The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Min 1993-02-17 " . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDAofFEBRUARY7~7993 7:30 P.M. · City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolution: #93-8 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR ,. Minutes of January 20, 1993 IV. SCHEDULED MA TTERS v. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Minor Plan Review #91-19 Address: 1101 Pacific Coast Highway AppDcant: City of Seal Beach Property Owner: J. L. Moss Request: Reconsideration of City approvaUrecycling machines. Resolution: #92-41 .....~~,' ,. ~".<' .. x,.,...'ti:.l:t;ru..:.. ~ .., ""1.' ~~1"'8"":>Ii1 Motte, '.;f'~'. '.""~"""vl)n'"ftlr:u."om . ,:":" -g~ f.~ .-:-.........N~.... ::;:::-:'("}w , .. ": :.:.;....-:-:.... .... ....:.:v).::~.:...-::.'<<-:..'(-:-:-:-: 3. Variance #92-4 Negative Declaration #93-1 Address: 254 Sixth Street AppDcant: Ericksen Family Trust Request: To vary from the required side yard setbacks and also requesting a curb cut in conjunction with a new house at 254 Sixth Street. 4. Zoning Text Amendment #92-6, hem #2 Setbacks for Non-habitable, Detached Accessory Structures in Residential Zones. . . . . . VI. VII. VIII. IX. Page 2 of 2 Planning Commission Agenda February 77, 7993 ORAL COMMUNICA TIONS STAFF CONCERNS COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT . 7993 AGENDA FORECAST: STAFF REPORTS PENDING: NOT AGENDIZED !I These items received a letter from City Attorney's Office dated January 25, 7993, advising them to contact the City in a last eHort to resolve the varous matters: * Not rec'd * CUP #93- . ZTA #92-2 . CUP #74-97 . ZTA # - . . ZTA # ---- . CUP #92-23 . VAR #92-3 7993 MAR 03 Ta.cos!J.i11J!640 PCH/CUP for 2-6 AM ......:-......................... ~11J7JS~' PCHltii8.;i:w:'!Jii" el'.$/Needs CUP ~ :., ..:...... ..:y.M<~M,'.^",..."." . .' .....'f1l'..H/.M for video game machines. Owner has not replied. rh1iHaln. i'~FCifej"~ ..........M:.m..:...:l'. ...... .......".:: Pending City Manager's work on one day permits. ~~ .' :"''''-'iJii1fl}ilr {EnliiiflltM ent/O'iiij ""'B,:iev;jlWl ~p/l..n n' ."....h.U r;;OJ:. . '. . .u:..r1'!! ...... ~uuo. ... m. ...f, ~kK~..v.....f'''.VO.VN.^wz.~..,.............................................M.::'.......... .......J'..... ..,:....~....... ....... '-or."Of.-", Notes: ABC going to review their position first. JF requested update from ABC 7/79/93. Pld4J~i:r~~.t;.t!ur!tjt~:rdli!lllg~~~~l'ifjfjj!1l ZT A must allow entertainment in the Recreational Golf Zone. BC working on this; should be ready in March. CiiiJtrlliiwlpjiiliPSiltbac/ii . .... ...................;:...... .................::":;.......................:-.....:....:. gp11.>>M.l!llJ..~;$t/~1Jt'f)f'tiiil [CUP for beer & wine + seismic retrofit] '211S...Malti:':St,;/BJ'i:'1!!(zza ...~'",,,:',,,',,'...>...:...:-... .....:>.......:-..:-..:...... [V AR for on-site parking]. CUP #93-71225 74th St./Hjelm's remodel MPR #93-2/225 74th St./Hjelm/Tandem parking CUP #93-2/907 Ocean/Doran transfer ABC @ Kinda LaHaina CUP #93-3/73960 SBB/Leisure Market/ABC MAR 77 CUP #93-41927 PCH/Carwash's new sign/Krull CUP #93-5/777 Main/Clancy's pool tables & video games CUP #93-6/72377 SBB/Rossmoor Bowl's video games CUP #92-75/72377 SBB/Rossmoor Bowl/ABC CUP #93-7/350 Main/Chevron Open 2AM-6AM CUP #92-7/99 Marina Dr./Unocal/Reopen Oil Separation Facility CUP #93-8/7403 Ocean/Dolphin Market/ABC HV #93-7/7305 Sandpiper Dr/Thompson's CRAS . APR 07 . APR 21 CUP #92-1/Tootsie's indefinite extension. MAY 05 CUP #92-2/SeaSide Grill's indefinite extension. MAY 19 JUN 09 CUP #92-17/Main St. Deli/indefinite extension. CUP #92-13/Papillon's @ 4 mos./entertainment CUP #92-19/Clancy's for 12 mos. extension. JUN 23 JUL 07 JUL 21 AUG 04 AUG 18 SEP 08 . SEP 22 OCT 06 CUP #92-13/Papillon's @ 8 mos./entertainment CUP #92-20/148 Main St./John's Food King/ABC [Review CUP #92-13 & CUP #92-20 at same meeting]. OCT 20 NOV 03 NOV 17 DEC 08 DEC 22 . . . . 1994 JAN 05 JAN 19 FEB 09 FEB 23 MAR 09 MAR 23 APR 06 APR 20 MAY 04 MAY 18 JUN 08 JUN 22 JUL 06 JUL 20 AUG 03 AUG 17 SEP 07 SEP 21 OCT 05 OCT 19 NOV 09 NOV 23 DEC 07 DEC 21 CUP #92-22/322 Main/Nip'n Stuff/12 mos. review/ABC CUP #92-24/1400 PCH/Glider Inn/12 mos/ABC CUP #92-26/3001 Old Ranch Pkwy/Tortilla Beach/12 mos/ABC CUP #92-13/Papillon's @ 12 mos./entertainment (Schedule indefinite extension) . ..- . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 1993 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of February 17, 1993 was called to order by Chairman Fife at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Law. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Law, Sharp, Soukup Absent: Commissioner Dahlman Chairman Fife indicated Commission Dahlman would be approximately one-half hour late in arriving. Staff Present: Department of Development Services: Michael Colantuono, Assistant City Attorney Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Chairman Fife welcomed the new Planning Commissioner from District 1, Mark Soukup. