Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1986-07-09 SEA~ BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDfl ; Clty Councll Chambers . 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach. California e The Seal Beach Planning Commission meets in session every first and third Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. If you wish to address the Commission on any particular public hearing item, the Chairman will call for public testimony first for those in favor of the project, and second, for those who are not in favor. When you see that the speaker's posi tion in the center of the room is unoccupied, step up to the microphone and when recognized by the Chairman, speak directly into the microphone by first stating your name and address clearly and distinctly for the records. State your business as clearly and succinctly as possible and then wait a moment to see if the Commissioners have any questions in regard to your comments or questions. If there are no other questions or comments, return to your seat so that the next person may address the Commdssion. If you wish to address the Commdssion on matters other than public hearings, the agenda provides for that time when the Chairman asks for comments from the public. Address the Commdssion in the same manner as stated for public hearings, always stating your name and address first. July 9. 1986 XEXT RESOLrTIOX ~1427 1. ~l~Qg~_Qf_All~g!~n~~ 2 . RQILf~ll 3. R~2Qt!_ftQm_~~~t~!~tr 4. ~Qn~~n!_~~l~nQ~t 5. fYQ1!~_n~~t!ng~ - A. YABH~~LIQ:J!~ Resolution :/:1426 A request to replace an eXisting one-story office building at 12121 Seal Beach Blvd. with a two- story general office building on a site with less than the required landscaping. Environmental Review: has been prepared in Impact Report. Xegative Declaration 5-86 lieu of an Environmental Code Section: 28-402. 28-1402/61 Applicant: Century Xational Properties. Inc. Owner: Same 6. ~~h~QY1~Q_!~!!~t~ A. Resolution #1410 - Approving Variance 1-86 ISchuveiller/Kylel 1500-1510 1/2 Pacific Coast Hwy. 7. ~Qmmi~~!Qn_R~~Y~~!~ 8. Qt!l_~QmmYn!~!l!Qn~_ftQm_lh~_Ayg!~n~~ '9 . ~.Qmm!H!QL~QmmYn!HHQn~ . : " l e Planning Commission Agenda July 9. 1986 Page 2 10. ~~j2Y!nm~n! Agenda Forecast: l!!li.-!!..._U!!!. : -cup 4-86 321 Seal Beach Blvd. (MansourI -CCP 7-8'6 1111 E. Pacific Coast Hwy. ISav-Onl -cup 10-86 12161 Seal Beach Blvd. (Griffin) -ZTA 2-86 Hotel/Motel Definition -Cl:P 12-86 1729 Bayou Way (Wackermanl e -Variance 9-86 CUP 17-86 302 15th St. ISnedenl . !!!gy!.L!!..._U!H~ : -cup 2-86 99 :YIarina Dr. (Chevron) . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 9, 1986 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular a4journed session on Wednesday, July 9, 1986 at 7:37 p.m. Commissioner Sharp let the Salute to the Flag. PRESENT: Chairman Jessner Commissioners Covington, Sharp,.Suggs ALSO PRESENT: Al Warot, Acting Director of Development Services Pam Walker, Administrative Aide Ginger Bennington, Secretary to City Manager REPORT FROM SECRETARY There was no report at this time. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items on the consent calendar. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE 10-86 - 12121 SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD - CENTURY NATIONAL PROPERTY, INC. (ROSSMOOR BUSINESS CENTER) - RESOLUTION #1426 . Mr. Al Warot indicated the first and only item for the July 9th meeting is a request from Century National Property Inc. for approval of a variance to allow for the replacement of an existing office building with a two-story office building without providing the landscaping that otherwise might be required by the Seal Beach Municipal Code. Warot further reported the subject property is approximately 1.3 acres in area and is located north of St. Cloud Drive and west of Seal Beach Boulevard. In his report, Warot stated the property is zoned general commercial as are all the adjoining properties to the east, the north and to the west. The area south of the site is zoned for and is developed with single family residences. With a I-story office building, the balance of the site has parking and landscaping which abuts the existing circular office building and surrounds the site. A total of 17,400 sq.ft. of landscaping is presently provided. Warot further indicated the applicants are proposing to demolish the site and redevelop a two-story office building with up to 33,400-34,800 sq. ft. constructed on the property. The balance of the site is proposed to be developed with parking as well as landscaping; 11,400 sq. ft. of landscaping on site and an additional 6,000 sq. ft. of landscaping or slightly more installed off site. With regard to other amenities, the existing dumpster and trash receptacle now in the open will be contained and lansdcaped. The proposed project will conform with all of the requirements of commercial zone except landscaping lot requirement. In looking at the plan, staff viewed the proposal within the context of the overall concept of the Rossmoor Business Center. At present, according to Warot, the total lot area of the Center is approximately 1.7 million s.f. and if you . .. 