Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1 - PC Min 2012-06-20City of Seal Beach - Planning Commission June 20, 2012 Chair Massa-Lavitt called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 20, 2012. The meeting was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag led by Commissioner Cummings. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Massa-Lavitt; Commissioners: Cummings, Everson, Goldberg Absent: Commissioner Galbreath Staff Present: Greg Hastings, Interim Director of Community Development Jerry Olivera, Senior Planner Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney Anita Chapanond, Deputy City Clerk Motion by Cummings, second by Everson, to excuse Commissioner Galbreath. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Massa-Lavitt indicated that agenda item #3 (AB 1234 Ethics Training) has been postponed until the July 18, 2012, regular meeting. Motion by Cummings, second by Everson, to approve the agenda as amended. AYES: Cummings, Everson, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None ABSENT: Galbreath Motion Carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chair Massa-Lavitt opened oral communications. Speakers: Marc Loopesko, Old th Town resident, spoke of concerns regarding a potential height violation on 4 Street; Mike Buhbe, Old Town Resident, provided a brief history regarding height limits and Measure Z. There being no other speakers, Chair Massa-Lavitt declared oral communications closed. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Goldberg stated that he had submitted additional statements for inclusion into the meeting minutes for approval. Motion by Cummings, second by Everson, to approve the changes to the minutes as requested by Commissioner Goldberg. Page 2 – Planning Commission 06/20/12 AYES: Cummings, Everson, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None ABSENT: Galbreath Motion Carried Without any objection, the Commission approved the recommended action on the consent calendar as revised. 1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2012. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR No items were removed. SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. Determination of Similarity – Reiki practice within the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) zone. The Senior Planner delivered the staff report – Reiki is a type of Japanese healing art – requested that Commission determine the similarity of Reiki to other retail and services that require a conditional use permit (CUP) within the Main Street Specific Plan zone – staff agreed that this type of use is similar to other service type uses within the MSSP zone – recommended that the Planning Commission determine it is similar and require a CUP to operate. The Assistant City Attorney indicated that the request does not concern any particular application – functionally an administrative interpretation of the MSSP requirements – should Commission determine that Reiki is a conditionally permitted use, and business operating Reiki would still need to apply for a CUP and come before the Commission – resolution has been prepared should Commission’s findings reflect staff’s recommendation. Commission Questions and Comments: Commissioner Everson: (need to determine if it is a similar type use requiring CUP; massage industry is heavily regulated) Commissioner Goldberg: finding to other similar businesses, clarified permitted use or CUP (consider land use impact, not enumerated uses) Mee Vaj, Reiki practioner requesting determination, provided background information regarding the healing art – primarily for stress reduction – promotes physical/emotional healing – based on energy transfer. Motion by Goldberg, second by Cummings, to approve AYES: Cummings, Everson, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None ABSENT: Galbreath Motion Carried Page 3 - Planning Commission 06/20/12 3. Planning Commission and Staff training – AB 1234 (Ethics). This item was re-scheduled to July 18, 2012. PUBLIC HEARING 4. Variance 12-2 th 226 4 Street Applicant: Brent Sears – Architect Owners: Bob & Cathy West Request: To allow an existing 7’-0” rear yard setback to remain (9’-0” is the minimum required rear setback for this property) in conjunction with a proposed first-floor addition of approximately 180 square feet to an existing single-family dwelling. Recommendation: Deny Variance 12-2. The Senior Planner delivered the staff report – the property was before the Planning Commission in 2002 for a major remodel, expansion allowed at that time under Chapter 28 – in January 2011, Title 11 went into effect – there are no unique circumstances associated with this property. Commission Questions and Comments: Commissioner Everson: questioned if the property were one unit, would the property require a CUP – consider all of the non-conformities (both non-conformities do factor in this situation because applicant wants to maintain the second unit – alternatives have been discussed). Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: concerned with second units or bonus rooms in general, believes it lends itself to adding a unit. Brent Sears, applicant/architect introduced himself and provided some background information – owners Bob and Cathy West purchase property as it is, fits current development pattern – owners do not rent out the second unit, reserved for family and friends when visiting – willing to remove kitchen, but do thth not want to tear down structure – provided a map of alley between 4 and 5 streets indicating that 18 of 34 homes do not conform to 9’ setback standard – explored recessing garage, but unable to due to beam issue. Commissioner Everson: commented that a connection from the main house structure would be in compliance Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: questioned whether an interior staircase was possible; could a covenant be on file to preclude illegal unit in the future. Page 4 – Planning Commission 06/20/12 Chair Massa-Lavitt opened the public hearing. Speakers: Bob West, owner of property, indicated that they have never rented out the unit, and the property is owner occupies; provide additional background information regarding reasons for expansion and necessity to maintain the second unit; Joyce Parque, Old Town resident, would like to see Commission work with the applicant. There being no other speakers, Chair Massa-Lavitt declared oral communications closed. Motion by Cummings, second by Everson, to continue the item to July 18, 2012 meeting. AYES: Cummings, Everson, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None ABSENT: Galbreath Motion Carried 5. Conditional Use Permit 12-1 322 Main Street #7 Applicant: Tarit Tanjasiri Owner: Ron Bennett Request: To permit reciprocal access between the existing restaurant (The Crema Café) and an adjacent lease space (Crema Café Bakery), and to allow outdoor dining within an existing adjacent