HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2005-06-22
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for June 22, 2005
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Ellery Deaton
District 2 - Vacant
District 3 - Gordon Shanks
District 4 - Gary Roberts
District 5 - Phil Ladner
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Christy Teague, AICP, Senior Planner
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
a
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.
a
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 at (562) 431-2527.
a
Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday afternoons, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m.
a
Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
a
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.
Page 1 of 6
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of June 22, 2005
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 proceedinas are recorded.
Page 2 of 6
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for June 22, 2005
7:30 p.m.
I.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II.
ROLL CALL
III.
WELCOME TO COMMISSIONER O'MALLEY
IV. 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.
V.
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.
VI. 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. May 2005 Building Activity Report.
2. Minor Plan Review 05-5
12278 Bridgewater Way (Continued from June 8, 2005)
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Lee and Stephanie McMullin
To construct a 43.5-inch high entertainment island
extending 2.3 feet from the residence into the 18-foot
rear setback and a 320 square foot attached patio
cover extending 12.5 feet into the required 18-foot rear
setback in the Residential Medium Density (RMD)
Zone.
Recommendation: Approval and adoption of Resolution 05-26.
Page 3 of 6
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission' Agenda of June 22, 2005
3. Minor Plan Review 05-6
408 Purdue Circle
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Recommendation:
VII. SCHEDULED MATTERS
Kimberly Godin
To construct a 45-inch high BBQ island and a fire pit
with surrounding bench structures adjacent to the rear
property line within the 10-foot rear yard setback. The
property abuts the Orange County Flood Control
Channel to the rear.
Approval and adoption of Resolution 05-31.
4. Receipt of Public Comments and Commission Review of Initial
Study/Negative Declaration 05-3 - Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach
Pier.
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Conditional Use Permit 05-6
148-F Main Street (Fysicly Fit)
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Recommendation:
Craig Claro / LST Investments
To establish a one-on-one personal training and
physical therapy facility in an approximately 1,500
square foot tenant space facing Central Avenue.
Approval and adoption of Resolution 05-28.
6. Conditional Use Permit 05-7
303 Main Street (Athens West)
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Peter Lafkas / Main Street Trust
The sale of beer and wine for on-site consumption in
conjunction with a restaurant use. With new ownership
and a revised floor plan of a restaurant, a new
application is necessary from California Alcohol
Beverage Control, prompting the requirement for a new
Conditional Use Permit.
Recommendation: Approval and adoption of Resolution 05-30.
Page 4 of 6
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of June 22, 2005
IX. STAFF CONCERNS
X. COMMISSION CONCERNS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Page 5 of 6
.
.
.
July6
July 20
Aug 3
Aug 17
Sep 7
Sep 21
actS
Oct 19
Nov9
Nov 23
Dee 7
Dee 21
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission. Agenda of June 22, 2005
2005 Agenda Forecast
HV 05-1 - 1307 Ocean Avenue
V AR 05-4 - B 106 Surfside
Page 6 of 6
.
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
Minutes of June 22, 2005
Chairperson Ladner called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission
to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 22, 2005. The meeting was held in the City
Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chairperson Ladner, Commissioners Deaton, O'Malley, and Roberts
Also
Present:
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
Christy Teague, Senior Planner
Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Absent:
Commissioner Shanks
Mr. Whittenberg noted that it would be appropriate to excuse Commissioner Shanks
from tonight's meeting, as he had reported that he would not be in attendance tonight.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Roberts to excuse Commissioner Shanks from the
meeting of June 22, 2005.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Ladner, Deaton, O'Malley, and Roberts
None
Shanks
Chairperson Ladner welcomed Commissioner O'Malley as the new representative for
District 2.
AGENDA APPROVAL
Mr. Whittenberg requested that Item No.2, Minor Plan Review 05-5, be removed from
the Consent Calendar for further discussion. He noted that this item was continued
from the meeting of June 8, 2005, as a result of Staff not having received approval for
this project from the Old Ranch Community Association (ORCA).
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
Page 1 of 18
.
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 June 22, 2005
MOTION by Ladner; SECOND by Roberts to approve the Agenda as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Ladner, Deaton, O'Malley, and Roberts
None
Shanks
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Ladner opened oral communications.
Peter Demeter expressed his concern with Minor Plan Review (MPR) 05-5 for the
proposed structure to be constructed at 12278 Bridgewater Way. He stated that he is
concerned that the patio remain an open patio and not be covered in any way.
Ed Simmons asked if Item NO.4 would be open for public comment. Mr. Whittenberg
confirmed that it would be.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Ladner closed oral
communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve May 2005 Building Activity Report
3. Minor Plan Review 05-6
408 Purdue Circle
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Recommendation:
Kimberly Godin
To construct a 45-inch high BBQ island and a fire pit with
surrounding bench structures adjacent to the rear property
line within the 10-foot rear yard setback. The property abuts
the Orange County Flood Control Channel to the rear.
