Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1991-06-05 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA JUNE 5, 1991 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of May 15, 1991 Minutes IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. Staff Report re Historic Buildings 3. Proposed Development Guidelines: Seal Beach Boulevard (Between Electric Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway) V. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - At this time members of the public may address the Planning commission regarding any item within the subject matters of the Commission provided no action may be taken on off-Agenda items unless authorized by law. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Conditional Use Permit #8-89 Address: 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard Applicant: Corwin Bales Re: ABC License/Indefinite Approval/Baja Bills Resolution No. 1627 5. Conditional Use Permit #8-91 Address: 16281 Pacific Coast Highway Applicant: Salvatore Camelia Re: ABC License TransferjNoel's Restaurant Resolution No. 1628 . . . Page 2 - Planning commission Agenda for June 5, 1991 6. Conditional Use Permit #6-91 Address: 303 - 305 Main street Applicant: Tom Charara Re: ABC License Transfer Main street Deli Resolution No. 1629 7. Variance #5-91 Address: 229 Seal Beach Boulevard Applicant: Walt Miller Re: Provide Less Than Required Parking Resolution No. 1630 8. a) General Plan Amendments #1A-91 & 1B-91 b) Zone Change #1-91 c) Variance #4-91 Address: 1600 Pacific Coast Hwy & 336 17th st. Applicant: Jim Watson Resolution Nos.: 1632, 1633, 1634 & 1635 9. Appeal of Director of Development Services Determination Re Municipal Code Violation. Address: 223 Seal Beach Boulevard Applicant: Peter Fielding Resolution No. 1636 VII. STAFF CONCERNS *. July 3rd Meeting Schedule IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS X. ADJOURNMENT 1 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 5, 1991 The regularly scheduled Plann1ng Commission meet1ng of June 5, 1991 was called to order at 7: 30 p.m. in City Council Chambers by Chairman Fife. PLEDGE OF AT.T.EGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Sharp. ROLL Cl<T.T. Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Dahlman, Sharp, Orsin1, McCurdy Present: Department of Development SerV1ces staff: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Michael Cho, Intern Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MAY 15, 1991 MINUTES MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Orsini to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of May 15, 1991 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Fife, Dahlman, Sharp, McCurdy, Orsini *** 2. Staff Report on Historic Buildings Staff Report Director Wh1ttenberg presented the staff report which listed twenty-one buildings thought to qualify as recognized historic structures within the City of Seal Beach. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Seventeen of the structures were l1sted in the "H1storic Walk1ng Tour of Seal Beach" prepared by the Women's Club of Seal Beach and four structures were identified by staff. The staff report indicated this list can be amended, the City doesn't have a listing of recognized historic structures at this time, the munic1pal ~ sets findings the Commission would have to make 1n approving a Historical Conditional Use Permit. This Historical Conditional Use Permit process includes notice to . . . Page 2 - Plann1ng Comm1ssion Minutes of June 5, 1991 adjo1ning property owners within 300 feet. A property owner who felt his home should be on this list should contact the Department of Development Services and staff would evaluate that structure. Any staff recommendation would come before the Plann1ng Commission and City Council. Staff has not processed a CUP under Section 28-2403.1, most likely because there 1S no list of recognized structures. staff proposed the Plann1ng Commission review and consider this 11St. If it accurately reflects the extent of the City's historic structures at this t1me then the list should be forwarded to the City Council for their review and consideration. Hopefully the 11St would be adopted as the off1cial policy listing of historic structures in Seal Beach which would then qualify those buildings under the munic1pal Code provisions for the Historical Conditional Use Permit process at the time any mOdifications/alterations are proposed for those structures. commissioner orsini asked staff how the proposed remodeling of the Green Pepper Restaurant on Main street would affect it's historic nature. Mr. Whittenberg sa1d the new owner is propos1ng to leave the structure's exterior walls and upgrade to meet seism1c standards. Additionally they are proposing mod1fications to the front of the bU1lding but the general overall design of the structure will basically be the same. This will come before the Planning Commiss1on as part of the CUP process because of a change 1n their liquor license among other things. Chairman Fife noted th1S would not make 1t more difficult for the owner of a historical structure to demol1sh and rebuild a new structure but it would encourage him to preserve it by granting him deviations from the mun1cipal ~. MOTION by McCUrdy; SECOND by Sharp to adopt this listing of historical structures and forward it to the city Council for review and consideration. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Fife, Sharp, Dahlman, McCUrdy, Orsini *** 3. Proposed Development Guidelines: Seal Beach Boulevard [Between Electric Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway] staff Report D1rector Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Mr. Whittenberg ind1cated the issue of plann1ng for Seal Beach Blvd. has come back before the Planning Commission based on prior direction from both the Planning ,~ . . . Page 3 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of June 5, 1991 Commission and City Councll. The staff report is presented to the Commlssion as a discussion-generatlng document to see if Planning Department staff and the Planning Commission are headed in an agreeable, appropriate direction. It was deemed desirable to re- institute hearings to achieve new development standards for Seal Beach Boulevard, allowlng mixed-use development which is currently not allowed under the zoning and General Plan. On June 10th, the City council will consider a report on re-striping for diagonal parking in that same area. Staff has digested the previous reports and mlnutes on Seal Beach Boulevard done in 1985 - 1986 and incorporated that information into this discussion. Staff is encouraging a mix of retail/office/service commercial/institutional uses on the ground floor with a residential use above on the second and possibly third floors. The staff report discusses major areas of concern such as architectural compatibility, parking control, sidewalk and street furniture lmprovements, sign control, types