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of January 20, 1993 Chairman Fife postponed consideration of the January 20, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes pending Commissioner Dahlman's arrival. SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no Scheduled Matters. Page 2 - PIanniDg Commission Minutes of Fcbnwy 17. 1992 .-= PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Minor Plan Review #91-19 1101 Pacific Coast Highway Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report [on file in the Planning Department]. The City of Seal Beach had previously requested relocation of three recycling machines from the entrance of Pavilion's market. At the November 18, 1992 meeting the Commission referred this matter back to staff for further study. This staff report indicates the proposed relocation to the south side of the building, facing Pacific Coast Highway, would result in fewer hours of operation, limiting the presence of recyclers after 4:30 p.m., locating the recycling facility 250 from the market's entrance, and providing a manned facility which will reduce conflicts with recyclers and machine breakdowns. The property owner of the State Lands property gave the City permission to prevent transients from camping/living on their property. Subsequently, problems with the recycling machines decreased. . Commission Comments Commissioner Soukup asked for further details regarding Envipco's employee at the facility. Mr. Curtis replied Envipco's employee would be on-site all hours that the facility was open, he would weigh the recyclables and give a voucher to the recycler which is redeemable in the Pavilion's market. Public Hearing Richard Graff * 4775 Brook Hollow Circle. Riverside. CA Mr. Graff explained the photograph circulated to the Commissioners. This photograph shows a demonstration recycling facility on Envipco's property. Regarding the manned facility, an Envipco employee will sit by the recycling facility at a table and scale. He will receive and weigh the materials, issue a cash voucher and clean up around the bin. Envipco does not have many of these manned facilities but there is an Envipco employee presently stationed in front of the site's current machines. He is keeping the area clean, shooing away people who don't belong there, taking back materials the machine won't accept so Pavilion's doesn't have to do it. When he can't be at work Envipco has supervisory personnel and floaters that can step in. Mr. Graff said Envipco felt their visibility would be better at a site immediately adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway but Envipco would rather not pay to screen the machines. There will be no screening if the facility is against Pavilion's building, it will be.painted to match Pavilion's. Commissioner Soukup asked if the redeemable voucher will create similar interface problems? Mr. Graff replied no, that's the preferred method. . . . . Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of February 17. 1992 Sol John * 330 12th Street. Seal Beach Mr. John said the recycling machines are drawing people from skid row. He suggested placing the machines in Long Beach to keep the transients in Long Beach. He said the people collecting cans are using the cans as an alibi while stealing other items as they go along the alleys. Chairman Fife explained the State's law on recycling. No one wished to speak in opposition to this application and the applicant did not wish a rebuttal period; the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Minor Plan Review #91-19, calling for the relocation of the manned recycling bins to location "B", adjacent to Pavilion's market, and with all other conditions as recommended by staff. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Fife, Soukup Dahlman *** 3. Variance #92-4 Negative Declaration #93-1 254 Sixth Street Staff Re.port Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report [on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, the Ericksen Family Trust, is requesting to vary from side yard setback requirements and is requesting a curb cut along the side street side of a comer lot located at 254 Sixth Street. This proposal is in conjunction with a proposed new single family house on an irregularly shaped lot. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Commission Comments The Commission discussed the four alternatives to this request: 1. Proposed Variance Alternative which entails a curb cut and loss of one on-street parking space. Would also require a variance from side yard setbacks for one of the garages. One comer of the garage would be located six inches from the property line. 2. Tandem Variance Alternative would not need a side yard variance but tandem parking spaces are often not used. . . . Page 4 - PIaDniJJg CommissiOll MinutcIJ of February 17. 1992 3. Side Variance Only Alternative would require a side yard variance but no curb cut. This would decrease usable first floor area by 150 square feet. Second floor would overhang 16' at the rear of the property. 