Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1989-05-17 e e e .. ~'" . ~. CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING MAY 17, 1989 The regular meetlng of the Planning Commisslon was called to order In Clty Councll Chambers by Chalrman Sharp at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Alleglance was led by Mr. Jessner. ROLL CAT.T. Present: Chalrman Sharp CommlSSloners Rullo, Flfe, Suggs, Jessner. Staff Present: Edward Knlght, Dlrector, Development Servlces Barry Curtls, Admln. Aide, Development Servlces Sandra Massa-Lavltt, Interlm Director, Development Servlces CONSENT CALENDAR Chalrman Sharp requested the two Consent Calendar items be consldered separately. MINUTES OF MAY 3, 1989 MOTION by Rullo to approve the Plannlng CO~SSlon Minutes of May 3, 1989; Second by Suggs. AYES: Rullo, Suggs, Sharp, Jessner, Fife MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 RESOLUTION NO. 1534 HONORING ED KNIGHT Chalrman Sharp noted thlS ltem was not agendlzed and asked Mr. Jessner to read Resolutlon No. 1534. Mr. Jessner sald the Plannlng Commlssion got together and drafted Resolutlon No. 1534 to honor Ed Knlght at hlS last Plannlng Commlsslon meetlng. PLAN REVIEW 11-89 1307 & 1307 1/2 SEAL WAY ThlS lS a request to remodel and add 374 square feet to a legal non-conformlng duplex. MOTION by Suggs to approve Plan Review 11-89; SECOND by Rullo. AYES: Rullo, Suggs, Sharp, Jessner, Fife MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 . . e Page 2 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of May 17, 1989 PUBLIC HEARINGS VARIANCE 4-89 2940 WESTMINSTER AVENUE PRIM ROSE RESTAURANT staff Report Barry Curt1s del1vered the staff report for Varlance 4-89. The appllcant, Frank Tahvlldarl, wants to add an enclosed dlnlng patlo of 797 square feet. Based on proJected restaurant square footage, the appl1cant needs to provlde a total of 7 new park1ng spaces. The Code allows for 25% of the parklng spaces to be compact spaces Wl th a dimens10n of 8' x 16' as opposed to the current spaces of 10' x 20'. ThlS Code provlslon would allow the owner of Flrst Federal Plaza (George Cheng) to restripe up to twenty-elght (28) spaces (25% of 113 parklng spaces), addlng flve (5) addl tlonal spaces. Staff feels the addl tlonal two (2) spaces could be provlded by (1) vacat1ng the eXlstlng entry at the far eastern end of the property or (2) restrlplng the lot. Staff recommends denlal of Varlance 4-89. e Comm1ss1on Comments Mr. Flfe asked staff lf abandonlng the eastern access to the shopplng center would requlre the consent of all the tenants? Mr. Knlght sald lt would depend on how thelr leases were wrltten. If the Commlsslon granted this abandonment, the appllcant would have to get the owner's permlsslon. Whether the tenants became part of that would depend on how much control they had through the1r leases. Mr. Sharp asked staff 1f the fact that thlS parklng lot 1S used only by customers/tenants and not, for example beach parklng, thlS could be used to make a flndlng for the variance--- especlally S1nce they are only two (2) spaces short ln a large lot. ThlS would be Wl th a restrlplng of the lot and not Wl th abandonlng the eastern access. Barry Curtls sald no, the ~ requlres the addlt10nal parklng spaces. It was noted the park1ng lot at that Center is never totally full and that several of the other tenants close before the dlnner hour. Mr. Jessner asked staff 1f thlS rough slte plan was the only plan submltted? Barry Curtls sald yes --- the slte plan and a small plan of the restaurant add1tlon were the only plans submltted. Cuttlng the patlo down by 200 square