2 apply the C2 zone standard of 10% of lot area having to be landscaped that translates to 172,000 which leaves a shortfall of 84,000 s.f. of landscaping. Staff felt it would be inappropriate for one developer to make up for this 84,000 short fall. The existing landscaping as well as the proposed landscaping will be well in excess of the landscaping required ~or the site alone. Staff also reviewed the landscaping requirement for this project as the basis of the approach that was taken with the Lucky Store expansion, i.e., that the amount of landscaping that any given user must provide should be in a proportion equal to the percentage of the Center's required parking for the user. Therefore, staff felt that the necessary findings can be made for the granting of the variance and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the negative declaration and Variance 10-86 subject to the conditions attached to the staff report. . Responding to Commissioner Covington's questions, Warot stated the building is free standing, separate from the Center, that the Lucky property is free standing, that 90 of the required parking spaces were on-site and 49 off-site, that staff did not consider the rates of off-site to on-site parking in determining landscaping percentage and that this mater was a carryover item from the prior Director of Development Services and finally that there was no existing landscaping destroyed and not replaced in the Lucky expansion. Chairman Jessner reopened the public hearing. Edward Gibbons spoke as the representative of Rossmoor Business Center, thanking the Commission for setting the adjourned meeting to hear this item. Mr. Gibbons explained that the Center has 39.5 acres of land with less than 9 acres of buildings that have been in the Center close to 25 years. He stated the Center is healthy, but ~he desire is to upgrade the structures. The current owners of the buildings are very interested and take pride of ownership in their property. Gibbons pointed out that as those long-term leases come up, they are renewed at competitive rates enabling the owners to upgrade. This particular tenant, he noted, had been in the Center over 20 years. Responding to Commission's questions, Gibbons noted the 39.5 acres are under one owner, no lots are subdivided although some parcels are separate for tax purposes as in this particular case. The tenant is Union Federal Savings and Loan, who are expanding their offices. They wish to keep 10,000 sq.ft. for their new ground floor offices with the idea of expanding to the second floor in the future. At the beginning of their lease they will occupy approximately 1/3 of the proposed building. . Commissioner Sharp inquired as to whether a walkway would be constructed on the northside to prevent people traversing through the landscaping. Mr. Gibbons stated there would be a crosswalk at the intersection to allow entry. There was much discussion at this time regarding the driveway width, whether it was wide . 3 enough to accommodate parking along curb area. Mr. Gibbons stated it is the Center's policy to have wider parking spaces than the Code allows. Warot stated there could be no parking on the northside due to fire lanes. Jessner asked if Mr. Gibbons concurred with the 5 staff conditions as noted in the staff report; Mr. Gibbons was agreeable. To clarify condition #3, it was suggested by the Chairman with the consent of the Commission, to add "in accordance with the landscaping plan dated June 4, 1985 attached hereto as Exhibit A prior to occupancy of the new building." Covington indicated he was not yet ready to approve the landscaping plan itself, but would agree in concept. . Mr. Covington then stated he has long been a supporter of the Rossmoor Business Center and looked forward to the development of the Center to its full potential. Covington felt the new structure would benefit the Center economically as it would add 29,500 sq. ft. of commercial property. He also noted that in exchange for that additional square footage, 17,400 s.f. of existing landscaping is proposed for removal. Mr. Covington felt that the loss of the 17,400 sq.ft. did not offset the placement of approximately 18,000 sq. ft. of proposed landscaping onto the site,offering a net gain of 600 sq. ft. Mr. Covington felt this was not consistent with the approach the City and the Center are trying to achieve in complying with