Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1991-04-03 .. . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA APRIL 3, 1991 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. SCHEDULED MATTERS 1. Archaeological Element Task Force Report IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Approval of March 20, 1991 Minutes V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. CUP #2-90 (ABC Renewal) Carriage Trade Liquor 4. CUP #12-89 (Video Game Renewal) Super Saver Cinema Seven 5. CUP #4-91 & HEIGHT VARIATION [MPR] #2-91 207\ Third Street * Aviani VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - At this time .embers of the public ~y address the Planning Commission regarding any item wi thin the Subject matters of the cOJlllllission provided no action may be tkaen on off-Agenda items unless authorized by law. VII. STAFF CONCERNS VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNHENT . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 3, 1991 PLEDGE OF ]to. J.J .EGIANCE The Pledge of Alleg1ance was led by Commissioner orsini. ROLL CA T.J. Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Sharp, McCurdy, Dahlman, Orsini Also: Department of Development Services staff present: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Michael Cho, Intern Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary SCHEDULED MATTERS 1. Archaeological Element Task Force Report Chairman Fife requested Comm1ssioner comments. Commissioner Sharp indicated he felt strongly that any comm1ttee report should be presented by the committee and be signed by its chairman. If there is a disagreement, a minority report should be submi tted also. What has now been presented to the Planning Commission is sent by the City Council and is from one individual who is not the Archaeolog1cal Task Force's chairman. It was not determined exactly who the report was from but it was signed by Moira Hahn only. Commissioner Sharp related he had a telephone call from a Task Force member who wanted the views of three Task Force members stated. There are five Archaeological Element Task Force members and allegedly three members met together in possible Brown Act violation. Commissioner Sharp felt this document and the problems clouding it should be cleared up at the City Council level prior to Planning Commission consideration. commissioner Dahlman said it was his understanding there was a difference of opinion on several matters with agreement for the most part. He suggested obtaining further information from the Task Force and asked if the Task Force could legally meet again and present the proposal signed by the Chairman? He felt the Commission should talk to all Task Force members if they cannot meet again, take advantage of their experience and the work they did. commissioner McCurdy questioned why the City of Seal Beach needs an Archaeological Element at all? The State and Federal governments have regulations. Mr. Curtis clarified that this matter has been forwarded to the Planning Commiss1on from the City Council. The . . . Page 2 - Plann1ng Commission Minutes of April 3, 1991 Commission needs to forward the matter to Planning Department staff to schedule Publ1c Hear1ngs. During the Publ1c Hearing and environmental review processes both sides of the report can come out. commissioner Sharp asked Mr. curtis what staff estimated would be spent on environmental research? Mr. Curtis said he was unaware of the budget at this time but if the environmental work is done by an outside consultant it would cost $20,000 or more and would have to be a budgeted item. Staff is working on a proposal to raise building permit fees to get monies for General Plan updates. Commissioner Dahlman asked if an EIR was required? Mr. curtis said a Negative Declaration might be possible and would be substantially cheaper. commissioner McCurdy said that when the housing was built on Marina Hill it didn't turn out to be a sacred burial ground. When another developer wanted to build a thousand homes there it wasn't a sacred burial ground. When the Mola Development Co. proposal was submi tted, the Wetlands Restoration Society came along and the property became a sacred Indian burial ground. He said it was his op1nion that the need for an Archaeological Element arose as a direct result of the Mola proposal and is mostly a subterfuge to defeat the Mola proposal. He said he could not feel that that was sufficient reason to have an Archaeological Element. Commiss1oner Dahlman said he hadn't understood it that way and he wouldn' t want to endorse another obstacle to development. However, he noted an expert PhD spoke to the Commission several months ago explaining why the City needed an Archaeological Element. He agreed w1th the expert on preserving archaeological sites as they are of tremendous value. Chairman Fife asked staff several questions: (1) Where the Stobbe version of the Task Force report was appended? Mr. curtis indicated staff would provide it to the Commiss1on, that it was not in this packet; (2) Had that version undergone any changes since February 29th? Mr. curtis said he was unaware of any changes