of uses permitted by right or through the Conditlonal Use Permit process and land use restrictions on all uses. Off-street parking requirements reflect 1985 Task Force wishes via the allowance of tandem parking, the potential off-set for some required parking which may be provided by on-street parking via dlagonal re-striping program. Staff has not proposed a speclfic percentage of spaces to be counted against the requlred parklng as that should be determined through the Public Hearing process. On lot development standards (setbacks, heights etc.) staff indicated they would propose using the existlng ~ requirements for setbacks but felt additional provisions should be added to the ~, such as (1) new residential uses could only be developed on the second floor above and not be on the ground floor; (2) any new residentlal uses must have a minimum useable open space area of 80 square feet as part of the unit (not including any stairways) for the use of that occupant; ( 3 ) certain height requirements and stepback design criteria for structures close to the alley to allow light and ventilation for the residential units on the West slde of the alley; (4) maximum floor area ratios for resldential and commercial development limlting lot coverage of the property, providing for useable open space to not have buildings being built right up to the property line; (5) tandem parklng allowance and off-set for on- street parking. Staff said they would appreciate Commission direction --- has staff hit the major areas of concern or is there something that should be covered? Staff's intent is to formalize a document the Planning Commission feels comfortable with and then request a joint study session with the City Council prior to scheduling formal PubllC Hearings to consider General Plan amendments and amendments to the text of the zoning ordlnance to place the new standards into effect. . Page 4 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of June 5, 1991 commission Comments Slow Traffic on Seal Beach Boulevard Commissioner McCurdy asked staff for the comparable width of Main Street and Seal Beach Boulevard. Mr. Whittenberg said the Engineering Department informed him the curb-to-curb measurements are the same except where Seal Beach Boulevard widens from Landing to Pacific Coast Highway. Commissioner McCurdy stated the trafflC on Main Street travels at 10 to 15 MPH and on Seal Beach Blvd. traffic travels at 40 to 50 MPH. Something must be done to slow the trafflC on Seal Beach Boulevard or backing out of angled parking would be too dangerous. Mr. Whittenberg said staff is suggesting a "stop" sign be placed at Landing Avenue and Seal Beach Blvd. to stop traffic at that point. This would slow traffic as cars go through the area of diagonal parking. The Council will determlne if angled parking should be on both sldes of the street or just on the West side of the street adjacent to the commercial areas. Commissioner McCurdy stated angled parking should be along both sides of the street. . Cost Comparisons Commlssioner Sharp indicated the prlor studies proposed an expensive project and asked staff what costs would be incurred at this time? Mr. Whittenberg said the costs at this time would be minimal, involving sandblasting the existing striping and restriping the street's center stripe to make way for the angled parking; the City has personnel to do the re-striping. However, sandblasting equipment will have to be rented. The prior proposals included extensive sidewalk improvements and landscaping but the funding is not available for those improvements at this time. Front Yard Setback Commissioner Orsini asked for the origlnatlon pOlnt of the 10 foot front yard setback. Mr. Whittenberg said it would be from the property line. The property 11ne is to the rear of the sldewalk, not at the curb. Architectural Review Commissioner orsini asked what architectural reVlew the Plannlng Commission could have? Mr. Whittenberg said the staff report does not discuss this lssue but the Commission and Council should give staff direction if they desire a requirement mandating the Commission or a separate body have archltectural review. Chalrman Fife agreed with commissioner Orsini, saying it would be a good ldea to oversee things untl1 it was certain the project was moving in the correct direction. . Remodel Commissioner Orsini, referencing the requlrement for no new residential units on the ground floor, asked what happens if an owner has unlts in place now and wants to remodel? Mr. Whittenberg said they could remodel existing residential but they could not . Page 5 - Planning Commisslon Minutes of June 5, 1991 increase the number of ground floor residential units. They could not tear down and replace with residential on the ground floor. Owner Occupied Chairman Fife encouraged the occupancy of the residential portion of a mixed-use structure by persons who were connected to the business portion of that same structure. This would cut down commuting and possible conflicts between persons occupying tangential spaces Wl thout empathy for one another. He felt something should be built into the Ordinance maklng this a " . .. preferred first choice". Mr. Whittenberg said staff has proposed that the permitted residential uses can be only in conjunction with a non-resldential use and can be located only on the second floor or above. If someone proposed a residential use not in conjunction with the non-residential use that would require a Conditional Use Permit with a Public Hearing before the Commlssion. . Parking at Old Pacific ROW Indicating the Navy owns the land between the alley and Seal Beach Blvd., Chairman Fife asked staff if they had explored the possibility of the City negotiating an easement from the Navy to pave that into a parklng lot which would be entered from Seal Beach Blvd. a one-way angled parking lot? contributors to a permanent maintenance fund could be glven the right to off-set and use those spaces in developing their commercial structures. Mr. Whittenberg said he would be glad to further explore that issue. The Navy has indicated they have no desire to release the property but no lease arrangement has been explored. The ROW is 100 feet wide. Public Comments The Commission decided to take public comments on this Scheduled Matter. Walt Miller * 231 & 229 Seal Beach Blvd. - Suggested limiting the project to a specific area on Seal Beach Blvd. to achieve a historical feeling. He liked a vlllage concept and supported architectural control by the Planning Commission. Indicating the area has had no attention for 50 years he felt building guided only by setbacks and codes would lose the architectural feeling. He was concerned about the 10 foot setback and 20% of the lot being absorbed by setbacks. He felt attractive frontages could be achieved with less than a 10 foot setback and asked the Commission to consider reducing the 10 foot flgure. Mr. Miller had reservations about staff's recommendatlons on rear yard setbacks and staff will analyze both Mr. Miller's recommendation and staff's recommendation in 1 ts next report. He also reminded the Commission that the property owners are anxious for a start and completion time frame, expressing that this topic has been on hold for several years. . . . . Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 1991 Charles Antos * 328 17th street - Commented that having diagonal parking will reduce the carrying capacity of Seal Beach Boulevard which is on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. By reduc1ng the carrying capacity the City will cut itself off from all funds that are based upon this Master Plan --- funds from the County, the State, the Federal Government. Additionally, diagonal parking is a prima facie hazard and the City Attorney should comment on who is 11able. Regarding the comment that these proposed standards will help renovate this area, Mr. Antos said they are a step back to the 1950's because (1) commercial construction is 11mited to two stories throughout the City except here; (2) residential parking is two spaces per dwelling unit and these standards allow one parking space per dwelling unit; (3) these standards propose to give credit for angled parking and that tells everyone else who wishes to develop they have to provide the requisite number of on-site parking spaces. But in this project you can park in the street for your commercial and the residential requirement is only one space. Comm1ss1oner Orsini asked what type of highway funds have been received from the Arterial Highway financing program? Mr. Antos sa1d the funds are received yearly and estimated they are from $50,000 to $200,000 per year and their distribution depends on how the funds are allocated. The City Engineer makes application for the City. Previous funds have been used on any street that 1S shown on the Master Plan for Arterial Highways --- Bolsa, Pac1fic Coast Highway, Lampson, Seal Beach Blvd. etc. Chairman Fife asked if this same issue was discussed during the Mola proposal when proposing Bolsa Avenue as an arterial trans County highway? Mr. Antos adv1sed that Bolsa Avenue is an arterial highway on the Orange County plan of arterial highways and on the City's master plan of arterial highways. Mr. Antos said the road at issue during the Mola proposal was the extension of Edinger Avenue from Sunset Aquatic Park across the Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge up to Pacific Coast H1ghway because that's the only stretch of road the City doesn't plan to extend and it's still shown as a possible future road on the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. A study may be done jointly by the City and the County to determine whether that stretch of road ought to be extended. Ch1 Kredel * 1633 Seal Way - Stated that all facts on th1S 1ssue should be presented to the Planning Commission prior to a report be1ng sent to the Council. Commissioner Dahlman indicated the Commission knows th1S is a rough draft and that we're a long way from f1nal plans. Mr. Kredel felt the standards as presented are carte blanche for whoever wants to bU1ld there and felt the parking should adhere to the present City codes. Mr. Kredel stated major1ty of City residents don't like in-I1eu parking and this is another form of not putting the proper amount of parking on the lot. This perpetuates the existing parking problems. He felt . . Page 7 - Plannlng Commisslon Minutes of June 5, 1991 commercial and residential should be treated equally. He urged the Commisslon to request the City Council budget for a municlpal ~ enforcement officer. Frank Prior * 233 Seal Beach Blvd. - Stated the proposed standards would upgrade Seal Beach Boulevard, would not increase density and he supported Commission design review authorl ty. He liked the proposals for Rum Runner's Restaurant and said the Saturday meeting had no comments in opposition. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Whl ttenberg if the proposed standards contained a prohibition of commercial uses on a third story? Mr. Whl ttenberg said no. Mr. Flfe sald that they should consider having the ground floor commercial, the third story residential and the middle/2nd story either way. Seretta Fielding * 223 Seal Beach Blvd. - Stated she was glad to see the proposed standards --- that it has taken six years to get to this point. She noted Seal Beach Boulevard is two lanes, not four lanes for traffic planning. Helen Wllson - 17th Street - Said she would llke to see Seal Beach Boulevard improved because it's an eyesore but didn' t see how allowlng three stories would improve it. Bruce Stark * Seal Beach (No Address Given) - Stated it has been six years ln trying to get something accomplished for Seal Beach Blvd. He stated improvement is long overdue and the impediment is what the City will allow the owners to do with their property. He felt dlagonal parking would be an asset, off-street parking is available ln two locatlons, two or three stories would be beneficial, he has had no parklng problem wlth his property on Seal Beach Blvd.. He advocated advanced plannlng versus reacting to what comes along. Chairman Fife closed the publlC input section, no one wlshing to speak further. He said this matter would be entrusted to staff to absorb the data from tonight's meeting and come back wlth a further report. Director Whlttenberg sald he would hope to have a report to the Commission at their June 19th meetlng detailing whatever action(s) the City Council took on the re-striping program at the June 10th meeting and whatever modifications would be appropriate from tonight's discusslons. At that point, Planning staff and the Commission would probably be in a position to request a jOlnt study session with the City Council. *** ~ Chairman Fife called a recess from 8:50 p.m. to 9:03 p.m. . . . Page 8 - Planning CommlSSlon Minutes of June 5, 1991 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Fife indicated that there would be a departure from the usual Commission format due to the anticipated length of this meeting's Agenda and there would be two Oral Communications sections. He asked each speaker to llmlt hlmself to five minutes. Galen Ambrose * Seal Beach - Mr. Ambrose requested the Plannlng Commission agendize a zone change for the Hellman Ranch to accommodate wetlands restoration. He stated his request was based on the results of the June 4th City election which he felt sent a signal that City residents don't want a hotel, a K-Mart or a golf course. He said the public is not interested in development on an unsafe plece of land such as the Hellman Ranch. He sald the toxici ty of that land has not been researched. He stated there are "Mitlgation funds available from all sources to do the wetlands restoration so that should not be a concern. The zoning right now is a concern". Addltlonally, Mr. Ambrose asked Mr. Curtis about McGaugh School accommodating a private church on Sundays. He