarding this was with some of the very old homes that have a 2-foot side yard setback. He said that these properties must still apply for a Variance. Commissioner Deaton stated that she would like the 3 feet setback to remain. She then verified that under Section 1, No.3, Items (a) and (b) be retained and items (c) and (d) be removed and the language be revised to include single-family homes only and not multi-family properties and that these expansions are to be subject to the Minor Plan Review process under Scheduled Matters in the Planning Commission Agenda. Chairperson Sharp re-opened the public hearing. Mr. Whittenberg noted that the public hearing would not be re-noticed. He said that a press release would be provided to the Sun Newspaper and they can run it at their discretion. MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to continue Zone Text Amendment 04-1 to the next scheduled meeting of February 4, 2004, and direct Staff to provide revised proposed language for Alternative 2 as discussed. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5-0 Sharp, Deaton, Eagar, Ladner, and Shanks None None STAFF CONCERNS None. COMMISSION CONCERNS None. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Sharp adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secret ry Planning Department Page 22 of 23 . 3 4 5 . . City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission Meetmg Mmutes of January 21, 2004 APPROVAL The Commission on February 4, 2004 approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of Wednesday, January 21, 2004. D.(,- . Page 23 of 23