Approval and adoption of Resolution 05-31.
MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Deaton to approve the Consent Calendar as
amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Ladner, Deaton, O'Malley, and Roberts
None
Shanks
Page 2 of 18
.
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
i
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2005
Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 05-31 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
2. Minor Plan Review 05-5
12278 Bridgewater Way (Continued from June 8, 2005)
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Lee and Stephanie McMullin
To construct a 43.5-inch high entertainment island extending
2.3 feet from the residence into the 18-foot rear setback and
a 320 square foot attached patio cover extending 12.5 feet
into the required 18-foot rear setback in the Residential
Medium Density (RMD) Zone.
Recommendation:
Approval and adoption of Resolution 05-26.
Staff Report
Ms. Teague delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) She provided some background information on this item noting
that Staff had continued this item from the June 8, 2005 meeting because it was unclear
as to whether the ORCA had approved this project. She stated that at the ORCA
meeting of that same evening, the project was approved and confirmation of this was
forwarded to Staff. She briefly reviewed the public comments made at the June 8,2005
meeting.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Roberts asked if the plans are now correct as included in the agenda
packets. Ms. Teague stated that the plans are consistent with what was approved by
the ORCA. Commissioner Roberts noted that the photographs show that the property
to the south appears to have a room addition. He asked that Mr. McMullin elaborate on
this during the public hearing comments.
Commissioner Deaton noted that the Staff Report states that there have been other
MPRs approved in this neighborhood, but none of these were for patio covers. She
asked how far the family room addition to the south juts into that back yard to the south
of 12278 Bridgewater Way. Ms. Teague stated that she did not have this information
available to her at present. Mr. Whittenberg reported that City zoning requirements do
not allow habitable living space for these homes to be closer than 10 feet to the rear
property line and 5 feet from the side property lines. He indicated that City Code does
allow for patio covers and other small structures to go within that 10-foot rear yard
setback area upon approval by the Planning Commission (PC). Commissioner Deaton
confirmed that the proposed patio cover would encroach almost 5.5 feet into the 10-foot
setback.
Page 3 of 18
.
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
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2005
Mr. Abbe confirmed whether Commissioner Deaton had the opportunity to review the
videotape of the meeting of June 8, 2005, since she was absent from that meeting.
Commissioner Deaton stated that she had watched the meeting on television and later
viewed the videotape.
Public Comments
Chairperson Ladner opened for public comments.
Lee McMullin clarified that habitable room additions cannot be within the 10-foot
setback area, but patio covers and similar structures can fall within the rear yard
setback. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. In response to
Commissioner Roberts' inquiry about the family room addition on the property south of
12278 Bridgewater Way, Mr. McMullin stated that the owners of that property are
present tonight and can provide specific information on this addition. He noted that he
had included photographs of his back yard and the view from there to provide a general
understanding of the appearance off the back of his lot. He explained that the pads of
the home along Bridgewater way are relatively symmetrical and even, so absent the
room addition, you would see a skyscraper effect of the 5 homes down the street. He
noted that the family room addition is larger in size than his proposed patio cover. He
indicated that the plots are staggered, so the Brody's lot is a deeper lot than his, and in
square footage his lot is the smallest one in the entire development. He stated that the
average depth of rear yards for most of the home in the development is between 15-18
feet, with the exception of some "premium" lots, which are those homes immediately to
the south of Bridgewater Way. Commissioner Roberts asked if the fence line is offset.
Mr. McMullin confirmed that it is deeper and projects beyond. He then referred to
photos of the view north and east from his back yard, nothing that the Demeter's home
will soon be obscured by the cypress trees and landscaping they have planted along the
wall in the rear yard, which would also obscure the view of Mr. McMullin's patio cover.
With regard to comments made at the June 8, 2005 meeting, Mr. McMullin noted that
the ORCA Design Review Committee (DRC) has no architectural guidelines for the
10-foot setback. He stated that a 10-foot setback is recommended for those homes to
the east along Provincetown, which abut the Joint Forces Training Base (JFTB)
property. He indicated that an access easement exists for homes along the northern
side of the development, where there are side streets (Rock Landing and Chatham Way
and for homes along Old Harbor Court), primarily because of drainage lines in that area.
He commented that the City had granted a permit at a home on 12275 Nantucket to
construct an outdoor fireplace right on the 5-foot setback line, and according to the
owner, he was not required to apply for a MPR, confirming that this area of the
development only requires a 5-foot rear yard setback. He stated that the reason he filed
for a MPR was because the upright posts of the patio structure will be placed a short
distance inside the 5-foot rear yard setback. Commissioner Roberts referred to Item
No. 3 noted in a letter received from Phyllis Barrett, which states "The size of the
proposed patio violates CC&R Section 2.9.2, and the setback as described in the
current Design Review Committee Guidelines," and he asked how the PC is to reconcile
Page 4 of 18
.