4. No Variance Alternative would decrease usable first floor area by 360 square feet. Second floor would overhand 29' at rear of property. Regarding alternative #2, the sliver shown the diagram could become (1) incorporated into the garages or (2) include a small bathroom in that area. The tandem garages could accommodate water heaters and other things commonly found in garages if the garage was built to a greater dimension than is required by Code. The ~ requires 9'x 20'spaces be maintained clear. An on-street parking space would not be lost on Electric because of a curb cut on Electric but another car might be parked on the street due to the inconvenience of tandem parking. The existing curb cuts at properties along Electric A venue having were obtained through the 'grandfathering' process; they are 20 - 40 year old structures. They were built prior to the Code requirements being changed to prohibiting curb cuts. There are some curb cuts along Sixth Street for some older homes. Commissioner Soukup said he visited the site today and met with the applicants. The applicants conveyed to him that they are interested in building an aesthetically pleasing single family dwelling. The applicants have not asked for Variances in the past and feel this is a unique case. There was a discussion of other properties on Electric that had curb cuts and based on that conversation the applicant brought in photographs to verify this information. Public Hearing Eric Mossman. Architect * 326 N. Newport Blvd.. Newport Beach Mr. Mossman introduced himself as the project's architect. He said the tandem parking proposal has several problems, one being the hassle with moving the cars thereby resulting in the parking of one car on the street. He felt eliminating 70 square feet would ruin the floor plan, noting a custom home at $600,000 to $700,000 would need certain amenities to sell. He felt the developer would not build a home with tandem parking which would result in a loss of jobs, lost revenue for the City, lost property taxes, school and developer fees. Commissioner Law suggested Mr. Mossman incorporate a convex mirror if alternative #1 was approved. This would assist in viewing oncoming traffic in both directions. Chairman Fife asked if a wall could be built on Electric Avenue? Mr. Mossman said it would be a very low wall just to hold in the landscaping. . . . Page 5 - PIaoniDg Commission Minutes of Febnwy 17. 1992 Chairman Fife asked if the house would be built as close to Sixth Street as possible? Mr. Curtis said the front yard setback is a 12' average with a 6' minimum and they are at 12' . Chairman Fife, referencing alternative #1, expressed concerns that a 16' driveway would minimally accommodate a truck or larger car and asked if an 18' driveway could be installed? Mr. Mossman said he could build the house l' to 1.5' forward thus increasing the driveway length. Commissioner Soukup indicated this home is large at 3200 square feet and questioned the loss of 70 square feet impacting the flow of the first floor to make it untenable. Mr. Mossman said if tandem parking is built they would lose another 11' and that would eliminate a kitchen or a family room. Mr. Mossman said this larger lot needs a bigger home on it. He is trying to appeal to the family market; mostly singles or couples buy the 2900 square foot homes. Geraldine West * 1201 Electric Avenue. Seal Beach Ms. West spoke in opposition to this application, making the following statements: Mr. Ericksen is an experienced builder and should not be regarded as a buyer envisioning building his dream house. Mr. Ericksen is aware of the City's requirements, and knew he had no guarantee of obtaining a Variance to build this house on this site. In September 1989, Mr. Ericksen bought this property for $675,000 as one parcel, AP #199-051-01, with one house on it. She objected to a curb cut on Electric A venue on the basis it has not been allowed for many years, would set a precedent if granted and would decrease available parking. She stated the staff report should have been objective, providing the actual required setbacks for this lot, not indicating minimum figures. The staff report should have indicated the applicant wants a 5'10" Variance from the required setbacks. The applicant will not meet the 40 % landscaping requirement and the patio would have to be reduced. The footprint of the house comes to 6" from the property line and the staff report says a minimum of 3' is required. . . . Page 6 - PIaoning Cammissioo Minutes of February 17, 1992 She questioned if the requirements of Section l1A-2 "Building Lines" are being met. To provide what this applicant requests, the City would be creating a very dangerous situation. The occupant of the property would have to back out of the garage onto the sidewalk with no visibility while backing out of the garage. This garage would create an additional hazard in an