HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1990-08-01
1
~.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.~
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
~
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF AUGUST 1, 1990
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commiss1on of the
C1ty of Seal Beach was called to order on August 1, 1990 at
7:35 p.m. in C1ty council Chambers by Chairman Fife.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner McCurdy.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chairman Fife
Commissioners Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Dahlman
Staff
Present:
Lee Whittenberg, Director, Development Srvcs. Dept.
Barry Curt1s, Admin. Asst., Development Srvcs. Dept.
Michael Cho., Admin. Aide, Development Srvcs. Dept.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. MINUTES OF JULY 18, 1990
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCUrdy to approve the Pl~nning
Commission Minutes of July 18, 1990 with one correc~on at
page 13 to change the name "Mora" to "Moira".
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0
AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Fife, Dahlman
***
2. PLAN REVIEW 9-90
213 14th STREET
Mr. Whittenberg introduced new staff member, Michael Cho,
Administrative A1de (part time) in the Department of Development
Services.
Staff Report
Michael Cho delivered the staff report on Plan Review 9-90.
Applicants George and Judy Green are requesting modificat1on of the
roof with shed dormers to make more eff1cient use of the exist1ng
attic syace for storage. The proposed modification adds
approximately 500 square feet of usable attic area. Only 300
square feet of floor space may be added per Code Section 28-2407.
Staff resolved this conflict by giving the applicants two options:
(1) to comply with Section 28-2407 and build the shed dormers with
I
J
1
-
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
4i
Page 2 - Planning Commisslon Minutes of August 1, 1990
windows but reducing the increased floor space to 300 square feet
or (2) mitigate staff concerns of the creation of a habitable room
by building shed dormers without windows or a permanent access to
the proposed 500 square feet. The applicants chose the second
option. since there are no windows nor stalrs, staff conslders
this attic space.
The staff report indicates a fence and aluminum shed encroach into
the rear yard setback. Condition #3 requires the removal of the
alumlnum shed from the rear yard setback.
commission Concerns
The Commisslon questioned the attic's ventilation and quantity of
flammable materials that may be stored in an attic. Mr. Curtis
advised the ventilation would be subject to Uniform Building Code
requlrements. Mr. Whl ttenberg said he thought the Fire Code
required a certain amount of ventllation space around the vents in
the area itself --- other than that he was unaware of any other
requlrements. Mr. Whlttenberg said those types of concerns are
normally handled through the building code and fire code reVlew .
Commissloner Dahlman questioned the wording of Condition #2:
2. No windows or permanent access (i.e., stairs) be
allowed in the attic space until such time as the
zoning allows.
stating if the zoning should be changed in the future then this
500 square feet of space could be 'grandfathered' in
unintentionally. Mr. Cho explained the language at the end of
Condition #2 was included because the applicants were concerned
this Plan Review would preclude them from adding on even if the
zonin~ were changed. This language would allow them an out ---
they would be able to build according to future zoning. Mr.
Whittenberg advised the Commission that if the zoning requirements
were to change and the applicants desired additional interior
improvements they would still need to go through whatever process
was in place at that time.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCurdy to grant Plan Review 9-90.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0
AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman
1
.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
.
Page 3 - Planning commission Minutes of August 1, 1990
3. PLAN REVIEW 8-90
1012 OCEAN AVENUE
staff Report
Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. The applicant, William
Gallagher, wants to convert an existing four unit apartment into
a triplex. Included would be the addition of 437 square feet to
the first floor, a deck over the garage and an interior remodel
throughout. Staff recommended Condition #4 be removed because when
staff originally did the calculations the proposal was 45 square
feet over the maximum allowable 10% addition. Staff failed to
consider approximately 80 feet of the addition was in the garage
area which 1S not 1ncluded as addit10nal square footage.
Therefore, the applicant's request does meet the requirements of
section 28-2407 of the Code. Staff recommended approval of Plan
Review 8-90 subject to the four remaining conditions.
Comm1ss1on Comments
The Commission discussed covered roof access structures (CRAS,
a/k/a "doghouses"). Mr. curtis indicated that technically, the
appl1cant is propos1ng to build a first story "doghouse" .
Ordinance 1309 says no "doghouses" (or CRAS) will be built in the
ci ty of Seal Beach prior to its repeal. Staff is going to be
preparing proposed guidelines for the construction of CRAS within
the City. until the gU1delines are prepared and until Ordinance
1309 is repealed, this structure will not be allowed to be built.