courtyard within the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) zone at 322 Main Street #7 (Crema Café). Recommendation: Approve CUP 12-1, subject to conditions. The Senior Planner delivered the staff report – the bakery will remain as a separate business from the café – the issue arose because they are unable to provide disabled access – provided background information regarding parking requirements as outlined in Main Street Specific Plan and assessment of in-lieu parking fees. The Senior Planner also indicated that staff received a petition with 53 pages, amounting to 636 signatures, in support of Crema Café and Crema Café Bakery. Commission Questions and Comments: Commissioner Everson: clarified that in the MSSP, all restaurants trigger a CUP – property was grandfathered in as a legal conforming use (once MSSP adopted, additional space should have triggered a CUP); inquired regarding definition of reciprocal access (not defined in zoning code, using literal definition); questioned if applicant would be here without the issue of the reciprocal access (prompted in-lieu parking fees). Page 5 - Planning Commission 06/20/12 Commissioner Goldberg: indicated that the Commission does not have the authority to waive any fees – can determine the number of parking spaces. Tarit Tanjasiri, applicant, provided background information regarding establishment and proposed bakery. Seth Eaker, spoke on behalf of applicant – presented factual findings and additional information – stated courtyard is part of shared resources and is a common area – believed the patio being attributed only to the Café is flawed – discussed the actual net gain of square footage when Café expanded – considers the in-lieu parking fee to be an arbitrary fee since no parking solution has arisen from those monies – should fees be required, would like to request maximum extension time – as a thriving business, Crema Café has increase sales tax revenue and created jobs for the City – would like Commission to consider alignment of operational hours with MSSP regulations (availability to do dinner). Commission Questions and Comments: Commissioner Everson: received clarification regarding parking calculation and numbers differing for grandfathered properties versus actual demand (the demand was lowered after MSSP adopted); questioned if applicant would be opposable to having a door instead of reciprocal access (would not be opposed). Commissioner Goldberg: received clarification regarding current formulas in MSSP calculating required parking – possible to look at center wholly in terms of shared parking – clarified amount of space acquired when storage unit vacated (does not mention storage in plans) – inquired whether tenant or owner builds ramp (it would be a civil matter; percentage of improvements are dedicated towards accessibility). Chair Massa-Lavitt opened the public hearing. There were 14 speakers present who spoke in support of the applicant, Crema Café, and Crema Café Bakery. There being no additional speakers, Chair Massa-Lavitt closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Goldberg: reiterated that the Commission does not have the authority to waive fees; supports a maximum of 7 years to make payment; would like fees to be calculated fairly and proportionately to the amount controlled/used by Crema Café. Commissioner Everson: stated concerns in having to recalculate in-lieu fees based on indoor versus outdoor use or based on hours of control; suggested using table space as a proportion of patio square footage, not hours, as the determinate calculating factor. Page 6 – Planning Commission 06/20/12 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt: supported Commissioner Everson’s notion regarding how to calculate in-lieu fees; primary concern is to be equitable and justify fees mathematically. The Assistant City Attorney advised that fees should be based on square footage of patio space rather than the amount of room taken up by tables. Commissioner Goldberg: indicated that additional hours may change intensity of use, questioned whether additional noticing would be required (would not be required as additional hours would be permitted by right under the MSSP). Motion by Everson, second by Goldberg, to approve Conditional Use Permit 12-1 amending Section 4 and Section 6, Condition #11 modifying the in-lieu parking fees to a percentage of use (2 for courtyard, 4 for restaurant, totaling 6 parking spaces in addition to existing parking required). Commissioner Goldberg: indicated that he would like to endorse the applicant’s estimate of the patio area at 800 square feet. Commissioner Everson: stated he would like to grant the maximum of 7 years for payment of in-lieu parking fees. The Commission took a recess from 10:40 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., to allow staff to revise the resolution. Motion by Massa-Lavitt, second by Everson, to continue discussion of the item through the remainder of tonight’s meeting. AYES: Cummings, Everson, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None ABSENT: Galbreath Motion Carried Everson motioned again, second by Cummings, to approve Conditional Use Permit 12-1, subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution No. 12-7 as revised. AYES: Cummings, Everson, Goldberg, Massa-Lavitt NOES: None ABSENT: Galbreath Motion Carried The Assistant City Attorney advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 12-7 begins a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commission action tonight is final and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning. Page 7 - Planning Commission 06/20/12 DIRECTOR’S REPORT Interim Director Hastings indicated that the Housing Element has passed, and th noted that AB1234 ethics training will occur at the July 18 Planning Commission meeting. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Goldberg: requested staff follow up regarding the concerns with th 234 7 Street (staff can provide status report). ADJOURNMENT At 11:15 p.m., Chair Massa-Lavitt adjourned the meeting. Deputy City Clerk Approved: Chair Attest: Deputy City Clerk NOTICE: The following document has not been approved for accuracy and may be corrected, modified or amended before final approval. Because it is being made available prior to final action, it should not be considered a true record of the meeting. It is not the official Minutes of the Planning Commission and cannot be relied on or used as an official record of the proceedings. Although the City of Seal Beach makes every effort to see that proper notes are taken at a meeting, and although draft Minutes are generally approved as submitted, changes and corrections are sometimes made before a final version is approved. The City therefore makes no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the contents of this document. Once Official Minutes have been approved, a copy can be obtained from the City Clerk.