the landscaping requirements of the Center. Mr. Gibbons stated he had worked directly with John Baucke, the prior Director of Development Services, in achieving this proposal. Gibbons also indicated that his landscape architect studied the Center and felt the placement and type of landscaping proposed would significantly improve the entire site. Gibbons also pointed out that many tenants within the Center have 25 year leases with strict requirement as to parking and common area. Compact parking spaces could not be provided until leases expire. . Gibbons felt that a two-story building should not require more landscaping than a one-story building, that the footprint of the building should be the major consideration in determining landscaping requirements. Gibbons indicated he had spent considerable time and money on a landscape architect and designer in developing this proposal with the former staff and he did not feel it was just to change the formula for deriving the landscaping requirement at this point in time. Chairman Jessner indicated that at the time of the Parasol restaurant expansion, the formula for deriving the landscaping requirements was established and this concept seemed to fulfill the intent. Mr. Covington felt that the example of the Lucky Market expansion was not applicable as that project did not remove over 17,000 sq. ft. of existing landscaping. Mr. Covington felt that this project would not allow the Center to catch up with the shortfall. Mr. Warot indicated that using the existing formula, the Center would gradually increase and overcome its landscaping shortfall. . . 4 After much discussion between Commissioner Covington and Mr. Gibbons as to the merits of this permit, Chairman Jessner closed the public hearing. No others spoke in favor nor in opposition to this matter. Commissioner Covington felt the Parasol case was the more equitable comparison to this matter. The fact that the project was never implemented is a decision the landlord or tenant chose. Mr. Covington did not feel the Lucky expansion was comparable since the expansion itself was minimal compared to the 29,000 sq. ft. added in this case. Covington also felt that the removal of 17,000 sq. ft. of landscaping minimized the gain received for granting this permit.. He additionally pointed out that the number of spaces used by the Lucky precedent was 1884 whereas the parking spaces number that was used tonight to derive the percentage of landscaping had been increased to 2002. He felt this was an error and did not represent the precedent that had been established with the landlord at the prior hearing. Commissioner Sharp felt that the existing landscaping to be removed is in a portion of Center that is never seen and that with the addition of 6,000 sq. ft. of landscaping within the Center, the overall effect would be beneficial, rather than negative. . Suggs moved to approve Negative Declaration 5-86, Sharp seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jessner, Sharp, Suggs Covington Perrin Motion Carried It was the consensus of the Commission to modify Condition #6 to add "shall be described as fire lanes as deemed necessary by Orange County Fire Department." Sharp moves to grant variance 10-86 with conditions as proposed by staff and modified, Suggs seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jessner, Sharp, Suggs Covington Perrin Motion Carried Commissioner Covington stated he felt this variance approval would be precedent setting. Chairman Jessner felt that as more parking is added, more landscaping would result. Mr. Warot noted that applicant is providing landscaping 10 times what is normally required for that site. . Scheduled Matters Resolution #1410 - This is an action that the Planning Commission took some time back, and should be approved as a matter of record. Suggs indicated that although he was not present during the hearing, he listened to the tape so that he may vote. Commissioner Sharp excuses himself from the meeting. . 5 Commissioner Covington moves to approve; Suggs seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Suggs, Covington Jessner Perrin (Sharp excused from meeting) Motion Carried COMMISSION REQUEST There were no Commission request at this time. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications from the audience. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS Jessner noted a list of prepared projects by the staff has been given to the Commission for their review and to establish priori ties. ADJOURNMENT It was the consensus of the Commission and so ordered by the Chair to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting of July 9, 1986 at 9:10 p.m. .. #~~ APPROVED AND AMENDED PER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 20, 1986. .