This approval, with its conditions, allows the applicant to begin
the plan check process while staff 1S working on the guidelines.
Mr. Whittenberg requested the removal of the following language
from Condition #5: ... , with the exception of the amendment to the
plans as set forth in Condition #4 above".
MOTION by Sharp: SECOND by Orsini to approve Plan Review 8-90 with
the removal of Condition #4 and modification of Condition #5.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0
AYES: Orsini, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman, McCUrdy
***
1
.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
.
Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 1990
4. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST STREET ELEVATIONS.
staff Report
Mr. Curt1s delivered the staff report. The report notes that the
City Council approved Tentative Parcel Map 89-162 (Resolution No.
3848) on May 1, 1989 for the construction of four detached homes
at 350, 352, 354 and 356 First street, Seal Beach. Condition #32
of Resolution 3848 required the Planning Commission to reV1ew the
final elevations, including exterior colors and materials. The
applicant, J1m Watson, presented the final First Street elevations.
Jim Watson * 101 Main Street. "A" * Seal Beach
Mr. Watson showed the Commission elevations of house #3 and the way
it was des1gned prior to staff's recommendation that the upper deck
is architecturally incompatible with the dwelling and recommended
the f1nal elevations for house #3 be brought more into conformity
with the conceptual elevations for house #3 as approved by the City
in 1989. This maintains the roof as the most prominent feature of
this structure.
The Commission asked Mr. Watson about the parking and ownership of
the common driveway. Mr. Curtis explained the original conditions
of the Tentative Map provided for a 24 foot drive aisle with the
exception of a couple of areas which would be 20 feet wide. These
are fire code requirements. Mr. Watson expla1ned there is a guest
parking space for houses #2, #3 and #4 (#4 has a three car garage).
House #1 is on First Street and therefore has adequate street
parking. Mr. Watson explained this 1S condominium ownership and
the lots themselves include the driveway. The driveway could have
been a f1fth lot but it remained part of the four lots with cross
easements. The parking spaces are designated to the house and the
owner would have full control of the space.
The Comm1ssion discussed covered roof access structures on these
elevations with ensuing discuss10n as to what defines/constitutes
a CRAS. It was determined no CRAS exist on these homes because the
stairwells to the decks are open to the sky with no coverings. Mr.
Whittenberg said the City Counc1l considered a deck area above a
normal living area and provide a covered access to that deck when
they adopted the urgency ordinance. At their initial discuss10n
the1r intent was to restrict 1t to structures above the second
story but they also did not want a CRAS to occur where a person
wanted to get to a deck above the first level. There was never any
d1scussion at the City Council level of somebody wanting to put a
deck off a bedroom.
commissioner Dahlman suggested SUbjecting this item to a legal
review since there appeared to be similarity to a covered roof
access. Commissioner Sharp noted approvals for these homes was
1
<<
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
.
Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 1990
granted before the covered roof access matter came up. Chairman
Fife, agreeing with Mr. Sharp, said these houses would be
'grandfathered' in. Mr. Fife sa1d he didn't see where this was a
CRAS because this is an uncovered stairway to a roof deck.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the elevations for
the four First Street houses subject to the roof deck screen on
house #3 being revised to match the existing roof style and
materials of the rest of house #3.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0
AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman
***
Chairman Fife called for a Commission motion to move the Public
Hearing item ahead of the Scheduled Matters to accommodate the
public who may w1sh to testify.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to consider the Public Hearing
item #7 ahead of the Scheduled matters.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0
AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman
***
7. VARIANCE 4-90
630 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY * McDONALD's RESTAURANT
RESOLUTION No. 1588
Staff Report
Mr. Curtis de11vered the staff report. ,The app11cant, Kathy Kasha
(franchisee) , is requesting a var1ance from the parking
requirements of the General Commercial zone (C-2) for approximately
550 square feet of exterior patio dining area at 630 Pacific Coast
H1ghway. The Bay City Center has 250 parking spaces on-site but
should have 289 under today's zoning Code. Thus the Bay City Center
1S 39 park1ng spaces shy of the minimum requirement. Staff felt
the Center's parking may have become substandard (39 spaces) due
to the replacement of reta11 or office uses w1th restaurants at
some time in the past. The Center was constructed in 1978 - 1979.
