HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2006-04-19
i
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for April 19, 2006
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Ellery Deaton
District 2 - Phil O'Malley
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
[J
City Hall office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Closed C\
noon to 1 :00 p.m.
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.
[J
[J
Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday afternoons, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m.
[J
Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
[J 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.
.
.
.
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 MATTERS: 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 IJroceedinas are recorded.
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of April 19, 2006
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for April 19, 2006
7:30 p.m.
I.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II.
ROLL CALL
III. AGENDA APPROVAL
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to:
(a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda;
(b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda; and/or
(c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or
public to request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate
action.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission
regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning
Commission, provided that the Planning Commission may undertake no action or
discussion unless otherwise authorized by law.
V.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by
one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission,
staff, or the public requests a specific item be removed from the Consent Calendar
for separate action.
1. RECEIVE AND FILE: March 2006 Building Activity Report
2. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2006.
VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS
3. Status Report on the Seal Beach Center Lighting and Roof Equipment
Screening.
1
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of Apri/19, 2006
.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Tentative Parcel Map 2005-311
901-1101 Pacific Coast Hwy (Seal Beach Center)
Applicant/Owner: Regency Centers
Request Approval of a parcel map to legally establish the
requested 5 parcels on the approximately 7.90-acre
property. The new lots meet the minimum parcel size
of 7,000 square feet.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 06-11 as presented.
VIII. STUDY SESSION
5. Mansionization
Recommendation: Conduct Study Session to provide direction to Staff.
. IX. STAFF CONCERNS
X. COMMISSION CONCERNS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
.
2
.
May 03
May 17
Jun 07
Jun 21
Jul05
Jul19
Aug 09
Aug 23
Sep 06
. Sep 20
Oct 04
Oct 18
Noy 08
Noy 22
Dee 06
Dee 20
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of April 19, 2006
2006 Aaenda Forecast
CANCELLED
Minor Plan Review 06-4 - 94 Welcome Lane
Study Session - Planned Sign Programs
Study Session - Historic Preservation
3
.
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 April 19, 2006
Chairperson Shanks called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 19, 2006. The meeting was
held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Shanks, Commissioners Deaton, Ladner, 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: None.
AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION by Ladner; SECOND by O'Malley to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Shanks, Deaton, Ladner, O'Malley, and Roberts
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Shanks opened oral communications.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Shanks closed oral communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. RECEIVE AND FILE: March 2006 Building Activity Report
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
1 of 12
.
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 April 19, 2006
2. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2006.
MOTION by Roberts; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Shanks, Deaton, Ladner, O'Malley, and Roberts
None
None
SCHEDULED MATTERS
3. Status Report on the Seal Beach Center Lighting and Roof Equipment Screening.
Staff Report
Ms. Teague delivered the staff report. (Memoranda on file for inspection in the Planning
Department.) She provided some background information on this item and indicated
that a Lighting Plan was submitted by the Seal Beach Center, which was -forwarded to
the City's lighting consultant, who has provided specific recommendations/corrections,
and Staff has revised the plans accordingly to meet Mitigation Measure A-2, regarding
spillover of lighting onto adjacent properties. She noted that the memorandum on
lighting includes the specific technical comments.
With regard to the roof equipment screening, Ms. Teague provided a brief PowerPoint
presentation demonstrating the materials proposed by Citiscapes Inc. for screening the
roof equipment. She noted that the finished screens would match the color of the multi-
tenant building, and would not be visible from street level.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Roberts asked if the screens would have a stucco finish. Ms. Teague
stated that it would be a vinyl-type, flat finish.
Commissioner Deaton asked for a summary of the lighting report. Ms. Teague stated
that the Lighting Consultant made several comments on the original plans, specifically
that the brightness of lighting be reduced on the light standards, and that the foot-candle
lighting of the parking lots be reduced along the northern and eastern ends of the
parking lot. Commissioner Deaton expressed her appreciation for Staff having solicited
the assistance of the lighting consultant in addressing this issue.
