HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2005-12-12 #DD
e
e
e
AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
December 12, 2005
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
TIIRU:
John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM:
Mark K. Vukojevic, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBmCT:
NON-STANDARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT REQUEST-
321 MAIN STREET
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The proposed City Council action will provide direction and/or concept approval of a permit
requested for a non-standard encroachment permit for a business're1ated sign at 321 Main Street.
BACKGROUND:
The business at 321 Main Street, Baytown Realty, is requesting an after-the-fact non-standard
encroachment permit and building permit for a business related illuminated sign located "in the
public right of way behind the existing sidewalk. Code Enforcement action started as a result of
the lack of building permits for the construction of the sign.
On April 14, 2003, City Council adopted a Council Policy entitled Sidewalk Encroachment
Within the Main Street Specific Plan Area also known as the Main Street Encroachment Permit
Policy. (A City Council study session was conducted on August 12, 2002 and an initial policy
draft review was completed on December 9, 2002.) The intent of the Policy was to regulate
encroachments on Main Street such as benches, newsraclcs, awnings, banners, bike racks, and
trash receptacles. The specific purpose of the Policy was to establish regulations for the
placement of encroachments under, on, or above public sidewalks on Main Street. The Policy
also states that "no person shall install an encroachment without first obtaining and maintaining
in fUll force and effect, an encroachment permit for such encroachment. .. Per the policy,
encroachments owners must provide an application, indemnification to the City, insurance, and
an application fee to the City on city-provide forms.
Sandwich board type signs of any type are prohibited from the public right of way per Municipal
Code, Section 7.20.075. However, permanent type signs in the Public Right of Way and
encroachments behind the sidewalks were not addressed by the Policy and separate policy
review and consideration is requested by City Council.
The business sign at 321 Main Street is unique because ofits location in the Public Right of Way
in a planter area behind the 9-foot sidewalk. The building on the property also has a greater than
Agenda Item.l2O
IS-foot building setback. (A photo and sign diagram is attached) No other sign encroachments e
of this type are found on Main Street. There are some businesses that have temporary and
permanent types of un-permitted seating areas in the Public Right of Way. These seating area
encroachments which could be considered sim.ilar to benches as long as they are maintained as
non-permanent, will be brought to City Council separately for City Council review. There are
also many other types of encroachments such as benches, bike racks, newsracks, awnings, and
overhangs, most of them permitted as non-standard encroachment permits.
City Council may approve the Non-Standard Encroachment P~it "as-is" and require the
business owner to provide the specified building permit, encroachment application,
indemnification, insurance and application fee. An important consideration is the precedence
that could be established by permitting the non-standard sign on Main Street, the request for
future permanent signs in the Public Right of Way and the private business benefits by use of the
Public Right of Way. Also, the existing sign does not meet the proposed Revisions to the Sign
Provisions of the Zoning Code, (currently being considered by the Planning Commission) which
would require the total height of the sign to be lowered from 6-feet to 5-feet in height. City
Council may also direct that the sign be; removed from the Public Right of Way and moved back
to private property for the various reasons listed above. Additional information can also be
provided upon request by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
e
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction on the following alternatives:
1. Approve a Non-Standard Encroachment Permit (with the requirement to submit the
application documents and fees) for the sign at 321 Main Street "as-is";
2. Approve.a Non-Standard Encroachment~Permit for the sign at 321 Main Street with the requirements that the business owner modify the sign to meet the proposed sign
ordinance;
3. Deny the request for the Permit and continue code enforcement action to remove the
sign from the Public Right of Way;
4. Request additional information.
Prepared By:
11V4 ~ .
Mark Vukojevic, P.E.
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
e
Agenda Item_
e
e
e
A Permit Request Letter from Baytown Realty dated Nov. 21, 2005.
B. Existing Sign Proof and Order Fonn
C. Site Photograph
D. Proposed Revisions-to the Sign Provisions of Zoning Code, Nov. 9, 05
E. Council Policy - Sidewalk Encroachment Within the Main Street
Specific Plan Area
F. City Council Minutes April 14, 2003, December 9, 2002 and
August 12,2002
A~da Item_
A. Permit Request Letter from Baytown Realty dated Nov. 21, 2005 e
e
e
Agenda ltem_
e
Mark K. Vukojevic
211 Eighth Street, 200 Floor
Seal Beach, California 90740
Subject 321 Main Street Encroachment Permit
Honorable Major and Council Persons:
I purchased the property 4 years ago, which has a 9'6" sidewalk, which also has a 2'6" dirtpIanter. I
constructed a 30" fence on the property line and I Iandscaped it like the mall at 315 Main Street and
constructed a bulletin board for the properties I have listed.
The sidewalk on the west side of Main Street is all 9'6" except 333 Main Street which has a sidewalk width
of 5'8" (without planning approval). My property confonDs with the mall. The city sidewalk requirement
is 12' feet Very few businesses meet this requirement. All that I am requesting is consideration ofwbat
others have done without getting approval:
.
101 Main Street, recently remodeled. Requirement is 12 feet, but it is only II '2" with bench
encroachment with 6'4" sidewalk clel!l"ance.
101-336 Main Street has awnings or roof overhangs which encroach on city property without
planning approval.
There are numerous benches encroaching on the sidewalks.
141/143 Main Street - roof over the sidewalk with posts at 8~ on city sidewalk.
209 Main Street - roof overhang on sidewalk, sidewalk clearance is 7' 5" with a bench.
214-216 Main Street has a roof overhang with posts encroaching at 8' on sidewalk.