already hazardous area. She measured the garages at 19' wide when the required width is 20'. She asked for denial. Bruce Stark * (No Address Given). Seal Beach Mr. Stark spoke in opposition to this application saying the density of Old Town is being increased, there was one single family house on a comer lot and now two spec houses are proposed. The Government Code, Section 65906 specifies that Variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance shall be granted only under certain conditions --- when it deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications. Any Variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as shall not constitute the grant of special privilege. The owner of this property is not being denied any privilege. Approval would be granting a special privilege, a deviation from the sideyard setbacks. He stated no one else has been granted a curb cut. He said he felt the Planning Commission was going to grant this Variance to allow Mr. Cox, who owns a similar parcel at the comer of 12th and Electric, to do the same thing with his property. He felt that would be granting special privileges to spec builders. Warren Morton * (No Address Given). Seal Beach Mr. Morton spoke in opposition to this proposal. He said Mr. Ericksen has been using this property as a construction storage yard for a long time. The curb cut would take away a parking space and would also create a traffic problem when cars pull out of that driveway. He favored alternative #3 if a Variance must be granted but felt no Variance should be granted. Sol John * 330 12th Street. Seal Beach Mr. John suggested making Sixth Street one-way to traffic and perhaps making several streets one-way City-wide. Rebuttal - Eric Mossman. Architect Mr. Mossman said this property was purchased as two legal lots with one house straddling them; there was no sub-division. The builder got Coastal Commission approval to demolish the old house and to build the new house on the other lot, but no Coastal permit can be issued to build this house until they get City approval on this application. . . . Page 7 - Planning CommissiOll Minutes of Fcbl'Wll)' 17. 1992 Mr. Curtis advised him patio areas are not considered in landscaping requirements and Mr. Mossman said he would reduce the patio area to meet landscaping requirements. Mr. Mossman felt the granting of a curb cut was not a special privilege as other houses on Electric have them. Chairman Fife expressed safety concerns with exiting into the alley, asking if you backed out of the garage with the rear of your car facing Electric A venue would you protrude onto Electric A venue blind before you got your car clear of the driveway? Mr. Mossman replied the bi-directional alley is 15' wide; when backing out a person could make a two-point turn and get out safely. He added they do have a 16' rear yard setback plus the 15' alley width, that's 31' backup space. There are no concrete posts in this alley but the Girl Scout's fence is very close. Chairman Fife asked what Mr. Mossman's position would be if no Variance were granted? Mr. Mossman replied the developer has stated they would be very hesitant to spend a large sum of money to build a home and then worry about the possible sale of the property. He felt it would not sell with tandem parking. Chairman Fife asked the dimensions of the adjacent legal lot? Mr. Mossman said it is 25'x 1171h'. That house has all the amenities they are trying to get into this house. Commissioner Soukup indicated the garage facing the alley measures 19'8" x 10'4" and does not meet the City's Code requirements. Mr. Mossman said he can make that garage exactly 9' x 20' to the Code requirement. Commissioner Soukup asked Mr. Mossman how he would respond to the fact that the existing curb cuts on Electric Avenue have been 'grandfathered' before the Code prohibited curb cuts? Mr. Mossman said the City created this lot with an unusual shape - -- the 13' dimension at the back; it requires a Variance. This created a hardship for someone to have the same full use of the lot. Commissioner Soukup asked Mr. Colantuono about the grant of special privilege. Mr. Colantuono replied two findings are necessary to grant a Variance. The two findings are two aspects of the same idea. If a peculiarity of this lot makes it impossible to comply with the usual rules without losing property value, that amounts to also finding that granting the exception to the rules does not confer a special privilege because that exception is necessary to allow them to enjoy their property in the same way that everyone else does. The legal question for the Planning Commission is, do you think the shape of this property creates a hardship that would make it unfair to require this applicant to restrict themselves to developing a relatively small portion of the lot, leaving a large portion undeveloped due to the lot's shape interacting with the setback standards. Legally he could defend either decision the Commission might make as it calls for a Page 8 - P1anning CommisaiOll Minutes of February 17. 