Staff contended the Bay C1ty Center meets current Code requirements
through the provision of 250 on-site parking spaces and 39
'grandfathered' parking spaces, which are required to meet today's
parking requirements. Mrs. Kasha' s request would require the
addition of S1X (6) additional spaces. The Center has no available
land to place this additional parking.
Staff recommends denial of this variance application through the
adoption of Resolution No. 1588 because there are no special
C1rcumstances applicable to this property which deprive 1t of
1
<<
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
.
Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 1990
privileges enJoyed by other properties in the same vicinity and
zone and the granting of this variance would constitute the
granting of a special pr1vilege.
commission Comments
Comm1ss1oner Sharp asked if the parking lot was re-str1ped would
addi tional compact spaces allow McDonald's to meet the needed
spaces? Mr. curtis said the zoning ordinance allows 25% of the lot
to be compact parking. Staff measured the dimensions of 20 spaces
selected at random throughout the Center. The sizes varied with
most being sub-standard to City requirements. If the Center was
re-striped it would have to add the lacking 39 spaces plus the 6
spaces for this request for a total of 45 spaces. The re-strip1ng
for compact park1ng would not add enough additional parking to
allow this variance.
Chairman F1fe asked staff where the appl1cant would get the room
for the additional seating? Mr. curtis said they would enclose,
with windscreen, the existing front slab of the building.
Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing.
Kathy Kasha * 2005 Perry * Redondo Beach. CA
Ms. Kasha said the space for the outside seating is an existing
patio that was set aside for the purpose of outside seating as the
site was originally approved. She noted McDonald's is parcel #6
on the original site plan and the front patio slab has always been
in existence. It was specified that the patio usage is approved
for an outside dining area. They have just never put tables and
chairs out there. She noted Taco Bell, Bonadonna's and McDonald's
were all provided for outdoor dining areas.
Mr. Sharp asked when was the original granting of the site plan?
Mr. Curtis said it was approved 1977 - 1978.
Mr. Sharp asked when plans are approved, what length of time does
that approval extend to? Mr. curtis said he believed 1t was one
year.
Mr. Fife said he was concerned --- that there's a difference
between a permit to build something which is not built within a
year (or some time period) and a permit to use something which is
built but which just isn't used in that manner for a period of
t1me. He understands the applicant's contention is that the patio
that 1S there now was built at the time the building was built and
they just have not physically put chairs out there. Mr. Curtis
replied that staff's recommendation was based on the fact this slte
(proposed for exterior dining) was never improved at all prior to
this applicat10n and at the present time it's a sldewalk. The C1ty
does not have records on its microfilm showing that area was
approved as exterior patio seating. At the time the approval was
1
-
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
.
Page 7 - Planning commission Minutes of August 1, 1990
granted apparently the Center was deemed adequately parked. The
fact that it was never utilized, and that the applicant is coming
forward now, it is staff's belief that they would have to meet
today's zoning and parking requirements which they are unable to
do. Bonadonna's put a wind screen around the1r exterior patio a
couple of years ago but they were using exterior seating prior to
that. Taco Bell, formerly Mamacita's, utilized exterior dining
since it was built. Any seating McDonald's would put outside would
still be subject to parking requirements --- with or without an
enclosure.
Ms. Kasha said they planned to put a wrought iron ra11 up and not
necessarily a wind screen. She pointed out McDonald's shares
parking with the Red Lobster. She said McDonald's does 70% of its
business before 5: 00 p. m. and Red Lobster does 70% of their
business after 5:00 p.m. McDonald's wants to accommodate kids
coming from the bus or the beach --- they aren't parking. Ms.
Kasha said she felt they were being denied the right to serve
patrons coming directly from the beach who couldn't come inside;
other nearby restaurants can accommodate these patrons. Mr. Sharp
asked how the beach dressed patrons would get their food Slnce they
cannot come 1nside without shoes? Ms. Kasha said "there's usually
one set of sandals in the group!"
Mr. F1fe asked the size of the McDonald's slab (for the ant1cipated
patio area). Mr. Curtis said it's about 10 feet by 55 feet. Mr.
Fife noted this 1S larger than a conventional sidewalk.
No one wished to speak further for or aga1nst this matter and the
Public Hearing was closed.