210 Main Street - 2 benches on sidewalk with 7' clearance.
244 Main Street - Roof over sidewalk with sidewalk clearances at 8'.
231 Main Street - Wood deck encroaching on City sidewalk.
133 Main Street- Width of Sidewalk is 5'4".
139 Main Street - Has flower pots; sidewalk width is 9' .
333 Main Street-Fence is encroaching on City sidewalk, clearance of sidewalk is 5'8".
(
I am the first person required to go before City Council (threatened) to request an encroachment permit.
This is a planning and public works matter and should have been handled by these departments.
I would appreciate if each City Council Member would take a look at my property before making a decision
on this matter.
Sincerely,
A~
- J~isanin
W'
321 MAIN STREET · SEAL BEACH · CA 90740
Bus: (562) 596-6600 0 FAX: (562) 596-5629.0 TOLL FREE: 1-877-BAvrOWN
Website: www.BaytownRealty.com
B. Existing Sign Proof and Order Form
,
Agenda ltem_
e
e
,e
e
.
.
stewart signs. corn
".,. .~:JJt id'"iDJ.
^,,~O---Jlflt:~Od
willi Jj"lt,d ,"Iw"~~'j; .2.
dut".. "n. _,___ j,
x
AMBASSADOR 1\
CABINET SIZE: 3'6"x5'
"
.--
-
uUHlIl'.,\L bESI(;~
UO .'luT nl'PUC\TE
r:..l'# .I16!,i,t5It Jj-m-trJ VJirN!
# lM)j,~,_~(, l'R(JI'tJS..tL
11,.
.J.M. SI"'nllrl
CIJrptJraltPJ
J-..WIfJ-2,,:'~~j~:'T,~
~~. I,
illl.. 10 1111. l'ilL\311 .\1, U~Ul,\II.Il""'~ 01- lilt. t"\I'I:.IL "11 l:o>h..r-;""I.lI
r'lU"n"'l. l'lI!:~Jl L'u. lI'l.. (1...1I~"1 \ltl\l~JI1" b ,"'1'1 t:>.It.....,llll 1(1
~.J.l.UUll. "" ......'l.1 .\l\HIII!H>U"j" t'''' \l"H_,~li ~'U"'I.
11[J!'tl" Ill~!llIln' 1':'- I:>IlU J.H"~.... \:......u..r.l. \...1' 1.\"1):\\ 'oJ'.'I.
l'" .."t l"'IUII~ll I.... 1.1I~ 1'tl:.,t'II~\1_
/
I
(
\
./
11/13/2003
SIGN ORDER FORM
ITIII! J.~1. STEWART Corptuatiolt
; A~IERI("\'S l'IIE\II~:R SIC'! Cn\lPASV
::01 C\:-;n; COUtU. SUIT" :17-:18, SAK.\SOT.\, FL 3-1:3:
NOV-18-03 TUE 01: 28 PM J II STEWART
stcwn 1.t.dJ.: II.~. em"
FAX NO,
p, 03
e
FAX '141-378.2765
FOR PSSISTANCE, CALL Jim Nunley
TOLL FREE 1-800-237-3928
.-
SIGN SPECIFICATIONS
---- . .. ....-----. -.- ---
HUBINr,: 3S
Name as Ie is to appear on sign,
m.Y'l.'OW.~ n.O:ALTY
sign Spncific~tions:
Mod~l...... ........ Ambassador
si~ ~. . . . . . .. 4 . . . . . .. Ii
egl/TJhl Sided.,..". Single Sided
i':ou.\\".ing Method.... Anchor Bolts
Cabinet Color.. ....- Blue .
l,eg Tl\~ight.....,.,. 2' 6"
IntcJ."l\Cl.lly Illuminated
Cahinnt Si~e........3'6" x 5'
Fnc)c~p:C)und Color... Blue
tyPe...,....... Translucent Vinyl
Nam, Color......... White
Draet Color........ Dark Red
SymhoJ. N'uIpber......
Outlllle Color......
b!es:JlL~fn Center. . . . .
!, of Lines.. ....
I~ of Letters...
Vnr:1dal Cover...
CUSTOM
Dark Red
Yes
Lines of Inch
334 tetters
Yes
SIGN
cOriSULTAN"1
11-14-03
':"1"
--.......-
DATE
._..~-
PRICES
Order Number...,...# 428278
Customer Number....# 1608636
Sign,..............$ 3,528.25
Vandal Cover.......$Included
Symbol..... ..." ,..$lncluded
Colored Draft $ Included
Blue Opaque Message $Included
Copy Outline
$ Included
Total Sa1e..,...$ 3,528.25
Deposit Rec'd.. ..$_._
Actual freight charges will
be added to final invoice.
Applicable State Sales Tax
will be added to your invoice
for customers in CA, FL. lA,
KY, NC, SC, SO, & VA,
These Prices Guatanteed for 60 Days only.
- . ......-.- _._.._~ - ......
~
e
e
C. Site YhOtogt'l1Pb.
. ..-"
p..genGa ltetl1_
e
C. Site Photograph
e
.
.
Agenda Item
-
e
e
D. Proposed Revisions to the Sign Provisions of Zoning Code, Nov. 9, OS
Agenda ltem_
ZCA DS-3.Sign Standllrds.PC StlllfReporl
f.
g.
Planning Commission Staff RePOyt
Zoning Text Amenl/ment 05-3
Proposed Revisions to Sign Provisions a/Zoning Code
Novemblll' 9, 2005
~~~'I':lIeI:l'\'''~itlQ'ffiln"'ilJ'
---~.
