Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1989-10-04 e e e CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 4, 1989 The regularly scheduled meet1ng of the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on was called to order 1n C1 ty Counc1l Chambers by Cha1rman Sharp at 7:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Alleg1ance was led by Mr. Jessner. ROLL CALL Present: Cha1rman Sharp Comm1ss1oners F1fe, Jessner, Rullo and Suggs Staff Present: Lee Wh1ttenberg, D1rector, Dev. Serv1ces Dept. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 MOTION by Flfe; SECOND by Jessner to approve the Plannlng Commisslon M1nutes of September 20, 1989 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 0 - 2 ABSTAIN: Rullo, Suggs PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 13-89 318 MAIN STREET PEGS PETS RESOLUTION NO. 1556 Staff Report Mr. Wh1ttenberg del1vered staff's report on CUP 13-89 Wh1Ch 1S a request by appl1cant, Peggy L. F1elds, to obta1n a Cond1 t10nal Use Perm1t for an eX1st1ng pet store, as requ1red by Sect10n 28- 1300 of the Code, and to rece1ve approval to prov1de low cost an1mal vacc1nat1ons on a monthly bas1s. Staff recommends approval of CUP 13-89 W1 th the SlX cond1 t10ns 1n place by approval of Resolut1on No. 1556. Comm1ss1on Comments Mr. Sharp asked 1f there was a spec1al reason as to why a certa1n Saturday 1S spec1f1ed 1n the staff Report. Mr. Wh1ttenberg 1nd1cated th1S was at the appl1cant's request and that staff would not have a part1cular concern to 1nd1cate that the vacc1nat1on cl1n1c be llm1ted to one Saturday a month. e Page 2 - Plann1ng Comm1ss1on M1nutes of October 4, 1989 Mr. F1fe asked 1f there was a part1cular reason as to why a llcensed veter1nar1an must adm1n1ster the vacc1nat1ons. Mr. Wh1ttenberg 1nd1cated that 1S a requ1rement of the Health and An1mal Control Departments. Publ1C Hear1ng Ne1ther the appl1cant nor the owner were present and no one from the aud1ence w1shed to speak. The Publ1C Hear1ng was closed. MOTION by Rullo; SECOND by F1fe to approve Cond1t1onal Use Permit 13-89, w1th condit1ons as mod1f1ed to 1nd1cate that the vacc1nat1on c11n1c be l1m1ted to one Saturday a month and that a l1censed veter1nar1an be the sole person to adm1n1ster the an1mal vacc1nat1ons, by the adopt1on of Resolut1on No. 1556. MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 * * * SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. LOT COVERAGE - COLLEGE PARK WEST e Mr. Wh1 ttenberg 1nd1cated th1S matter 1S before the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on based on d1rect1on glven at the September 6 meet1ng to research and report back on the 1ssue of lot coverage for the College Park West subd1v1s1on. He further 1nd1cated that College Park West, College Park East, and the Mar1na H1ll areas were or1g1nally located 1n Plann1ng D1str1ct 2, Wh1Ch allowed a maX1mum lot coverage of 40% In 1973, Mar1na H1ll was placed 1n the newly created Plann1ng D1str1ct 5, Wh1Ch allows a 45% lot coverage. Mr. Wh1ttenberg further 1nd1cated that 1n 1977 and 1978, cons1derat1on was glven to plac1ng both College Park areas 1n D1str1ct 5, and the f1nal determ1nat1on was to only place College Park East 1n D1str1ct 5. He further 1nd1cated that staff 1S recommend1ng that the Plann1ng Comm1ss1on request of the C1 ty Counc1l the author1ty to schedule a publ1C hear1ng to rece1ve c1t1zen 1nput from the res1dents of College Park West relat1ve to the proposed 1ncrease 1n lot coverage. e In response to a quest10n of Mr. F1fe as to what d1st1ngu1shes College Park West from College Park East, Mr. Wh1ttenberg 1nd1cated that both areas are bas1cally slm1lar, w1th some lots 1n College Park East being smaller. In rev1ew1ng prev10us C1ty Counc1l m1nutes, at the t1me the lot coverage was under cons1derat1on 1n 1977-1978, a pet1t1on was rece1ved from some res1dents of College Park West 1nd1cat1ng they were 1n Oppos1t1on to the 1ncrease 1n lot coverage. e Page 3 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of October 4, 1989 Mr. Flfe recalled about lot coverage In College change belng approved. occurred In 1978. 