feet would also galn the parklng by thus requ1r1ng less parklng. e Mr. Rullo sald the park1ng lot probably contalns a few extra feet , . Page 3 - Plann1ng Comm1ss1on M1nutes of May 17, 1989 Publ1C Hear1ng Opened Farsh1d (Frank) Tahv1ldar1 * Owner. Pr1m Rose Restaurant Respond1ng to Comm1SS1on quest1ons, Mr. Tahvildar1 sa1d 80% of h1S customers walk over from Le1sure World and have no need of park1ng spaces. Most of h1S customers arr1ve between 5:30 - 7:30 a.m. or after 5:00 p.m. for d1nner. He sa1d he has owned the Pr1m Rose Restaurant for seven years and has not yet seen the park1ng lot full. The other tenants are reta11 and open at 9:00 a.m. and go home before 5:00 p.m. Del Taco 1S the only store open 1n the Center 1n the even1ng and that's ma1nly dr1ve- thru. The proposed add1t1on would seat about 20 extra patrons. He could use a b1cycle rack more than add1t1onal park1ng. The bus serV1ce from Le1sure World 1S no longer 1n use. H1S 1nsurance would be too costly to perm1t h1m to have h1S own bus dr1ve 1nto Le1sure World. Mr. Tahv1ldar1 spoke to the Center's owner, Mr. Cheng and was told there 1S a plan to resurface the ent1re park1ng lot next year and w1II ga1n add1tional park1ng by restr1p1ng for compact spaces. They could get 5-6 new compact spaces at that t1me. The curb in front of the restaurant 1S red; no park1ng perm1tted. He does not want to delete square footage because he needs the wa1t1ng room for h1S customers who may have wheelcha1rs. e Mr. Rullo asked Mr. Kn1ght 1f the appl1cant guaranteed the C1ty that the owner would restr1pe the lot w1th1n a certain per10d of t1me, could he get h1S permit? Mr. Kn1ght sa1d there are some veh1cles the appl1cant could use for the restrip1ng. If 1t 1S urgent for h1m to start construct1on now, the C1ty would requ1re a sur1ty bond guaranteeing that if 1t 1S not restr1ped next year the C1 ty could use those mon1es to go 1n and do it. If the appl1cant 1S comfortable the owner 1S gOlng to restr1pe, the appl1cant could be out the cost of the bond (10% of the total cost to sandblast and restripe) or he could use an account as a sur1ty dev1ce (after the C1ty d1d the restrip1ng the C1ty would vacate 1 ts 1nterest 1n that account). If he could supply adequate park1ng he would not have to come back before the Plann1ng Comm1ssion. Mr. Rullo asked the appl1cant how he felt about post1ng a bond. Mr. Tahv1ldar1 sa1d he d1dn't th1nk it was necessary but he would agree to putt1ng the money 1n an account. Mr. Rullo told the appl1cant the Comm1SS1on must go by the state laws to make the var1ance f1nd1ngs. Noth1ng spec1fic decided. Mr. Jessner sa1d the three f1nd1ngs for the variance could not be met and other means could be employed to ga1n the park1ng needed. MOTION by Jessner to deny Var1ance 4-89 W1thout prejudice; SECOND by Rullo. AYES: Rullo, F1fe, Sharp, Jessner NOES: Suggs MOTION CARRIED 4 - 1 e Mr. Knight noted that "denial w1thout preJud1ce" would allow the appl1cant to reapply at any t1me (vs wa1t1ng one yearj"den1al"). e Page 4 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of May 17, 1989 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3-89 2940 WESTMINSTER BOULEVARD staff Report Barry Curt1s del1vered the staff report, Wh1Ch 1S a request by Frank Tahv1ldar1, to upgrade an eX1st1ng on-sale beer and W1ne l1cense to a general 11quor 11cense 1n con]Unct1on w1th the Pr1m Rose Fam1ly Restaurant. Comm1ss1on Comments Respond1ng, staff sa1d 11censes 1n the Center. only. there were no other general 11quor The Seas1de Del1 has a beer-w1ne 11cense Publ1C Hear1ng e Farsh1d (Frank) Tahv1ldari * Owner. Pr1m Rose Restaurant Respond1ng