(1) Where the face of the building sets back. from the property
line more than 15 feet, one single-faced or double-faced
freestAtlning monument sign is permitted, in addition to those
on the building, in accordance with the following:
o No part of the sign shall extend over public property or
have a height exceeding 5 feet measured from the base at
groUDd level to the apex of the sign.
o The tota1 area of the sign shall not exceed 0.5 square feet
per foot of street frontage or 40 square feet, whichever is
smaller.
o Signs shall be located in a landscape planter a minimum
of 2 feet wider than the sign itself, with a minimum 2-
foot wide base for the monument sign itself.
o Placement shall conform. with a minimum setback. of 3
feet from a street property line, 3 feet from an interior
property line, and a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of
a driveway.
o Landscaping with automatic sprinklers shall be provided
at the base of the supporting structlml equal to twice the
area of one fil.ce of the sign or 75 square feet; whichever
is greater.
o If the sign is to be lit, all lighting shall be from intemal
illumination.
o Each monument sign shall contain an address plate
identifying ~~ subject property. 'Numbers shall be a
minimn!11 of 6 inches in height and shall be clearly
visible from the public right-of-way. Address plates
sl1a!l not be calculated against the allowable sign area.
Restaurant Menu, Signs ~ permitted subject to the following
requirements and, cc.>Q.di~iQn,s:
'(i) shaiI be located in a permanently mounted display box on
the surface of the building adjacent to the entry.
(2) The allowable area shall be a maximum of 6 square feet
and shall be limited to the size of two pages of the menu
utilized by the e~blisbment.
(3) Such sign shall be compatibl~ with the scale, colors, and
materials of the restaurant storefront
(4) Such sign shall not be used for additional business
identification or additional signage.
(5) Such sign shall not be included in the sign area calculation
for the business.
e
e
e
21
e E. Council Policy - Sidewalk Encroachment Within the Main Street Specijic
Plan Area
e
e
Agenda Item_
COUNCIL POLICY
e
SUBJECT
SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT WITHIN THE MA,IN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
SECTION INDEX l'!O. ISSUE DATE REVISION COUNCIL CM
400 6 . April I 5,2003 DATE APPROVAL APPROVAL
April 14, 2003
e
5.2 Application. Encroachment permit applications sha1l be submitted to the
City Engineer and shall consist of
("
5.2.1 A City-provided application form.
5.2.2 A-City-provided indemnlfication agreement. The agreement shall
require the applicant to indemnifY, defend (with counsel acceptable to
City) and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agent~
against any and all claims, demands, losses, costs, expenses, obligations~
liabilities, nAmAges, recpveries and deficiencies that the .City shall incur or
suffer as a result of the applicant's. encroachment. Such obligation shall
include payment of interest, penalties and attorneys' fees. -
5.2.3 Written proof of liability insurance, The insurance shall: (i) be
issued by an insurer with a.current A.M. Best's rating of A:VU or better;
(ii) name the City and its officers, employees and agents as additional
insureds; (iii) be primary and provide that any insurance maintained by the
City shall be excess insurance; (iv) indemnify for all liability for personal
and bodily injury, death and dainage to property arising from the
applicant's encroachment; and (v) provide a combined single limit liability
insurance of at least one million dollars per occurrence.
e
5.2.4 A non-refundable application fee in an amount set by City Council
resolution.
c
5.3 Field Inspection. Each encroachment permit applicant shall participate in
a field inspection with the City Engineer. The. applicant sha1l mark, in chalk or an.
equivalent method satisfactory to the City Engineer, the precise location proposed
for the encroachment The applicant shatl remove the marking at the completion
of the field inspection. ,
e
5.4 Public Notice. The City Engineer shall send written notice of an
encroachment permit application to property owners and tenants having a legal
interest in property located within a 100 feet radius of the location proposed for
the encroachment. The notice shall indicate that written comments in support or
protest of the application may be filed with the City Engineer within 7 days of the
date of the notice for consideration by the City Engineer.
5.5 Approval or Denial By <;:ity Engineer. If there are no grounds for denial,
the City Engineer may approve an encroachment permit application for the
following types of permanent encroachments: benches, bike racks, kiosks,
tables, banners, decorative refuse receptacles. Ti+e City Cp\!llc,il may il-pprove
encroachment permit applications for other types of encroachments if there are no
grounds for denial. The following constitute grounds for denial of an
encroachment permit:
c
(
5.5.1 Failure to complete the application.
e
5.5.2 Knowing submission of a misleading or fraudulent statement of
material fact. '
5.5.3 Failure to comply with the location standards set forth in SB-140-1
Sidewalk Encroachments In Main Street Specific Plan Area.
5.5.4 The proposed encroachment would be detrimental to.the public
h~alth, safety or welfare.
5.6 Term. Each enc~oachm.ent perinit shall expire on the next June 30th
following date of issuance unless it is forfeited for non-use or is revoked before
such date. An encroachment pennit shall automatically be forfeited for non-use'
on the sixtieth day after issuance if the allowed encroachment has not.been
installed. Applications for renewal of an encroachment permit shall be processed
in accordance with the procedures governing initial applications. Information that
is on file and unchanged need not be re-subrnitted with a renewal application.
c
5.7 Revocation. The City Engineer may summarily revoke an encroachment
pennit and remove the allowed encroachment when necessary to eliminate an .
immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare. Otherwise, the City
Engineer may revoJce 'an "encroachment permit following 5 days advance written
notice, and if requested by the permittee, a hearing. The following shall constitute
grounds for non-summary revocation of an encroachm~nt p.ermit:
5.7.1 Knowing submission of a misleading or fraudulent statelIijlnt of
material fact.
e
5.7.2 FaiI~ to comply :with .the location standards setforth in SB-140-1
Sidewalk Encroachments In Main Street Specific Plan Area.
5.7.3 Interference with a project to be undertaken by the City or a public
utility.