10 years ago there was a flap about the Park East, and dld not recall a blanket Mr. Whl ttenberg lndlcated the change Mr. Sharp asked lf resldents of College Park West would be notlfled lf a change were to be proposed. Mr. Whlttenberg lndlcated all property owners would be notlfled by mall of any proposed change and the date of the publlC hearlng. MOTION by Flfe; SECOND by Suggs that the Plannlng Commlsslon request Clty COUDCll authorlzatlon to schedule a public hearlng before the Commisslon at the convenlence of staff to conslder an lncrease In the lot coverage standard for College Park West to 45% MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 * * * 4. ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 1-89 FENCE HEIGHTS ALONG MAJOR ARTERIALS e Mr. Whl ttenberg lndlcated that thlS matter was lnl tlated by a request from the Clty Councll based on concerns expressed by some resldents of the Clty. He further revlewed the prevlous actlons of the Plannlng CommlSSlon and Cl ty Councll relatl ve to thlS matter as summarlzed In the staff report. Mr. Whlttenberg further stated that the maJor lssue to be resol ved lS whether the Plannlng Commlsslon contlnues to feel that lt lS approprlate to recommend that the current fence helght requlrements are sufflclent or to concur wlth the determlnatlon of the Clty Councll to allow for an lncrease In fence helght. He also revlewed the suggested condltlons lf the Commlsslon concurs wlth the Clty Councll. Mr. Rullo stated that the walls should stay at the 8-foot helght. Mr. Flfe stated he wlll stlck to hlS orlglnal posltlon to leave the helght as 1 t lS. He lS concerned about the structural lntegrl ty of hlgher walls and lndlcated that he could support hlgher walls lf a common deslgn crlterla were to be establlshed. In response to a questlon from Mr. Suggs, Mr. Whlttenberg lndlcated that walls over 6 feet In helght requlre englneerlng and relnforclng. e Mr. Jessner stated that thlS matter came up due to nOlse and dust from arterlal streets, and that people whose home backs to an arterlal street do have a problem. He further stated that lncreaslng the fence helght may not be the way to deal wlth the problem. Mr. Jessner further lndlcated that he lS opposed to e Page 4 - Plann1ng Comm1ss1on M1nutes of October 4, 1989 1ncreas1ng the wall he1ght and suggested that staff 1nvest1gate decreas1ng the rear yard setback for accessory structures on lots Wh1Ch rear on an arter1al street. Th1S would allow the accessory structure to sh1eld the property from n01se and dust, slm1lar to the recent var1ance case along Pac1f1c Coast H1ghway. Mr. F1fe 1nd1cated agreement w1th Mr. Jessner's comments and feels that the fence lssue lS one part of the problem and that an 1ntegrated and comprehens1ve approach should be cons1dered. He also d1scussed problems Wh1Ch would ar1se at common property 11nes and 1n stepp1ng down walls from 10 feet to 8 or 6 feet. He suggested that th1S be referred to the C1 ty Counc11 W1 th a request to delay act10n unt11 the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on lS 1n a pos1t1on to glve a comprehens1ve recommendat1on to the problem. Mr. Suggs and Mr. Rullo 1nd1cated the1r concern regard1ng the lack of un1form1ty of walls along the arter1al streets and the d1ff1culty 1n ach1ev1ng some common Solut1on. Mr. Wh1ttenberg stated that staff could prepare some un1form wall des1gn cr1ter1a and reV1ew the rear yard setback prov1s1ons along arter1al streets to address the concerns of the Comm1SS1on. e Mr. Sharp 1nd1cated that the Comm1ss1oners seem to be pretty well 1n agreement regard1ng a reV1ew of un1form wall des1gn cr1ter1a and rear yard setback requ1rements. MOTION by Rullo; SECOND by Jessner that the Plann1ng Commission cont1nue to recommend denial of ZTA 1-89 and that th1S matter be deferred by the C1ty Counc11 to allow the Comm1ss1on to 1nvestigate un1form wall des1gns and rev1sed rear yard setback criter1a for lots wh1ch rear to an arter1al street. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 * * * 5. CUP 12-89 12343 Seal Beach Boulevard Super Saver Cinema 7 Theatres Mr. Wh1ttenberg 1nd1cated that Resolut1on No. 1555 lS before the Plann1ng Comm1ss1on for f1nal adopt1on at th1S t1me based on the recommended cond1t1ons of approval as determ1ned by the Comm1ss1on at the1r September 20, 1989 meet1ng. He also 1nd1cated that the theatre operators have prov1ded the1r proposed control plan for the v1deo game area. Staff has two add1t1onal condi t10ns regard1ng the post1ng of slgns regard1ng the use of the v1deo games Wh1Ch are 1ncluded 1n the staff report. e Mr. F1fe felt that the slxth "Whereas" clause 1n the resolut1on should be clar1f1ed to 1nd1cate that the lobby w1II be ava1lable to the publ1C w1thout bUY1ng an adm1ss1on t1cket and suggested e Page 5 - Plannlng Comrnlsslon Mlnutes of October 4, 1989 the followlng language be lnserted, " Whereas the purchase of an admlsslon tlcket wlll perml t patrons to play vldeo games, such purchase shall not otherwlse be requlred for access to the lobby." D1SC1SSlon ensued regardlng keeplng the lobby open to the publlC whlle restrlctlng access to the vldeo machlnes, as lndlcated In the condltlons of approval. Mr. Jessner felt an addltlonal condltlon should be added to read, "The theatre shall comply wlth any ordlnance or requlrement that may come about regardlng vldeo machlnes In the future." The operator should be aware that condltlons may be modlfled based on the slx-month reVlew or based on new standards for vldeo arcades WhlCh the Clty may develop. Joshua DaV1S * 1201 Belmont Avenue * Long Beach - operator of the theatre, revlewed the control program as lndlcated In the letter to the Clty. e Mr. Suggs lnqulred Slnce he was absent at the tlme of the publlC hearlng lf he could now partlclpate In the vote on thlS matter. Mr. Whlttenberg lndlcated lf absent Commlssloners reVlew the staff report and the approved Mlnutes of the meetlng, they can partlclpate. MOTION by Flfei SECOND by Jessner to adopt Resolutlon No. 1555 wlth the recommended condltlons from the staff report, the recommended condltlon of Mr. Jessner and the modlflcatlon to the sixth "whereas" as proposed by Mr. Fife. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 * * * 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES Mr. Whlttenberg lndlcated that thlS lS an lnformatlon ltem requested by the Commlsslon at the September 20, 1989 meetlng regardlng the prohlbltlon of wlndow slgns advertlslng alcohollC beverages. In researchlng thlS matter, the condltlon was flrst lmposed In February, 1984 regardlng an on-premlse llcense for the SW1SS Bakery at 500 Paclflc Coast Hlghway. e Slnce that tlme thls has become a standard condltion of approval. The condltlon lS one of POllCY, Slnce there lS no ordlnance prohlbltlon for thlS type of slgn. Staff has malntalned and the ComrnlSSlon and Clty Councll have contlnued to support thlS POllCY of the Clty regardlng wlndow advertlslng of alcohollC beverages. Staff wlll lncrease 1 ts enforcement efforts on thlS partlcular ltem. e Page 6 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of October 4, 1989 Mr. Sharp lndlcated hlS prlmary concern lS the lack of conslstent enforcement on thlS 1 tern. Mr. Flfe stated the enforcement problem lS not unlque to thlS condl tlon, but applles to all enforcement lssues. Mr. Whlttenberg revlewed the Clty'S current enforcement POllCY WhlCh lncludes staff contact to achleve compllance, flllng a mlsdemeanor complalnt wlth the court system, and wlth thlS type of condltlon, conductlng a publlC