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 June 22, 2005
this with Mr. McMullin's comments. Mr. McMullin stated that CC&R Section 2.9.2 is that
provision pertaining to the installation of outside installations, and states that outside
installations should not be constructed without approval of the DRC. He noted that Ms.
Barrett's letter contains a number of factual inaccuracies and errors. He explained that
the CC&Rs only require three things:
1. For rear yard projects impacted adjacent neighbors must be notified, defined as
those people within a 45-degree angle of your property.
2. For front yard projects signatures must be obtained from adjacent neighbors to
the immediate left and right of your property and your front facing neighbor.
Signatures are not to be categorized as an approval, but simply verification of
having received notice of the project. Ms. Barrett is not an impacted neighbor
and providing her notice is not required. He noted that a copy of the plans and a
proof of notice form were provided to the Demeters.
3. Structure cannot exceed a 12-foot elevation, which this project does not.
Commissioner Roberts asked if Mr. McMullin is a member of the ORCA. Mr. McMullin
stated that he is. Commissioner Roberts then asked if Mr. McMullin is a member of the
ORCA Board. Mr. McMullin stated that he is a president of the board. Commissioner
Roberts asked if the June 8, 2005 ORCA meeting was a general or a board meeting.
Mr. McMullin stated that it was a routine meeting for all of the open forum and executive
session matters of the ORCA. He noted that the ORCA meets the second Wednesday
of each month, and commented that the Demeters did come to the meeting and
basically stated the same comments they had made at the PC meeting of June 8, 2005.
He indicated that the Demeters seemed to be more concerned with not having copies of
the plans, which were sent to them by mail on April 11, 2005. He emphasized that this
is essentially a notice issue and the Demeters had received notice of this project. In
closing, Mr. McMullin stated that when people move into a home that is part of an
association, they agree to be bound by certain contractual rules and regulations,
specifically the CC&Rs and the Bylaws and Rules. He noted that any of the residents
can come to the City to seek a permit for a patio cover of their own design and style,
which he did, and now he is hearing comments like, "we asked for a patio cover and
were denied." He indicated that the Demeters were obviously given the wrong
information and failed to investigate further to clarify whether they could construct a
patio cover. He continued by stating that under the CC&Rs the DRC and the Board of
Directors speaks for the membership as a whole. He stated that his project has been
approved, which means that everyone present tonight speaking in opposition really
have no right of say whatsoever under the terms of the CC&Rs, as a matter of contract.
The DRC and the Board of Directors have already spoken for them, and the project has
been approved, and now these homeowners are attempting to circumvent their
contractual obligations to be bound by the decision of the DRC and the Board of
Directors. He noted that if the project did not meet City Code requirements, Staff would
not have recommended approval of this project. He stated that the patio will be
aesthetically pleasing and will be a benefit to the development. He respectfully
requested that this application be approved.
Page 5 of 18
.
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 June 22, 2005
Phyllis Barrett stated that she had submitted her letter as a result of receiving notice
from the City of Seal Beach. She said that although she is not impacted by the project,
she can see straight through to Mr. McMullin's rear yard. She explained that she was
appointed by Centex Homes as one of the charter members of the DRC. She said that
after receiving notice of the project she inquired of the DRC as to the status of the
project and was told that it had not yet received approval, but that it should be fairly
routine. She stated that she had submitted her letter because there are many
neighbors in the development that do not like the proposed structure and feel that it will
devalue their properties. She indicated that when she left for vacation on June 5, 2005,
the DRC had not approved Mr. McMullin's plan, as they needed more information. She
continued by stating that the rumor is that the only reason the plans received approval
was because the Board met on June 8, 2005, with only the Board members present.
She said the Demeters were late in getting to the meeting, but there was no one else in
attendance to voice any concerns regarding that board approval. She stated that
homeowners do not receive notice of these meetings and rules are arbitrarily changed.
She noted that the plans presented do not provide a realistic idea of how the project will
look. She expressed her concerns with fire safety and warned that Mr. McMullin has a
history of changing the design at will. She recommended denial of MPR 05-5.
Commissioner Deaton asked Mr. Abbe whether requiring a MPR has anything to do
with the CC&Rs. Mr. Abbe confirmed that the CC&Rs are a private agreement between
the homeowners and the City has no discretion to deny or approve projects based upon
an alleged violation of the CC&Rs. He stated that the purview of the PC is to determine
compatibility with the surrounding uses under the MPR process. Mr. Whittenberg added
that Staff would not accept an application for a project in a community that has
architectural review pursuant to CC&Rs with deed restrictions until an applicant has
received prior approval from the approving body of the homeowners association.
Tanya Demeter expressed her concerns with not having received notice of this project,
with the effect it may have on surrounding property values, and with inadequate
clearance between structures in the case of fire. She also voiced her concern with Mr.
