HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2009-10-21City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for October 21, 2009
7:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
I.
ROLL CALL
II.
AGENDA APPROVAL
III.
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.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
IV.
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.
CONSENT CALENDAR
V.
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. Building Activity Report – September 2009
2. Receive and File: Status Report Re: Proposed Rule 2301, South Coast Air
Quality Management District, dated September 28, 2009.
3. Receive and File: Status Report Re: SCAG Sustainable Communities
Strategy.
4. Receive and File: “Climate Action Plan,” City of Berkeley, June 2009.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
VI.
5. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 9, 2009.
1
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission • Agenda of October 21, 2009
6. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2009.
7. Determination of Proper Zoning – Church Facility within the Main Street
Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone.
PUBLIC HEARING
VII.
8. Conditional Use Permit 08-11 (Indefinite Extension)
136 & 136 ½ Main Street (Pho Basil Leaf)
Applicant/Owner: Jennifer Ly & Michael Luu / Brian Kyle
Request: Indefinite extension of existing Conditional Use Permit
08-11 for a restaurant use within the Main Street
Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 09-41.
9. Conditional Use Permit 08-3 (Indefinite Extension)
302 Main Street (Main Street Wine Cellar)
Applicant/Owner: Randy Maddix / Henryk Warno
Request: Indefinite extension of existing Conditional Use Permit
08-3 and for the expansion of existing operating hours
to 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday.
Recommendation: Pleasure of the Planning Commission.
10. Variance 09-6 & Minor Plan Review 09-7
222 Central Way (Continued from October 7, 2009)
Applicant/Owner: Louis & Pamela Mannone
Request: To allow an approximate 400-sq. ft. addition (enclosure
of an approximate 200-sq. ft. covered breezeway, and
the reduction of existing 695-sq. ft. 3-car garage to a
455-sq. ft. 2-car garage) to an existing, nonconforming
residential property. The property is currently
nonconforming due to a less than required garage
setback from the public alley and a less than required
street side yard setback.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 09-35 and 09-36, respectively.
2
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission • Agenda of October 21, 2009
11. Variance 09-5 & Minor Plan Review 09-9
1101 Seal Way (Continued from October 7, 2009)
Applicant/Owner: Michael Niemeyer
Request: To allow an approximate 207-sq. ft. expansion to an
existing, nonconforming residential property. The
property is currently nonconforming due to a less than
required street side yard setback (existing setback is
3’-8”; required setback is 5’-8”); an inadequate garage
setback from the public alley (existing setback is 4’-0”;
required setback is 9’-0”); noncompliance with current
density requirements (3 units existing, only 1 unit
allowed under the current Code); and less than required
parking (4 spaces provided, 6 spaces required under
City Code).
Recommendation: Deny Variance 09-5 and approve Minor Plan Review
09-9, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
09-32 and 09-38, respectively.
12. Variance 09-7 & Minor Plan Review 09-5
th
334 12 Street (Continued from October 7, 2009)
Applicant/Owner: John & Michelle Currey
Request: To allow a 326-sq. ft. first floor addition and a 318-sq. ft.
second floor addition to an existing, nonconforming
residential property. The property is currently
nonconforming due to a less than required garage
setback from the public alley and a less than required
street side yard setback.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of
Resolution 09-39 and 09-31, respectively.
STAFF CONCERNS
VIII.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
IX.
ADJOURNMENT
X.
Adjourn to regular scheduled meeting of November 4, 2009, at 7:30 P.M.
3
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission • Agenda of October 21, 2009
2009 Agenda Forecast
Nov 04
CUP 08-8 (Indefinite Extension) – 13960 Seal Beach Blvd (Farmers Mkt.)
Nov 18
Minor Plan Review 09-10 – A-30 Surfside
Dec 09
Dec 23
4
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
2
3
Minutes of October 21, 2009
4
5
6
7 Chairperson Deaton called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
8 Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 21, 2009. The meeting was
1
9 held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.
10
ROLL CALL
11
12
13 Present: Chairperson Deaton, Commissioners Bello and Massa-Lavitt.
14
15 Also
16 Present: Department of Development Services
17 Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner
18 Steve Flower, Assistant City Attorney
19
20 Absent: Commissioners Galbreath and Larson
21 Terrence Belanger, Interim Director of Development Services
22
23 Mr. Olivera indicated that both Commissioner Larson and Commissioner Galbreath had
24 reported that they would not be present at tonight’s meeting. He requested a motion to
25 excuse their absence.
26
27 MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to excuse Commissioner Larson and
28 Commissioner Galbreath from the Planning Commission meeting of October 21, 2009.
29
MOTION CARRIED: 3 – 0 – 1
30
AYES: Deaton, Bello, and Massa-Lavitt
31
NOES: None
32
ABSENT: Galbreath and Larson
33
34
AGENDA APPROVAL
35
36
37 Mr. Flower noted that there is not a quorum of Commissioners present tonight to vote
38 on Item No. 6, “Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2009.”
39 He recommended that this item be removed from the agenda.
40
41 MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to approve the Agenda as amended.
42
MOTION CARRIED: 3 – 0 – 1
43
AYES: Deaton, Bello, and Massa-Lavitt
44
1
These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
1 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
NOES: None
1
ABSENT: Galbreath and Larson
2
3
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
4
5
6 Chairperson Deaton opened oral communications.
7
8 Seth Eaker stated that discussion on the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) should
9 begin and should include residents, business owners, and the government non-profit
10 sector. He noted the reported closing of Mel’s Diner and stated that business conditions
11 continue to be tight and economic pressures will continue to affect this. He encouraged
12 the community to shop locally and emphasized the need to find businesses that work
13 and that will attract more visitors to Seal Beach.