expressed concern that area residents cannot park on their streets. Mr. curtis said staff has contacted the School District. A church use was never permi tted by the City nor was it required at that time to be permitted by the City --- it's done on a year-to-year basis with the School District. Staff will try to have its report to the Commission for the July 17th meeting. Staff would like the School Distrlct to corne before the Planning Commission so the Commission could reVlew the use and approve/deny/conditionally approve the use. Staff is proposing the church utillze the Rockwell parking lot and run shuttle buses to McGaugh School. Also to require the church to place appropriate signage agreeable to the Planning Commlssion and Engineering Department not allowing parking in residential areas adJacent to the school on Sundays for church sales. Joyce Roz Parkay * Sunset Beach rNo Address Givenl - She discussed her concerns regarding alterations to non-conforming buildings, stating she believed the .QQQ& should remain as 1 t is. Mr. Whittenberg said staff has not set a formal date for the Public Hearings. Staff is digesting the information received from the previous study sessions. He anticipated corning back to the Planning Commission with two or three different proposals to address the different issues and concerns which will probably be early August. Jack Wilson * 252 17th Street - Said diagonal parking along Seal Beach Boulevard would be dangerous due to the high speed of trafflC. No one wlshing to speak further, Chalrman Fife closed Oral Communications. . . . Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Conditional Use Permit #8-89 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard Baja Bills Restaurant Resolution No. 1627 It was noted the applicant, Corwin Bales, had informed staff he would be unable to attend this meeting. Commissioner Dahlman indlcated he would favor postponing this item rather than dlscussing it in part. Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing to continue thlS item to a date certain and avoid re-Noticing thlS item in the newspaper. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to postpone consideration of Conditional Use Permit #8-89 to the June 19, 1991 Planning commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Fife, Sharp, Dahlman, McCurdy, Orsini *** 5. ~ Conditional Use Permit t7-91 16281 Pacific Coast Highway Noel's Restaurant staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Salvatore Camelia, is becomlng the new major shareholder of the company that owns Noel's Restaurant which necessitates a new Conditional Use Permit. The property requires 38 parking spaces but provides 30 spaces. The duration of use on the site and residential unit above the restaurant, the City considers the restaurant to have "grandfathered" parking. Staff recommended approval by adoption of Resolution No. 1628 with 13 conditions of approval. Staff recommended the Commission place a condi tlon in this approval requiring the applicant to meet any requirements set forth by CALTRANS. Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. The applicant was not present. No one in the audience wished to speak ln favor of thlS applicatlon. George Armstrong * Water Tower * Seal Beach - Sald he lives in the Water Tower and has seen several automobile accidents at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Anderson Street. There is no delineatlon between Noel's Restaurant and his property and he suggested the Planning Commission insist on placing curbs and . . . Page 10 - Planning Commission Mlnutes of June 5, 1991 gutters to dellneate that area are not depend on CALTRANS to insist upon It. Curbs and gutters mlght require parallel parklng along Pacific Coast Highway and might cut out a couple of parking spaces. Mr. Curtis recommended the following conditlon be included in the approval: 13. Subject to the approval of CALTRANS, the applicant shall install curbs and gutters along Paciflc Coast Highway. CALTRANS could veto this condition if they didn't want the curbs and gutters because it is their street. Mr. Whittenberg said curbs and gutters would not materially effect the number of required parklng spaces but may require re-striping. Compact space re-striping could assist. Commissioner Sharp asked lf the requlred curbs and gutters resulted in the loss of a parking space could the Commission waive that parklng? Chairman Fife suggested Condition 13 read: 13. SubJect to the approval of CALTRANS, curbs and gutters shall be installed and the parking lot re-striped as required. Chalrman Fife asked staff if it would be desirable to condltion the applicant have a net total of 30 spaces as he currently has? Mr. Whittenberg sald technically it would be difficult for the Commission to wal ve the required parking because it would be granting a further variance from a non-conforming situatlon that has not been advertised for. No one wishing to speak further Chalrman Fife closed the Public Hearing. The Public Hearing was reopened briefly to allow the maker of the Motlon to reschedule to a date certain. MOTION by Sharp: SECOND by Orsini to continue Conditional Use Permit #8-91 to the Planning Commission meeting of June 19, 1991 and ask the applicant be present and staff provide a parking layout. This will be a Public Hearing. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Sharp, Orsini, Fife, Dahlman, McCUrdy *** . . . Page 11 - Planning CommlSSlon Minutes of June 5, 1991 6. Conditional Use Permit #7-91 303 - 305 Main street Main street Deli Resolution No. 1629 staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. This is a request by applicants Torn and Annie Charara to transfer an eXlsting on-sale beer and wine license in conjunction with the transfer of ownership of the Main street Deli. Staff recommended approval via the adoption of Resolution No. 1629 with ten conditions of approval. Commlssion Comments Chairman Flfe asked if the outdoor dining area could be eXlted wlthout going through the main restaurant? Mr. Curtis said no. There is a short fence with flowers on top and of a height unlikely to be easily scaled. Public Hearlng Torn Charara * Owner. Main street Deli - Said his beer is both bottled and on tap. He didn't feel a patron would walk off the patio dining area because the fence was too high. He asked that Condition #9 be changed to reflect the hours of operation start at 6:00 a.m., not 8:00 a.m. because he plans to have breakfasts. Mr. Curtis advised the ABC restricts a liquor license when to serve alcohol. The Clty has no such requirement. Commissioner orsini said the allowance is from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Mr. Charara said ABC restrlcted hlS license from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. No one wishing to speak further for or against this application the PubllC Hearing was closed. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve Conditional Use Permit #7-91 via the approval of Resolution No. 1629 and with the change to Condition #9 to read: 9. Wi th the applicant's consent, the hours of operation shall be from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Fife, Sharp, Orsini, Dahlman, McCUrdy *** . . . Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 1991 7. (a) General Plan Amendments #1A-91 & #1B-91 (b) Zone Change #1-91 (c) Variance #4-91 1600 Pacific Coast Highway & 336 17th street Resolution Nos. 1632, 1633, 1634 and 1635 staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [staff report on f1le in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Jim Watson, is requesting to change the zoning and General Plan designation of nine (9) lots from C-2 to RMD zoning. He is also requesting a variance from section 28-1402 of the C1ty'S mun1c1pal Code as it pertains to loading zones. The applicant 1S proposing a dual use loading zone/parking area. A Negative Declaration was prepared. Staff recommended approval subJect to Cond1tions of approval. The California Coastal Commiss1on [Karen Madison, Analyst] expressed concerns over the compatibility of this request with the Coastal Act. Ms. Madison had concerns over the viability of the three commercial lots due to their 25 foot widths. She stated that possible incompatibility with the Coastal Act, even with City approval, may have difficulty receiving Coastal Commission approval. She felt a "wait and see" approach was best at this time to gauge Coastal Commission response. Four alternatives were provided for the site: Restaurant of 6500 square feet requiring 20 parking spaces and two single fam1ly residences. Fast food restaurant of 3515 square feet plus two single family residences. Strip shopp1ng center of 8100 square feet plus two s1ngle family residences. Three separate detached commercial buildings of 3000 square feet with eleven (11) single family residences. The fourth alternative 1S the preferred alternative based on the perceived fiscal, traffic and water impacts and its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. All alternat1ves were analyzed and discussed at length. Staff expressed concern over the impact of 11 new homes on the City's park and recreat10n facilities and therefore proposed another Condition of approval: 11. The appl1cant be required to pay Park and Recreation fees of $10,000 per lot for the nine (9) new lots (not for the two [2] lots currently zoned res1dential) for a total sum of $90,000. . . . Page 13 - Planning Comm1ssion Minutes of June 5, 1991 Staff addressed its several concerns (all outlined in the staff report). Additionally it asked that a sub-paragraph (f) be added to the last concern: f. A fire hydrant be placed on the southeasterly corner of 17th Street and Pacific Coast Highway, directly adjacent to the dr1veway approach to that commercial build1ng to service the resident1al units down 17th Street. Staff recommended approval via the adopt1on of Resolution Nos. 1632, 1633, 1634 and 1635. Comm1ssion Comments Fee Payment Commissioner orsini asked when the $90,000 be paid? Mr. Curt1s said the Commission could set the date in the Conditions of Approval and generally 1t'S paid prior to building permit issuance. ProJect Impact Fees Commissioner Dahlman asked pr10r to chang1ng the amount of the park dedication fees what would nine units cost? Mr. Curtis said it would be $75,000 times nine or $675,000 but this is not a subdivision and does not fall under Quimby Act fee requirements. Staff has proposed the $90,000 for this specific proposal and it is not a legally mandated fee. Staff feels the fee should be paid because of the projects' impact on the City's parks and recreat10n facilities. Staff will be presenting a proposal for obtaining addi tional park funds to the City Council. Mr. Whittenberg clarified by saying the properties in question are currently subd1v1ded into 25' lots and they've been combined by common ownership but the orig1nal parcels still exist as 25' lots. A subdivision is therefore not necessary to allow for building on these properties. Staff is proposing a $10,000 fee per parcel be 1mposed on the nine new residentially zoned eX1sting parcels as a mitigation measure for the increased number (9 units) of residential un1ts due to the zone change on the City's park and recreation facilities. Public Hearing Jim Watson * 350 Ocean (Residence) * 101 Main st. (Business) Mr. Watson discussed his application in detail, presenting several v1sual display charts. He stated that when he tied this property up in a contingent escrow he considered five alternatives, settling on four viable plans. He stated he considered leaving the existing (Rum Runners) restaurant, remodeling it extensively. They assumed that a dinner restaurant would be by far the most profitable to the C1ty. But when analyzed, he was surprised it didn't come out that way. The revenue was far higher on the fourth al ternati ve than any of the others. The present owner's, the Douvalis', said their . Page 14 - Planning Comm1ssion Minutes of June 5, 1991 highest volume was $125,000 one month, which would have been under $1.5 m1llion a year --- a few years ago. When that plan was reviewed, it quickly became evident that there are no proper side or front yard setbacks, the parking is very inadequate due to inadequate aisle size --- even having 60 spaces. The bU1lding's inter10r has been significantly damaged and is not up to building codes. They did not feel a hotel was an alternative. The four remaining alternative plans cover the primary ways this site should be developed. The first alternative was a dinner restaurant. They figured $2,000,000 in annual sales. The eX1sting Rum Runner's Restaurant 1S 7900 square feet with 60 non- conforming spaces; it needs 79 spaces. He considered a 6500 square foot restaurant with a bar. This was the practical minimum. The restaurant would be placed 1n the center with parking on both sides. 45 parking spaces would meet Code requirements but 65 spaces would be requ1red. That would have mean a Variance for 20 spaces or drop the restaurant to 4500 square feet and meet parking. . The second alternative was a fast food restaurant. He said several fast foods would like to locate in Seal Beach. He reviewed Carl's Jr. for a layout. It was 3500 square feet with 35 parking spaces and a drive through facility. This would include two single fam1ly homes. The third alternative was a strip commercial center. It involved 8100 square feet and met parking requirements. Economically it was not a viable alternative. He felt this was not a good location for a typical unanchored str1p center. This would include two single fam1ly homes. . The fourth al ternati ve was three commercial buildings along Pacific Coast Highway and 11 single fam1ly homes. This would involve rezoning nine of the lots to residential. This 1nvolves a zone change and a Variance for the load1ng area. No food establishments will be in the commercial buildings because they couldn't meet the