Comm1ssion Comments
commissioner McCurdy asked if th1S request were to be granted, how
much of a problem would the Commission have with any other
restaurant in town who, lacking parking spaces now, would want to
do something similar to McDonalds? Mr. curtis replied that one of
staff's reasons for denial was the thought that this could be
precedent setting --- especially in the Old Town area where many
restaurants would 11ke to have outside dining. Commissioner Sharp
said the Commission denied a similar request to the Primrose
Restaurant until they re-striped the1r park1ng lot to achieve the
correct number of parking spaces. That was about a year ago ---
they had to wait for the owner of the shopping center to be ready
to resurface the ent1re lot before they could re-stripe. Mr. Sharp
advised the applicant that if her application is denied she has ten
working days to file an appeal to the City Council.
Chairman Fife recalled the situation with the Primrose Restaurant
stating there was an actual physical addition proposed. This
situation is a patio slab which was or1ginally approved for outside
dining use. We have a belated approved use. He said he didn't
1
.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
.
Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 1990
think they should have to get a variance to use it. He didn't,
however, have a problem with their getting a variance if they were
going to provide any type of substantial enclosure. Mr. Flfe said
he thought this applicant should be able to take advantage of the
approved addition.
Commissioner Dahlman noted parking near McDonald's is difficult.
He asked Mr. Curtis about the time overlap at different times
during the day. Mr. curtis said the present zoning ordinance
doesn't recognize shared use parking. Later this year staff will
be overhauling the zoning ordinance and that's one aspect of the
parking situation that staff will review. Mr. Sharp noted the
Commission had the same problem with John's Food King/papillon
Restaurant sharing the corner parking lot at Maln Street and
Central Avenue. The Commission could not grant the restaurant the
parking spaces even though the food market was closed during the
restaurant's hours.
Mr. curtis said staff received only one written communication from
Jim Watson's office stating they were in favor of the use if it had
no impact on the parking situation.
Commissioner McCurdy stated he felt additional seating would not
give McDonald's additional customers --- it would allow standing
customers to sit down. Mr. Flfe agreed.
Mr. Whittenberg agreed with Mr. McCurdy that the additional seatlng
may not attract additional customers. Staff's concern is that the
same distinction may not be able to be made on a future request lf
you were to grant this one. The addition of 34 seats would tend
to increase the number of customers over the long term and could
put additional pressure on the parking in the Center. A
comprehensive look at the Bay City Center --- reviewing the hours
of operation, potential changes of use, re-striplng of the parking
lot, surveying the parking lot's peak demand hours and how those
relate to business hours --- this would give a rational basis to
make any decisions. As time goes along more intensive uses
proposed for the City and those areas are restricted by land
requirements and the existing parking situations. Flexibility will
be needed to allow for these more intenslve uses where there's a
combination of uses that can compliment each other and not compete.
Mr. Sharp asked if this applicant were to be denied, the Commission
could deny it in such a way as to avoid her having to pay fees
again? Mr. Whittenberg advised that the Commission could (1) deny
the application without prejudice which would mean she could corne
back at any time and resubmit an application, paying the fees, but
it would allow them plus the management of the Center, to look at
shared parking or (2) would be to table this matter for SlX (6)
1
.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
.
Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 1990
months and hope that staff would have completed their studies
regarding the idea of shared parking and the applicant could come
before the Planning Commission again.
Ms. Kasha said the parking requirement is based on the square
footage of the building and McDonald's has a significantly larger
ki tchen than Taco Bell. McDonald's just completed an l.nterior
remodel and 20 to 30 seats were lost. In 1980 they had 130 seats.
Mr. curtis said the parking requirements are based on the square
footage of the area of the building. Refurbishing the interior of
the restaurant did not affect the total square footage of the
building. Extending it out 550 square feet does affect the
building's total square footage and by increasing the floor area
it l.mpacts the parking requirements.
Ms. Kasha said the floor area is there --- they're just not using
it. She said 50% of her bus1.ness is done through the drive thru
window and are not parking. That's why they were able to decrease
the number of seats on the inside.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to table Variance 4-90 for six
(6) months to allow staff time to study the zoning municipal Code
and to bring both items before the Planning Commission for
concurrent consideration.
MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0
AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Fife, Dahlman
***
Cha1.rman Fife granted a 15 m1.nute recess (9:00 - 9:15 p.m.)
SCHEDULED MATTERS
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
OFFICES IN COMMERCIAL ZONES
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report stating there is the
possibility of developing standards throughout the City'S
commercial zones which would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
approval to replace an existing retail sales-tax-generating
business with a non-retail-sales-tax-generating business in the
commercial zones of the City. This came about by prev1.ous
concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and City Council.
A general discussion was previously presented which covered issues
and their impacts. At that point the Commission decided to hold
off on th1.s matter pend1.ng a meeting with the Retail Sales
Committee. That meeting was held jointly between the Retail Sales
1
.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
.
Page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 1990
Committee, Plann1ng commission and C1ty Council 1n February 1990.
There has been no action since that meeting due to changes due to
Commiss1on resignations and other matters. It is before the
Commiss1on this evening for review and discussion and to provide
appropriate direction to staff.
Comm1ssion Comments
commissioner Orsini stated the initial concern was for Rossmoor
Shopping Center. Staff noted the concerns were for all properties
zoned C-2 (Rossmoor Shopping Center, Pacific Coast Highway, Ma1n
Street). At that time there was discussion of staying within a
certain percentage as far as going to office space as compared to
retail. A staff report shows 40% but Mr. Whittenberg said he would
have to review the staff reports to be certa1n. Mr. Whittenberg
said it's important to maintain a good mix of both retail business
and service uses that bring customers 1nto an area.
Commissioner Orsin1 asked staff 1f retail sales are down in Seal
Beach? Mr. Whittenberg sa1d retail sales are not down as far as
dollar amounts coming into the City. There has been a lot of
leakage of potential sales tax revenue that could be generated
because of major shopping centers in the area.
commissioner Orsini asked staff what the vacancy rate was at
Rossmoor Shopping Center. Mr. Whittenberg said he didn't know but
could find out.
Commissioner Sharp said he didn't know what the vacancy rate at
Rossmoor Center was but he did know the figures show the sales tax
revenue being the highest ever. Mr. Sharp indicated the property
managers of shopping centers had the expertise to maintain the
proper tenants, screen those tenants and make the proper choice.
Mr. Sharp ind1cated that although it might be nice for the City to
be able to tell the shopping centers that the City would like all
retail on the first floor and offices on the second floor, the City
should not interfere with the normal flow of business.
commissioner McCurdy said he agreed with Commiss1oner Sharp. He
also noted there are certain types of shops always seems to fail,
no matter what shopping center they're in. Rossmoor Shopp1ng
Center has had continu1ng problems --- like small clothing shops
or shoe stores. He hopes the City does not put further burdens
upon the Rossmoor Center.
Chairman Fife recalled he 1nitially raised this issue with former
Planning Commissioner Ron Jessner. Their concern at the time was
that the present C-2 zoning allowed for those properties to be used
for retail or commercial office space. The choice of which use to
make of it would not involve the Planning Commiss1on at all. The
shopping center owners might find 1t more profitable to rent
potential retail space out to a stable off1ce user -- like a
1
.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
.
Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 1990
dentist or accountant or lawyer. While that would maximize h1S
profit it would reduce the sales tax revenues to the City. Mr Fife
sa1d he had in mind a process that would not necessarily restrict
the property owner to use all of his space for retail use but he
would have to make some sort of showing to the Commiss1on that he
could not feasibly use it for retail space. There was no interest
in dictating which type of retail tenant should be selected. As
it stood, he could convert an entire shopping to office space and
we would know nothing about it unt1l it was completely
accomplished. Mr. Fife and Mr. Jessner had wanted a 'stopper'.
The cons1derations of the City 1n terms of maintaining or expanding
its sales tax base would be figured into the process. He stated
he feels this is not an undue infr1ngement on the shopp1ng centers
owners from mak1ng profits. Of the possible avenues of approach
listed on the 9-6-89 staff report, Chairman F1fe supported #3:
3. Instruct staff to formulate spec1fic Conditional Use
Permit standards and findings for conversion of existing
retail space or provision of new office development in
C-2 properties, establishing specific floor area ratios
of office/retail and specific design and location
criteria for a new office and financial service
establishments in existing C-2 properties. Schedule
formal public hearing before Planning Commission on
recommended changes.