McMullin already having a lot of "unfinished projects" on his property. She said she
hoped this structure would not later be covered in such away that it would resemble a
tent. She questioned the fairness of the ORCA in representing all of the residents of
this development. Commissioner Roberts asked if Ms. Demeter had asked Mr.
McMullin whether he intended to hang a drape or any kind of covering on this patio
cover. Ms. Demeter said she has not had an opportunity to ask him this. She
recommended approving this project, but only as an open patio.
Mr. Whittenberg interjected that those speaking on this item tonight must keep in mind
that the City cannot respond to issues, concerns, or disappointments they may have
had with what was or was not done through the homeowners association and through
their CC&R process. He stated that it would be helpful if members of the public restrict
their comments to why the project is unacceptable and how they might like to see it
changed to make it acceptable based upon community compatibility.
Page 6 of 18
.
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
i
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2005
Peter Demeter stated that he never received notification of this project, but found out
about it only after receiving the public notice from the City. He expressed his concerns
with the proximity of the structure to his property line, but added that after seeing the
plans and talking with Mr. McMullin he does not have any strong objections to this
project, as long as the overall appearance is maintained. He stated that he is
concerned that in an effort to maintain privacy, Mr. McMullin might attempt to cover or
enclose the patio in an unsightly way. He asked the PC that any approvals on this
project include conditions for keeping it compatible with the neighborhood and to ensure
that the project be completed in a timely manner. Commissioner Deaton stated that she
is disturbed that when signing on to a homeowners association you have essentially
given up your right to speak. She noted that at City Hall you have not given up this right
and you will be heard.
Cary Brody, a neighbor to the immediate south of the McMullin's, explained that Old
Ranch Homes do have CC&Rs and a design review process for overseeing all projects
in this development. He stated that Mr. McMullin wants nothing more than to simply
meet City codes. He noted that members of the ORCA include an Assistant Attorney
General for the State of California and a law enforcement officer, and at least five
attorneys and a superior court judge reside in the community, so the association is not
running amok and all members are welcome to bring their issues to the ORCA. He
indicated that Mr. McMullin is subject to a fine if he does not complete this project within
the prescribed time. Commissioner Deaton asked if Mr. McMullin had been fined for the
incomplete landscaping. Mr. Brody stated that the landscape project as prescribed has
been completed. He noted that one of the Demeters was on the DRC but was voted
out, and one of the Barretts was the president of the association, but was voted out. He
ended by stating that the ORCA and its attorneys approved the project, but if for any
reason it does not meet the City's requirements, it can be denied. He indicated that
historically speaking, Mr. McMullin's projects have been the best in the entire
neighborhood.
Phyllis Barrett stated that her husband was formerly the president of the ORCA, but
resigned as a result of heart problems, and was not voted out. She said that she was
voted off the DRC as a result of not wanting to allow Mr. McMullin privileges not granted
to other homeowners.
Carol Brody stated that it is difficult to notify the Demeters of projects as they do not live
on their property and the home has been vacant since December 2001. (Interrupted by
very loud protest from both Mr. & Mrs. Demeter.) Mr. Whittenberg called for order and
reiterated that the only item the PC will consider is discussion regarding the addition as
proposed before this Commission. He emphasized that any discussion of what goes on
with the homeowner association group or allegations between parties of what may be
going on in the residential neighborhood regarding homeowner association approval or
DRC approval will not be entertained by the PC. He stated that if members of the public
insist on presenting these issues, the meeting would be recessed until this behavior
ceases. He stated that if there were objections to the approval of this project by the
Page 7 of 18
.
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
i
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2005
ORCA, these objections must be presented to that body and are not to be discussed
tonight.
Mrs. . Brody's stated that the cypress trees behind the Demeter home sufficiently
obscure the view of Mr. McMullin's patio cover from their home. She also noted that the
work that Mr. McMullin has done to his property has always been first class. She
recommended approval of MPR 05-5.
Mr. Whittenberg again explained that the purpose of this hearing is not to have
members of the public use the time to return to the podium time and again to rebut
comments made by a previous speaker. He recommended allowing the applicant to
respond and that the PC make a determination whether or not to approve this project as
proposed, approve it with modifications, or to deny the request. He reiterated that any
further comments must only provide new information, are not to be a rebuttal to a
previous comment, and must be directly related to the patio addition.
Tanya Demeter stated that they do reside on their property and take very good care of
it. She recommended lowering the height of the structure, it should have a sprinkler
system to minimize the risk of a fire hazard, and the structure should be approved only
as an open structure.