14
15 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed oral
16 communications.
17
CONSENT CALENDAR
18
19
20 1. Building Activity Report – September 2009
21
22 2. Receive and File: Status Report Re: Proposed Rule 2301, South Coast Air
23 Quality Management District, dated September 28, 2009.
24
25 3. Receive and File: Status Report Re: SCAG Sustainable Communities Strategy.
26
27 4. Receive and File: “Climate Action Plan,” City of Berkeley, June 2009
28
29 MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to approve the Consent Calendar as
30 presented.
31
MOTION CARRIED: 3 – 0 – 1
32
AYES: Deaton, Bello, and Massa-Lavitt
33
NOES: None
34
ABSENT: Galbreath and Larson
35
36
SCHEDULED MATTERS
37
38
39 5. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 9, 2009.
40
41 MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to approve the Planning Commission
42 Meeting Minutes of September 9, 2009, as presented.
43
MOTION CARRIED: 3 – 0 – 1
44
AYES: Deaton, Bello, and Massa-Lavitt
45
NOES: None
46
2 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
ABSENT: Galbreath and Larson
1
2
3 7. Determination of Proper Zoning – Church Facility within the Main Street Specific
4 Plan (MSSP) Zone.
5
6 Staff Report
7
8 Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report.
(Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning
9 He provided some background information on this item and noted that
Department.)
10 Staff was approached by a community member to request that the Planning
11 Commission (PC) make a determination on whether a church should be a permitted use
12 within the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone.
13
14 Mr. Flower stated that the discussion is not really whether a church use should be
15 permitted in the MSSP, but whether the current MSSP, as written, allows for a church
16 use. He noted that the PC does have the discretion to determine whether or not a
17 proposed use is sufficiently similar to an expressly permitted or conditionally permitted
18 use that the MSSP should be interpreted to allow that use. He indicated that should the
19 PC determine that a church is not currently allowed by the current text of the Specific
20 Plan, this would not necessarily eliminate the possibility of the MSSP being amended.
21 He added that this is not an issue of whether or not a church should be permitted at the
22 Bay Theater. Chairperson Deaton asked if the concept of parking should be brought
23 into this consideration. Mr. Flower stated that the consideration might be whether there
24 are other expressly permitted uses along Main Street with similar parking demands.
25
26 Public Comments
27
28 Chairperson Deaton opened for public comments.
29
30 There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed public comments.
31
32 Commissioner Comments
33
34 Commissioner Bello stated that the question is whether the PC believes that the use
35 would be concurrent with the MSSP as it exists, and she does not believe that a church
36 use would fit in, as there is a commercial focus along Main Street.
37
38 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that the MSSP is specific and the whole flavor of
39 Main Street is retail sales, restaurants, and a movie theater. She said a church on Main
40 Street would be inappropriate and would create a hole in the viability of Main Street and
41 is not consistent with the vision of what Main Street is supposed to be.
42
43 Chairperson Deaton noted that a finding that this is not consistent with the current
44 MSSP does not mean that the PC would not be revisiting the MSSP within the next few
45 months.
46
3 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
1 Mr. Flower indicated that Staff has drafted Resolution 09-46 determining that church
2 uses are not currently allowed in the MSSP area.
3
4 MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to adopt Resolution 09-46 as presented.
5
MOTION CARRIED: 3 – 0 – 1
6
AYES: Deaton, Bello, and Massa-Lavitt
7
NOES: None
8
ABSENT: Galbreath and Larson
9
10
PUBLIC HEARINGS
11
12
13 8. Conditional Use Permit 08-11 (Indefinite Extension)
14 136 & 136 ½ Main Street (Pho Basil Leaf)
15
16 Applicant/Owner: Jennifer Ly & Michael Luu / Brian Kyle
17
18 Request: Indefinite extension of existing Conditional Use Permit 08-11
19 for a restaurant use within the Main Street Specific Plan
20 (MSSP) Zone.
21
22 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
23 09-41.
24
25 Staff Report
26
27 Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report.
(Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning
28 He provided some background information on this item and noted that
Department.)
29 Conditional Use Permit 08-11 permits the restaurant use only. The restaurant owners
30 have an alternate application on file for service of alcohol at the restaurant. He then
31 added that Staff has received no complaints related to this business and Seal Beach PD
32 has no concerns. He indicated that Staff recommends approval, subject to conditions.
33
34 Commissioner Questions
35
36 Chairperson Deaton asked if Pho Basil Leaf would have to come before the PC once
37 again for approval of the indefinite extension of the Conditional Use Permit for alcohol
38 service in the restaurant. Mr. Olivera stated that this was correct.
39
40 Public Hearing
41
42 Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing.
43
44 Jennifer Ly spoke in support of approval of the indefinite extension of Conditional Use
45 Permit 08-11 and noted that she would be happy to respond to any questions.
46
4 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
1 Seth Eaker spoke in support of Pho Basil Leaf on behalf of the Seal Beach Chamber of
2 Commerce.
3
4 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public
5 hearing.
6
7 Commissioner Comments
8
9 None.
10
11 MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to approve the Indefinite Extension of
12 Conditional Use Permit 08-11, subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution 09-41 as
13 presented.