Mr. Fife added he would like to see staff implement some specific
suggestions, get public input and talk it through.
Commissioner Dahlman said he supports option #3 (above). He
suggested an incentive and thought the Retail Sales Committee could
come up with some ideas that would compensate the shopping center
owner for the additional risk if confronted with situation of
retail over office user. Mr. Fife suggested setting aside some
portion of the sales tax revenues to be rebated back to the
businesses that generated them. The Commiss1on discussed and said
they would like to see the Main Street shops open on uniform hours
rather than it is now --- hit and miss. Mr. F1fe noted that in
certain cities the bed tax revenues are used in part to promote the
ci ty as a tourist attraction and that helps those businesses
generating that revenue. Perhaps these sales tax revenues could
be used for advertising of its retail bus1nesses. The current laws
and regulations set the City of Seal Beach off to the side and the
Planning Department has no power to do anything about it.
Mr. Whittenberg said the only time a change in use of an existing
commercial building would come before the Planning Commission or
ci ty Council is if that change in use would require different
parking for the building than what 1t was originally designed for.
Mr. Fife noted that if the City had a rent tax --- a tax on gross
rent rece1pts --- then from the City's point of view, we would be
1
-
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
.
Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 1990
essent1ally neutral as to Wh1Ch way a shopping center owner wants
to use his property --- office or retail would bring the same
dollars.
Mr. Orsini said he felt obligating the merchants to advert1se would
generate business. He noted Main street gets customers due to the
events downtown. Rossmoor Center doesn' t seem to do a lot of
advertising. The centers can only do so much, the merchants must
help the center.
Chairman Fife recalled that when he moved to Seal Beach twenty
years ago that Rossmoor Shopping Center was basically full and he
didn't recall any vacant store spaces at that time. There are a
substantial number of vacancies now and a substantial number than
have been converted 1nto uses that to do generate sales tax
revenue. The Rick's Rack is now a physicians office. The theatres
generate either an amusement tax or a sales tax. Pure service
usages don't generate sales tax.
Mr. Whittenberg noted Century Nat10nal Properties is the manager
for the Rossmoor Shopping Center and have their own managers on
site. The manager is Dott1e Phillips.
commissioner Dahlman asked Commissioners Sharp and McCurdy if they
felt option #3 represented too much interference or would they be
in agreement to it? Mr. Sharp replied that we can't just consider
Rossmoor Shopping Center, we must cons1der all the C1ty'S shopping
centers. If a mean1ngful study were to be done there would have
to be a meeting which included a representative from each of the
shopping centers for the1r expertise input. Mr. Sharp noted he has
been talking with Dottie Phillips and finds that the management is
screening tenants for Rossmoor Shopping Center very carefully.
Commiss10ner Sharp asked Mr. Whittenberg 1f staff was in the
process of getting the sign program and the shopping center issue
considered concurrently? Mr. Whittenberg said staff has not begun
the process yet but he thought there was a possibility for
combining the issues. Staff would want to look at the individual
centers and each center would have a different type of tenant m1X
which would be most beneficial depending on the type of traffic
attracted to the1r center. He suggested staff come back to the
Commission with an outline of a work program as to the types of
areas needed to look at, a tentative time schedule for Commission
and Council review and to obtain a consensus from C1ty Council and
Plann1ng Comm1ssion as to the areas staff should look at. The
deta1led analysis will start at that point.
commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Whittenberg how the Bixby meet1ngs
were going and when did staff anticipate the preliminary work
coming 1nto the Planning Department? Mr. Whittenberg said the
Saturday meetings have been suspended and will probably resume in
October. Also, the City had entered into a contract w1th a Page
1
.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
.
13 - Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 1990
consultant to assist City staff in deal1ng with that project.
Mr. Whittenberg added that while working on the shopping center
retail/office mix issue and signage they could also work on the
shared parking issues in one general set of meetings.