Mr. McMullin stated that were he not the president of the ORCA board this plan would
have gone through with no problem. He said he was asked to serve as president, but
had not participated in the approval process other than to respond to questions from the
board regarding this project. He noted that he and his wife were married in their back
yard and had put up a tent because of the threat of rain on New Year's Eve of 2002,
and the tent was taken down a few days later. He emphasized that he has no intent of
putting a tarp over this covered patio. He said the structure is aesthetically pleasing and
in harmony with the neighborhood. Commissioner Roberts asked where the fire ring is
to be located relative to the patio cover. Mr. McMullin referred to the plans and
indicated that the fire pit will be 5 ft. 2 inches from the house and will be a gas powered
aesthetic type product and is not for burning wood. Commissioner Deaton asked how
far the eaves would come out from the posts. Mr. McMullin stated that the overhang of
the truss has to project by approximately 1 foot. He indicated that the plans submitted
do not have all of the engineering details, but do present a general basis of the height.
Commissioner Deaton asked how he would feel about bring the overhang in a bit. Mr.
McMullin stated that from an engineering standpoint, if it were brought in a bit he would
not require approval of a MPR. He explained that he has a cobblestone back yard and
the City told him that this would not require a permit, and with this the footings and
upright posts will be located in an undeveloped area of the lot, which is currently bare
dirt. This prevents having to tear up any of the cobblestones. As for the landscaping,
he explained that because the Demeter's lot is higher than his, and when they water
their yard, water drains down into his lot. As a result he engineered a subterranean
drain line that was placed at the footing of the block wall between the properties in an
attempt to collect this water, but there is still a significant amount that leaches into the
Page 8 of 18
.
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
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2005
side ground, so he has suspended further landscaping in the back yard until this water
flow can be controlled.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Ladner closed public
comments.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Deaton asked for clarification of the setback issue. Ms. Teague
explained that the rear setback requirement in the Residential Medium Density (RMD)
Zone is 18 feet, and currently the house is less than 18 feet from the rear property line,
so any proposed patio cover would require MPR approval. She said that if this plan
were approved as submitted tonight it would be approved with the distance as shown
with no additional allowance for an eave. If, structurally, 12-14 inches for an eave are
required, then the posts would have to come back closer to the house and building
permits could not be issued for anything closer to the property line than what the PC
approves. Commissioner Deaton confirmed that the approval tonight would be for 4
feet 2.25 inches from the rear property line, including the eaves. Ms. Teague stated
that this would be from the edge of the block wall, which is actually closer to 4 feet 5
inches from the property line. Commissioner Deaton again asked if this would include
the eaves. Ms. Teague stated that 4 ft. 5 inches is as close as any portion of the patio
cover can be from the property line.
Commissioner Roberts asked that Mr. Whittenberg provide a brief explanation of what
the obligation of the applicant is to adhere to the plans as submitted to the City. Mr.
Whittenberg explained that because of the homeowner association, two levels apply to
this project. He stated that homeowner association CC&Rs have established
architectural standards and guidelines that they enforce, and his experience has been
that they are usually much more stringent than any standards the City has, since they
control color, materials, etc. He indicated that at the time of building permit approval the
City will ensure that the plans meet required standards and are stamped by the
homeowners association stating that the final plans are in accordance with their
approvals. The City ensures that plans that are issued building permits conform to the
plan that the PC approved. Commissioner Roberts asked if they would have to
complete the whole process again should they wish to make a substitution of materials.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that they would not need to come before the City because it
does not specify material or color.
Commissioner Deaton stated that she is still unclear regarding the setback. She
indicated that the applicant is under the impression that if he met a 5-foot setback, he
would not require a MPR. She asked if anything that would not give him the 18-foot
setback would require a MPR. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the applicant is incorrect in
stating that a 5-foot setback would be acceptable. He explained that anything within the
rear yard setback is required to go through the MPR process. The standard setback for
the RMD Zone is 18 feet, and when this particular project was approved because some
of the lots aren't very deep, the final design standards for this tract include a 10-foot rear
Page 9 of 18
.
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
i
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2005
yard setback provision for habitable living space of the house, and any patio covers,
gazebos, BBQ islands, etc., to be constructed within the 10-foot setback area would
require a MPR. He noted that the homes that back up to Seal Beach Blvd. have a
different rear yard setback standard, as the lots are narrower and there are no homes
behind them. Commissioner Deaton asked what the 18-foot setback represented. Mr.
Whittenberg explained that this is the general standard for the RMD Zone in Old Town.
He indicated that because these lots measure less than 5,000 square feet they do not
qualify to be Residential Low Density (RLD) lots like those in College Park East (CPE)
and College Park East (CPW) or The Hill area. As a result these lots were placed in the
RMD classification because this allows for lots less than 5,000 square feet in land area
with special provisions for setbacks due to the smaller depth of the lots.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Roberts stated that due to the type of construction and the weight with
the tile roof, this would require a substantial amount of lumber, which he believes will be
in proportion to the size of the house itself. He said he hopes the applicant adheres to
the plans as submitted. He indicated that he would hesitate to vote against a project
that has already received approval from the homeowner association, and for this reason
he will vote to approve MPR 05-5.
Commissioner Deaton stated that what she heard during public comments was "we're
not really opposed to this if the applicant keeps to the plan and does a nice a job."