parking requirements. The primary factors mak1ng this fourth alternative more attractive were (1) high value per square foot of the residential. These houses will be marketed at about $550,000; (2) the veh1cle trips are signif1cantly less. The cost saving to the City on reduced vehicle trips ranged from $5000 to $20,000 between the different alternatives; and (3) the 1mpact fees are quite h1gh under the residential --- a $90,000 park fee that doesn't apply to the other alternatives. . . . Page 15 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 1991 Mr. Watson had sent a packet showing the four alternatives to all homeowners between Pacific Coast Highway and Electric Avenue on 15th, 16th and 17th streets. This was also sent to 25 to 30 community activists thought to be interested, plus the Plann1ng Commission and City Council members. Mr. Watson 1nvited everyone to corne to a presentation on Saturday, June 1st. About 60 people attended. After that presentation the input from the attendees made it clear to Mr. Watson that they were interested in the fourth alternative. They did not want an 1ntense commercial development at this corner. Mr. Watson changed the fourth alternative in all aspects recommended --- the patios were flipped to the north, the commercial easement w111 have a restriction placed on it to prohibit an opening to the yard area, addit10nal landscap1ng at the corners of 16th and 17th Streets, and a large old tree will be saved. Mr. Watson discussed Tables 1-9: 1. Estimates secured value, taxable sales transactions, employees, residents and commercial floor area by alternative development concept. 2. Comparison of restaurant floor areas and parking. 3. Estimated water consumption. 4. Estimated average generation. weekday vehicle trip/traffic 5. Est1mated City of Seal Beach annual fiscal revenues by alternative development concert. 6. Estimated exaction revenues (non-recurring development fees) by alternative development concept. 7. Estimated City of Seal Beach annual fiscal recurr1ng costs. 8. Summary of estimated revenue and costs by alternative development concept. 9. Estimated annual property tax revenue to all governmental agencies. commission Comments commissioner Sharp asked if there is base landscap1ng along the eight foot wall? Mr. Watson said he would landscape on both sides of th1s wall, using a creeping fig plus mature trees. . . . Page 17 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 1991 trafflC impacts. Continuing the discussion, the Commission wondered if because of adding to the number of residentlal lots in town (under the General Plan) that the developer might have a low lncome housing requirement. The Commlssion noted the developer should not look to the Commission if it turns out that he should be required to have low income housing. He also felt the soils and seismic situation must be considered for this project so it's built on solid ground. Mr. Whittenberg sald this would be dealt with as a part of the normal plan check process where soils reports are required for all building sites. The following persons spoke in favor of Jim Watson's application: Cra19 Gibson * 305 17th street, Seal Beach - Sald he has lived in Seal Beach 10 years and preferred alternative #4. He said the Rum Runners Restaurant has had constant problems on week-ends. The parking lot would fill up and the overflow for that restaurant would wind up on surrounding streets. He felt the commercial building parking should be accessible from 16th and 17th Streets. He stated Jim Watson built his home and pralsed the several projects Mr. Watson has built throughout the city. Walt Thurner * 326 17th Street. Seal Beach - Said he has lived in Seal Beach over 20 years and he purchased his home from Jim Watson and has lived there 11 years. He liked proposed alternatlve #4 and will increase nelghboring property values. He felt Rum Runners went from a fine establishment to an eyesore and asked the Commission not to place roadblocks in the path of this project. He stated Paciflc Coast Highway noise is contlnual and thls project will buffer his home and will help reduce noise. He said the police sirens and ambulances are particularly bothersome. Commissioner Orsini said there is a cleaning company working out of a home on 17th Street who parks about six vehlcles on the street. Mr. Whittenberg said this is an on-going ~ enforcement problem. Helen Wilson * 252 17th Street. Seal Beach - She said she likes alternative #4 as it will improve property values and enhance the area life styles. She stated the empty Rum Runners allows people to dump at that site. Galen Ambrose * Seal Beach [No Address Given] - Said he was not speaking for or against Mr. Watson's project but asked what would be the best project for the City? He sald he was looking at what was best for the City regardlng increased sales tax monies, traffic flow and noise mitigation. Frank Pryor * 233 Seal Beach Blvd.. Seal Beach - Sald he has three lots close to Mr. Watson's project. He favored alternative #4. . . . Page 18 - Plannlng Commlssion Minutes of June 5, 1991 Don Steigen * 301 16th street. Seal Beach - Said he thought Mr. Watson's project is wonderful and urged the Commission to let it get going. His residence is across the street from Rum Runners. Dinah Fahill * 328 17th Street. Seal Beach - Said she lives ln the house closest to the Rum Runner's parking lot. She said she was very thankful Mr. Watson was proposing something nice for that slte. Larry Applegate * 16th Street [No Address Given] - Sald he has lived on 16th Street about 20 years. He liked alternative #4 and prefers to see the residential portion of the project maxed out. The commercial will suit the neighborhood and the city. Bill Bennett - 311 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach - Sald he has been a City resident for 20 years and has watched Mr. Watson's projects. He felt that he and many other persons could attest to what the City has gained from Mr. Watson and his projects. He stated the great majorlty of City residents do not want a great deal of growth or commercial development; they want a sleepy resldential communlty. He stated that everyone he has talked to likes the resldentlal development. Dlrector Whittenberg read lnto the Record three letters in favor of Jlm Watson's project from: Bob & Christy Shahnazarian - 236 14th Street Peter & Seretta Fielding - 223~ Seal Beach Blvd. Dennis & Kathy Courtemarche - 315 16th Street The following person spoke in opposition to Mr. Watson's proposal: Charles Antos * 328 17th Street. Seal Beach - Said he thought the proposal was very nice, a beautiful proposal. However, the Negative Declaration on answers to questions on "Noise" state "Maybe" on (a) increases in existing noise levels and (b) exposure of people to severe noise levels. Both answers of "Maybe" deal with the construction phase of the proposed project. Mr. Antos said that ln 1975 the Clty adopted a Noise Element to its General