Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1991-08-07 CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AUGUST 7, 1991 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of July 17, 1991 Minutes IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS . 2. Seal Beach Boulevard Development Standards. 3. Seal Beach Boulevard Restriplng. 4. Mlnor Plan Revlew #8-91 125 Cottonwood Appllcant: Ken Williams V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Variance #6-91 323 Main Street Appllcant: James A. Hagel, Inc. Request: To Vary from Requlred Parking ln C-l zone. Resolution No. 1644 ~ 6. Condltlonal Use Permit #11-91 1198 Paclfic Coast Highway Appllcant: San Pedro Sign Company OWner: Zoeter Places Associates Request: Amend Planned Sign Program at Zoeter Place to Accommodate Unique Requirements for A-I Cleaners. Resolution No. 1643 . V'-- . . . ._i ~ / e e Page 2 of 2 - Planning Commission Agenda * August 7, 1991 VI. VII. VIII. IX. 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. STAFF CONCERNS COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT AGENDA FORECAST Meeting Report : 'Report: Report : of August 21. 1991: In-Lieu Parking FeesfWalt's Police Ticketing at McGaugh Food Marts/Service Stations Wharf School Meetlng of September 4. 1991: Conditional Use Permit #12-91: 1120 Central Ave/Bruce Stark Conditional Use Permit #13-91: Rockwell Helistop . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 7, 1991 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of August 7, 1991 was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers by Chalrman Fife. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissloner Sharp. ROLL C/4. J.J. Present: Chairman Flfe Commlssioners Orslni, Sharp, Dahlman, Law Staff Present: Department of Development Services: Lee Whlttenberg, Dlrector Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF JULY 17, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve the Planning Comm1ssion Minutes of July 17, 1991 with two corrections: Page 14: Delete"... were thrown out", replace with "... wi th a recommendat1on for denial". Page 15: Delete "effects", replace with "affects". MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSTAIN: 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Orsini, Fife, Dahlman Law SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Staff Report Director Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file ln the Plannlng Department]. The staff report is a fOllow-up to prevlous Plannlng Commission dlScussions regarding reinstitutlon of the plannlng process for Seal Beach Boulevard between Landlng Avenue and the Electrlc Avenue alley. It 1S a more formallzed presentation for amendments to both the zonlng ordlnance and the Clty's General Plan to allow for the creatlon of a mlxed-use zone in that area, allowing both resldential and commercial uses. . Page 2 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of August 7, 1991 The staff report covers the development hlstory of Seal Beach Boulevard, the development of mlxed-use zoning standards, prlor task force recommendations and areas of concern such as archltectural compatibility, parking control, sldewalks and street furnlture, signs. staff indicated the Planning Commission should take one of two actions: (1) provide comments on items the Commission felt might need further reflnement and recommend a joint study seSSlon between the Planning Commission and City Council prlor to Public Hearings or (2) if the Joint study session were not needed, instruct staff to proceed to schedule the necessary Public Hearings. At the same tlme an assessment would be done to determine the level of environmental review necessary for the proposed changes. Mr. Whlttenberg said copies of the two staff reports [Development GUldelines and Restriping for Seal Beach Boulevard] were sent to all property owners along Seal Beach Boulevard in the lmpacted areas. Mr. Whittenberg distrlbuted a communication from property owner Walter Mlller. Mr. Miller's comments are directed at the restriping of Seal Beach Boulevard. [Mr. Mlller's document Submitted for the Record and attached to these Minutes]. 4It Commission Comments Commissioner Orslni asked if subterranean parking could be bUllt on Seal Beach Boulevard due to the water table? Mr. Whittenberg said there are ways to bUlld to prevent flooding and he was not sure the water table would prohibit below-grade parking all along Seal Beach Boulevard. Commlssioner Orsini indlcated angled parking would increase the number of on-street parking spaces, that the staff report suggested the newly created parking spaces could be credited to indlvidual lots as part of their commerclal parking requirement and that if curb cuts were fllled in as part of development any addltionally created parking would be credlted to that specific parcel. Chalrman Fife said he felt the quickest route to final resolution of these issues would be for the Planning Commission to shape the issues as much as possible, take public lnput and then send lt up to the City Councll. The Commissloner's agreed. Chalrman Flfe lndlcated the Navy Department owns the extended Southern Pacific right-of-way between Electric Avenue and Seal Beach Boulevard and apparently has no inclination to sell it to the ci ty . He suggested the City may be able to negotiate Wl th the Navy to allow that area to be paved and used for parking. . . . . Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of August 7, 1991 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to recommend staff set the Proposed Development Guidelines and the Restriping of Seal Beach Boulevard [at Seal Beach Boulevard between Landing Avenue and the Electric Avenue alley] for Public Hearings and subsequently send it to the City Council. Additionally, for the Planning Commission to take limited public input at tonight's meeting with the understanding that the Planning commission is not making any final decisions at this meeting. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Orsini, Fife, Dahlman, Law Public Hearing Roger West * 1201 Electric Avenue. Seal Beach - Stated that many homeowners 1n Seal Beach have sacrificed considerably by not having tandem park1ng and indicated it is unfair to reinstitute tandem parking solely for th1S area on Seal Beach Blvd. Bruce Stark * 219 Seal Beach Blvd.. Seal Beach - Indicated the staff report was a plan designed for large properties (having 100' front footage) and not for the people who own propert1es there now. He asked several quest10ns: Why are residential uses relegated solely to the second floor; people may want to live on the f1rst floor and do business on the second floor? Regarding use lim1 tat10ns, why is the maximum gross floor area for a single establishment 3000 square feet? What does "will not attract large volumes of veh1cular traffic" mean? What w111 it mean for the property dimensions to have zero lot lines for the commercial segment and a 10% lot width (3' minimum) for res1dential uses? Regarding lot coverage, indicating one res1dential un1t per 2000 square feet of lot area, he felt that only one owner could 11ve upstairs and the other office occupants would have to live elsewhere; he suggested more res1dences upsta1rs. He felt there was no room left for landscaping after meeting the setback requirements. He suggested a park1ng study should be done, stating there is no parking problem and that property owners could/should sol ve these problems themselves. He asked what is "compatible with adJoining residential areas"? He felt the staff report was vague as to what 1S compatible to what and who determines that. He discussed the restriping of Seal Beach Boulevard, stating the best proposal would eliminate the bicycle lane. He said the homeowners should not be asked to pay for people to ride their bicycles; he doesn't ask bicycle r1ders to contribute to his games. Also, there is no requ1rement for a bike lane and bicycle r1ders don't use the eX1st1ng b1ke lane but r1de allover the street. Seretta Field1ng * 223 Seal Beach Boulevard. Seal Beach - Asked the Cornrn1SS10n to allow day care as a permitted use. . Page 4 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of August 7, 1991 Chairman Fife said he would like to improve opportunities for the eXlstlng property owners rather than reshaping things so that eXlstlng property owners have to sell and move. Walt Mlller * 227 & 231 Seal Beach Boulev ard~ Seal Beach - Addressing the mentall ty of wanting to get the maximum dollar return on each square foot of property versus the phllosophy of developing an area that might be unique he felt the dollar return should not be the prime concern in thlS study area. He indlcated it's an understood architectural concept to live on a second floor and do buslness on the ground floor rather than Vlce versa. He sald the 12' wide service alley should not be intensified wlth commercial parking. He said that while there may be no parking problems today, they are trying to create parking problems by creating commercial development. He felt the Planning Commission should look at increaslng the square footage per parking space or consider the East side of the street as avallable parking and allocate commercial parking there. Dlagonal parking is today's solution to commercial development because lt protects people when they exit/enter their cars. . Mr. Miller said the restrlping should lnclude a bike path for safety. He felt a split bicycle path would be a practical solutlon because lt would be a stralght run for 450' wlth a dlrectional lane on either side of the palm trees. Regardlng property owners paying restriping fees Mr. Miller felt lt would be a small investment for the future. Frank Pryor * 233 Seal Beach Boulevard. Seal Beach - Said he owns three lots in this study area. He liked the staff report and favored increasing the square footage requirement for parking spaces. He indicated the lots are 103' deep along Seal Beach Blvd. versus the 117' lots in most other areas. He said the point was not just to build something, but to build something that would really enhance the City. Chalrman Fife closed the Public Hearing. The commission's recommendation is for Director Whittenberg to proceed directly to the Public Hearing process to include the Seal Beach Boulevard Development Standards and Restriping issues. 3. SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD RESTRIPING . Staff Report Mr. Whlttenberg dellvered the staff report. [Staff report on flle in the Planning Department]. The report suggests alternatives for provlding angled parking on the street and providing bicycle lanes. One suggestion is 45 degree angled parking along the West side of the street with a blke lane provided at the rear of those parking . . . Page 5 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of August 7, 1991 spaces (between the parking spaces and the vehicle travel lane) or in front of the angled parking spaces (between the curb and the parking spaces themselves). The area between the curb and the palm trees presents problems. The City's liablllty attorney is concerned that the front ends of cars overhanging into that area and people who are entering/exitlng their cars may conflict wlth a blcycle rider. The liablli ty attorney felt the most dangerous concept was the blcycle lane behind the cars and between the trafflc. Mr. Whittenberg noted Mr. Miller's suggested bl- directlonal bike path would save $3200 to $4000. However, the bi- directional lanes are narrower and he felt two distinct lanes would be safer. The bike path would go from Paclfic Coast Highway to Electrlc Avenue then turns and goes up Electric --- it does not go onto Ocean Avenue. Commisslon Comments The Commission dlscussed opening talks wlth the Navy Department to gain parking space on the East slde of Seal Beach Boulevard. Mr. Whlttenberg suggested thlS lssue should be resolved with the Navy prior to the City's doing any construction work. Chairman Flfe indicated it would be best to get their cooperation up front but failing to do so, it would be good to pave between the palm trees and the fence, in case the Navy changed its mind, lt would then be a more compatible lane situation. Commlssloner orsini favored Alternative 2. He felt the property owners along Seal Beach Boulevard should not be asked to bear the costs of the blke path if they don't want It. Commlssloner Sharp said he would fight a bike path that was continuous down to the beach because lt would not be safe to have a bike path in a hlgh speed area. He felt the bike path must be placed out of the way of vehlcular trafflc and would argue against putting the path on the street and/or in back of or beside cars. Chalrman Flfe asked the Commissioners lf they were in agreement that the bicycle lane should not be left in the street if they go to angled parking; all agreed. Bruce Stark. Seal Beach - Sald he did not obJect to the $450 fee but to the prlncipal of the fee. Why should he and the other property owners contribute to the sport of bicycling as opposed to a football league or a golf game? He felt a bike lane was an absolute waste of money and felt blcycles could be ridden on dirt and to ask him to pay for lt rankles him. MOTION by Orsini; to recommend that this report be sent to the ci ty Council wi th Al ternati ve 2 but stating fees would not be charged to property owners until they sought permits to remodel their property. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND. . . . Page 6 - Plann1ng Commiss1on Minutes of August 7, 1991 Mr. Whittenberg's concern was the City doesn't have the money to fund the off-street b1cycle path work up front. Under Alternative 2, at the time the street is to be restriped for angled parking, the City would lose the bicycle lane on the street. To provide the b1ke lane off the street the City would need to front those funds in1tially. The costs would be recovered at the t1me each ind1vidual development proposal is presented. Agreeing with Commissioner Ors1ni, commissioner Sharp sa1d he felt the City could find some fund to get $5000 from and the res1dents can pay it back when they pull their remodel1ng permits. commissioner Dahlman said he felt the major1ty of the residents were in favor of gOlng ahead and d01ng this and only one resident so far has obJected. He suggested that perhaps the residents involved can conV1nce the City Counc11 the proposal is too expensive and they can cut it down; the Planning Commission's Job 1S not budgeting. Commissioner Dahlman, referencing Commiss1oner Sharp's comments on the City financing the project up front, said there is no City pocketbook, the C1ty monies are the taxpayer's monies. He stated he was in favor of the residents who are gOlng to benef1t from this project pick1ng up a reasonable share of the tab in proportion to their benefit. Commissioner Orsin1 said he realized the City's general fund was not in good shape but he felt there were other funds the City could take the monies from for th1s because it is being repaid by the residents later oni this should be passed onto the City Council for their decis10n and should not be held unt11 the zon1ng amendments are dealt with. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Orsini for the Planning commission to recommend the adoption of Alternative 2 to the City Council, further modified to have the bicycle lane on the East side of Seal Beach Boulevard installed between the palm trees and the fence. Additionally, if the City has available funds with which to temporarily finance the cost to be later recovered from property owners when they develop their property that it do so but that if the City CounCl.l cannot find such temporarl.ly available funds that the property owners be assessed to cover the initial costs of the construction in accordance with the recommendations on page 8 of the staff report. The ci ty is to further pursue wi th the Navy Department the possible relocation of the Navy's fence to provide a wider bicycle path between the palm trees and their fence. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Dahlman, Orsini, Fife, Sharp, Law *** . Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of August 7, 1991 4. MINOR PLAN REVIEW #8-91 125 COTTONWOOD * SEAL BEACH TRAILER PARK Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Mr. curtis indicated rev1sed plans were submitted on July 29, 1991 and have attempted to address the Plann1ng Commission's concerns regard1ng the relocation of the sta1rwell and it's integration with the remainder of the proposed structure. Staff recommended approval subject to six (6) Conditions of Approval. commission Comments commissioner Sharp noted the stairwell had been reversed. . Comm1ssioner Orsini ind1cated he had reviewed this applicat10n and telephoned the State's Department of Hous1ng and Community Development, talk1ng to Ron Javor, head of their legal department. Mr. Javor said an applicant can build a second story, 1t can be built as an apartment, and as long as there is a second person mov1ng into it, it 1S considered two dwellings and because of the two dwellings they would need the added park1ng. There are 187 spaces in the Seal Beach Tra11er Park now and that's exactly what they need for what they have. If 125 Cottonwood is built as two un1ts there is not enough parking. Commissioner orsini sa1d he went to the Trailer Park and measured the parking lot. He found the parking spaces to be 6', 7', 8' and 9' wide which were 11', 12' 13' and 14' long. He asked how this was approved and why the Park didn't have to meet City standards on this. The Planning Department's map of the Trailer Park shows all the spaces 8' and 9'. Commiss1oner Orsini felt this applicat10n has to be den1ed solely due to inadequate parking. commissioner Dahlman said he could accept some of the un1que characteristics of the Trailer Park up to a point. The point 1S exceeded when the C1ty gets to where they are allowing a duplex or anything more than one unit on one lot. Density is defined as the number of dwelling units per lot. The Seal Beach Trailer Park has a nebulous definition of "lot", they move around and they change sizes. But when one unit is placed on top of another unit there is no question that they are on the same lot and that's not consistent with the City's General Plan and its zoning. He felt the rev1sed plans attempt to make it more one un1t than two. Mr. whittenberg clar1fied that the plans before the Comm1ssion represent one un1t on the lot because they have provided only one kitchen facility. He said the Commission's concern should be, if it feels a second living un1t can be created within the structure, requir1ng covenants recorded that there 1S only one un1t on the . property and it cannot be subd1vided for additional liv1ng units. . . . Page 8 - Plannlng Commisslon Minutes of August 7, 1991 Commissloner Sharp felt the applicant has met the criteria set by the Planning Commission. He didn't thlnk the Commission could turn thlS down legally. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to grant Minor Plan Review #8-91 subject to the six (6) Conditions of Approval set forth in the staff report. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, Law Orsini *** commissioner Dahlman sald he had spoken with the applicant. He felt he had made a real effort to comply with Commission directlves and does not intend to use the trailer as two units. Chairman Fife said the property owner has met the Commission's concerns. He was not inclined to require the owner to additionally sign a covenant. commissioner Law, noting errors on the blueprlnts, said Mr. Whi ttenberg assured her any errors would be corrected in plan check. Chalrman Fife called a recess from 9:25 p.m. to 9:38 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. VARIANCE #6-91 323 MAIN STREET RESOLUTION No. 1644 Commlssioner Orsini stated he had to abstaln from particlpation ln discussion of Variance #6-91 due to a potential conflict of interest. He left the meeting for the duration of thlS ltem. Staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Staff recommended denial of this Variance request which should be through the adoption of Resolution No. 1644. Staff asked the last two paragraphs on the last page of the staff report be disregarded. commission Comments commissioner Dahlman asked staff why the applicant's statement referred to previously granted Variance #7-86, Resolution No. 1486? Mr. curtis said he would check on what that pertalns to. Chalrman Fife opened the Public Hearing. . . . Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of August 7, 1991 Cra1g Mann * Architect. 488 Stanford. Irvine. CA 92715 - Mr. Mann represented the applicant, James Hagel, Inc. He stated the 322 square foot addit10n was within the bU1lding's footprint, would not impact the bU1ld1ng's occupancy load, could not be used for parking on the property and was intended for a conf erence room. The Variance is be1ng requested for existing parking cond1 t10ns on existing conditions they cannot mod1fy. The requested two tandem spaces 1n front w111 be compact and des1gnated as employee parking. Mr. Mann reviewed the reasons the property is non-conforming and stated this Var1ance would create a building w1th 2852 square feet with 12 park1ng spaces Wh1Ch means they would be 148 square feet less than what would be allowable under 12 cars. They would provide a handicapped space and the 10% landscaping thus lessening their non-conformity. Comm1ss1oner Law indicated the bU1lding uses tandem parking in the front of the bU1lding now. She stated she could not see why turning the two parking spaces would help because a car in the one space closest to the bU1lding would have a very difficult time getting out of the driveway. Jim Hagel * 323 Main Street. Seal Beach - Introduced h1mself as one of five owners of the building at 323 Main Street. Mr. Hagel stated tandem parking was approved for th1S property when it was built, before he purchased it. The original design called for the building to be bU1lt to the street like other Ma1n Street businesses. Mr. Hagel felt tandem park1ng would be practical and felt a str1ct application of the rules should be avoided due to special circumstances. The spec1al C1rcumstance is "... there is a workable, useable park1ng plan in place now, it's just not City approved". Mr. Hagel d1stributed a seven page document labeled "Exh1bit A" and "Exhibit B" 1n which he presented his off-street park1ng survey for the businesses on Main Street and a photo of his building. [Attached to these Minutes for reference]. He stated "We provide a lot of park1ng relief for the area and we're not gett1ng any credit for it". Mr. Hagel felt the precedent of the Jim Watson application for 101 Main Street did not apply to h1S sltuat10n because he was not seeking M-1 zon1ng treatment. His useable build1ng-to-Iand ratio is 29% and Mr. Watson's facility is 50%. Mr. Watson has d1fferent uses that get a lot of cars in and out of the area, like restaurants, fast rood, retail and office space upstairs. Mr. Hagel's use 1S office only. Mr. Hagel stated he would be closing in utility cabinets at the rear of the building for safety because "... frankly peopole push drugs under the door and pick them up aga1n at n1ght. We f1nd that the locks are broken and all sorts of th1ngs are going on. We'd like to make our util1t1es more secure. Somebody's going to get in and short themselves out ... 1t'S a problem". Comm1ss1oner Law asked why has tandem parking been denied previously and has 1t ever been denied for Just tenant use? Mr. Curt1s sa1d tandem parking has not been allowed as required parking . Page 10 - Plannlng Commlssion Minutes of August 7, 1991 since the late 1970's. The ratlonale being the interlor space often is not used for parking because it's not easlly accesslble. Geraldlne West * 1201 Electric Avenue. Seal Beach - Spoke in opposition to Variance #6-91. [Written statement attached to these Minutes for reference]. She stated the property does not meet the necessary requirements to be granted. Paula Sheers * 331 loth Street. Seal Beach - Spoke in opposition to this application because she would not want the property in back of her to also request a variance to have tandem parking. When a contractor was building in back of her property one of the trucks broke her drlveway. Chairman Flfe closed the PubllC Hearing. Commlsslon Comments CommlSSloner Sharp sald what the appllcant wanted to do would probably not be a big problem. But the problem is with meeting the three State-mandated findings which they do not meet. But, because of the precedent that's been set by the Plannlng Commisslon, where they have gone out on a 11mb and stretched a point to grant something and then have it turned down at Council he felt there is no reason to grant this variance request at all. . Commlssioner Dahlman asked Mr. curtis about Varlance #7-86. Mr. curtis sald variance #7-86 was a resldential property that due to the lot Slze (it tapered in at the rear alley) dld not have the requlred width to have two parking spaces. They were allowed to have tandem parklng. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Curtis to comment on the appllcant' s remarks on the general ratio of building area to provided off- street parklng on Maln Street. Mr. Curtls said Exhibl t A's contentions were correct. Mr. Whl ttenberg said Mr. Watson's property at Main and Ocean does provlde a much greater building area because there is tuck-under parking provided under the bUllding; that buildlng meets all parking requirements. Also, Exhibit A doesn't indlcate the size of the buildings on those Main Street properties; some of them probably meet parklng requlrements but most do not. Main Street's problem is that it's an older commercial area which was developed years ago under totally different buildlng standards. Many of those properties are not able to enlarge or expand because of the City's current parking standards. . commissioner Dahlman recalled that on Variance #8-89 the City Council reversed the Planning Commlssion's recommendatlon to grant the Variance based on the contention that you have to consider the potential use of an addltion, not only the stated, current lntended use. For that reason he did not believe the Commisslon could accept the applicant's statement for more than what it is. The . . . Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes of August 7, 1991 commission must stick to a line of reasoning that takes into account twenty to forty years of future activity in Seal Beach to avoid lnequities like those referred to tonlght. Over the next twenty years he would llke to see inequitles dlminish and move toward a more level playing fleld and the way to do that is not to grant this Variance. Chalrman Flfe stated that, with conslderable reluctance, he cannot vote for thlS Variance either. The appllcant Justifiably feels shortchanged because he is providing more parklng on his lot than the average building on Main Street. But the way to correct the parking problem is not to enlarge upon It. Regardlng the Watson Varlance, he voted for that Variance because Mr. Watson agreed to a covenant that the storage area would be used only for storage in perpetuity. But even with that, that was overturned by the City Councll. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to deny Variance #6-91 through the adoption of Resolution No. 1644. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSTAIN: NOES: 3 - 1 - 1 Sharp, Dahlman, Fife Orsini Law *** Mr. Whlttenberg advised the applicant he has ten (10) days from the date on the staff letter to the applicant to appeal the Plannlng Commlssion decision to the City Council. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #11-91 323 MAIN STREET RESOLUTION No. 1644 Staff Report Mr. curtis presented the staff report. the Planning Department]. [Staff report on file ln Commlsslon Comments There were no Commisslon Comments. PubllC Hearlng - Chairman Flfe opened and closed the Public Hearing with no one wishing to speak for or agalnst the appllcatlon. The applicant was not present. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND to Orsini to approve Conditional Use Permit #11-91 through the adoption of Resolution No. 1643. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Orsini, Dahlman, Fife, Law . . . Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of August 7, 1991 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral commun1cations from the audience. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Wh1ttenberg announced he would not be attending the Planning Commission meet1ng of August 21st as he would be on vacation. There w111 be a study session at that meeting. COMMISSION CONCERNS Banners Commiss1oner Law asked how long the banner sign at A-1 cleaners would be allowed to remain up? Mr. Curtis said banners are prohib1ted by the mun1c1pal Code. Staff is process1ng a zon1ng text amendment allowing banners on a part time basis. Th1S will come before the Comm1SS1on in September. The A-1 banner will be coming down in conjunction with the approval of CUP #11-91. The outs1de w1ndow banner was not up when this staff report was written and staff will send an enforcement letter to this applicant. Commiss1oner Dahlman sa1d this zoning text amendment would be an opportune time to add the prohib1t1on of alcohol1c beverage advert1s1ng signs on the fronts of