Therefore, she would vote in favor of MPR 05-5. She asked that Staff ensure that the
project be completed as described in the plans as submitted and discussed tonight.
MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Deaton to approve Minor Plan Review 05-5 and
adopt Resolution 05-26 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
3-0-1-1
Ladner, Deaton, and Roberts
None
Shanks
O'Malley
Commissioner O'Malley noted that he would abstain, as he was not a member of the
PC when this item was first presented.
Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 05-26 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
At 9:15 p.m. Mr. Whittenberg requested a 10-minute recess.
The meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
Page 10 of 18
.
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 June 22, 2005
SCHEDULED MATTERS
4. Receipt of Public Comments and Commission Review of Initial Study/Negative
Declaration 05-3 - Groin Rehabilitation Project at Seal Beach Pier.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg stated that in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) the City has prepared an environmental review document, Negative Declaration
(ND), for a proposed rehabilitation project of the groin at the Seal Beach Pier. He
explained that the groin is a seawall structure that runs perpendicular to the ocean to
keep sand from back passing from the south side of the beach up to the north side,
reducing the beach in front of the homes on Seal Way between the pier and the Navy
jetty at the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) Seal Beach. He indicated that the groin was
initially installed in approximately the late 1950's to early 1960's and has since
experienced some damage. He noted that in the year 2001 the groin had substantial
cracks in it and water was flowing freely through the structure posing potential harm to
surfers, so the City completed an emergency repair to the groin. He stated that the City
has now obtained a state grant through the Department of Boating and Harbors to
repair the groin, and as a part of the process to get the work approved, the City must go
through the environmental review process. He noted that the comment period for the
ND began on June 13, 2005 and will end on July 13, 2005, and once all comments are
received, Staff will prepare a Response to Comments document to be provided to City
Council (CC) along with the original ND for review and approval. He stated that at this
point the City would submit a formal application to the California Coastal Commission
(CCC) to receive a Coastal Development Permit for completion of the groin repair.
Once this permit is issued, CC would prepare final plans and specifications, go through
a bidding process, bid the project and construct it. He said that it is anticipated that if
the process progresses smoothly, the pier will be closed down from November 2005
until approximately January 2006, for the groin repair work. He explained that at the
same time Ruby's Restaurant would also complete the construction work for the outside
dining patio project, which received approval from the City and the CCC late last year.
He noted that the existing oil island operations that occur off the end of the pier, with
employee transport boats going from the pier to Platform Esther will be relocated to the
City of Long Beach on a temporary basis while the repair work is being done. He
reported that copies of the ND were provided to the PC, Environmental Quality Control
Board (EQCB), CC, and were mailed out to all required state agencies, with a notice of
availability mailed to all property owners and occupants of residences and businesses
within 100 feet of Eisenhower Park. He indicated that the environmental analysis has
determined that there would be no adverse environmental impacts to doing the repair
work, and found that no mitigation measures are necessary. He noted that the ND
would also be reviewed by the EQCB at its meeting on Wednesday, June 29, 2005, at
6:30 p.m.
Page 11 of 18
.
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 June 22, 2005
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Roberts asked if the groin repair and the Ruby's project would be
overlapping or done at different times during the proposed 3-month work schedule. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that it would be difficult to do an overlap, as the crane to be used for
the pile driving is so large that it would be difficult to get past it to the end of the pier. He
noted that while the staging work is going on, Ruby's might be doing some demolition
work.
Public Comments
Chairperson Ladner opened for public comments.
Ed Simmons provided a brief history of the groin noting that in the 1950's the ocean
came up to the homes along Seal Way and there was no sand but a rock jetty, and
where the sand ends now underneath the pier, there used to be ocean water deep
enough to dive into. He stated that the groin has worked and today there is more sand
on both sides of the beach than ever before. He indicated that the sand on the north
side of the pier is 80-90 yards farther out than on the south side, and during the storm of
1983 the pier collapsed due to the groin and sand being built up so high underneath the
pier. He said that the beach has so much sand now that the new groin could be cut
back 50 yards from the front of the existing groin, as currently the water on the south
side of the pier is always much cleaner than that on the north side, which gets dirtier
because it cannot move. He noted that during the rainy season the water gets even
dirtier and cutting back the groin would allow for a mile of beach that could clean itself if
allowed to flow naturally, noting that the ocean water is now "landlocked" between the
jetties at both ends, the pier, and the groin. He recommended that a study be done to
confirm that cutting back the groin will alleviate this problem.
Commissioner Deaton asked who would be responsible for doing these studies. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that the City would retain a coastal engineering firm, and in the past
the firm of Moffett & Nichol Engineers (MNE) has been used to do all coastal
engineering projects. He noted that the study done by MNE when the groin was initially
constructed is on file with the City. Commissioner Deaton asked if the groin has been
proposed without any new studies made. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the only thing
being proposed is to repair the existing structure. Commissioner Deaton corrected her
question and asked if the groin repair is being proposed without any new studies to see
if this lateral movement of the water is needed. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he believes
this issue was addressed in other studies done by MNE, but this would not be a part of
the environmental analysis, and would be more a policy decision by CC.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Ladner closed public
comments.