1992 . reasonable judgment based on the evidence before the Commission. He didn't believe the fact that the Commission has never given out a curb cub since the curb cut ordinance was adopted makes this a special privilege. The question is, do the peculiarities of this project justify an exception to the rules? If the Commission thinks they do, the Commission is entitled to grant a Variance. Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Colantuono if somebody buys an irregularly shaped property, knowing certain limitations exist on the property due to the irregularity, does he have less of a likelihood of receiving a Variance than the original owner? . Mr. Colantuono said this was asking about two separate but related ideas. One idea is, when is someone entitled to a Variance? The other idea is, when does somebody have a property right to develop their property in a certain way such that if you refuse to allow them to do that they can sue you and win damages? He said he believes that if alternative #4, no Variance, can be accomplished and you could get a 1500 or 2000 square foot house on the property that there would not be any claim to a takings violation. There is not a property right to build a 3200 square foot house because everyone else on the block has 3200 square feet. The Constitution of the United States does not require that this person get 3200 square feet. The Planning Commission may feel fairness requires they get 3200 square feet; that's the difference. The takings doctrine puts limits on what you can do to property because they bought the right to do it. The Variance doctrine is intended to put some flexibility in the rules to save fairness but not constitutional requirements. Chairman Fife said then the Planning Commission is not required to facilitate the maximum economic return in the development of the property. Mr. Colantuono said the Commission is required to allow them a reasonable use of their property. What is reasonable will often turn on what they understood when they bought it. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Colantuono if, in weighing the special privilege argument, is it correct that the Planning Commission is to consider this property as to similar properties identically zoned, as Mr. Stark said, and not properties that appear to have a special privilege because they are 'grandfathered'? Mr. Colantuono said the question here is not is this a special privilege because nobody else in town has one? The question is, of all the properties that are presently subject to this standard to be developed, is this one different from those in a meaningful way? Triangular lots are the most common setting for setback Variances. The question is not is this property to be judged like every other triangular shaped lot in the district? It's to be compared to every other parcel in the district. . Commissioner Law asked the applicant if he could move the footprint forward to get in the legal sizes? Mr. Mossman said he could do this. Chairman Fife said 17' behind the garage would be beneficial. Mr. Mossman said other surrounding lots don't have a 16' or 17' setback, they have about 9'. . . . Page 9 - PIam1ing Commission Minufe8 of Febroal)' 17. 1m Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments Mr. Whittenberg said this property is two separate parcels, one of which is the irregularly shaped parcel. The proposal tonight would require the payment of a $10,000 fee because that parcel has never had a separate residential unit constructed on it. Secondly, the required setback along the garage is not 15 % of the lot width. There is a Code provision indicating a 3' setback for the garage area for lots that are less than 371h' in width. The average width of this lot allows this lot to fall into that category. Regarding turning radii out of a parking space, this requires at 24' clear area behind the end of the parking space for turning. This site would have a 30' area which is in excess of the City's minimum 24'. Chairman Fife asked if there would be any fence there? Mr. Whittenberg said the applicant would be able to construct a fence. Staff would measure a 24' radial arc on each side of the garage from the end of the garage door opening. The fence could not encroach into those arc areas. Commissioner Sharp said he preferred alternatives #1 and #3. Chairman Fife said he leaned to alternatives #3 and #4. He said he has had trouble applying the rigid standards for a Variance; he is more lenient when public health and safety is involved. When it comes to a question of can you get as much economic benefit out of your property as you might without a Variance, he didn't view that as sufficient justification for the requirements for a Variance, as long as the owner can get some reasonable economic value out of the property. This is not a situation where a person had this property and the City changed the rules on him. This