hearlng before the CommlSSlon to conslder revocatlon of the condltlonal use permlt. In response to a questlon from revlewed the lnfractlon process currently revlewlng to establlsh plannlng and zonlng vlolatlons. Mr. Rullo, Mr. Whlttenberg and the steps the Clty lS lnfractlons for bUlldlng, Mr. Jessner questloned the need for such a harsh stand on thlS type of slgn and asked lf there lS a reason as to how thlS condltlon came lnto belng. He suggested some wlndow slgns mlght be acceptable. Mr. Sharp felt the Clty mlght be nlt-plcklng and suggested a percentage of wlndow area to slgn area mlght be acceptable. e Mr. Flfe stated a prohlbl tlon of wlndow slgns lS eaSler to enforce than determlning lf a slgn meets an allowed percentage requlrement and suggested that no change be consldered untl1 staff lS able to more tlghtly deflne the lnfractlon process, and then reVlew all condltlons for appllcablllty and enforceablllty. Mr. Rullo stated that allowing the wlndow slgns wll1 only let klds know where the cheapest alcohollC beverages can be purchased and favors leavlng the condltlon as lt stands. Mr. Flfe stated the requlrement may be a reactlon to wldespread publlC concern regardlng 11quor and smoklng advertlslng dlrected at young people. MOTION by Rullo; SECOND by F1fe, and so ordered W1thOUt obJection to rece1ve and file the report leav1ng the cond1t10n as 1t stands, request staff to 1ncrease enforcement, and 1ncorporate into the proposed 1nfract10n process. * * * 7. STATUS: REMOVAL OF 66 KV POWER LINES e Mr. Whlttenberg lndicated thlS matter lS presented for lnformatlon based on a questlon at the tlme of the publlC hearlng on the Development Agreement on the MOLA proJect. The lnformatlon clarlfles the condltlons that MOLA wll1 be requlred to comply wlth regardlng the removal of the 66 KV 11nes along Flrst Street, Marlna Drlve, Bolsa Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard. e e e . Page 7 - Plann1ng Comm1ss1on M1nutes of October 4, 1989 Mr. Wh1ttenberg also referred to a supplemental letter rece1ved today from SCE regard1ng pole removal, and also 1nd1cated that the 66 KV 11nes are on easements, Wh1Ch w111 abandoned at the t1me of removal of the power lines. In response to a quest10n from Mr. F1fe, 1nd1cated some poles w111 rema1n Slnce they w111 KW 11nes Wh1Ch prov1de d1rect serV1ce to commerc1al customers. Mr. Wh1ttenberg st111 support 12 res1dent1al and ORDERED RECEIVED AND FILED W1thOUt Ob]ect1on by Cha1rman Sharp. * * * 8. STATUS: VIDEO ARCADES Mr. Wh1ttenberg 1nd1cated staff 1S research1ng th1S concern as d1rected by the Comm1ss1on at the September meet1ng. At th1S t1me all necessary 1nformat1on has rece1 ved and staff ant1c1pates presentat10n of a more report at the October 18, 1989 meet1ng. area of 20, 1989 not been deta1led ORDERED RECEIVED AND FILED w1thout Ob]ectlon by Chairman Sharp. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral commun1cat1ons from the aud1ence. STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS Mr. Sharp referred to the letter of September 25, 1989 from Rossmoor Bus1ness Center regard1ng sales tax producing bus1nesses and lease restrict10ns on add1 t10nal bU1ld1ng 1n the Center, 1nd1cating that the terms of the leases requ1re a m1n1mum of 3.5 square feet of open area (park1ng, landscap1ng, walkways, etc.) per each square foot of bU1ld1ng area. Mr. Rullo expressed concern regard1ng protect1on around construct1on mater1al stored on publ1C r1ght-of-ways. the lack of adequate and equ1pment be1ng e e e Page 8 - Plannlng CornrnlSSlon Mlnutes of October 4, 1989 ADJOURNMENT Chalrrnan Sharp adJourned the rneetlng at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully subrnltted, THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION * * * THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 4, 1989 WERE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER /flH- , 1989~