Page 12 of 18
.
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 June 22, 2005
PUBLIC HEARINGS
5. Conditional Use Permit 05-6
148-F Main Street (Fysicly Fit)
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Craig Claro / LST Investments
To establish a one-on-one personal training and physical
therapy facility in an approximately 1,5000 square foot
tenant space facing Central Avenue.
Recommendation:
Approval and adoption of Resolution 05-28.
Staff Report
Ms. Teague delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) She provided some background information on this item and
noted that medical uses, including physical therapy, are permitted uses in the Main
Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone if the business is not facing Main Street or Ocean
Avenue. She indicated that personal training uses are not defined in the MSSP, and in
2001 the Planning Commission (PC) had a discussion item on this use and ultimately
approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a one-on-one training facility that is still in
use on Main Street. She stated that the applicant proposes one-on-one training by
appointment only and will not conduct any workout classes. She noted that the other
approved facility begins training at 6:00 a.m. and the applicant proposes to do the
same.
Commissioner Questions
Chairperson Ladner asked what the closing time for this business would be. Ms.
Teague stated that the MSSP requires a closing time of 10:00 for businesses; however,
the applicant does not expect to remain open beyond 9:00 p.m. on any given date.
Public Hearinq
Chairperson Ladner opened the public hearing.
Craig Claro stated that he plans to operate his business to conform with all City
guidelines and will promptly address any complaints or concerns. He offered to
respond to any questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Roberts inquired about the type of signage Mr. Claro would be using.
Mr. Claro stated that he has no need for a specific type of sign and would not use neon.
Chairperson Ladner asked what the age range would be for Mr. Claro's clients. Mr.
Claro stated that youths can come to Fysicly Fit for sports-related activities, and it also
has a non-profit portion of the business that is taken into the local schools to help
Page 13 of 18
.
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
i
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2005
supplement the public education curriculum. Chairperson Ladner asked what the
personal training fee is. Mr. Claro stated that the fee is typically $55 per hour, and they
do offer half-hour sessions. Commissioner O'Malley inquired about the type of physical
therapy offered. Mr. Claro stated that they do all types and accept MediCare and all
major insurance plans. Commissioner Deaton asked how many personal trainers or
physical therapists would be on site. Mr. Claro stated that the average is four.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Ladner closed the public
hearing.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Roberts to approve Conditional Use Permit 05-6 and
adopt Resolution 05-28 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Ladner, Deaton, O'Malley, and Roberts
None
Shanks
Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 05-28 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. Conditional Use Permit 05-7
303 Main Street (Athens West)
ApplicanUOwner:
Request:
Peter Lafkas / Main Street Trust
The sale of beer and wine for on-site consumption in
conjunction with a restaurant use. With new ownership and a
revised floor plan of a restaurant, a new application is
necessary from California Alcohol Beverage Control,
prompting the requirement for a new Conditional Use Permit.
Recommendation:
Approval and adoption of Resolution 05-30.
Staff Report
Ms. Teague delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) She provided some background information on this item and
noted that Athens West is to open in the former Main Street Cafe location. She stated
that this has been a restaurant location serving beer and wine since 1977. She
indicated that a new Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is necessary as the applicant seeks
to obtain a new California Alcohol & Beverage Control (ABC) license to sell beer and
wine in conjunction with the new restaurant. She listed the proposed hours of operation
as follows:
Page 14 of 18
.
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
i
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2005
7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.
7:00 a.m. - 11 :00 p.m.
Sunday through Thursday
Friday, Saturday, and holidays
She stated that Athens West would occupy the same restaurant and outdoor patio
space as Main Street Cafe. Staff recommends approval of CUP 05-7.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Roberts asked if any comments were received in response to the public
notice for this application. Ms. Teague stated that one comment letter was received
requesting that there be no additional alcohol allowed on the 300 block of Main Street,
and this letter was distributed to the Commissioners.
Public Hearinq
Chairperson Ladner opened the public hearing.
Peter Lafkas, owner of Athens West, described it as fast, casual, Greek dining for lunch
and dinner only. He said the restaurant would have 20-25 seats inside and the same
number in the outdoor patio. He said he would be happy to respond to any questions
from the Commission.
Commissioner Deaton asked why the restaurant opens at 7:00 if they are not serving
breakfast. Mr. Lafkas stated that although permitted, the restaurant would not be
opening at 7:00 a.m.; however, serving breakfast might be an option in the future.