5.8 Refunds. Revocation of an encroachment permit shall not constitute
grounds for a refund of the encroachment permit fee unless the revocation is due
to interference with a project to be undertaken by the City or a public utility. In
such situations, the refund amount shall be proportionate to the unexpired t= of
the permit.
5.9 Grandfather Rights. Existing awning or marquee or overhang structure
encroachments sha1l be deemed to have received an encroachment permit as long e
-
e
e
.e
as said encroachment is in conformance with the location standards set forth in
SB-140-1 Sidewalk Encroachments In Main Street Specific Plan Area
6. .
ENCROACHMENT LICENSE
6.1 Requirement. An encroachment license shall be obtained concurrently
with an encroachment permit for each encroachinent other than awnings.
6.2 Term. Each encroachment license sha1l expire concurrently with the
encrO!lchment permit with which it is associated.
7. ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY
The City Engineer shall have jurisdiction over encroachments and shall enforce this
policy. .
c
r
l.
F. City Council Minutes April 14, 2003, De.cember 9, 2002 and August 12,
2002
Agenda Item_
e
e
e
e
4-14-03
miner or major structural alterations, etc., the Section goes
further to state t~at approval of suc~ expansions, minor plan
reviews, or conditional use permits "i11 result in a threat
to t~e public welfare, those sre the key findings. Mayor
~arson said from his experience "~en people ~esr of t~is
being proposed and should there not be an urgency ordinance
there would be innumerable applications submitted, with the
ordinance it will Dl8intain the normal process pending
adoption of new regulations. Counci~an Yost offered that he
~as a problem "ith people expanding legal nonconforming
residences, especially those that are legal nonconforming due
to parkinq which increases the density of the srea.
AYES:
NOES:
Ant.os, Campbell, Doane, LarsoD, Yost.
None Motion csrde!!
e
MArK STREET ENCRO~""HMEWl' PERMIT POLI:C:Y
The Director qf Public Works presented the staff report,
explained t~at this item deals wit~ whether or not the City
desires to regulate encroachments on Main Street, during the
past nine months staff has brought. proposals to the Council
in an effort to bring closure to this issue. It is proposed
to inventory everything on the Street, inform the owners if a
corrective action is necessary, and issue a no fee
encroachment. pe~t to them, thuB streamlining the process
for the business owners, the bench standards have been '
modified which will allow two benches to face each other, the
sign ordinance will be held in abeyance since it confuses the
issues between benches and encroachments and sandwich board
signs until there is a Code review process, Public works will
install items such as bike racks as fu.nds become available,
and it is confirmed that there will be no outdoor dininq.
The Director recommended adoption of the Policy as submitted.
Antos moved, second by YOB't, to adop't the Encroachment permit
policy.
AYES:
NOES:
Antos, CBmPbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Mo'tion carried
~OPOBED RESOLUTiON _ ON_STREET pavvING REGULATYONS I
LAYOUT _ SVT BEACH BOllLEVARD
The Director of Development Services presented the staff
report, noted that t.his it.em ComeB to the Council as a
reconanendation of the Planning C~88ion as an out.growth of
t.he CammissioD hearing relat.ing to the next agenda item, the
General Plan Amendment, Zons Change, etc. relating to the
~imi ted COIIlIIlIIrcia1 loninq standards on Seal Beac~ Boulevsrd
between Pacific Coast Highway and Electric. As part of the
discussion at the commission an issue was raised about the
parkinq regulations and parking space layout that currently
exists on Seal Beach Boulevard, the Commission indicated
concern based upon the COJmEUI:Dt.S presented and forwarded a
recommendation to the Council to aut.horize staff work wit.h a
consultant to undertake a parkinq study and analysis of that
area, came back with recommendations as to whether changes
are or are not. appropriate, the cost., as indicated in the
staff report, is ",500 and the Resolution proposed would
make t~e necessary budqet amendment to transfer those funds
into t~e Profes.ional Services account if the Council
de~eimLnes such action i. appropriate.
e
councilman Antos asked if part of t~is study would be to look
at diagonal psrkinq along t~is particu1sr area. The
Development Services Director confirmed t~at t~at is part of
t~e proposal. Councilman Antos indicated. t~at it would be
12-9-02
e
business I this was 'the compramise reached. The KayoX' noted
that it was once said that since it takes so long in advance
to reserve a position for the show that it may carry over to
2004 and asked if that were so. Councilman Doane mentioned
tha~ the spaces are Bold a year in advance.
Vote on the motion to receive and file the staff report.
AllES:
NOI!lS:
Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost.