14
MOTION CARRIED: 3 – 0 – 1
15
AYES: Deaton, Bello, and Massa-Lavitt
16
NOES: None
17
ABSENT: Galbreath and Larson
18
19
20 Mr. Flower advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 09-41 begins a 10-day calendar
21 appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the
22 appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
23
24 9. Conditional Use Permit 08-3 (Indefinite Extension)
25 302 Main Street (Main Street Wine Cellar)
26
27 Applicant/Owner: Randy Maddix / Henryk Warno
28
29 Request: Indefinite extension of existing Conditional Use Permit 08-3
30 and for the expansion of existing operating hours to 11:00
31 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday.
32
33 Recommendation: Pleasure of the Planning Commission.
34
35 Staff Report
36
37 Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report.
(Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning
38 He provided some background information on this item and noted that
Department.)
39 previously the Planning Commission (PC) had granted Main Street Wine Cellar
40 expanded operating hours until 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. He then explained that
41 the MSSP specifically restricts operating hours for businesses on Main Street to 10:00
42 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. Mr.
43 Olivera then stated that after researching back to 2008 Captain Tim Olson of Seal
44 Beach PD could find no calls for service related to alcohol or noise issues at this
45 location. He noted that in the past there have been problems with the hours of
46 operation and staying open past the approved closing time. Chairperson Deaton asked
5 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
1 who has been monitoring the closing time for this business. Mr. Olivera stated that he
2 has done so on a few occasions, but has not regularly monitored the closing time. He
3 noted that Seal Beach PD had monitored the restaurant over the weekend, which
4 closed on time on Friday night, but still had customers inside the restaurant after 11:00
5 p.m. on Saturday evening.
6
7 Commissioner Questions
8
9 None.
10
11 Public Hearing
12
13 Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing.
14
15 Chris Partlow of Main Street Wine Cellar stated that they have maintained a diligent log
16 of the time they close the restaurant each evening. He indicated that they desire to
17 extend the weekend hours to prevent loss of customers and Main Street Wine Cellar is
18 grateful for the opportunity to continue to grow their business.
19
20 Andrew Schneider, 1605½ Seal Way, spoke in support of extending the hours for the
21 Main Street Wine Cellar citing the nice ambiance and good food and wine.
22
23 Seth Eaker spoke in support of extending the hours for Main Street Wine Cellar.
24
25 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public
26 hearing.
27
28 Commissioner Comments
29
30 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt agreed that the Main Street Wine Cellar is a wonderful
31 addition to Main Street and she enjoys going there. She stated that the MSSP limits the
32 closing time for businesses along Main Street for a reason and she believes that the
33 Wine Cellar must be consistent with all of the other restaurants on Main Street. She
34 also noted that they need to have more time to prove that they are closing on time, as
35 she does not believe that 3 months has been sufficient time to make this evaluation,
36 especially since this has not been monitored. Chairperson Deaton clarified that the
37 MSSP does allow for a closing time of 11:00 on Friday and Saturday. Commissioner
38 Massa-Lavitt stated that if this is consistent with all other restaurants she would approve
39 this; however, she is not in favor of granting an indefinite extension without a longer
40 review period. She stated that the Wine Cellar still needs to prove that they can close
41 on time.
42
43 Commissioner Bello asked what Commissioner Massa-Lavitt would like the extension to
44 be. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that it should be at least another 3 months.
45 Commissioner Bello stated that she believes the Wine Cellar is a real asset to the
6 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
1 community and she was hoping to approve the indefinite extension; however, she
2 became concerned when she heard that the closing time is still a problem.
3
4 Chairperson Deaton clarified that the indefinite extension would be granted for the
5 existing hours. Mr. Olivera clarified that this was correct. Chairperson Deaton stated
6 that she has had people call her to report that the Wine Cellar is still staying open
7 beyond the approved closing time, sometimes as late as midnight. She emphasized
8 that the PC believes this is a great addition to the community; the only issue is that if
9 one restaurant is permitted to remain open beyond its approved hours other restaurants
10 will begin to do the same, and the MSSP may just as well be “thrown away.” She again
11 indicated that the hours that business owners agree to must be “upheld with honor.”
12
13 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt pondered whether the application should have been split to
14 review the indefinite extension and the expansion of hours separately. Mr. Flower
15 stated that as he recalls, the applicant tried at the meeting to ask for the expanded
16 hours and was told at that time that they could come back after the 3-month period for
17 the indefinite extension and ask for the extended hours at that time. He noted that there
18 is no problem with combining the application. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that
19 she did not believe this to be procedurally correct. Mr. Flower added that this item was
20 noticed as an indefinite extension and expansion of hours. Mr. Olivera stated that in the
21 past Staff has combined dual requests with an indefinite extension. He noted that
22 previously the PC has granted an indefinite extension and any additional request would
23 return at a later date for an indefinite extension.
24
25 Chairperson Deaton stated that with all of the problems with closing on time, she
26 imagined the PC imposing an intermediate time at which point the PC would extend the
27 weekend hours, subject to another 3-month review period with enforcement, prior to
28 approving the indefinite extension.
29
30 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that a few times after leaving the PC meetings past
31 10:00 p.m. she has driven by the Wine Cellar and the restaurant was still open. She
32 reiterated that they have not been consistent with the 10:00 closing time during the
33 week, and she is reluctant to approve an indefinite extension. She recommended
34 another 3-month review period to ensure that they close at the approved times.