Commissioner Roberts asked if the Huntington Beach location were approximately the
same size. Mr. Lafkas stated that it is almost identical in size. Commissioner Roberts
asked Staff if the condition for steam cleaning of the public sidewalk in front of
restaurant uses was included in Resolution 05-30. Mr. Whittenberg explained this
condition and the proposed program for steam cleaning of sidewalks to the applicant,
noting that the condition for quarterly cleaning of the sidewalk would be added to the
Conditions of Approval. He added that those areas of Main Street with pavers rather
than concrete sidewalk would not be subject to this condition.
Commissioner Deaton asked the applicant what the signage would be. Mr. Lafkas
stated that the signage would consist of enclosed neon with channel lettering with a
halo effect that would not be overly bright. Commissioner Deaton suggested that the
applicant visit Main Street in the evening to view some of the channel lettering, which
can be really bright. Ms. Teague interjected that Staff has recently received an
application for a Planned Sign Program for this shopping center, which will be coming
up for review by the PC on July 20, 2005.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Ladner closed the public
hearing.
Page 15 of 18
.
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 June 22, 2005
Commissioner Deaton asked if the condition for steam cleaning of sidewalks was
included in the Conditions of Approval for Fysicly Fit. Mr. Whittenberg explained that
this condition is set by business operations and not property ownership. He stated that
the Department of Public Works is evaluating a proposal to have an outside company
come in and perform cleaning of all the sidewalks along Main Street and then the City
would charge business to participate in this program. He noted that if the City does not
do this, for those particular applications that come through the CUP process, the issue
is would it be appropriate to apply this condition. He indicated that this has been
primarily applied to food service type uses.
Mr. Abbe noted that as a public hearing item, once the PC has approved it, it could not
go back to make changes.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Roberts to approve Conditional Use Permit 05-7 and
adopt Resolution 05-30 as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Ladner, Deaton, O'Malley, and Roberts
None
Shanks
Mr. Abbe advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 05-30 begins a 1 O-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 Commissioner O'Malley to the Planning Commission. He
then reported that due to a previous commitment Commissioner O'Malley would not be
in attendance for the Planning Commission meeting of July 6, 2005, which would
normally be the time for election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. He suggested
continuing the elections to the meeting of July 20, 2005.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Deaton stated that although she realizes that the Planning Commission
has traditionally taken a very strong stand against Variances, recently a resident had
requested that she visit his property to determine whether he would require a Variance
for a project on his home. She said that she and the Director of Development Services
and the Senior Planner had visited the property and found that this was a historic Sears
Catalog kit house that had been delivered to this area by the Red Car. The question of
whether or not he could apply for a Variance was difficult to determine, and he made the
comment that tie might just demolish the existing house and construct a new one. She
indicated that after considering this, she pondered that taking such a strong stand on
Page 16 of 18
.
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 June 22, 2005
Variances actually insures that some older historic structures will be demolished rather
than allowing for preservation. She recommended adding a historic preservation use
vehicle to the City Code to provide an incentive to property owners to make additions to
their legal, nonconforming, single-family residences that are historic structures. She
stated that perhaps the Commission would be interested in directing Staff to do some
research on this issue. Commissioner O'Malley stated that his understanding is the
reason for designating these structures as historic homes is to preserve the uniqueness
of the house itself as it was originally constructed. He indicated that if the PC were to
grant Variances to modify the homes, this would actually result in destroying what you
are attempting to preserve. Commissioner Deaton stated that she does not think the
Variance procedure is the correct way to do this, but would like the City to create the
parameters on how to be able to make changes while still preserving the historic
structure. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the PC previously raised this issue and Staff had
forwarded this information to City Council (CC). He said that after reviewing this
information CC asked that Staff look at developing an information packet for property
owners of historic structures relating what the benefits would be of nominating a
property for certification on either a state or national historic registration list. He noted
that there are a number of tax breaks available as well as low interest loans and grants
for these properties at the state level, as well as potential loans at the City level through
the housing assistance program funds. He stated that Staff will be presenting to CC at
their July 25, 2005 meeting a report discussing the education aspects on historic homes
and Staff could include some of this discussion on the concerns related to preserving
these homes. He indicated that other cities do have Historic Conditional Use Permits,
which identify properties that are at least 50 years old, or older. He noted that there is a
well-established set of federal standards and guidelines for how additions to historic
properties are to be done. Commissioner Deaton stated that she would not want the
guidelines to interfere with the property owners right to their own use of the property, but
rather to provide incentives to not raze the structures. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the
guidelines are for additions to existing structures and the City does have provisions for
this for the Proctor House at 10th Street and Electric Avenue and for the bed and
breakfast facility on ih Street, which is due to open in approximately 6-8 months. He
asked if there were any objection from the Commission to Staff including this discussion
with the presentation to be made to CC on July 25, 2005. The Commission had no
objection.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Ladner adjourned the meeting at 10: 15 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
~~~~~.
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
Planning Department
Page 17 of 18
.
3
4
.
.
APPROVAL
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2005
The Commission on July 6, 2005, approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of Wednesday, June 22,2005. GA. .
Page 18 of 18