to Comm1ss1on quest1ons, Mr. Tahv1ldar1 sa1d there are a couple of serV1ce clubsjorgan1zat1ons meet1ng there 1n the morn1ng, that 95% of his bus1ness 1S adult (as opposed to young fam111es) and that he 1ntends to set aS1de a port1on of the restaurant's back room for a separate lounge area. Th1S area would have tables for eat1ng plus a bar w1th f1ve to S1X stools. Mr. Jessner asked Mr. Kn1ght if a plan was needed. Mr. Kn1ght sa1d no, Mr. Tahv1ldar1 has to ma1nta1n the restaurant as a "bona f1de" eat1ng place (where more than 50% of the rece1pts are for food purchases) and then part of the restaurant can be used for a bar. Mr. F1fe asked Mr. Kn1ght 1f the Plann1ng Comm1ss1on would be 1n a pOS1 t10n to upgrade the Seas1de De11' s 11quor 11cense after th1s approval? The ABC del1neates between beer and W1ne 11censes and general 11quor 11censes. Generally, there 1S a rad1us between bus1nesses that can have a general 11quor 11cense. Therefore, the chances of ABC allow1ng another 11quor 11cense 1n th1S close prOx1m1ty 1S remote. Add1t1onally, there are only a certa1n number of general 11quor 11censes 1n the state of Page 4 - Plann1ng Comm1ss1on M1nutes of May 17, 1989 Cal1forn1a and they are d1ff1cult to get. There 1S an unl1m1ted amount of beer and W1ne 11censes. MOTION by Suggs that Cond1 t10nal Use Permit 3-89 be approved; SECOND by Rullo. e AYES: Rullo, Sharp, Jessner, Suggs NOES: Fife MOTION CARRIED 4 - 1 e e e ~ Page 5 - Plann1ng COmBaSS10n M1nutes of May 17, 1989 VARIANCE 5-89 11TH STREET AND LANDING AVENUE RESOLUTION No. 1542 staff Report Barry Curt1s del1vered the staff report, Wh1Ch is a request by applicants, Eun1ce and Nancy McMullen, to dev1ate from the Code which requires m1n1mum three (3') foot slde yard setbacks 1n an RHO zone. They want prov1s1on for a zero foot (O') side yard setback 1n conJunction with the construction of a new slngle fam1ly home at the corner of 11th street and Land1ng Ave., a site commonly referred to as the "Bus Barn". Comm1ss1on Comments Mr. Jessner quest10ned the f 1nd1ng of "hardsh1p", stat1ng that "hardsh1p" due to the property's locat1on (d1rectly adJacent to the C1ty's softball bleachers), the required 3' slde yard setback, the poss1b1l1ty of accumulat10n of 11tter and n01se from adJacent bleachers would not const1 tute a "hardsh1p" and would not be a reason for meet1ng the "spec1al c1rcumstances" f1nd1ng. Mr. Jessner, referr1ng to the plans, noted the property does not abut the bleachers. Barry Curt1s said the distance between the bleachers and the proposal 1S a ten (10') foot w1de open space used as a walkway for the bleachers. Mr. F1fe agreed that the presence of these bleachers does not prevent these owners from bU1lding w1th1n the eX1st1ng QQQg. The way the Comm1SS1on has 1nterpreted and appl1ed var1ances 1n the past ... th1s would be a substant1al departure from the way the Comm1SS1on has made f1nd1ngs before. BU1ld1ng w1thout the setback comm1ts the C1ty from ever expand1ng the bleachers. He could not see mak1ng f1nd1ng #2 under these c1rcumstances. PUBLIC HEARING Ph11 Allen * Seal Beach * Oes1gner Mr. Allen 1ntroduced h1mself as a Seal Beach res1dent who was asked by the owners to des1gn a house. She asked h1m to speak to the Comm1SS1on on the techn1cal 1ssues of the proJect. Regard1ng the setback, he sa1d h1S problem W1 th the passageway between the (now) Bus Barn and the bleachers 1S 1tS use for access to that restroom when the ballpark's 1n use. An open passageway w1II allow 1t to be a collector for foul balls and beverage bottles. The roof of the Bus Barn 1S now covered w1th bottles wh1ch have been tossed from the