since that time but could not answer specifically; (3) If this was referred to staff, before it comes to Public Hearings, did staff envision getting a majority and minority report? Mr. curtis said he believed that would be what staff would come back with. The report referred back to the Commiss1on is actually the report from Moira Hahn, which is what the Commission is mandated to look at; (4) Has the Council mandated this report constitute the report of the Archaeological Element Task Force? Mr. curtis said yes, th1s is the report that the City Council accepted and referred to the Planning Commission. commissioner Sharp said that during the City Council meeting at which a motion was made to accept the Task Force report (signed by Moira Hahn), when that motion was made it was seconded by a Page 3 - Planning Commisslon Minutes of April 3, 1991 . Councilperson who stated flatly that the only report she would second was the original report and not the one being presented. However, the motion was voted on and passed. To make certain he had heard the proceedings correctly, Commissioner Sharp requested review of the video tape. It was very plain what happened --- the original motion was never seconded and yet it was passed. He indicated the issue of two Task Force needs to be clarified for the Commission by the Council so Public Hearings are not started with a tainted document. "All along it hasn't been clarified and it isn't clear as to what we're worklng with or why we're doing it". commissioner Dahlman questioned the report presented as it was dated February which he understood to be the last updated version of the original before the disputed meeting. Commissioner Sharp read the last paragraph of page 1, which indicated that this report is to be contrasted with the original report and therefore this could not be the original report. Commissioner Orsini sald that at the original meeting, Linda Stobbe came forward and asked her version be submitted with this report. Mr. curtis said the report attached, starting on page 9, is the original report of the committee which was motioned by the Councll to be sent to the Commission. . It became apparent that the Stobbe version was not included in this packet. The Commission asked staff to get it to them. Chairman Fife indicated he was inclined to refer it back to the City Council, requesting the two reports be clearly marked and confirm that this is the complete document the want the Commission to review. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCUrdy that the Planning Commission receives and filed with the understanding that Planning Department staff will augment this document with the "Stobbe Version" which was intended to be attached but is not, in fact, attached. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Sharp, Orsini, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman *** CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Approval of March 20, 1991 Minutes MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of March 20, 1991 with a correction at page 10: add "The Code of the City of Seal Beach. CA" at line 6, after "read". . MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman ABSTAIN: Orsini *** . . . Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 3/ 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Conditional Use Permit #2-90 12101 Seal Beach Boulevard Carriage Trade Liquor staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Gopal Seth, is requesting an indefinite extension of an existing off-sale general liquor license for Carriage Trade Liquor. Staff recommended approval of CUP #2-90 through the adoption of Resolution #1615 with 7 conditions outlined in the staff report. Public Hearing - Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. The applicant was not present and no one came forward to speak for or against the application. commission Comments MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCurdy to approve Condi tional Use Permit #2-90 via the approval of Resolution 11615 with the seven conditions outlined in the staff report. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman, McCurdy *** 4. Conditional Use Permit #12-89 12343 Seal Beach Boulevard Super Saver Cinema Seven Staff Report Mr. Curtls delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Super Saver Cinema Seven, requested an indefinite extension of CUP #12-89, which permitted the placement of up to twelve coin-operated amusement devices within a movie theater located at 12343 Seal Beach Blvd. Staff recommended the Commission approve a twelve (12) month extension of CUP #12-89 subject to approval of Resolution 1616 containing thirteen (13) conditions. Commlssion Comments The Commission discussed at length security problems in the parking lot of Rossmoor Center, the responsibility of the theater, the shopping center and the security guards. Page 5 - Plann1ng Commission Minutes of April 3, 1991 4It The Commission noted the staff report indicated contacts with the Seal Beach Police Department revealed an assault and battery on February 23 and on March 9 an assault with a deadly weapon (crow