Public Comments
Erwin Bucy of Regency Centers stated that both Vons and Sav-On have fairly strict
lighting standards, and when the consultant presented his recommendation, there was
2 of 12
.
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 April 19. 2006
some concern whether Vons and Sav-On would agree to this; however, he is happy to
state that that they did agree to the recommendations. He also noted that with regard to
screening of the roof top equipment, Regency Centers wanted to ensure that the
screens would be aesthetically pleasing. Commissioner Roberts asked if the screens
are one solid piece or louvers. Mr. Bucy stated that they are one solid piece. Mr.
Roberts asked if the screens are to be textured in a manner similar to the structure
walls. Mr. Bucy stated that Regency would like to have the screens match the building
fayade. Mr. Whittenberg referred to Page 3, Step 2 of the memo on Roof Equipment
Screening and noted the variety of design textures for the screens. He said that Staff
would work with the architect for the developer to ensure that the screens are
compatible in texture and color with the existing treatment of the building.
Commissioner Roberts asked what the candle foot settling point was for the lighting.
Mr. Bucy reported that it was 3.0 candlepower in the primary parking lot, with the rear
parking areas to be at 2.0 candlepower. He noted that there are safety issues involved
and the center wants to ensure that the environment is well lit for customers.
Commissioner Ladner asked what the longevity of the screening panels would be. Mr.
Bucy stated that he is not certain, but he would guess that the life on these would have
to be at least 10 years.
Commissioner Deaton asked if the resident who took the pictures of the roof equipment
on the shop building has been involved in this process. Mr. Bucy stated that Regency
and its architect have been working primarily with Staff.
Chairperson Shanks asked if the same kind of screening is to be provided on the Vons
building. Mr. Bucy stated that Pavilions is constructing its own building and they would
essentially have to comply with the same standards, as both he and Staff would have to
approve the building plans.
Clyde Huzienga commented that if the roofline had been continued all around the shop
building to the point where it will adjoin with the new Sav-On building there would have
been no need for the screens. He indicated that this was done "on the cheap," and
installing these screening panels continues to make it look cheap. He said that one
long, continuous screen would be better, but continuing the roofline around the back of
the building would be the best solution. He noted that this would provide a more
aesthetic view of the center from Bolsa Avenue.
Chairperson Shanks asked that due to having received the report this evening, he
would like to have the Lighting Memorandum placed on the next meeting agenda as a
scheduled matter to allow for further review and discussion. Mr. Whittenberg noted that
the next meeting would be held on May 17, 2006, and there should be no problem in
scheduling this item for discussion. He reminded the Commissioners that the City has
no ordinance requirements on how parking lots are lit. He indicated that the program
designed by the lighting consultant would provide the necessary cut off to ensure that
light spillage into the neighborhood is prevented, and lighting levels will be reduced in
the parking lots near Bolsa Avenue and Balboa Drive. He noted that the Planning
3 of 12
.
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 April 19. 2006
Commission (PC) could only provide comments to Staff on this issue, but would have
no power to impose a condition, as there are no discretionary approvals required.
Chairperson Shanks stated that he would like to have a better understanding of lighting
standards. Mr. Whittenberg suggested that the PC Receive and File tonight's report,
and this issue will be continued to a future agenda as a general discussion item on
parking lot lighting levels. He cautioned that Staff could not guarantee that this item
would appear on the May 17, 2006 agenda, as the Senior Planner and the Director of
Development Services will both be on vacation during the last week in April and the first
two weeks in May.
Commissioner Deaton agreed with Mr. Huzienga that a long single screen should be
used to screen the roof equipment rather than individual screening boxes. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that the report has presented the types of materials that can be used
and it may be possible to use one long screen, but there are a number of roof vents
located along the rear area where the roofline ends. He noted that City ordinances only
require that roof equipment be screened when viewed from a public roadway, and these
units cannot be seen from the roadway.
Mr. Bucy indicated that Regency Centers would attempt to address this as suggested;
taking into account the roof vents, and try to continue the fac;ade as much as possible.. .