35
36 Commissioner Bello stated that after hearing these comments she definitely is not
37 prepared to approve this tonight. She noted that a warning was given three months
38 ago, but, apparently, the problem has persisted. She noted that she “loves” the Wine
39 Cellar and wants to keep it in Seal Beach, but she is not willing to approve the extended
40 hours.
41
42 Public Hearing
43
44 Chairperson re-opened the public hearing.
45
7 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
1 Mr. Partlow stated that upon closing for the evening, the A-frame sign outside the Wine
2 Cellar is turned backwards where it reads “CLOSED.” He indicated that they are very
3 serious about closing on time and this is why he has maintained the log of closing times,
4 and they do put up their closing sign at 10:00 p.m. without fail. He then stated that it is
5 his understanding that a patron coming in at 9:59 has the ability to order food and wine
6 and sit and relax, but if the “Closed” sign is up, no new patrons are permitted to enter.
7 He again stated that the Wine Cellar is very thankful to the PC for extending the hours
8 of operation and do take this very seriously. He stated that at the last public hearing
9 Chairperson Deaton had inquired of the city attorney whether the PC could proceed to
10 approve the 11:00 p.m. closing time, but the city attorney had stated that notice of this
11 would have to be circulated before this could be done. He emphasized that patrons are
12 not allowed inside the establishment after closing. Chairperson Deaton asked with a
13 closing time of 10:00 p.m., what would be a reasonable amount of time for a patron who
14 walks in at 9:55 p.m. to finish and leave. Mr. Partlow stated that they have one
15 opportunity to purchase, as it is last call, so a reasonable amount of time would be 1½
16 to 2 hours. He noted that if they purchase a bottle of wine and some food and are
17 chatting, he would be hard pressed to tell them that they must leave. He indicated that
18 weekends are usually when this occurs. He stated that he does not like to be open late,
19 and he will abide by the decision of the PC. Chairperson Deaton noted that in the last
20 month she has received two complaints that at midnight the Wine Cellar was still open.
21 Mr. Partlow responded that they are constantly trying to get people to leave at closing
22 time, but it is difficult to force them out without upsetting them, and they do not wish to
23 do this. He stated that if the PC wished to impose a specific time to leave the restaurant
24 for customers arriving shortly before closing time, he would be happy to comply with
25 this, but he noted that when he turns people away they do not go home, but go to
26 another restaurant. He again stated that he just wants to abide by the rules set by the
27 PC. Chairperson Deaton countered that the fact is that he has not been doing this. She
28 stated that she understands the hesitation to turn customers away, but the problem is
29 that there is a MSSP that regulates businesses along Main Street. Mr. Partlow
30 reiterated that he is logging the closing times and he will continue to be vigilant of this
31 and will not allow entrance to any other customers once the “Closed” sign is in place.
32 Chairperson Deaton emphasized that the Commissioners all want the Wine Cellar to
33 succeed and believe that Chris is doing a great job of managing the business and the
34 PC is thankful for this addition to Main Street.
35
36 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public
37 hearing.
38
39 Mr. Olivera clarified that there are a few businesses on Main Street that were in
40 existence prior to the adoption of the MSSP and were “grandfathered” in with their
41 existing business hours, with several of them having the legal right to stay open until
42 1:30-2:00 a.m.
43
44 MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to approve the expanded hours of
45 operation subject to a 3-month review of Conditional Use Permit 08-3 (Indefinite
46 Extension) with the direction to waive the future public hearing fee.
8 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
MOTION CARRIED: 3 – 0 – 1
1
AYES: Deaton, Bello, and Massa-Lavitt
2
NOES: None
3
ABSENT: Galbreath and Larson
4
5
6 Mr. Flower noted that the extended closing time of 11:00 p.m. will not take effect until
7 after the respective resolution is adopted by the PC.
8
9 10. Variance 09-6 & Minor Plan Review 09-7
10 222 Central Way (Continued from October 7, 2009)
11
12 Applicant/Owner: Louis & Pamela Mannone
13
14 Request: To allow an approximate 400-sq. ft. addition (enclosure of an
15 approximate 200-sq. ft. covered breezeway, and the
16 reduction of existing 695-sq. ft. 3-car garage to a 455-sq. ft.
17 2-car garage) to an existing, nonconforming residential
18 property. The property is currently nonconforming due to a
19 less than required garage setback from the public alley and
20 a less than required street side yard setback.
21
22 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
23 09-35 and 09-36, respectively.
24
25 Staff Report
26
27 Mr. Flower indicated that state law requires three (3) affirmative votes to approve any
28 resolution, and since there are only 3 Commissioners present tonight, the loss of any
29 single one would make it legally impossible to adopt a resolution to approve or deny this
30 application. He stated that Chairperson Deaton has informed him that she has a conflict
31 related to this application as she lives within 500 feet of the subject property and,
32 therefore, legally, she must abstain from any action on this application. This would
33 leave only 2 Commissioners present tonight able to act on this, so the matter must be
34 continued to the next scheduled meeting. Chairperson Deaton apologized, noting that
35 she was told that if she lived within 300 feet there would be a conflict, and was not
36 made aware until later that the radius is actually 500 feet. Mr. Olivera added that this
37 afternoon, Staff had received notice that another Planning Commissioners had a
38 medical issue and would not be present tonight.
39
40 Chairperson Deaton then left Council Chambers and Vice-Chairperson Massa-Lavitt
41 continued with Item 10.