bleachers. There is currently a 10' fence surround1ng the ballpark. To mainta1n the 3' setback 1S an unnecessary hardsh1p. Mr. Curt1s sa1d the bleachers are 16' he1ght and the requested house wall would be 25' h1gh. e Page 6 - Plannlng Commisslon Mlnutes of May 17, 1989 Mr. Flfe sald he dlslikes the way the variance law lS worded, saYlng lt lS amazlngly harsh; he would llke to see the law changed. He llkes thlS house plan but lS restrlcted by the law here. Mr. Jessner sald he could not see the relatlonshlp of "hardshlp" f 1 ttlng In Wl th any items descrlbed In the ordlnance and the state laws as a reason for grantlng thlS variance request. "Locatlon of surroundings" would be more of a reason to grant thlS. All propertles In thlS area have 3' yards and many have "special Clrcumstances". If this varlance were granted lt mlght be precedent settlng (bulldlng to zero lot llnes) for any resldentlal properties abuttlng commerclal properties. Mr. Knlght remlnded the Commisslon that all three of the flndlngs must be met to grant a varlance. e Mr. Suggs asked staff lf thlS wasn't a unlque sltuatlon. Mr. Knlght replled that thlS was a somewhat unlque sltuatlon--- next to a park, next to bleachers, a known nOlse problem In that locatlon. The appllcant is seeklng a way to mltigate the nOlse and 11 tter. There are two ways the CommlSSlon could go Wl th thlS: (1) following the ~ and bUlldlng an 8' fence or (2) requestlng a varlance to bUlld a hlgher fence than 8'. Mr. Rullo agreed wlth staff --- to approve Varlance 5-89 wlth condl tlons . He stated the 3' area at nlght could be a danger problem. PubllC Hearlng Closed Hearlng no further dlScusslon the PubllC Hearlng was closed. Commlsslon Comments Hardshlp and Precedence Settlng Mr. Jessner wanted to dlSCUSS thlS varlance. He stated he was not opposed to thlS plan but was opposed to the way In WhlCh lt was put together. He mlght be able to go along wlth the flndlng that thls partlcular request has to do wlth "locatlon" versus "hardshlp" . He could not accept "hardshlp" as an allowable reason. Addltlonally, thlS could be precedent settlng lf granted. . Retaln Slngle Famlly Character Mr. Knlght sald he lS aware that the CommlSSlon and communlty are concerned to retaln the slngle famlly character of the Old Town area; to maintain a single family home on a slngle lot. Staff feels there are many clrcumstances related to thlS property that could not be applled to any other property In Old Town. The resolutlon would be worded to narrow lt down to Just this one property. e e e - Page 7 - Plannlng CommlSSlon Mlnutes of May 17, 1989 Speclal Prlvllege Mr. Flfe was concerned Wl th what "speclal prl vllege" lS belng denled to thlS property. The proposed conflguratlon makes lt a lot more deslreable house but lS a privllege belng denled? Mr. Knlght sald staff could determlne only that the prlvllege of "peace and qUlet" was belng denled. NOlse Mr. Jessner sald nOlse was at lssue here. The nOlse factor wouldn't be changed whether the house were bUllt on the lot line or Wl th a three foot (3') setback. It could stlll be bUll t wlthout any windows or openlngs on that slde. Mr. Sharp noted the obJect of the three foot (3') setback (under normal clrcumstances) lS to have a SlX feet (6') between bUlldlngs to let vehlcles get between homes ln case of emergencles. That would not apply here because there's ten feet (10') between the bleachers and the property. MOTION by Rullo to approve Var1ance 5-89, subJect to cond1tions (as set forth 1n) Resolut1on #1542; SECOND by Suggs. AYES: Rullo, Suggs, Sharp NOES: F1fe, Jessner MOTION CARRIED 3 - 2 PLAN REVIEW 12-89 72 RIVERSEA ROAD SEAL BEACH TRAILER PARK Mr. Knlght asked the Cha1rman to contlnue Plan Revlew 12-89 to the Plann1ng Comm1SS10n meet1ng of June 7, 1989 because Don Newman, Orange County Flre Department, could not be reached for the needed response. Cha1rman Sharp granted the continuance. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral commun1cations from the audlence. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Knlght brlefed the Comm1ss10n on the Clty Counc1l meetlng of May 15, 1989: Fence Helghts The zone text amendment regard1ng fence he1ghts along arterlals wlll be referred back to the Comm1ss10n. Staff wlll prepare a report and place that on an upcomlng agenda for conslderat10n and addltlonal lnput. e Page 8 - Plann1ng Comm1SS10n M1nutes of May 17, 1989 Hellman Spec1f1c Plan The Counc1l directed that two alternat1ves be referred to the Plann1ng Commiss10n: B. 2: wh1ch has approx1mately 340 to 350 s1ngle fam11y un1 ts. The 84 townhomes would be removed. A 9-acre communi ty park would be developed Wh1Ch could support two (2) baseball d1amonds. C.1: Th1S 1S a cornb1nat10n of the or1g1nal proposal Wh1Ch reta1ns the s1ngle fam1ly homes, a n1ne-hole golf course, the latter half of the B.2 proJect (which 1S) the wetlands area Wh1Ch would be av01ded and add1 t10nal 280 s1ngle fam1ly un1ts. The C1ty Counc1l d1rected the Comm1SS10n take this matter under adv1sement at your f1rst meet1ng 1n June; th1s will be under Scheduled Matters and w1ll not be a pub11C hear1ng. Your report is to be subm1tted for their June 19th meet1ng. Mr. Kn1ght gave the Comm1SS10ners cop1es of the Supplemental EIR and Response to Comments on the env1ronmental documents. Cha1rman Sharp spec1f1cally asked: e 1. Has the or1g1nal Mola proposal been w1thdrawn? Mr. Kn1ght sa1d it has not been w1thdrawn. Mr. Kn1ght rep11ed no. That at the June 7th meet1ng the Comm1SS10n could cons1der the two al ternat1 ves. The Comm1ssion has taken an action on the proposed proJect. 2. Make certa1n that the quest10ns are present. Attorney, Mr. Kn1ght, LSA in as a consultant on all experts necessary to answer Th1S w1ll 1nclude the C1 ty and MBA. Mr. Kn1ght w1ll S1t the Comm1ssion hear1ngs. 3. The C.1 plan must get to all the Comm1SS10ners before meet1ng so 1t can be studied before the meet1ng. Mr. Kn1ght sa1d B.2 and C.1 have not been done. When they come to the C1ty, cop1es w1ll be made and de11vered to the Comm1ssioner's homes d1rectly. e <"' ~ .. . Page 9 - Plann1ng Comrn1SS1on M1nutes of May 17, 1989 COMMISSION CONCERNS NICK'S DELI CUP Mr. Jessner v01ced h1s concern over the recent news d1sclosure that the owner/operator of N1ck's De11 was arrested for sel11ng coca1ne. Does th1s arrest warrant a Comrn1ss1on hear1ng to revoke h1s CUP? Mr. Kn1ght stated N1Ck's De11 CUP 1S for on-sale beer and W1ne. Staff contacted the ABC regard1ng any act10ns they may have taken re the owner's arrest for allegedly sel11ng coca1ne. They have not revoked h1s l1cense but are tak1ng h1s arrest under adv1sement. If the owner 1S conv1cted h1s ABC l1cense w1ll be revoked. If that occurs, the Comrn1SS1on should reopen h1s CUP. ELECTION Mr. Sharp advised the Comm1SS1on that reorganizat1on meet1ng w1ll take place July prepared to elect a Cha1rman and V1ce Chairman. the 5th. Comm1SS1on's Please be ADJOURNMENT Cha1rman Sharp adJourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. S1ncerely, · C?roa-.~o--,v- Joan F1llmann Secretary Development SerV1ces Department THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. * * * The Plann1ng Comrn1SS1on M1nutes of May 17, 1989 were approved by the Plann1ng Comrn1SS1on on ~LLhe. 'l- 1989. ~ .