bar and baseball bat) brandished against theater employees. Commissioner McCurdy said it might be better to look at removing the theaters from the Center rather than removing only the amusement devices. Chairman Fife agreed, saying the coin operated machines may be "just a small increment to the overall problem". He indicated the problem seems to be the theaters are attracting an element of people that previously didn't come around there and the Center is getting more dangerous. He felt the theaters probably are not doing anything to encourage this, it just happens. He suggested an armed security guard with a cellular phone would be a good asset. Mr. curtis said he had discussed armed security guards with the Police Department. Captain Molihan had no objections to armed security guards as long as they were licensed. Commissioner Orsini said the individual guards are not licensed but the agency they work for is licensed. Commissioners McCurdy and Dahlman expressed concern with Condition #11, saying the City and the Police Department should control crime in public places. Commissioner Dahlman said he would like Condition #11 reviewed by the City Attorney. . Public Hearing . Joseoh Ciampoli - General Manager. Super Saver Cinema Seven Mr. Ciampoli said he took over the theater management on December 15, 1990. He stated the theaters hired a security guard for Friday and saturday nights and it has been working well. The guard's primary function is to call the Seal Beach Police if there's a disturbance. The guard is not allowed to go into the parking area because the theaters' insurance does not cover employees beyond their canopy. Mr. Ciampoli said he "runs a tight ship". The shopping center's association covers the parking lots under its rules. He said he has not heard any other merchants complain about shoplifting or vandalism but there has been a tremendous increase in business. He felt the parking lot problems are not gang related but that skateboards and rollerblades are a problem. He said he does pay a common area fee but he didn't know how many guards the shopping center's association provides. The center appears to have several guards that rotate shifts. There has always been at least one mobile guard around. Mr. Ciampoli said the guard drives an electric cart and estimates his age to be 50 or 60 years. The parking lot 1S the center's responsibility and he would therefore be opposed to Condition #11 as the park1ng lot is not the theater's property. Mr. C1ampoli said he has not seen a the lease agreement between the theaters and the center because his home office in Texas had not sent him a copy. Chairman Fife said "... I have a definite perception that the parking area around the Rossmoor Center is becoming an increasingly dangerous place. And I don't care if nobody in the world is telling you that, I'm telling you . . . Page 6 - Plann1ng Commiss10n Minutes of April 3, 1991 that. And I have heard that from a lot of people "Mr. Ciampoli said "No one's doubting that Mr. Fife. I have already approached the shopping center about additional lighting on the side of the building and it's going to be done this week ... so I'm fully aware of what the problems are in the shopping center. But the shopping center is not the theater. If you feel the theater generates that I feel you're wrong. I feel the situation here is that we have teenagers that have no place to go. Essentially they come out to the shopping center. The shopping center happens to be ... a magnet, not the theaters ... we have a policy with the Police Department that we actually tell these people, with Police 1nstruction, to stay away from the theater --- those that cause problems. The magnet is the shopping center. I don't feel it's the theater". Chairman Fife disagreed, not1ng there have been teenagers in the area for many years and the problems that seem to be developing since the theater came in didn't seem to exist before then. The Commission discussed who should pay for the necessary, addi tional security. They indicated it might be unfair to have the theater bear the financial cost but municipalities have no liability for not providing police protection. Their budgets are strapped and they can not necessarily absorb the costs. So far, it doesn't look like the shopping center itself is ready to absorb those costs. Commissioner Sharp indicated the theater manager was not necessarily opposed to Condition #11 but couldn' t comply because the theater has control to the end of their canopy, the shopping center controls the parking lot. Chairman Fife said he was reluctant to believe the theater couldn't place that guard. Mr. Ciampoli said there are people who taunt or intentionally aggravate theater employees but the employees call the Seal Beach Police who respond in about 5 - 6 minutes or less. Local security responds quickly. Commissioner Dahlman suggested the theater and shopping center get together and resolve this issue. Mr. Ciampoli said he would be more than willing to work with the center and offer any advice or suggestions he could. Mr. Ciampoli said the skateboarders are very dangerous. He related an