42
43 Public Hearing
44
45 Vice-Chairperson Massa-Lavitt opened the public hearing.
46
9 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
1 Mike Bubbe spoke in support of Variance (VAR) 09-6 and Minor Plan Review 09-7, but
2 noted that what appears to be a third garage door has a curb cut in front of it and he
3 requested that this be filled in so that cars can park on the street without thinking they
4 are blocking a driveway. He noted that this is not actually a garage but living space.
5
6 Andrew Schneider stated that this garage opens onto Central Way rather than onto the
7 alley, and he believes that the Code setbacks apply primarily to garages that open onto
8 the alleys. He said that given the layout of the property it seems reasonable to approve
9 the request for VAR 09-6.
10
11 Joe Kalmick spoke in favor of VAR 09-6 and agreed with Mr. Schneider’s statements.
12 He noted that the applicant is keeping a single-story home on a double lot and basically
13 making interior changes only, while maintaining the current elevations and not impacting
14 the neighboring homes or increasing density.
15
16 Mr. Olivera interjected that Staff received six letters of support from members of the
17 community, and Staff has provided copies of these letters.
18
19 Lou Mannone stated that they have changed the plans for the third garage. It will be a
20 game room that will open into a storage room, which will measure the width of the
21 garage. He noted that at a later time he would probably convert this back to a single car
22 garage.
23
24 Pamela Mannone stated that they hope to construct a one-story beach cottage with
25 attractive landscaping. She expressed her appreciation to the Planning Commission
26 (PC) for hearing this application and encouraged support of VAR 09-6 to allow for the
27 use of the back yard without having to move the fence.
28
29 Warren Morton stated that although he likes the design of this home, he believes the
30 rear fence still needs to be brought in a little so as not to obscure the view of cars
31 driving through the alley. He stated that all nonconforming items should be brought up
32 to Code to make the decision of the PC easier.
33
34 There being no one wishing to speak, Vice-Chairperson Massa-Lavitt continued the
35 public hearing.
36
37 MOTION by Bello; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to continue Variance 09-6 and Minor Plan
38 Review 09-7 to the next scheduled meeting of November 4, 2009.
39
MOTION CARRIED: 2 – 0 – 1 – 1
40
AYES: Bello and Massa-Lavitt
41
NOES: None
42
ABSENT: Galbreath and Larson
43
ABSTAIN: Deaton
44
45
46 Chairperson Deaton returned to Council Chambers.
10 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
1 11. Variance 09-5 & Minor Plan Review 09-9
2 1101 Seal Way (Continued from October 7, 2009)
3
4 Applicant/Owner: Michael Niemeyer
5
6 Request: To allow an approximate 207-sq. ft. expansion to an existing,
7 nonconforming residential property. The property is
8 currently nonconforming due to a less than required street
9 side yard setback (existing setback is 3’-8”; required setback
10 is 5’-8”); an inadequate garage setback from the public alley
11 (existing setback is 4’-0”; required setback is 9’-0”);
12 noncompliance with current density requirements (3 units
13 existing, only 1 unit allowed under the current Code); and
14 less than required parking (4 spaces provided, 6 spaces
15 required under City Code).
16
17 Recommendation: Deny Variance 09-5 and approve Minor Plan Review 09-9,
18 subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 09-32 and
19 09-38, respectively.
20
21 Staff Report
22
23 Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report.
(Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning
24 He provided some background information on this item and noted that
Department.)
25 because of the extent of the nonconformities and the nonconforming density on the
26 property Staff is recommending denial of Variance (VAR) 09-5. With regard to Minor
27 Plan Review (MPR) 09-9, the Senior Planner explained that the Zoning Code (ZC) does
28 allow for certain expansions on the property, provided certain criteria are met, but the
29 property does not meet any of these criteria, which has created the requirement for the
30 VAR. He stated that if the Planning Commission (PC) were to approve the VAR, it
31 would open the door for approval of the MPR to allow for the square footage expansion.
32 He reiterated that Staff recommends denial of the VAR, which would not allow the
33 expansion of square footage, but Staff is recommending approval of MPR 09-9 for those
34 areas of the proposed plan that would comply with the ZC without the VAR. This would
35 allow for the addition of the exterior elevator to access the second floor. Chairperson
36 Deaton clarified that the applicant is requesting a handicapped restroom extension. Mr.
37 Olivera stated that Staff is not aware that this is a request under the American with
38 Disabilities Act (ADA)
39
40 Commissioner Questions
41
42 Chairperson Deaton noted that she has a letter that indicates that there are actually 5
43 covered parking spaces on this property, rather than the 4 indicated in the Staff Report.
44 Mr. Olivera stated that Staff was presented with plans reflecting 4 single garages and he
45 is not aware that there are 5 parking spaces.
46
11 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
1 Public Hearing
2
3 Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing.
4
5 Mr. Niemeyer stated that his 84-year old mother will be coming to live with him and he
6 wants to reconfigure the upper level unit of this building. He indicated that the structure
7 was built in 1950 and in the mid 90’s the previous owners completed a major renovation
8 of the second floor and combined two upper units. When this was done they left the old
9 breezeway that goes all the way back of the property and also a back porch that
10 overlooks the alley. He indicated that he wishes to enclose these areas and reconfigure
11 them to create more living space. He noted that the footprint of the building will not
12 change, and he will not be adding bedrooms or extra units. He stated that it would be
13 easier to have the handicapped bathroom at the rear of the unit. Chairperson Deaton
14 confirmed that Mr. Niemeyer is requesting to construct a handicapped bathroom and an
15 elevator. Mr. Niemeyer stated that they do want to expand the rear to construct the
16 bathroom and use the existing breezeway area to create access. Mr. Niemeyer noted
17 that the neighbors adjacent to his home are present tonight to speak in support of this
18 project. Chairperson Deaton requested that Staff provide the legal criteria for
19 Variances.
20
21 Mr. Flower stated that the following findings need to be made in order to grant a VAR,
22 as stated in Section 28-2502 of the Municipal Code:
23
24 1. Variance will not adversely affect the General Plan.