He noted that because of these vents, the tile roofing could not be continued along this
area.
Chairperson Shanks stated that he would like to see what other coastal cities are doing
regarding screening of roof equipment in relation to the view from second stories. Mr.
Whittenberg indicated that Staff could return with this information in either June or July.
MOTION by Ladner; SECOND by Roberts to Receive and File the Memoranda on Seal
Beach Center Lighting Analysis and Seal Beach Center Roof Equipment Screening as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Shanks, Deaton, Ladner, O'Malley, and Roberts
None
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Tentative Parcel Map 2005-311
901-1101 Pacific Coast Hwy (Seal Beach Center)
Applicant/Owner:
Regency Centers
4 of 12
.
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 April 1 g, 2006
Request: Approval of a parcel map to legally establish the requested 5
parcels on the approximately 7.90-acre property. The new
lots meet the minimum parcel size of 7,000 square feet.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
06-11 as presented.
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
stated that Staff recommends approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 06-11, and that this be forwarded to City Council for their approval.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Deaton asked if Proposed Shop 1 on the Tentative Parcel Map was to be
considered an independent lot. Ms. Teague stated that each of the 5 parcels would be
considered an independent lot, with the new Vons Market being Lot 5 and would include
the Proposed Shop 1; a 2,700 square foot tenant lease space attached to the market
building facing - Pacific Coast Highway. --Commissioner Deaton confirmed that -the
minimum parcel size must be at least 7,000 sq. ft. Ms. Teague confirmed that this was
correct, and noted that Lot 5 measures 0.35 acres and the lot measurement would
include the store parking lot area. Mr. Whittenberg added that a revised Resolution
06-11 is provided with clarification on the environmental review language. Mr. Abbe
added that this was basically a reference to Mitigated Negative Declaration 05-5
previously approved in December 2005, since the City was not aware at that time that
the property was to be subdivided. He stated that this additional text simply
recommends to City Council that they include a reference to the subdivision in the
project description. He noted that this type of technical change does not require
additional public notice or a hearing.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Shanks opened the public hearing.
Erwin Sucy explained that the subdivision is taking place because Vons and Sav-On
want separate tax parcels in order that they may directly pay the tax authority, and
eliminate any questions related to the allocation of values in comparing the older,
remodeled structure to the higher taxed new construction. Commissioner Deaton
confirmed that once the parcels are divided, they could be sold individually. Mr. Sucy
said this was correct. Commissioner Deaton then asked if the tenants are aware of the
subdivision into five separate parcels. Mr. Sucy stated that the existing tenants are
aware of this, but Regency has no plans to sell the property. Commissioner Deaton
asked if this means that the tenants in the shop building would require new leases. Mr.
Sucy said it would not. Commissioner Deaton asked how the Shorehouse fits into this.
Mr. Sucy stated that the Shorehouse is an older building and as such, is part of the
5 of 12
.
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 April 19, 2006
same parcel as the shop building. He explained that the property is being subdivided in
this manner to help limit Regency's involvement in property tax payments by the larger
tenants.
Art Warner spoke in opposition to subdivision, as one entity is no longer responsible for
the entire center, and when there is a problem, residents will not know which entity to
contact. He noted that there would be no continuity and no one would want to take
responsibility for addressing concerns. He said that he sees no benefit to subdivision
and reminded the PC that they must consider the needs of the adjacent residents along
with the character and design of Seal Beach as a community.