incident where a youngster on rollerblades was skating in the street, skating between cars, and shot by his car as he was just accelerating from a stop. He felt the gangs were a loosely knit group of teenagers who just find some place to hang around on a Friday. He didn't think we are dealing with anything like the Long Beach gangs. Commissioner Dahlman said "We hope not, but it's a lot worse than what's been going on in the past. I know you're new 1n town, but we really have pretty high standards. We're spoiled. Assaults wi th crowbars is big stuff around here". Mr. Ciampoli said he appreciated that and said two of his employees were 1nvolved in the crowbar incident. Mr. Ciampoli said "This whole situation has only come up recently... I haven't had a chance to really catch up on the maintenance and the normal routine problems of hiring staff and locking that down ... I came in the 15th of December ... I haven't been able to come out and really resolve a problem or go to the Merchants' Association and say 'Hey, we have a problem, let's increase our secur1ty' ... in fact I haven't had a change to go to . . . Page 7 - Planning CommlSSlon Minutes of April 3, 1991 one of their meetings. I've put in a tremendous amount of hours in this place to try to bring the thing physically up shape and to work some crowd control situations. I've got those pretty much in order now. I've got new management that's been put In. I've got four relief managers which I never had in the beginning. These things will allow me to be more freedom so that I will be able to be more creative as far as the shopping center is concerned ... I'm not the only business in that area ... what has to happen is we all have to get together and say this nonsense has got to cease ...". Chairman Fife asked Mr. Ciampoli if he would object to Condition #11 if it were modified to require the security guard to be located during the same hours (outlined in staff report) but within the lobby and apron area of the theaters? Mr. Ciampoli said he would not object and he had planned on expanding this summer. Mr. Ciampoli said he would like this issue dropped to allow him to make the decision as to when they should/should not be used. He didn't believe the Planning Commission should take that decision away from him. He wanted to control the hours when the security guard should be used on the property. Mr. curtis said staff can not condition the center to have a security guard on site, it could only condi tion the applicant to do so. The applicant would be forced to deal with and work out an agreement with the center. The Police Department recommendation was for a security guard to be on site in the back part of the center only to deter loitering. Commissioner Dahlman said that the last time the Police Department talked to the Planning Commission they didn't say that at all and felt Mr. curtis was getting this information from a recent meeting with Captain Molihan. Last fall captain Molihan said he would prefer Rossmoor Center security be left to the Police Department and not have security guards. Mr. curtis related that at his recent meeting with Captain Molihan that the center's problems have escalated in severity, and due to lack of manpower, the Police Department is unable to be at the Center at all times. The Police would like a security person at the Center at all times. Commissioner Dahlman said he had suggested the theater and center get together and give the Police Department the monies they would have used on security and those monies could be used to fill those hours --- except that a Police Officer's pay is four to five times more than a security guard. No further speakers came forward and the Public Hearing was closed by Chairman Fife. commissioner Sharp stated Condition #11 must be deleted for the present time to give the new theater manager a chance to work thlngs out. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCurdy to approve Conditional Use Permit #12-89 (Renewal) through the adoption of Resolution No. 1592 by (1) amending Condition #1 from twelve months to a six month extension; (2) delete Condition #11; (3) delete Condition #12; Page 8 - Planning Commlssion Minutes of April 3, 1991 . (4) renumber Condition #13 to #11 and change the twelve months to six months; (5) Planning Department staff is to investigate the interface between the lessee's rights and duties and the shopping center's rights and duties in three months. . . MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 2 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, Mccurdy NOES: Fife, Dahlman ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Dahlman, in discussing thlS motion, said he would suggest deferring this matter for two weeks to allow the theater manager to meet and confer with the shopping center manager to agree on how they will accomplish Condition #11 and report back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner orsini said an individual store is not llable for parking lot security. The center is responsible for the parking area. It' s up to the shopping center to increase business by keeping the center