PLANNING COMMISSION CONSENT AND DIRECTION TO STAFF: To devise a
proposed work schedule which would include areas of research to be
undertaken by staff, a time schedule for activities to be
undertaken and a time schedule of meetings with the appropriate
groups that we feel should be brought into the discussion of this
type of an issue for both review by Planning commission and City
Council prior to any staff efforts being expended for this
particular area of research. This is to be brought back to the
Planning Commission within thirty (30) days.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT OF COMMISSION
Comm1ss10ner Dahlman referenced a Master Plan for the Rossmoor
Shopping Center which he said would be primar1ly the business of
Dottie Phillips or the Shopping center owner. And anything the
Planning Commission would put in in the way of a Master Plan would
reflect whatever help we can provide the Center. Mr. Wh1ttenberg
said the Master Plan for Rossmoor Center and staff's understanding
is a separate issue that would not be dealt with under what's be1ng
discussed this evening. Previous discussion involved putting
together a Spec1fic Plan for the Rossmoor Center and staff felt
that might be premature at this time because the Center was doing
1nternal analysis as to where they feel the Center is heading.
until they have solidified that, anything on the part of the City
may be premature. Commissioner Dahlman reiterated that the
Commission is not talking about a Master Plan to be imposed upon
any Shopping center in town. Mr. Sharp sa1d his suggestion was to
have staff meet with a representative of each of the shopping
centers so staff could give the Planning Commission the V1ews of
both staff and shopping center of what is going on and why.
Cha1rman Fife said he would allow public comments due to the
relatively small audience.
Charles Antos * 328 17th Street * Seal Beach
Mr. Antos stated that items discussed at this meeting reminded him
of past City attempts which he described as "commercial experiments
from hell". There was an attempt to put in a BIA or BID in the
downtown area to deal with limitations on hours of operations,
types of uses, requ1rements of staying open, everybody opening and
closing at the same time, joint advertisement, hiring a
professional to tell everyone how they should have their business
managed. What that did was split the business community down the
middle. He stated the Rossmoor Shopping Center has some unique
problems because of 1 ts locat10n. He suggested having Dorothy
Phillips come before the Planning Commission and adv1se what the
Center's problems are. The shopping center owners really know how
1
-
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
.
Page 14 - Planning Commission Minutes of August 1, 1990
to manage their centers. He felt government (the Cl ty) was
interferlng too much with private business. He suggested to hold
a series of advertised Public Hearings to get lnput from nearby
residents and work proactively with center managers and the Main
street Merchant's Association.
Chairman Flfe responded by saying he thought Mr. Antos was reacting
to a "chamber of horrors" that no one is suggesting. He stated he
has never thought that if Dottie Phillips could not rent her space
retail it would have to sit empty. The concept was for her to come
down and tell the Planning Commission what problems she was
experiencing. The City has a consideration on what is happening
to ltS sales tax revenue and should be involved ln the declsion
process. These concepts would be applicable to all shopping
centers.
Frank Blair * 5410 Oleda street * (No City stated)
Mr. Blair said he owns "a couple of lots on Seal Beach Blvd.
between Seal Beach Blvd. and Electric". He liked the suggestlon
of an incentive to the merchants. He feels that area needs to be
developed and he would be willing to spend some money to improve
the area and would like to know if other persons on that street
were interested in improving the area. He felt this Planning
Commission is doing a good job and likes to see their open-
mlndedness.
6. CITY POLICY REGARDING GEOLOGIC STUDIES
FOR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg requested this item be removed from tonlght' s
agenda and held over. Staff is attempting to gather additional
information from cities in the Southern California area which have
developed standards and guidelines over and above the standard
building code requirements relating to soil and geologic issues;
also from the cities of Sacramento and San Diego. Staff would 11ke
to have some of that information to review and lnclude in the
presentation to the Commission and Councl1 at a later date.
Chairman Fife said he thought a study had been done on the history
of the Long Beach ordinance and he would obtain that for staff.
Staff has not yet checked with the City of Huntington Beach but
will do so.
Commissloner Dahlman said there is legislation pendlng in
Sacramento that may be about to direct California cities to do
this.
1
.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
.
Page 15 - Planning Commission Minutes of August I, 1990
UNANIMOUS COMMISSION CONSENT to table Scheduled Matters item #6,
city Policy Regarding Geologic Studies for Development Proposals.
To be re-agendized as soon as staff gets the appropriate
information.