None Motion carried
MA7N STREET EN'C:RO.ACRMER'l' POLl:CY
The City Henager noted that some changes were made to the
Policy that staff would like to review with the Council. ~e
Director of Public Works stated that the intent of this item
is to establish regulations for sidewalks on Hain Street, a
sidewalk is a place t.o walk, place to gather, and 'the
aest.hetics of ill downtown are determined by what. treeB,
benches, and planters are placed within them, ill mintmum
sidewalk is generally about five feet. wide, Seal Beach has
twelve foot wide sidewalks which leaves seven feet. to place
such amenities. The reason for this, Council has received
complaint.s fram same residents and business owners relating-
to the nature of what was taking place on Main Street, during
the budget hearings staff was requested to look into the
concerns, in August a draft policy was presented to Council,
in October public outreach questionnaires were distributed to
the businesses, he and the City Manager attended a Chamber of
Commerce meeting and held an additional meeting in NOVember,
the responses received were provided the attendees with the
packet. The Director said one of the things that came forth
from the ,November mee1;inq, which is somewhat. separate from
the Main Street Encroachment POlicy, was the temporary signs,
currently there is an ordinance in place that does not allow
the City Engineer to iesue permits for such signs, staff
received verbal opposition as well as requests to cleanup the
area of the signs, that l~aveB the Council a decision point
to either enforce the existing ordinance or to refer it back
to the Planning commission to revise the ordinance that
exists. He noted that some of the publ"i-c-comments-recei-ved-
bave now been included in the Policy. The Director expleined
that. initially a rental charge was proposed, that was looked
at as a self-enforcinq mechanism, currently there is a rental
charge for such things as dumpsters in the public right-of-
way of about $1 per day, there were e number of public
comments against a rental charge, therefore the
recommendation is that there be no rental charge and instead
that an application and inspection fee be adopted, the intent
is to bring the application and inspection fee to Council in
January as wall as possibly an after-the-fact grandfether
clause at no cost. for what current.ly exists, t.hen for any new
encroachments charge the application/inspect.ion fee. Another
point is that there was no desire to standardize aesthetics,
there was no real consensus as to how things should look,
some people want standardizat.ion, some de not, there were
comments as to the unique character of the town, staff is
currently recOllllllSnding thet there not be stanc\ardized
aesthetics otherwise staff will become somewhat of a defacto
art source, therefore if the encroachments, whether it be a
bench, planter, or whatever, meet the location standards they
would be approved through the encroachment permit proceSB.
Another issue is the temporary encroachments, initially they
were proposed to be handled under a special activity permit,
similar to a sidewalk sale permit, the special event policy
allowed up to six events in any given year and that would be
e
e
e
12-9-02
e
the recDlllllleDdation of staff for temporary encroachments. As
to outdoor dining- 1:he public response wu evenly split, that
would be allowed only if directed to draft a separate
ordinance for that encroachment with a recommendation for a
public hearing-. The Director noted that the lest and DlDst
basic issue that staff is desirous of instituting- is location
standards, sidewalks are basically a five foot walk zone,
Main Street sidewalks are twelve feet so five feet should be
free for pedestrians to walk through, also allow an aisleway
for a car, that allows a person exit ~eir car without
walking- to the back of another car and enter upon the
sidewalk, a clear distance fram infrastructure, light poles,
trees, etc. is alBa wanted, ingress and egress from buildings
was looked at to assure that they are clear and meet t;he CBC,
the heig-ht of encroachments was looked at as well, an eXlII1Iple
would be the heng-ing- of a fleg- or other item from e building-,
in that case there would need to be enoug-h clearance to do
80, 'about eig-ht feet.
counci1member Campbell made reference to pag-e three of the
staff report, item 3, relating to temporary
encroacbments...uot to exceed more than six times per any
calendar year, to which she asked if that meant six times on
an individual basis, not events designated by the city, staff
responded in the affirmative. With regard to item 2,
standardization of aesthetics, Councilmember Campbell asked
if there would be any type of benchmark. The Public Works
Director referred to pictures at the end of the staff report
of basic standard benches as well as the wrap-around benches
mentioned during a pr~~r meeting, benches come in a number of
styles, the intent is to not stifle creativity, as an example
one restaurant has cantilevered benches, these would not fit
into any stendard that the staff would sug-gest yet they would
not be encroachments that would not be allowed, there could
also be a wood bench with iron railings, 1:h.ere could be
concrete benches, there were ccmanents from the public that
they did not went a Council policy for certain thing-s and did
not want street furniture to be cookie cutter. The Director
suggested that there could be some criteria such as designate
certain benches as allowable then let people bring- forth
something of their personal choice. Councilman Antos noted
that the Public Works Department and the Planning- Department
. have been working on the newsrack issue, according to
information provided in the pest there would be locetions
determined to be scceptable, end inquired if staff will be
doing- the Sll1llB thing- wi1:h this proposal, look at MBin Street
end determine the areas that would be g-enerally acceptable
for benches, etc. as opposed to waiting- until someone
approaches the City. The response wes that it was not the
intention of staff to designate locations along- the Street,
there are businesses that have already placed benches end
there are other businesses that have not express.d.1D
interest in having- e bench but could. Counciiman Antos asked
if benches would he located in such a wey that they would be
interspersed so that they do not become in effec~ outside
dining or where a business comes in and wants to put benches
on both sides of the walkway which ag-ain becomes defacto
dining. The Director responded that it looks as if with the
twelve foot width of the sidewalks there could not be two
benches facing- each other because they would need to be
