The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Min 1988-11-16 . ' . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 1988 MINUTES The Planning Comm1SS1on of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session, in C1ty Council Chambers, with Chairman Sharp calling the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ~T.T.RGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Jessner. ROLL ~T.T. Present: Chairman Sharp Commiss1oners Suggs, F1fe, Jessner Absent: Commissioner Rullo had an excused absence. Also Present: Ed Knight, Director, Development Services Dept. Elline Garcia, Admin. Aide, Develop. Srvcs. Dept. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of october 19, 1988 B. Plan Review 14-88 301 OCean Ave., 13, Seal Beach MOTION by Jessner to approve Consent Calendar items nAn and nBn. with the provision that Resolution No. 1523 be reviewed by staff to be certain that CUP 9-88 did state no alcoholic beverages are to be sold at the Mobile station at 12240 Seal Beach Boulevard. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CUP 11-87 2938 Westminster Blvd. Seaside Deli Resolution No. 1524 Ms. Garcia presented the staff's report on Condit1onal Use Permit 11-87 which is a request to extend indefinitely an existing CUP for an on-sale beer and wine license in conjunction with an existing restaurant/delicatessen known as the Seaside Deli in the First Federal Plaza. The applicant is Juliet B. Vidanes and the property owner is George Cheng. Ms. Garcia said staff inspected the property and noted the existence of a satellite dish antenna for which no permits are on file; this is in direct violation of ...... ~ . Page 2 - Plann1ng Commission Minutes of November 16, 1988 the City's municipal~. The applicant was notified of this fact by mail. staff noted the app11cant was not present at the present Plann1ng Commission meeting and has not contacted the Department of Development Services regarding a building permit. Ms. Garcia noted that the Chief of Police's not1ce is on file with the Planning Department although it was not included in the packet; Mr. Jessner said he would l1ke to see it. Comm1ssion Comments Comm1ssioner Jessner asked staff if staff felt the applicant was not interested in correcting the exist1ng Code violation. Ms. GarC1a said she d1dn't know because the applicant was sent two letters stating the necessity of their compliance but staff has had no reply. Ms. Garcia said she believed the satellite dish was within the height limitations for C-2 zoning which is 35 feet but that it needed screening. commissioner Jessner sa1d he had looked at the site and noticed the applicant is violating CUP 11-87's condition #4 which says no alcoho11C beverages w1ll be advertised in the window areas. He noted there were about 8 - 10 lighted neon signs in the w1ndow advertising alcoholic beverages. . In responding to Chairman Sharp, Mr. Kn1ght said 1 t would be advisable to continue this item to the next Planning Commission meet1ng and staff would request the applicant appear before the Planning Commission to discuss these items. The satellite d1Sh is a secondary item; not directly related to the beer/wine license. Commissioner Fife asked if their CUP would expire in November of 1988? Mr. Knight said it would expire but that the important th1ng was that it came back before the Planning Commission as a bona fide, noticed Public Hearing. That action informally extends the CUP until the continued hearing because this is part of a formal action. Public Hearing Opened There was no one to speak for or against CUP 11-87. MOTIOR by Fife that the Public Hearing on CUP 11-87 be continued until the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission and instruct the Planning Department director to notify the applicant of the POssibili ty that the COP could be denied on that date unless he/she fixes the DlUDicipal ~ violations outlined in condition 14 and produces a solution for the satellite dish problem; SECORD by Suggs. MOTIOR CARRIED 4 - 0 . JI . paqe 3 - Planninq commission Minutes of November 16, 1988 B. CUP 12-88 303 Main street The Main street Deli Resolution No. 1525 Ms. Garcia presented staff's report on Conditional Use Permit 12-88 stat1ng that the applicants, Deborah and Rocky Gentner /Bobkas, Inc. were requesting an on-sale beer and wine license for an existing restaurant/delicatessen. The property owner is Thomas E. Hyams. This would be a new CUP because the current owner, Mr. Afif, indicated he has no eX1sting CUP with the City for a beer and wine license. Mr. Af1f said he was unaware the City routinely requires a CUP for the sale of beer and wine but he does have an ABC license. Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission approve CUP 12-88, with conditions, by the adoption of Resolution No. 1525. . Commission Comments commissioner Jessner asked what prov1s10ns the mun1cipal code holds for someone who does not obtain a CUP. Mr. Knight sa1d violations of the zoning codes are misdemeanors and can be prosecuted. Public Hearing opened Rocky Gentner - 840 Catalina. Seal Beach Mr. Gentner said he plans to "upscale" the Main street Deli. MOTION by Suqqs to approve CUP 12-88 by adoptinq Resolution No. 1525; SECOND by Fife. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 5. SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no scheduled matters. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There was no oral communication from the audience. 7. STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. . , . . . ~ Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 16, 1988 8. COMMISSION CONCERNS commissioner F1fe questioned staff on what is the effect when a developer (such as Mola) leaves the Planning Commission and goes on to the C1ty Council and presents a plan which materially differs from the plan the Planning Commission approved? Would this mean that the plan presented to the Council appears as having no recommendation one way or the other from the Planning commission? Specifically, Commissioner Fife noted the Planning Commission had requested the removal of sixty (60) condominium un1 ts (one entire sixty unit build1ng) and apparently Mola not shown that recommendation in its drawing. commissioner Fife noted he supported Commissioner Jessner's modification to the Mola plan (deletion of one building of 60 condominiums) because 1t had the effect of removing the building from too close a proximity to existing homes and it reduced the condominium dens1ty by 10%. He said he felt this was not only a building location problem but also one of picking up additional acreage which could become part of the golf course or allow maneuvering room to improve the Gum Grove Park area without further sacr1fice of the golf course. Mr. F1fe stated he did not want the City Council to think the sole concern of the Planning Commission was simply the location/proximity of the condominium buildings --- there is def1nite concern over density. Mr. Knight said it is true this is not the exact same plan. He contacted the City Attorney because the changes Mola made are minor in nature --- they moved some buildings around, they moved the tennis court around to try to ameliorate the Commission's concern of the condos proximity to the existing s1ngle family residences. The City Attorney said these changes were of a minor nature, it was essentially the same project, and did not need to be taken back to the Planning Commission. It is true that Mola does not agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation and Mola is attempting to address that through some minor changes to the Vesting Map and sell that to the City Council. That will be up to the C1ty Council, how it renders its decision. If dur1ng the proceedings at Counc1l level the plan is materially changed then it would be referred back to the planning Commission for a further determination. The commission wanted to know what was a "material change"? Mr. Knight said it would be a significant sh1ft in the density of the units (if they're compacted too much), a significant change in the types of uses or their locations, or if there's a change in the number of units or the type of units. Then it would come back for Commission consideration. Comm1ssioner Jessner asked staff if Mola had filed an appeal to this Planning Comm1ssion decis1on. Mr. Knight said there was no need to file and appeal because the Planning Commission is a ': . I ;' . ~. - . Page 5 - Planning commission Minutes of November 16, 1988 recommending body to the city Council. The Planning Commission does not have final action on this item. 9. ADJOURNMENT Cha1rman Sharp adjourned the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Cfo~ ~ ~~ Joan Fillmann Secretary THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION. * * * The Planning commission Minutes of November ~6, 1988 were approved by the Planning Commiss1on on December ~1- 1988. ~, ~