Mr. Bucy stated that there would not be five separate owners, but that Regency would
be the sole owner, and in the event the property is sold, the City will require an
Operating & Easement Agreement (OEM), wherein there will be one responsible party
for operation and maintenance of the common area, which is typical. He said that
subdivision would benefit the long-term tenants because they will not be liable for any
new construction costs or taxes. Commissioner Deaton asked whom residents would
contact regarding their complaints. Mr. Bucy stated that they would contact Regency
Centers. He reiterated that Regency will still own the shopping center and is
responsible - for managing -and operating- the center. -He noted that -architectural
compatibility is also included in the CC&R's, and Regency has spent a lot of time
making sure that the drug store and Vons have conforming elevations. Commissioner
Roberts asked what percentage of Regency Centers have been subdivided. Mr. Bucy
stated that approximately 90 percent of their project are subdivided.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Shanks closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Roberts stated that the primary consideration would be whom customers
and residents would contact to help address complaints, and he believes this has been
adequately addressed. He noted that the benefit to other retailers in subdividing the
center would outweigh this concern. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the Old Ranch
Town Center was also subdivided into 10 separate parcels, with most of the anchor
tenants having a separate parcel. He said that this project also requires CC&R's that
apply to the entire center, similar to a condominium development, as well as reciprocal
parking agreements. He indicated that the PC recently approved a Tentative Parcel
Map to do the same thing in the Leisure World Shopping Center, and noted that this is
usually driven by the major tenants wanting to own their building and the parking on
which they can pay taxes. He stated that the City has sufficient agreements to ensure
that the overall maintenance of the center is taken care of and that problems will be
adequately addressed. Commissioner Deaton asked about the OEM. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that this is the same as the CC&R's.
6 of 12
.
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 April 19, 2006
Chairperson Shanks noted that City Staff has dealt in depth with Regency Centers on
this project, and although it may appear questionable, it does not mean that the
standard of quality for the shopping center will deteriorate, as residents will still have the
option of contacting City Staff or their councilperson regarding their concerns.
MOTION by Ladner; SECOND by O'Malley to recommend approval of Tentative Parcel
Map 2005-311 to City Council and adopt Resolution 06-11 as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Shanks, Deaton, Ladner, O'Malley, and Roberts
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 06-11is a recommendation
to City Council and there will be a public hearing scheduled at the Council level to
consider approval of Tentative Parcel Map 2005-311, and notice of this hearing will be
circulated as soon as the date of the hearing is scheduled. He then requested a 5-
minute recess prior to beginning the study session.
Meeting recessed at 8:25 p.m. - .
Meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m.
STUDY SESSION
5. Mansionization
Recommendation: Conduct Study Session to provide direction to Staff.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided a PowerPoint presentation, which provided some
general information on the issue of mansionization, how it is affecting other cities, and
what some cities have done in attempting to deal with this problem. (PowerPoint
presentation is on file for inspection in the Planning Department.) He described
mansionization as the process where existing single-family, detached homes are
demolished or enlarged to create houses that are several times larger than the originals,
commonly referred to as "monster" homes, and noted that this is occurring with more
frequency within the City of Seal Beach. He indicated that the increase in the size of
homes is related to the desire for increased amenities such as additional bedrooms,
bathrooms, larger garage sizes, higher ceilings, and entryways. He noted that due to
smaller lots having to accommodate larger new, two-story homes whenever smaller,
older homes are demolished, mansionization is occurring more frequently within Old
Town. He stated that on The Hill and in College Park East (CPE) and College Park
7 of 12
.
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 April 19, 2006
West (CPW) the lots are larger and can better accommodate a 2,200 sq. ft. single-story
home.
The Director of Development Services then reviewed some methods adopted by other
cities to help control new development in existing neighborhoods and accomplish the
goal of compatibility without stifling the opportunity for improvement and expansion, as
follows:
Mass Reaulations
1. Building Envelope Regulations. Specifying lot coverage limits (setbacks and
percentage of usable space).
2. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Floor area ratio is a ratio of the gross square footage of
the building or buildings on the lot divided by the square footage of the lot, and
allow a city to control the overall square footage of a home, including second
stories, as well as accessory structures such as garages and covered porches.
3. Cubic Content Ration (CCR). A CCR value, as used in Aspen, Colorado,
considers the height of the building as well as the' gross square footage of the
building and the lots.
4. Second Story Regulations. Second story ratios are placed in relation to the size of
the first floor. In addition to, or as an alterative to ratios, some communities have
imposed a second story setback requirement to make the house appear less bulky.