eig-hteen inches from the curb face and in front of the bench
up to two feet of spece would be needed, then the five feet
of space would need to.be maintained, however there is
nothing- in the Policy that would prevent someone from baving-
three benches in s row provided they met 1:he five foot
e
12-9-02
e
criteria. councilman Antos said whatever criteria is adopted
by the Council he would like to see soma ...tc1Jnum limitation
on concentration of benches in any area, he WDuld DOt. like 'to
see the ADA area of walkway be the only open area along the
Street and when people park in the stalls there is no way to
access the vehicles. The Director said the standards could
be adjusted, the criteria is for two feet on each side of the
stalle to allow the public ingress and egress from their
vehicles, therefore benches could not be lined that would
block car access, there could be curbside benches provided
the stalls were not blocked or access from the parking apace
onto the property. Councilman Antos inquired if staff is
looking for a general Council policy as to what to do about
things that do not have permits such as the A-frame signs,
outside displays, etc., noted that there are existing
policies and ordinances that prohibit them, he would see no
reason to change that, he could also see a problem with
regulating them if thera were a proposal to change current
Code, from his point of view he would support enforcing the
current. ordinance requirements. As a point of clarification
with regard to cOlllll1E!nts made during the Public COIlIIIIent
period, references were basically to sidewalk sale types of
activities, Councilman poane said from his reading he felt it
meant there would be a limit. of six events per year overall,
not an individual act.ivit.y, rather a planned activity of the
Chamber or someone else, the objections he heard seemed to be
that same businesses are being conducted that way now and all
of the time. The Director of Development Services confirmed
tha.t they are and there are no permits for such activity,
what is being suggested is that uDder a special activity
permit an individual business could make application up to
six times a year. Kayor Larson offered that it seems there
are three different Main Streets, there are the people that
have been here for fort.y years tha.t. think it looks one way,
what it looka like to people walking the Street with fresh
eyes, the third is what it will be when an encroachment
policy is adopted, his preference would be that it return to
what it was forty years ago, a nice homey, informal street,
however with ~he option that if the Street starts to look too
sterile the policfes--can-be-clmnqed.-- Councilman Antos
agreed. councilman Yost said he is somewhat torn on this
issue, he has been contacted by people who are unhappy with
the current sidewalk sale atmosphere of the Street with card
tables, atc., on the other hand there are thOle who
compliment the town as a 'beautiful little place', same of
'the things that exist are what gives the area its charm, some
of the more tasteful A-frames for instance that draw people
to businesses that may be somewhat hidden, to him that adds
to the hoIDey feeling, having the different styles of benches
adds to the same type of feeling, it would be nice if same of
the current practices could be cleaned up to some degree, the
card t.ables with merchandise as an example is somewhat of a
problem, yet he would not be all that anxious to change the
atmosphere, possibly there is same compromise, his preference
would be to keep Seal Beach th.e way it is, maybe same small
changes, and acknowledged positively the statement that to
make only two change a a year would be fine. Councilman Antos
stated that there is no way to control the A-frames, and
aince there has basically been a policy of ignoring them
unless there is a complaint, the number of such signs have
grown, the Public Works Director has indicated that the
proposed policy would be that if sameone wants to have a
flag, a banner, or sign that is elevated about eight feet,
put it up in the mcrning, that would not obatruct people
walking down the sidewalk as it would be affixed to the
e
e
e
12-9-02
buildinq, ye~ ~he A-frame. are there ""d continue to qrow in
nUlllber, similar ~o the new.racks. Councilman Yo.~ no~.d tha~
i~ ie said ~ba~ ~be economy i. improvinq, b. bas no~ .e.n
~ba~, ""d b. would no~ wan~ ~o pu~ people ou~ of business or
make ~beir cos~ of doinq busine.s qr.a~.r. Councilman Do"".
.xpr....d biB oppo.i~ion ~o anytbinq ~ba~ ~ak.. away from ~b.
mercb",,~s abili~y ~o do bu.iness, y.~ with ;ood ~as~..
Councilman Antos moved to support the proposal of staff, with
~h. op~ion of r.con.id.rinq af~.r a p.riod of ~ime if ~h.
S~r.e~ become. .teril. lookinq, and dir.c~ s~aff ~o .nforc.
the ordinances relative to temporary structures within the
public riqh~-of-way. Mayor Larson ..conded ~h. mo~ion.
Councilman Yost. moved a substitute motion t.o cont.inue this
is.u. for a p.riod of ~wo mon~h.. Councilman Doane s.cond.d
~h. motion.
e
To t.he quest.ion of'for what. purpose, t.he response of
Councilman Yost. was to obtain more information, learn mere
about the proposals, suggesting too a town hall meeting in
the Council Chambers for same resident input in addition to
~h. me.~inq ~ha~ was h.ld with ~he bu.in..aes ~o possibly
develop same compromises. Councilman Doane expressed belief
that the Council is somewhat in agreement as to benches,
etc., possibly separate out the A-frame signs to which there
seems to be the most objection. councilmember Campbell noted
that there are five issues with which people seem to have
concern and with a variety of opinions, they may need to be
d.al~ wi~h one by on.. Councilman An~o. .~a~.d ~ha~ ~he only
way he would vo~. to con~inu. any~binq r.ladve ~o ~he A-
frame siqns is if a definitive report, with court cases, from
~he Ci~y A~~orney as ~o ~he liabili~y of ~h. Ci~y if ~ho..
siqns are allowed to remain. Mayor Larson noted that t.he two
mon~h period would pu~ ~h. i..ue pa.~ ~he boliday sea.on
which would be important to the businesses.
The Mayor restated the substitute motion to hold t.his item
over for a period of ~ mouths. The make~ and second of the
mo~ion ecc.p~ed an amendmen~ ~o dir.c~ the City A~~orn.y ~o
pr.par. a report r.la~iv. ~o po~.n~ial liabili~i.s a..ociated
with A-frame .iqns, e~c.
AYES,
NOES.
Antos, Campbell, Doane, Larson, Yost
None Motion carried
PUBLYC ~aVYNG _ APPEAL _ COHDYTYONAL USE pRVMTT 02_1"
mn:t:R't' vaVTa.'I'TOH 02_5 _ 1210 RL1!:CTRTC AVENtJK _ GHAZARTAN'
Hayor Lar.on d.clar.d ~b. public h.arinq op.n ~o con.id.r ~he
appeal of Planninq Commis.ion approval of Condi~ional D..