Plan and all along Pacific Coast Highway noise readings were taken: May 18, 1975: PCH at 14th & 15th Streets 3:00 p.m. - 71 LON (decibels) May 9, 1975: PCH & Seal Beach Blvd. 4:00 p.m. - 74 decibels The map prepared for this Element shows at least half these lots at above 65 decibels. Noise levels above 70 decibels are the beginnlng of serious hearing loss. This has not been addressed. . Page 19 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 1991 If this is ignored in the Negat1ve Declaration and the houses are built after rezoning, the City will be gambl1ng that it can meet noise standards both ins1de and outside. Who's responsible? The C1 ty because it issued the building permits? He stated the Negative Declaration was inadequate. Secondly, he would like to see something done with that site but would like to see an attempt to have a project that meets zon1ng and not have piecemeal zone changes. He felt the City should look at the General Plan's Land Use Element and change zoning. The City Counc11 has just appointed a retail committee to do surveys and stud1es on how to enhance retail sales. Rezoning land from commercial to res1dential would defeat this. He would like to see it developed to Code standards without rezoning it. Addi tionally, Mr. Antos stated the Var1ance advertised for is wrong. They don't have to provide a 22' x 45' loading zone on a 25' lot. He read from the ~ to support h1S statement. . Commissioner Orsini noted the noise studies were done in the late afternoon and felt the majority of noise would be at n1ght from 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Mr. Antos said his property is 100 feet from Pacific Coast Highway and has no windows on that slde of his home and noise is not a particular problem. However, it's extremely loud outside. Plus there's more traffic on Pac1fic Coast Highway now than in 1975. Cha1rman Fife quest10ned the Negative Declaration's answers on "Air", noting the answers were "No" and wondered if staff had considered emissions from wood burn1ng fireplaces? Mr. Wh1 ttenberg said there's no measurable way to effectively measure that. There's no way to tell how many times a person m1ght use h1S fireplace. This 1S more along the lines of looking at traffic air quali ty 1mpacts based on vehicular trips etc. He noted AQMD requirements must be met no matter what type of use is on the site. Mr. Wh1ttenberg agreed with Mr. Antos, that there should be some clarification on the Negative Declaration re the impact of existing n01se levels on the proposed res1dential uses. Those impacts should be required to be mitigated as part of the project approval. Those impacts can be pred1cted by site noise studies and through computer models. No one in the audience w1shed to speak further in opposition to the proposal. . Applicant Rebuttal Mr. Watson sa1d he had no rebuttal comments. He felt he could mi tigate Mr. Antos' concerns. He stated he felt the property would be developed at some point in t1me and that certa1n types of construction (fast food restaurant, hotel, small restaurant) would . . . Page 20 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 1991 not need Planning Commission approval. He felt alternative #4 was the most aesthetically pleasing, the least traff1c impacting, the greatest revenue generator and increases the neighborhood property values and it's the most attractive for the community at large. Cha1rman Fife cautioned about the Coastal Commission approval. Mr. Watson sa1d he had been thinking about it and was prepared to take the risk. . Commissioner Orsini sa1d he liked the fact that there were no 'doghouses' on these plans. Mr. Watson said eleven 'doghouses' would be an architectural disaster; he will have roof decks with open access. Mr. Watson said that if h1s project is approved "I will do better than what you see". Mr. Curtis addressed the issue regarding the Variance notice by stating the shared use of the loading zone and noting the ~ makes no provis1on for this. Therefore, a Variance is needed. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Sharp to approve General Plan Amendments 1A-91 and 1B-91, Zone Change 1-91, Variance 4-91, through the adoption of Resolution Nos. 1632, 1633, 1634 and 1635 subject to (1) eleven (11) Conditions of Approval as outlined in the staff report; (2) compliance with the Government Code if low income housing or some contribution thereto is mandated; (3) the Negative Declaration be modified to provide a noise analysis will be required prior to issuance of building permits for any structures to ensure that the existing noise requirements of ~ Code of the City of Seal Beach are met. All recommended conditions to comply with the acoustical analysis shall be complied with as part of the plan check and building permit issuance process. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Orsini, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman, McCUrdy Director Whittenberg clarified that the formal resolutions will come back to the Planning Commiss1on on June 19, 1991 and the matter will then be scheduled for the required Public Hearings before the City Council in regard to the General Plan amendments and the zone change. There is no requ1red Public Hearing on the Variance unless an appeal is filed. Mr. Watson advised he was hoping to commence construction by December 1, 1991. He plans to build the project all at one time and that should take about six months. *** . . . Page 21 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 1991 8. Appeal of Director of Development Services Determination Re Municipal ~ Violation at 223 Seal Beach Boulevard staff Report Mr. Cho delivered the staff report. [staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Peter Fielding, is requesting an appeal of the Director of Development Services' determination requiring the removal of a truck trailer used for storage which encroaches into the requlred rear setback and loading zone. Staff recommended denial of the appeal and required removal of the trailer within fourteen days via the adoption of Resolution No. 1636. Seretta Fieldlng - Mrs. Fielding stated she 11ves at 223 Seal Beach Boulevard and conducts Growing Tree Preschool at the same address. She stated that prior to their purchase of the property she approached John Baucke, then Director of Development Services at the City. They discussed problems with the alley and the use of the trailer. They upgraded their property and landscaped it. Due to zoning regulations they could not change the conditions of the alley or the property's fence. John Baucke gave them permission to place the trailer on the rear half of one half of the property. The trailer provides height for wind protection and privacy for the children from people who would walk in the alley. This permission was granted "... as long as the trailer remains moveable and was used ln our buslness and a fence was not placed around it so that it became a permanent structure there would be no problem. I was not told at that time of any ~ violation ...". She stated she was totally unaware at the time of purchase of any problems with the trailer. She presented a letter to the Planning Commlssion written by Jackie Guidry, Secretary, Engineering Department WhlCh made certain statements on her recollection of John Baucke' s conversation with Mrs. Fielding. Mr. Whittenberg read four letters in favor of the applicant from: Steve & Vikki Caldwell - 220 17th Street W. S. Meehan - 950 Catalina Ave. who own at 223 Seal Beach Blvd. Frank & Teresa Gonzales - 212 17th Street Jackie Guidry - City of Seal Beach Employee [Attached] . Mrs. Fielding said the trailer is not visible from the street or the alley, it is not an eyesore, not a burden to her neighbors (she . . . Page 22 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of June 5, 1991 presented a petition signed by her neighbors). She requested the Commission grant her a six month extension to allow the guidelines for the Seal Beach Boulevard rezoning to be set. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp said he had driven by and the trailer was not as bad as many things parked in the alley. Chairman Fife said it was no lmperative to force the trailer out, especially Slnce the neighbors are uniformly support this appeal. commissioner Dahlman asked staff lf this would undermlne ~ enforcement efforts? Mr. curtis said every time this happens it undermines the ~ enforcement process. But there is an on-going zoning text amendment on the property and it seems reasonable to allow the Flelding's to continue thlS item up until the time the new provisions are set forth. commissioner Dahlman cautioned Mrs. Fielding that the zoning text amendment under consideration is pretty substantial and probably includes more than what will be authorized. It does not, however, begin to allow building where the trailer is located. Mrs. Fieldlng said she was thinking about adding a second story which would have a covered lunch area for the children. Mr. Curtis advlsed that the buildlng would have to be 12 feet from the property llne. Public Hearlng No one wlshed to speak for or against this item and Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Fife: SECOND by Dahlman that the appeal be denied but to stay the removal order for twelve (12) months. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Fife, Dahlman, Sharp, McCurdy, Orsini Director Whittenberg advised that there is an appeal period of ten days from the Commission decision to the City Council. *** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Charles Antos * 328 17th Street. Seal Beach - Suggested the Planning Commission give serious consideration to setting up a workshop with the City Council to figure out what direction the Commission should have. This direction should be based upon what /.4 e - ., Page 23 - Planning commission Minutes of June 5, 1991 the City Counc11 and Planning rezon1ng would be one suggestion. suggestion. commission discuss. Piecemeal General Plan updates was another STAFF CONCERNS Director whittenberg discussed the Planning Commission meeting of July 3, 1991. There is one 1tem scheduled but the applicant was informed at the time of submission that there were not many items for the July 3rd meeting and he agreed to wait until July 17th. Chairman Fife said he preferred then to not hold the July 3rd meeting. COMMISSION CONCERNS Comm1ssioner Sharp sa1d he was concerned about the trash at the service station near Bixby. Staff to research and report back. Comm1ssioner Sharp asked staff to contact the Los Alamitos Reserve Center to find out why the small aircraft are flying over Leisure World. Staff is to research and report back. commissioner orsini asked why the steel pipes are allowed 1n alleys? He felt they obstructed the turn1ng rad1us. Mr. curtis said the pipes are legal because they are not considered a fence. Staff has been talking with the City Attorney's Off1ce with the hope of changing the Code to not allow the pipes in the rear setback. He felt they were installed to keep people from breaking the drive aprons. Staff 1S to report back. commissioner orsini indicated the owner of C-24 Surfs ide paid h1S $150 fine promptly. He said there's a patio cover on Catalina Avenue built without a permit. Mr. curtis adV1sed that when the Building Inspector placed the stop Work Order the homeowner came to City Hall and pulled all the correct building permits. This never became a Code enforcement issue. commissioner Dahlman discussed the C1ty'S June 4th election, noting that election results showed 43% voted "Yes" on Measure B, 38% voted "Yes" on Measure A and 19% voted "No" to both Measures. He said "I think it's not a matter of the whole town coming out and saying 'no development at all' they just want it done right". commissioner OrS1n1 said his opinion on the recent election was the "No" vote on Measure A was not a no to future development. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Whittenberg 1f the C1ty Attorney's Office had analyzed of the legal ramifications of rezoning the Hellman Ranch? Mr. Whittenberg said the election was June 4th so that's e e . Page 24 - Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 1991 too short a time to have done that research. However, the city received an appl1cation from Mola Development Co. in January 1991 for the proJect again. staff 1S going through the process of selecting the environmental consultant to review the environmental work necessary to consider the applications currently on file --- the Specific Plan Amendment and the Vest1ng Tentative Tract Map. The project is the same as the prior proJect. Mola has filed th1S application and the City 1S required by law to consider this application within a certain period of time. Mola was covering their bases in case Measure A did fail they still had an application pending before the city. For another developer to submit a proposal would require a negotiation between the property owners and that developer to enter into the necessary option arrangements to present an appl1cation to the city. commissioner Sharp asked when the Planning Commission could expect to hear the Bixby proposals. Mr. Wh1ttenberg said he could not give specific dates. The final agreements with the environmental consultants have not been finalized by the city. Those will be on the City Counc11 Agenda at the June 10th meeting. If approved they will go to the consultants for their execut1on. scoping sessions should start wi thin the next two weeks. A draft EIR must be prepared. Formal Public Hearings would start in about four to six months. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 12:10 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, , ~';~~~- Executive Secretary Department of Development Services *** These Minutes are tentative and subject to Planning Commission approval. *** The Planning ~o~~ion approved the Minutes of June 5, 1991 on July 17, 1991.~