5. Daylight Plane Regulation. Creates an imaginary envelope around the sides and
top of a house that limits its height and width. Any part of the house, which
protrudes out of this envelope, is considered to be an obstruction that can reduce
the solar access of the adjacent house.
Architectural Reaulations
1. Rooflines. Major rooflines on a property can accentuate the mass of a building or
lead to a monotonous street, and the orientation of a roof to the street can also
significantly impact the perceived mass of a new home.
2. Entries. Some cities require clearly defined, prominent primary entrances that
feature some form of design element. Design elements may include decorative
doors, porticos, arches, or pillars; or peaked roof forms.
3. Fac;ade. Mass can be accentuated when a home lacks definition in its fac;ade,
making it look square and bulky. Unbroken multi-story elements, such as towers,
entryways, and walls can also accentuate mass.
8 of 12
.
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 April 19, 2006
4. Windows. Some cities ban windows on the side walls of home to protect the
privacy of neighbors; however, there are many window styles and glass types
currently available such as opaque glass, including frosted and tinted glass,
patterned glass, and glass blocks, which can provide both light and privacy.
5. Architectural Review. To ensure adequate application of bulk requirements, some
jurisdictions have initiated additional review and regulation requirements for
additions of second stories or any expansions greater than a set percentage of the
existing building area
In conclusion, Mr. Whittenberg presented Staff recommendations for consideration by
the PC for managing mansionization within the City of Seal Beach, as follows:
1. Limit any mansionization regulations to the RLD-5000 zoned properties only (the
"Hill," the "Coves," College Park East, and College Park West other than potential
changes to roof style requirements that may be applicable within Old Town).
Beyond these areas, in the opinion of Staff, the pattern of existing development, lot
sizes and related setback and lot coverage requirements are sufficient enough that
the perceived impacts of new home construction is substantially reduced.
Modifications to roof style- provisions. for the- front of the structure, - even within the
Old Town RMD and RHD zones, would have some significant impacts on reducing
the perceived bulk along the street frontage.
2. Focus on the "incentive concepts" that encourage flexibility and innovation in
preparing development plans for new 2-story residences within the City, as
discussed above regarding "Second Story Regulations" and "Rooflines", or
consider requiring additional side yard setback for height above a certain level. If
the Commission determines these suggestions are worth pursuing, Staff will return
with additional information at a later study session.
He then presented photographs of some of the larger homes within the City, followed by
a brief review of the Supplemental Staff Report provided to the Commissioners at
tonight's meeting. (Supplemental Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning
Department.)
Chairperson Shanks commended Staff for the work done on the issues brought before
them by the PC.
Public Comments
Chairperson Shanks opened for public comments.
Tom Arthur stated that his concern is that the recommendations for additions not be too
restrictive. He suggested including "grandfathering clauses" that would allow current
homeowners to use the building standards in place at the time of their home purchase.
9 of 12
.
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 April 1 g, 2006
Chairperson Shanks noted that the request for grandfathering clauses was previously
proposed, and had not been implemented, so he doubts that it would happen now. He
said that the proposed regulations don't appear to be too restrictive, particularly
concerning Old Town.
Sarah Fuller stated that her concern is with limiting the height of homes in Old Town.
She invited the PC to tour Landing Avenue from 12th Street to Seal Beach Boulevard
and to consider whether it would be appropriate to have the same rules apply to corner
lots as for those in the interior lots. She stated that having third story developments on
corner lots changes the character of the neighborhood.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Shanks closed public
comments.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Deaton stated that she does not believe mansionization is a problem in
Old Town; however, whatever is done, must be looked at from Old Town's perspective
in order to eliminate the cookie cutter look that is occurring. She referred to the plans
presented for the development of homes-at -400 Marina Drive, and noted-that-this is
leading to "row houses" in Old Town and everything of character is going, and she
would like to address this problem.