safe. Therefore, Condition #11 is not fair to this applicant --- the theater should not be asked by the Planning Commission to work out an agreement with Rossmoor Center management. Commissioner Dahlman clarified his statements on this issue --- he was not saying that the Commission should require the theater to do A, Band C because there is a problem requiring the shopping center owner to do those things. If they are allowed to meet and decide how they want to propose to manage this problem, perhaps by the next Planning Commission meetlng they will have a good proposal of how to take care of it and then the Commission can go ahead with something that at least represents an improvement from this. Commissioner Dahlman said the theaters attract many people to the Shopping center and referenced Commissioner McCurdy's suggestion to move the theaters from the center. If the Commission approves something tonight the issue is removed from Planning Commission consideration for at least six months. Commissioner Orsini said that if the Commission wants to move every existing problem "... we might as well close the beach ... we've got just as many fights that go on at the beach at night during the summer ... so that doesn't make sense". Commissioner Dahlman said "It may have been an inflammatory speech but I just believe in my optimism that they can get this done by working together during the next couple of weeks". Commissioner Sharp said he felt Mr. Ciampoli and the Rossmoor Center manager probably don't have the authority to make this deal because Super Saver Cinema Seven is owned by Assoclated Theaters, Inc. in El Paso, Texas and Rossmoor Center is owned by Century National Insurance Company, North Hollywood, CA and they have the authority. He felt it would take more than two weeks to work out an agreement --- up to six months. The Commission should give the theater and shopping center a chance to work things out and he suggested a six month Commission review. Commissioner Dahlman said he was not in favor of tying their hands but Planning Department staff included a solution to the crime . Page 9 - Planning Commiss1on Minutes of April 3, 1991 problem in the parking lot and the Commission is getting ready to delete it. Commissioner orsini said "We have a Motion and a Second, let's call for the vote". D1scuss1ng the report from staff in three months, Cha1rman Fife indicated he would like to see the language of the master shopping center lease regarding this tenant as it pertains to the issue of secur1 ty. To know what he contractually can do and what he contractually cannot do. Commissioner McCurdy, agreeing that that would be important, indicated it doesn't have much to do w1th the C01n operated amusement devices. He felt the Commission should look at the whole shopping center and its security problem. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #4-91 and HEIGHT VARIATION #2-91 207 and 207 ~ THIRD STREET, SEAL BEACH RESOLUTIONS No. 1616 and 1617 Staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [staff report on file in the planning Department]. The applicants, Michael and Annelle Aviani, request permission to construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) , to remodel and build a major addition to the front unit of a duplex at 207 and 207~ Third Street. . Conditional Use Permit #4-91 - This is the first application for a maJor addition to a structure which is non-conforming due to density and tandem parking since the City adopted new provisions allowing these type of additions in January 1991. The applicants want to add 1,152 square feet to the front unit of their duplex. The addition/remodel will enlarge the existing kitchen, living and dining rooms on the first floor plus add a new second story contain1ng a master bedroom/bath and laundry room (relocated from the first floor) and an additional bedroom (identified as a "den/office" on the plans). Staff recommended the commission deny this request without prejudice, allowing the applicants to redesign the proposal to meet current ~ provision and resubmit the amended plans prior to the required one year resubmittal problem. Height Variation #2-91 - This is the first applicat10n for a CRAS under the new Height Variat10n process adopted by the City Council in February 1991. In reviewing the new criteria, staff found the CRAS to be slightly larger (8 square feet) than the min1mum area required and recommended it be reduced in size to 6~ square feet. . The Planning Commission agreed to break the hearing into two parts and have two separate Public Hearings and votes --- one for CUP #4-91 and another for Height Variation #2-91. Page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 3, 1991 4It Public Hearing on Condit10nal Use Permit #4-91 Discussing Al Brown's recent building proposals, the Planning Commission noted the City Counc11 reversed the1r rejection on appeal and allowed Al Brown to solidify the walls in his proposal and in effect, create additional bedrooms. Chairman Fife said "I interpret that as ... the Council has repealed and eliminated the last sentence of Section 2S-2407(2)(g) and if that's the Council's wish, and it seems to be that 1t is, I don't see any reason hold1ng up this particular applicant. If he wants to add four or five bedrooms he should be allowed to". 