25 2. There are special circumstances applicable to the property that would deprive the
26 property owner of enjoying the same privileges enjoyed by other property owners
27 within the same vicinity zone.
28 3. Granting the Variance would not constitute a granting of special privileges to this
29 property.
30
31 Chairperson Deaton emphasized that, as stated in No. 2, there has to be something
32 distinguishing about the property itself and not the existing building on the property. Mr.
33 Flower stated that this is the general requirement. He explained that there must be
34 something particular about the property, and you cannot consider the building itself, but
35 the building relationship to the property is considered.
36
37 Mr. Niemeyer stated that he had read the conditions for findings for a Variance and it
38 does make allowance for the obcelecense of a property. He noted that both the back
39 patio, which is no longer a part of the unit, and the back breezeway, which is no longer
40 an entrance, are now obsolete to the property.
41
42 Bob Villagomez, architect for the project, reiterated that the portions to be enclosed are
43 within the building footprint, the mass is to remain the same, no neighboring views are
44 to be impacted, and the height of the building will not change. He added that the
45 existing character of the house is to be maintained and the existing materials are to be
46 continued. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if the unit currently has a handicapped
12 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
1 bathroom. Mr. Villagomez stated that it does not, but they are proposing to construct
2 one towards the rear of the building. Chairperson Deaton asked if the bathroom would
3 have a 5.5-foot turning radius. Mr. Villagomez stated that this would considerably
4 reduce the bedroom, but there will be sufficient room in the proposed bathroom to get
5 someone with a walker in and out. Chairperson Deaton again asked if this is to be a
6 handicapped bathroom. Mr. Villagomez stated that it would not be a handicapped
7 bathroom to the commercial extent that ADA would require.
8
9 Al Higgenbotham stated that he lives right in front of Mr. Niemeyer’s home, and feels
10 very strongly that there would be no impact upon his home or his view. He spoke in
11 support of approval of VAR 09-5 and MPR 09-9.
12
13 Sergio Keusayan stated that he lives across the street from the Niemeyer residence,
14 and he has viewed the plans for Mr. Niemeyer’s proposed project and has no
15 objections. He noted that it will have no impact upon his view and recommended
16 approval of VAR 09-5 and MPR 09-9.
17
18 Jill Cable stated that her apartment faces the rear of Mr. Niemeyer’s property. She also
19 spoke in support of VAR 09-5 and MPR 09-9, noting that only the existing open areas of
20 this home are to be enclosed and this would create no impact upon her living space or
21 her view.
22
23 Mike Bubbe noted that the property is already noncompliant due to density and he
24 questioned whether approval of this VAR would be appropriate and necessary. He
25 added that whenever open areas are enclosed, it does increase the mass of the
26 building.
27
28 Warren Morton stated that although the idea is good, the density and size of the building
29 will increase if no open areas are left to the rear of the structure.
30
31 Chairperson Deaton noted that what this comes down to are the legal findings, and she
32 asked that Mr. Niemeyer help the PC with this. She asked what makes Mr. Niemeyer’s
33 building different than anyone else’s on Seal Way, so that the PC could grant a VAR
34 that it could not grant to someone else. Mr. Niemeyer stated that he understands that
35 there are quite a few properties within Seal Beach where what he proposes has been
36 done. He cited 805 Ocean Avenue. He indicated that the density was lowered when
37 the property went from 4 units to 3 units, and this does make this property unique. He
38 added that when the units were reduced the owners didn’t take care of the back half of
39 the building.
40
41 Al Higgenbotham clarified whether Mr. Niemeyer’s lot actually measures a lot and one-
42 half. Mr. Olivera stated that the lot measures 37.46-feet wide. Chairperson Deaton
43 noted that density-wise they could have 2 units. Mr. Olivera noted that due to the depth
44 of 89.7 feet, under today’s ZC, they would still only be allowed one unit. Mr. Flower
45 explained that there is a difference between a lot that is wide enough to be split into two
13 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
1 lots, and having a multi-unit building on a single property. He noted that the problem
2 here is that it is zoned for single-family residential and there is a duplex on the property.
3
4 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public
5 hearing.
6
7 Mr. Olivera added that a standard lot in Old Town measuring 100 or 117.5 feet deep
8 would only support a single unit under today’s ZC. He noted that this particular
9 structure was built in 1972 under a VAR for a 4-unit property, and in the 1990’s the
10 owner came before the PC for a MPR to reduce the number of units from 4 to 3, and
11 both Staff and the PC will usually support a reduction in density. He stated that over the
12 years there have been MPR approvals for additions of patios and balconies on the
13 property, but it was not clear in the record as to which patios or balconies at the rear of
14 the building had been enclosed. He indicated that because of the nonconformity and
15 density of the property, everything that has happened on this property through the years
16 has required some type of PC approval. He explained that today any owner of a
17 nonconforming property can apply for a MPR to add a balcony, patio, or deck, as long
18 as it is not enclosed, habitable space. He emphasized that what is triggering this VAR
19 in this case is enclosing the balconies to add habitable square footage.