Commissioner Roberts stated that the secret to this process is to not make it so
restrictive that it infringes upon property rights; however, the City does need to look at
this issue, otherwise the City will be overbuilt within 20 years. He stated that he agrees
with the recommendations made by Staff, and believes incentives can be used to help
control mansionization. He would like to see more discussion on "offsets" and setbacks,
specifically, second-story setbacks, and he believes the issue of flat roofs is a concern
that needs to be looked at.
Commissioner Ladner asked if the lot coverage ratio would change if a property were
made up of two lots. Mr. Whittenberg stated that you cannot build across a property line
unless you apply for a parcel map to create one lot, in which case, the requirements for
side yard setbacks increase in size.
Commissioner O'Malley presented the aspect of the environmental impacts from
mansionization. He stated that in Old Town it has created a problem with light and air
circulation. He proposed that one of the incentives should involve ensuring that any
new construction allows adequate light and circulation of air to neighboring homes. He
indicated that his main concern is with providing adequate drainage with new
construction on The Hill and in CPE, as there are problems with flooding in these areas
during winter storms. He noted that building on the entire lot takes away a lot of green
areas and other permeable surfaces, which contributes to less absorption and more run
off. He encouraged creating incentives to leave more green space when new
construction is to be done.
10 of 12
.
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 April 19, 2006
Chairperson Shanks agreed that building out to the property line needs to be looked at.
He emphasized that mansionization is an important issue that should be addressed, as
it will give property owners the confidence to know what they can and cannot do and will
ultimately make Seal Beach a better town.
Commissioner Deaton asked why "pop outs" were eliminated in Old Town. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that there is a provision that allows for architectural projections by
right for certain types of things, like bay windows, fireplaces, etc. Commissioner Deaton
stated that this is a good way to not restrict square footage, yet still allow architectural
variation.
Mr. Whittenberg stated that Staff would draft more information to return to the PC in
June or July, and he would consult with some of the local architects to get their
feedback on how these restrictions might affect their ability to design homes.
Commissioner O'Malley added that The Cove neighborhood also experience flooding
due to a lack of permeable surfaces and runoff from The Hill. Mr. Whittenberg noted
that Staff is aware of these issues and explained that a Charter Amendment was
approved during the recent election that increased the transient occupancy tax and
these funds are to be used for storm drain improvements throughout the community: -
Commissioner Deaton referred to the 37.5-foot corner property referred to by Ms. Sarah
Fuller and stated that this is a problem because this three-story home is surrounded by
single story homes. She said that if this home had a 2nd or 3rd story setback, it would
not be a problem. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the issue of setbacks for corner lots in
Old Town could be reviewed.
Commissioner Roberts asked if the proposed standards for Old Town would be different
from those for the rest of the city. Mr. Whittenberg stated that they would, as the issues
are so different in this area of town.
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the Planning Commission meeting for May 3, 2006, has
been cancelled due to a lack of business items, and the Chairperson would be
adjourning tonight to the regular meeting of May17, 2006.
Mr. Abbe stated that passage of Assembly Bill 1234 in 2005, requires that public
officials obtain two hours of ethics training, and members of the Planning Commission
are required to complete this training by January 1, 2007. He indicated that his law firm,
Richards Watson and Gershon (RWG) is offering free seminars to provide this training,
and noted the seminar dates at the closest locations as follows:
June 2, 2006
June 29, 2006
Cerritos, CA
South Coast Plaza, Costa Mesa, CA
11 of 12
.
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
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of April 19, 2006
He added that in-house seminars for the Commissioners can be arranged and RWG is
also preparing a DVD that can be viewed at home. He referred the Commissioners to
the RWG webpage for further information. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Staff could
arrange for in-house training, should the Commission so desire.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner O'Malley requested a status on Ruby's Diner. Mr. Whittenberg stated
that the Ruby's is closed during the pier repairs, but they have not yet submitted plans
for the new additions to the restaurant.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Shanks adjourned the meeting at 9:57 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secreta
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on May 17, 2006, approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of Wednesday, April 19, 2006. ~ .
12 of 12