PBrmi~ No. 02-16 and B.iqh~ Varia~ion 02-5 rela~inq ~o 1210
El.c~ric Avenue. Tb. Ci~y Clerk c.r~ified ~ha~ no~ic. of ~h.
public b.arinq had be.n advertis.d and mail.d a. r.quir.d by
law, reported receipt of two written communicat.ions, one
da~ed Novemb.r 10~b, ano~b.r aubmi~~.d a~ ~hi. ma.~inq,
copies of wbich were provid.d ~he Council, el.o no~.d ~ha~
addi~ional communica~ion. had been pr...n~.d dir.c~ly ~o ~he
individual member. of ~h. Council.
e
The Director of Development Services presented the staff
r.por~, ~hi. b.!nq an appeal of ~he Planninq Commis.ion
approval of a Condi~ional OS. Permi~ for a major
addi~ionfremod.l of a nonconforminq fourpl.x .~ruc~ur.
loca~.d a~ 1210 Elec~ric Avenue e. well a. an accompanyinq
Height variation application to allow a covered roof access
7-22-02
I 8-12-02
q...JlhU
e
AUes~:
Seal Beach, California
Augus~ 12, 2002
The Ci~y Council of the Ci~y of Seal Beach me~ in regular
adjourned session a~ 6.30 p.m. wi~h Kayor Larson calling the
mee~ing ~o order wi~h ~he Selu~e ~o ~he Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Mayor Larson
COunci1members Antos, Campbell, Doane, Yost
Absen~.
None
Also present: Mr. Bahorski, City Manager
Mr. Barrow, City Attorney
Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development.
Services
Mr. Danes, Director of Public Works/Cit.y
Bngineer
Ms. Yeo, Ci~y Clerk
e
COUNCIL SroDY SESSION
The Director of Public Works explained that what is being
presented is a proposed policy for Main Street encroachments,
the Engineering Division is currently not issuing per.mits for
encroachments into the public right-af-way but there may have
been permits in past years on a non-regular basis, the intent
is to creat.e an area where t.here can be encroachments yet
allow for safe access for pedestrians. Be noted that staff
is looking at about eight different issues, such as, where
wil the encroachments be ailowed, what type of encroachments
will be allowed, how much will be charged for ~he
applica~ion, will ~he Ci~y charge an appropria~e ren~al fee
for use of ~he public righ~-of-way by ~he private business,
will ~emporary encroachmen~s be allowed, will ~he Ci~y use
proactive Code enforcement on encroachments such as temporary
Signs ~ha~ are curren~ly in ~he righ~-of-way under exis~ing
Ci~y Code, DU~door dining, and ca~ilever projec~ions over ~he
public righ~-of-way. The Direc~or men~ioned ~ha~ ~his
process started with creating a location standard as a result
of going ~hrough ~he ADA access guidelines, ~alking wi~h the
building official as ~o ingress and egress ~o buildings,
s~aff looked a~ everything possible ~ha~ could be a
liabili~y, ~ha~ in order ~o crea~e a safe ~ravel walkway for
pedestrians, an ADA walk zone is mentioned in ~he standard
which is abou~ five fee~ wide, tha~ is wha~ ADA cells for in
order for two wheelchairs to pass each other, there is a
twelve foot wide sidewalk therefore that leaves approximately
seven feet for encroachments on either side, a three foot
area remains open around a ligh~ pole, fire hydran~, any ~ype
of public works s~ruc~ure, ~ha~ is for ~he purpose of
maintenance, etc., a one and a half foot area is proposed for
e
e
8-12-02
e
the frontaqe of cars as there are no bumper stops and it is
importsnt that the overhang of cars not encrosch over the
curD area where it could possibly knock over a hench Dr other
structure, it is also desired that pedestriens have the
ability to exit their car in a two foot area where the
parking spaces intersect, this allows car passengers 'to leave
the vehicle without walking around the rear of the car. Be
poin~ed out the ten foot zone on each side of a crosswalk,
the reason for that is that an 8.43 percent minimum slope is
needed and minimum 2 percent crossfall yet still maintain the
five foot pedestrian isleway and landing area, with that
information in mind, it is felt thet most of the Kain Street:
encroachments could be accommodated yet they would be spread
out more. The Public Works Director ....ntioned that staff was
sent to Main 8treet to identify where the encroachmenta
ex!st, of which they took photographs, ex_les were a bench
not affixed to the public right-of-way and in an area where a
car could tip the bench over, benches need to be secured and
an inability for a car to tap any encroachment, there were
free-standing tables and signs, there are encroachments in
and out of the five foot: walkway area, that is what needs to
be regulated, there are benches facing each other in the same
area, that could be resolved wit.h some minimum relocation to
keep the walkway area open, this could accommodate t.he number
of beeches yet comply with the encroachment standards, there
should be a th%'ee foot clear area. around the trash
receptacles also for maintenance purposes. With regard to
temporary encroachments, this has drawn a qreat deal of
consideration as to how they could be allowed, especially
through the Public Works Department, these would be thing.