20
21 Commissioner Comments
22
23 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked what the density would have been when this was
24 constructed in the 1970’s. Mr. Olivera noted that the resolution for VAR 36-72,
25 approved in September1972, states that the proposal was for 0.25 of a unit over
26 density. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that it then could have had 3 units. Mr.
27 Olivera stated that this was correct.
28
29 Commissioner Bello stated that although she understands Mr. Niemeyer is trying to
30 make improvement, she would have to agree with Staff in denying the VAR, as there
31 are already several nonconformities. She noted that legally the PC is held by the
32 findings and she is not certain that they can make these findings. She said she has no
33 problem with the elevator.
34
35 Chairperson Deaton stated that she had received a call last month from a property
36 owner who found that he would require a VAR in order to enclose a balcony, and rather
37 than apply for the VAR he completed the project according to ZC standards. She said
38 that she now needs to know why this building is different from other buildings. She said
39 she does not want to approve this and then see a domino effect occurring with other
40 properties along Seal Way. She confirmed with Staff that they have recommended
41 denial due to the inability to make the findings for approval of a VAR. Mr. Olivera stated
42 that this was correct, in addition to the numerous nonconformities and the density of the
43 property. Chairperson Deaton asked if this were and ADA request, would this meet
44 ADA standards. Mr. Olivera stated that based upon the floor plan, he does not believe it
45 would. Mr. Flower inquired as to whether the question was related to the modification
46 meeting ADA standards or whether or not this request meets the requirements of a
14 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
1 reasonable accommodation request under the ADA. He noted that he cannot address
2 any medical requirements of the first question, and whether this meets the requirements
3 of reasonable accommodation would be difficult for him to say one way or the other;
4 however, as presented he does not believe that it meets the requirements for this. He
5 explained that with reasonable accommodation the applicant must show that the
6 proposed modification or variation from the ZC standard is necessary and reasonable,
7 and he has not seen any real evidence to demonstrate that this is actually necessary to
8 help a disabled person live in this residence. He noted that he is not stating that they
9 could not make these findings, but based on the record seen here, he does not see
10 support for this. Chairperson Deaton asked what would be necessary to have them
11 meet this requirement. Mr. Flower stated that some demonstration that the
12 improvements requested are necessary to enable a disabled person to reside in this
13 home, and this could be any number of things. He explained that a common example
14 used in the ADA context is construction of a ramp within a required setback for use by a
15 disabled person in a wheelchair or to more easily walk into a home. He added that
16 once the applicant has carried the burden to show that the request for modification is
17 necessary, the question then becomes whether, from the city’s perspective, there is
18 evidence that the request is unreasonable because it would place a large administrative
19 or financial burden upon the city, or entail major alterations to the city’s zoning
20 requirements. Mr. Flower then noted that although Variances have been used to grant
21 ADA requests, he would not recommend that the PC take this approach, because it has
22 not been presented, and a Variance under the State Attorney General’s advice is not
23 the best vehicle for granting an ADA request, but it should come through a separate
24 request.
25
26 Public Hearing
27
28 Chairperson Deaton re-opened the public hearing.
29
30 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if Mr. Niemeyer would be wiling to address the issue
31 of reasonable accommodation. Mr. Niemeyer responded that he would be wiling to do
32 this. Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that perhaps Mr. Niemeyer and his architect
33 could meet with Staff to determine what would be needed to complete the expansion
34 that he desires. With regard to enclosing in the back patio she believes this would be a
35 problem, unless there were findings for reasonable accommodation. She said she has
36 no problem with the elevator. She asked if Mr. Niemeyer would have to come before
37 the PC to address the issue of reasonable accommodation. Mr. Flower stated that
38 previous requests for reasonable accommodation have been considered at the PC
39 level. He explained that this is a different legal standard that in some ways can be more
40 forgiving than a VAR, and ADA requirements for reasonable accommodation “trump”
41 state law because it is federal law. Again, Commissioner Massa-Lavitt asked if this
42 would be something Mr. Niemeyer would be wiling to do. Mr. Niemeyer responded that
43 he would. He asked how all of the other balconies in the city were able to be enclosed.
44 Chairperson Deaton explained that the legislation on adding square footage was
45 adopted in 2004, and many of these enclosures had been completed before that time.
46
15 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
1 Chairperson Deaton closed the public hearing.
2
3 Mr. Olivera clarified that if this were to return under a reasonable accommodation
4 request, would what the applicant wishes to do be accomplished within the confines of
5 the existing exterior walls, or would the expansion of square footage still be necessary.
6 Mr. Flower stated that it is the applicant’s burden to demonstrate the necessity of the
7 requested accommodations, so they must prove that the expansion is necessary to
8 accommodate a person with a disability.
9
10 MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to deny Variance 09-5 and adopt
11 Resolution 09-32, as presented.
12
MOTION CARRIED: 3 – 0 – 1
13
AYES: Deaton, Bello, and Massa-Lavitt
14
NOES: None
15
ABSENT: Galbreath and Larson
16
17
18 Mr. Flower advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 09-32 begins a 10-day calendar
19 appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the
20 appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
21
22 MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to approve Minor Plan Review 09-9,
23 subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution 09-38, as presented.