4It 4It Commissioner McCurdy said the present Code does not define "bedrooms" to an extent concerning density that would make this "office" a "bedroom". He felt the office would be an office because it has poor access to a bathroom. Chairman Fife said it could be a "bedroom" as defined by the ~ but that "... really no longer matters". Commissioner Dahlman asked 1f the Council's ruling on Al Brown's application was a one time decis10n or was it sett1ng an example for the Commission? Comm1ssioner Sharp sa1d "I would certainly feel that's what they wanted to do if they're going to over rule us on that one". Commissioner McCurdy said "Mr. Brown's case was a complete lack of parking, with five units and two parking spaces ... at least this has two parking spaces per unit". Chairman Fife said "That's my point. This has two units on the lot and he has the required number of parking for two un1ts, four spaces albeit tandem ... a much more conforming project. Mr. Brown's projects have been allowed to add bedrooms, so I fail to see why this person shouldn't also ... he's non-conforming as to density so ... we're really applying the old law but the old law has been interpreted by the Council to fundamentally allow the addit10n of bedrooms under the Minor Plan Review process, even if you're non-conform1ng due to density". Mr. Whittenberg sa1d that' s been the Council's 1nterpretation in two specific cases but he was not sure they would reach that same decision on a future application. The Comm1ssion felt there should be more guidance from Council but noted any Commission determination could be appealed to the Council. Public Hearing - CUP #4-91 Mike Aviani * 207 Third Street - Said this application culminates a two year effort to build a house that is similar to what his neighbors are building. He said his office is truly an office. Commissioner Orsini asked staff if pat10 areas must be located between the garage and house? Mr. Curtis said the Code requ1res a six foot separation between habitable structures on the same property; this is a fire separation issue. Mr. Aviani said he really uses this patio and would not like to lose it. Page 11 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of April 3, 1991 4It Commissioner Dahlman noted Mr. Aviani remodeled in 1978 from three bedrooms to two bedrooms, intending to enlarge the building to make it more suitable for their living. commissioner Mccurdy asked the applicant about living arrangements. Mr. Aviani said he currently lives in the back unit, a garage apartment, but after the remodel he plans to live in the front house. Staff said Mr. Aviani's remodel in 1978 was one of the last remodels allowed with tandem parking. No one from the audience wishing to speak for or against CUP #4-91, Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. commissioner Sharp said "Due to the length of time that we put in on the last issue we had here, the depth of study, the depth of hearings that we had and the Council felt that we were completely wrong, that we should have done lt the other way. This gentlemen has the parking which is one of the maln issues apparently, I make a motion ...": MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve Conditional Use Permit #4-91 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1617. 4It MOTION AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife None Dahlman *** HEIGHT VARIATION 12-91 Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. the Planning Department]. [Staff report on file in commission Comments commissioner Sharp asked if decreasing the covered roof access structure (CRAS) by 1.5 feet would make it look more or less architecturally compatible? Mr. Curtis said it would look smaller but would blend with the roof. Commissioner McCurdy felt the CRAS stands out "like a sore thumb" on the flat roof. 4It Mr. Curtis solicited Commission guidance on the minimum vertical distance required of CRAS - (1) strict adherance to Code, allowing the absoute minimum or (2) allowing addltional footage for architectual compatibiity wlth the house. Staff feels it should be architecturally in keeping with the house. Commissioner Dahlman said he didn't feel it was the Commission's business to dictate what shape or form building should take. Commissioner McCurdy disagreed, saying he felt the Commission should make sure it architecturally conformed to the roof of the house. Chairman Fife . . . Page 12 - Plann1ng Commission Minutes of Apr11 3, 1991 said the old rules would allow seven feet over the maximum feet to accompl1sh your access. Mr. curtis said the rule was policy but never codified. Mr. curtis explained a spiral staircase can be used in this case because it's from a habitable roof deck but it's non-living space under 500 square feet. If it were the required exit from a hab1table area a spiral staircase could not be used. Spiral staircases must be a minimum of five feet in diameter and there are minimum sizes for stair treads. Public Hearing on Height Variation #2-91 Mike Aviani * 207 Third Street - Said the size of the CRAS was chosen because he was unsure if he would be allowed the five foot d1ameter circular staircase. He said he was concerned with the dimension where the door swings out as 1t may not be accomplished in 6.5 feet. The door opens in. In case of a fire, it would be beneficial to have the door swing toward the staircase rather than away from it. Mr. Curtis said staff could research the issue of door size and the approval could be conditioned to allowed the CRAS to be increased from 6.5 feet if necessary to the absolute minimum to service the doorway. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing as no one wished to speak further on this issue. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Height Variation #2-91 by adoption of Resolution No. 1618 with the condition that the size be reduced to as small as necessary but still compatible to maintain a full interior swing of the minimum required door. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman *** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Walt Miller * 229 & 231 Seal Beach Boulevard Mr. Miller talked about improving Seal Beach Boulevard, stating three property owners were present representing about 225 feet of street frontage. He would like to see the zoning changed to mixed use allowing commercial and residential combined. He said his personal choice would be an artisan approach --- have someone live above the place slhe worked. Present park1ng allows park1ng in a single row. He asked to have this issued placed on the Planning Commission agenda. Mr. whittenberg indicated Mr. Miller and his neighbors had contacted the Planning Department and had a number of extensive d1scussions. Staff understands their position and is willing to work to find resolution to some long-standing, unresolved issues Page 13 - Planning commission Minutes of April 3, 1991 4It along Seal Beach Blvd. It would be appropriate to request staff to present a historical report to the Planning commission of what has occurred in the past and what would be necessary to pick up that unresolved process and take it through to completion. Staff could do this for the April 17th meeting. It would be necessary to amend the General Plan and the zoning ordinances which would require Public Hearings but they could be held concurrently. commissioner orsini indicated it is common practice to have more than one use on certain streets. One section can be isolated for mixed use. Commissioner orsini said he would like to have it put on the Planning Commission Agenda. Chairman Fife asked staff to include the following in its report: (1) how much parking could be added to the East side of Seal Beach Boulevard in that stretch without having to ask permission from the Navy Department for anything and (2) if there is any possibility the Navy Department would grant an easement for additional parking along that strip. Mr. Whittenberg said the street is City property so staff can calculate the number of parallel spaces possible. 4It Frank Prvor * Seal Beach Blvd. - Said he owned property next to Walt Miller and was in agreement with this proposal. Serata Fielding * Seal Beach Blvd.- Said she owns Growing Tree Pre- School. She, Mr. Pryor and Mr. Miller are here as a group with the objective of changing Seal Beach Boulevard. The 200 block needs improvement. STAFF CONCERNS There were no Staff Concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Orsini thanked the City for the opportunity allowing him to attend the Planning Commissioner's Institute held in Monterey, CA. He said it was extremely informative. Commissioner Sharp expressed concern for tanks at Seal and Lampson Avenue. Eight white tanks plus four black there and it looks like the start of a dumping ground. investigate. Beach Blvd. barrels are Staff will Commissioner Sharp asked the status of the trailer parking lot in College Park West? Mr. curtis said staff is in the process of workJ.ng with Orange County Flood Control, since they hold the easement, to see if parking can be allowed. Staff has sent documents for their review. Commissioner McCurdy said the old Arco station is beginning to look like a dump. Staff is to investigate. 4It Page 14 - Planning commission Minutes of April 3, 1991 4It Commissioner Dahlman asked about alcohol advertising in windows how are we doing and what enforcement work needs to be done? Mr. curtis said only two or three stores are 'grandfathered' at this time. Code enforcement continues on an as needed or as reported basis. commissioner Dahlman referencing the draft ErR for the Mola project suggested a change under "Animal Life". He felt the "No" should be changed to "Maybe" under whether the project would present a barrier to animal migration. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~o~~ Joan Fillmann Executive Secretary Planning Department 4It *** These Minutes are tentative and subject to the approval of the Planning Commiss1on. *** The Planning Commission Minutes of Ap~l 3, 1991\W~ approved by the Planning Comm1ssion on ~~ I~, 1991. ~ .'