property was acquired with this as a known set of circumstances. He said he was inclined to vote for no Variance or alternative #3. Commissioner Soukup said he leaned to alternative #3 because the public library is across the street and public parking is needed in that area. Any movement away from maintaining parking stock troubles him. The tandem design would provide enough square footage for economic benefit but the developer feels it would not be marketable. Also, this proposal is larger than the norm and the decrease in square footage may not be an economic taking or a disadvantage. Commissioner Law had no comments. MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Sharp to approve Variance #92-4 and adopt Negative Declaration #93-1 subject to the following: 1. Variance #92-4 is approved for the construction of a new single family dwelling at 254 Sixth Street with less than the required side yard setback. . . . Page 10 - J>Iaooina Commission Minutcl of February 17. 1992 2. No curb cut will be approved. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay a parks and recreation mitigation fee of $10,000 to the City of Seal Beach to offset impacts to the City's park and recreation facilities resulting from an increase in the City's housing stock of one dwelling unit. 4. A minimum of 40% of the required front yard setback shall be landscaped, per municipal Code Section 28-801. S. The garages will meet the municipal Code dimensions of 9' x 20'. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Fife, Sharp, Soukup, Law Dahlman Director Whittenberg said staff will present the adopting resolution for this item at the March 3rd Commission meeting. Upon adoption of the resolution (March 3rd) the appeal period will begin to run for ten (10) calendar days (to March 13, 1993). *** 4. Zoning Text Amendment #92-6, Item #2 Setbacks for Non-habitable, Detached Accessory Structures in Residential Zones. Mr. Whittenberg indicated this item will not be heard this evening. It will be continued to the April 7, 1993 meeting. *** MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Fife to excuse Commissioner Dahlman's absence. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Fife, Law, Soukup Dahlman *** . . . Page 11 - I'Iannina CommissiOll Minutes of February 17, 1992 1. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of January 20, 1993 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 3-1-1 Sharp, Law, Fife Soukup Dahlman *** ORALCO~CATIONS There were no oral communications from the audience. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg said each member of the Planning Commission has been provided with a copy of the revised zoning code. The City Clerk will prepare a copy of General Plan for the next meeting. COMMISSION CONCERNS COMMISSIONERS TALKING WITH APPLICANTS Commissioner Law asked for clarification on whether it is allowable for a Planning Commissioner to visit a proposed project and talk with the applicants. Mr. Whittenberg said if that were to happen, the Commissioner would need to disclose that information prior to the closing of the Public Hearing. Chairman Fife said that when the Commissioners visit a site, if there is something about what they observe at the site, disclose that before the end of the Public Hearing. Mr. Whittenberg said that would be true, especially if it was something that made an impression on the Commissioner and that was not brought up during the Public Hearing process. HAZARDOUS BRICK WALL Commissioner Sharp asked if staff would have a report on the leaning brick wall? Mr. Whittenberg said the City's liability attorney has not visited the site due to his court appearance schedule. He will be doing that within the next two weeks and staff will prepare a report to the Planning Commission as soon as possible. The resident's owners association and the Community Services District did not come to a resolution as to who they feel is responsible for the wall. Mr. Curtis said staff received a letter later this afternoon and the Engineering Department was to provide it to him but he was unable to locate it before this meeting. He will locate that letter and get it out to the Commission as soon as possible. . . . Page 12 - PIanninc Commission Minutes of Febl1l8ly 17. 1992 APRIL A VIA nON TOUR Commissioner Sharp asked about the Commission's aviation tour of the Los Alamitos airfield? Mr. Whittenberg said he has been waiting to get all the members of the Commission together to discuss a date. This will need to be Noticed as a special field meeting of the Planning Commission, the public needs to be made aware of it and the purpose of it. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Q':=+ : '-- _~o Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary ... --, ..---...... Note: These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Planning Commission. Approval: The Planning Commission Minutes of February 17, 1993 were approved by the Planning Commission on March~, 1993. ~