24
MOTION CARRIED: 3 – 0 – 1
25
AYES: Deaton, Bello, and Massa-Lavitt
26
NOES: None
27
ABSENT: Galbreath and Larson
28
29
30 Mr. Flower advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 09-38 begins a 10-day calendar
31 appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the
32 appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
33
34 12. Variance 09-7 & Minor Plan Review 09-5
th
35 334 12 Street (Continued from October 7, 2009)
36
37 Applicant/Owner: John & Michelle Currey
38
39 Request: To allow a 326-sq. ft. first floor addition and a 318-sq. ft.
40 second floor addition to an existing, nonconforming
41 residential property. The property is currently nonconforming
42 due to a less than required garage setback from the public
43 alley and a less than required street side yard setback.
44
45 Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
46 09-39 and 09-31, respectively.
16 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
1 Staff Report
2
3 Mr. Olivera delivered the staff report.
(Staff Report is on file for inspection in the Planning
4 He provided some background information on this item and noted that this
Department.)
5 request is similar to the request for 222 Central Way in that it also has a side street
6 facing garage rather than an alley entrance, eliminating the need for the turn radius off
7 the alley to access the garage, as there is an adequate turn radius into the garage off
8 the side street. With regard to the nonconforming street side yard setback, Mr. Olivera
9 stated that this is not an uncommon occurrence for older homes in Old Town. He noted
10 that Staff was not able to locate the original building permits for this property, but based
11 upon the type of construction, he would estimate that the original home was constructed
12 prior to 1950. He added that any new additions to the home would need to conform to
13 the setback requirements, as is reflected in the plans. He ended by stating that Staff is
14 recommending approval of this request subject to conditions.
15
16 Commissioner Questions
17
18 Chairperson Deaton said she had visited the property and there are several things that
19 she cannot grasp. She asked where the first floor addition would be. Mr. Olivera
20 pointed out the dotted area on the plans as the first floor addition and the hatch-marked
21 area indicating the second floor addition. Chairperson Deaton then stated that she does
22 not see the back door on the plans. Mr. Olivera stated that there is a back door that
23 exists, but was not included in the plans. He said perhaps the applicant could clarify
24 this. Chairperson Deaton then asked if this is a one-unit or two-unit structure. Mr.
25 Olivera stated that he believes it is a one-unit structure.
26
27 Commissioner Bello stated that she had visited the site and spoke with Mrs. Currey, and
28 her understanding is that the door will not be part of the final plan.
29
30 Public Hearing
31
32 Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing.
33
34 John Currey stated that he and his wife have a young daughter and wish to have a
35 second child, but the home currently has only two upstairs bedrooms, so they wish to
36 add a third bedroom upstairs. He explained the first floor addition would just be a patio
nd
37 with a porch underneath the 2 floor addition. He added that they would be removing
38 and closing off the back door.
39
40 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public
41 hearing.
42
43 Commissioner Comments
44
45 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt stated that she also visited this property and sees no
46 reason to deny this request. She said she is in favor of granting this Variance.
17 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
1 Chairperson Deaton added that she believes Mr. Currey’s garage doors are facing the
2 correct direction and that is why the PC can approve this.
3
4 Commissioner Bello stated that she also is in favor of approval.
5 Chairperson Deaton asked that the condition that the back door be removed be
6 included in the motion.
7
8 MOTION by Bello; SECOND by Massa-Lavitt to approve Variance 09-7 and Minor Plan
9 Review 09-5, subject to conditions and that the rear door be removed, and adopt
10 Resolution 09-39 and 09-31, respectively, as presented.
11
MOTION CARRIED: 3 – 0 – 1
12
AYES: Deaton, Bello, and Massa-Lavitt
13
NOES: None
14
ABSENT: Galbreath and Larson
15
16
17 Mr. Flower advised that the adoption of Resolution Nos. 09-39 and 09-31 begins a
18 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is
19 final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
20
STAFF CONCERNS
21
22
23 None.
24
COMMISSION CONCERNS
25
26
27 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt requested a status on the Housing Element.
28
29 Chairperson Deaton noted that she was appointed to the committee for review of the
30 Housing Element and she has not heard anything further.
31
32 Chairperson Deaton then proposed creating a Task Force made up of 2 Commissioners
33 to meet with the City Manager, Director of Development Services, and the City Attorney
34 to establish the protocol for the items to be placed upon the agenda. Mr. Flower noted
35 that calendaring of agenda items to ensure the attendance of all of the Commissioners
36 will also be discussed, as well as the need to know in advance whether the 500-ft.
37 radius will create a conflict on any public hearing item. He recommended that the PC
38 direct Staff to place this item on the agenda for the next scheduled meeting.
39 Chairperson Deaton requested a motion to do so.
40
41 MOTION by Massa-Lavitt; SECOND by Bello to place on the agenda for the November
42 4, 2009 meeting, discussion on creation of a Task Force to establish the Planning
43 Commission agenda protocol.
44
MOTION CARRIED: 3 – 0 – 1
45
AYES: Deaton, Bello, and Massa-Lavitt
46
18 of 19
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of October 21, 2009
1 NOES: None
2 ABSENT: Galbreath and Larson
3
4
5 ADJOURNMENT
6
7 Chairperson Deaton adjourned the meeting at 9:29 p.m.
8
9
10 Respectfully Submitted,
11
12
13
14 Carmen Alvarez, Executive Assistant
15 Planning Department
16
17
18 APPROVAL
19
20 The Commission on November 4, 2009, approved the Minutes of the Planning
21 Commission Meeting of Wednesday, October 21, 2009.
19 of 19