***
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Aaron Weiner * 6342 Newberry Drive. Huntington Beach. CA
Mr. Weiner introduced hlmself of the building at 330 Main street,
Seal Beach. Mr. Weiner voiced his protest of the recent Planning
Commission decision for Papa Joe's Pizza (CUP 3-90) because the
denial, he felt, sent a mandate to the Planning Department that no
food operation can accommodate any seating without trlggering the
parking requirements for a restaurant. Mr. Weiner said he has
talked with the City Manager, Bob Nelson, about this matter and "he
supports my sentiments whole heartedly". CUP 3-90 says 'no more
food on Main Street' because there's no land available to create
more parking to accommodate restaurant uses. He stated Huntington
Beach and Costa Mesa have a policy which states that any food
operation in a retail shop can have up to 12 seats before it's
considered a restaurant with regards to parking. He thinks this
is a good policy and urged the Commission to reconslder its
decision on CUP 3-90 and/or revise the message the Commission sent
to the Planning Department and perhaps endorse an encouraging
policy to business.
Chalrman Fife commented that with respect to Papa Joe's applicatlon
the request was to convert a storage room into additional patron
wai ting room. The question had arose of benches for patrons to sit
down on while waiting for orders to be prepared with the idea to
go outslde and eat thelr food. The Commission said the ordinance
was very clear on parking --- as soon as there was the capability
to eat within the restaurant that triggered the parking requirement
but the Commission did not send a new or different message to the
Plannlng Department. Mr. Curtis said in the past delicatessen's
have been allowed to consider part of their area as seating area
and part of their area as retail. Old Town Wine and Gourmet did
this. Commissioner Dahlman suggested Mr. Weiner contact the Seal
Beach merchants and if they came before the Planning Commission
with a unified front perhaps the residents would accept some form
of mitigation. Perhaps the non-food retailers don't flnd the food
retailers deserve special treatment. Mr. Weiner said the gross
square footage for his space is 1,112 square feet and he has on-
site parking for 25 cars.
1
.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
.
Page 16 - Planning CommlSSlon Minutes of August 1, 1990
STAFF CONCERNS
staff presented two memos on action they had taken on Planning
Commission concerns:
1. Super Saver Seven Theaters. 7-30-90 staff inspected and
found violation of CUP 12-89 conditions. Staff requested
rope separation be immediately replaced. Staff to
reinspect on 8-3-90. CUP 12-89 due to Commission
consideration on 9-5-90.
2. Trash at Bixby Fence. 7-30-90 staff inspected site and
found trash accumulation exists. Staff send letter to
B1Xby Ranch Co. requesting abatement within 15 days.
Staff also gave the Commlssioners materials on the proposed
expansion at the Seal Beach Naval Weapons station jetty expansion.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
commissioner Orsinl asked staff what the status was on the patio
encroachment at 1733 Crestview and could the Commission do anything
to get the munlcipal Code violations enforced? Mr. Whittenberg
said to enforce municipal Code violations the City has to go
through a mlsdemeanor complaint process. ~his matter has been
referred to the City Attorney and they are working on it at this
time. The Commission has asked staff to look into changing the
violations in the zoning Code from a misdemeanor to an infraction
where there's a citatlon issued with a fine. That research is on-
going at this time. Chalrman Fife said a lien against the property
is an effectlve tool to get lenders excited and put pressure on
property owners to get rid of the lien. Mr. Fife hoped that when
the ~ enforcement process is proceeding that we move toward
something 11ke a lien and away from the cumbersome nature of a
crlminal complaint with all its problems.
commissioner Dahlman said he talked to the property owner at 1733
Crestview and said he is surprised the owner has not filed a
variance. Mr. Fife said Dr. Dahlman had previously indicated the
apparent projection of the deck lS an illusion and it actually does
not intrude across the Hellman Ranch property line. Dr. Dahlman
says his information is the deck is built entirely on the owner's
property and doesn't come within 1.5 feet of the property line.
Mr. Orsinl said this property owner is also in violation of two
other ordinances --- an open tool shed and a dog run. Mr. Curtis
said there were "several things on the property in violation of the
municipal Code". Commissioner Dahlman asked the Commission and
staff to give the property owner two more weeks to comply.
1
-
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1
.
.-
Page 17 - Planning commission Mlnutes of August 1, 1990
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Flfe adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submltted,
~ 0.- -........ ~.
~ "'0-.__
Jo n Fillmann
Executive Secretary
Department of Development Services
***
These Minutes are tentative and are subject to the approval of the
Planning commission.
***
The Planning commission Minutes of August 1, 1990 were approved on
September S~ , 1990.
-4f:-