that WDuld not normally be allowed unless it is through an
ordinance Dr special event permit, a sidewalk sale WDuld be
an ex_le, otherwise it is difficul1: to enforce what is end
is not in the travel isleway, temporary chairs and tables
another exsmple, another issue is use of the public riqht-of-
way for marketing purposes by the fronting business. A photo
was shown gf a small fence with flowers on the street side
fronting a business, up to tha1: point is publiC right-of-way,
again there is the issue of ingress and egress standards for
ADA purposes for getting in and out of a building, bike racks
could be relocated BD1IISWhat to center a parking space to
allow the travel walkway for pedeatrians qoinq in and ou1: of
their car also the five foot walkway, bike racks chained to
trees or too close to trees are not wanted, they need. to be
appropriately placed in the right-of-way. Anotber photo
depicted newsracks, sandwich board signs, a display of
products all in one area, under current Code sanclwich board
signs are not allowed however are enforced on a reactive
basis, business products WDuld not be allowed to be displayed
in the right-of-wey without a special event or activity
permit, the newsracks will be addressed in a separate
ordinance, with regard to signs in the right-of-way the
question is whether the Council wants staff to enforce the
Code proactively; Again with regard to crosswalks, benches
that crowd that passageway, a wheelchair pedestrian needs to
have a clear landing area, benches could be JgOvsd somewhat to
allow that, much of this could be aCCDIIIIIIDdated if the
locetion standards are followed so that a safa travel walkway
can be provided yet still allow some of the streets cape
improvements to remain, in the instance of a bench being
chained to a light pole staff would suggest that the bench
merely be reloceted sDlll8What and affixed to the sidewalk, in
BDll18 instance. things can be r.solved by ....rely informing the
property owner of the standards. With rsgard to outdoor
dining, a photo was shawn of a small encroachment into the
e
8-12-02
e
right-of-way, to thio a direction from Council io oought if
they wont to allow outdoor dining, if 00 otaff would need to
inveotigote that further for a policy. With regard to the
typeo of encroachmento, otoff io oOking Council, within the
pOlicy, far discretion to approve benches, bike racks,
kiooko, tableo, cano, yet for anything eloe otaff would want
~o bring i~ back to Council for review prior to approval. As
to an application cost, that would cover applicat.ion review
to make certain the request meets the standards, B~aff also
requeoto conoideration of e.tabliohing a rental licenoe for
uoe of the public right-of-way, the range of cooto in other
ciUeo have been found to be between $1 and $3 per oquare
foot for outdoor dining, public meetingo could be held with
the buoineoo ownero to oeek their input. With regard to
temporary encroachmento, otaU io propoBing to not allow
thooe unleoe allowed by a opecial oidewalk permit. Proactive
Code enforcement would include the existing sandwich board
signs, question is should a code enforcement officer ~
directed to clear thoee oigno from the public right-of-way.
with regard to outdoor dining, in the event a business were
to come to the City under the ocenario that there io a twelve
foot sidewalk and they request to encroach by seven feet,
leaving a five foot area for pedestrian traffic, would that
use be allowed, as to cantilever projections and overhangs,
staff is recommending that anything that currently exists be
qrandfathered and any new requests would only be required to
pay the application fee but not the rental charges aSBociated
with the uoe of wolkable pedeotrian opace. Staff hao aloo
received requests to investigate permitting encroachments in
this area.
Councilman Antoo otated that the Main Street Specific Plan
calls for standardization of street furniture, upon looking
at the photos shown one can see there is a variety of types
of bike racks, a variety of benches, including concrete ones,
it would seem that since the Main Street Specific Plan has
already been looked at in tenus of news racks , then there
should be an attempt to establish a standard for benches,
bicycle racks, etc. as well. In regards to news racks it has
already-bell;lu ,k'U':'uLcd--out-th...L Lh...re are-places where they can
and cannot be located, the City will likely be purchaoing
them, that needo to be taken into conoi!1eration before an
application io made for a bench in a opecific location that
may be in conflict. All to the temporary dioplBys, tableo,
chairs, signs, Councilman Antos stated he is not in favor of
them, it io known that there are periodic oidewalk oaleo
throughout the year and tied to other activitieo that the
City is involved in sponsoring, businesses do put out
displays in those instances for a day or two then removed, he
would not like to see temporary, pe~anent displays. A
suggestion was made to him also that in other cities that
have trees on a main street such as Seal Beach they have
installed semi-circular benches around the trees, that would
seem to be something that could preclude the need for benches
on either oide of the oidewalk walkway area.
Councilman Laroon inquired aa to direction, will the otaff be
meeting with buBineoo people, will there he an ordinance
change or whatever. The Public Works Di~ector .s~ated staff
would like to do a public outreach with the buBineBaeo, meet
and diocuoo their concorno, bring back a policy with any
Council ouggeotinno, then formally adopt a policy, it would
include where allowed, type allowed, charges, feeling on
outdoor dining, cantilever projectiono, aloo at thio time
staff would request direction as to proactive Code
e
e
e
8-12-02
enforcement of the sandwich board signs now rather than on a
reactive basis. To that there was an indicated preference
for proactive code enforcement at this time by ConcilmBmbers
Doane, Antos, and Yost. councilman Yost offered that he has
received. cammentB from reBidents who are not necessarily
pleased with the temporary permanent displays taking place on
the sidewalks, that involves the usage of the public right-
of-way to expand the square footage of a business, there is
also the per.manent occupancy of the public space issue, an
example are the eves on the Watson building that extend into
the public right-of-way, using public real estate
permanently, or the case of the railing that is on public
property as well, a use of taxpayers space for which they
should he reimbursed permanently, they are two different
iBBues, he would not want to do damage to any business yet
there should be a unifor.m environment with the Isms rules for
everyone. Councilman Doane spoke in support of the idea of
circulsr benches, possibly staff could be directed to look
into the cost, to that caution was raised ee to the birds
that frequent the trees over which such benches would be
placed. With regard to some standardization of benches, the
Director steted that if thst is a direction of Council he
would bring back further information, and seek input fram the
public and businesses during the public outreach meetings in
that there are a number of benches that presently exist.
Counci~ Yost made reference to certain existing benches
that are nice and Charming, yet not everyone could afford
that type, possibly there could be a minimum standard, not
necessarily a cookie cutter design up and down the street.
e
CLOSED SRSSYON
The City Attorney announced that pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(bl end 54956.8, the Counc1l would meet in
Closed Session to discuss one case anticipated litigation,
and to confer with the City's real property negotiator
relating to the one hundred acre deed restricted Bellman
Ranch Wetlands parcel. The Council adjourned ~o Closed
Session at 6.50 p.m. and reconvened at 7.16 p.m. The City
Attorney reported the Council discussed the real property
1ssues pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 and-that
no reportable action was taken.
ADJOD'RNMEN'!'
Zt was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council,
to adjourn the meeting at 7.17 P:
Approved:
Attest.
e