w1ndows. commissioner OrS1n1 said Walt's Wharf has been told five times not to put his farmers market banners out yet they were out again th1s past week-end. The owner agrees to take them down and each time they come back up. The problem is, how does the City enforce this without the power to impose a fine. Commissioner orsini said he would like to make a recommendat1on that if Walt's Wharf does not comply with the banner situation the Planning Comm1SS1on suspend his Conditional Use Permit for a few days. Commissioner Dahlman asked why the owner would choose to ignore the law? Mr. Wh1ttenberg sa1d he has discussed this 1ssue with Mr. Babcock a number of times and has suggested he put his banners inside the build1ng on the windows where they are visible or des1gn other s1gnage Wh1Ch could be put inside the windows on a more permanent basis. There is a need for commercial businesses to advert1se special events with temporary signs. Staff has proposed specific requ1rements allowing for placement of temporary advert1sing banners on commercial buildings under certain requirements. commissioner Sharp sa1d John's Market 1S diagonally across the street from Walt's Wharf and John's Market has a license to sell fresh vegetables and other foods. They have to have all the proper inspections, proper refr1geration, to have all things in place and they are there seven days a week trying to make a living. And a restaurant who 1S 11censed to sell prepared food all of a sudden comes out with th1S idea and starts sel11ng fresh produce --- "If I was the owner of John's Market I would be d01ng everything in the world I could to stop h1m because I th1nk he's completely out of line . . . " . Commissioner orsini said that according to Environmental SerV1ces who control the Health Department, as a . . . Page 13 - Plann1ng Comm1ssion Minutes of August 7, 1991 restaurant you are allowed to sell produce, it's legal. They need a separate 11cense from the C1ty and a separate Health Department permit. He sa1d he has a problem with this merchant because there are other merchants on Ma1n street who are putting up banners and as soon as they are advised they comply. "If we're not going to be able to flex a little here to where we're going to say his has to be down then I make a recommendat1on we let them all put them up and then we'll see what it looks like on Ma1n street with all banners and I'm sure we don't want that". Mr. Wh1ttenberg said there 1S a Code prov1sion Wh1Ch establishes a maX1mum $1000 per day penalty for a Code violation which must be assessed by a judge. In most cases the maximum fine is not 1mposed. The main problem 1S in having to go into court to get a violation resolved. In most cases it's been resolved and the court no longer wishes to deal with it. staff 1S pursu1ng having staff issue ci tat10ns . commissioner orsini discussed the Walt's Wharf banner with Jerry Bankston, the City Manager. It was gOlng to be a one-time farmers market. Can Mr. Babcock's license for this be pulled? Mr. Whittenberg said a business license 1S not an enforcement mechanism; the tool is his Condit1onal Use Perm1t for his alcoholic beverage sales. Commissioner Dahlman said he hoped the merchants could get together and f1nd a good solution for banner violat1ons. Commissioner orsini said he would like to see this too but he gets merchant after merchant ask1ng why he has to comply when another merchant will not comply. Mr. Whittenberg advised Commissioner Orsin1 that C1ty staff and the C1ty Police Department do not have the authority to take down banners. Once a banner 1S up on private property the C1ty does not have the right to go onto the property to remove it. commissioner orsini sa1d "I have it cleared --- that if anybody bas1cally asks me 1f they can put up a banner I got to tell them we have no enforcement". Mr. Whittenberg said "It's very d1fficult for us to ach1eve enforcement unless the person who puts the banner up is willing to cooperate w1th the City". commissioner Law sa1d there should be a def1nite guideline or law on banner use. Commissioner Sharp said the Commission should agend1ze this matter when someth1ng can actually be done. Reflectors on Cha1n Commissioner Sharp asked staff about the cha1n across Lampson Avenue not hav1ng enough reflectors on 1 t; there is only one reflector. This was discussed at the July 17th meeting. Mr. Wh1ttenberg said he would telephone Ron Bradshaw at Bixby Ranch. Reversal at 223 Seal Beach Boulevard Commissioner Sharp stated that he was very perturbed at the action taken by the C1ty Counc11 regarding a trailer at 223 Seal Beach Boulevard. The Plann1ng Commiss1on took an act10n it bel1eved perfectly legal 1n grant1ng the nursery school a one years extension wh1le the Commission was work1ng on a zone change for Seal Beach Boulevard. This same thing has been done on Marina H111 with the observadome and the decks and on Pacific Coast Highway w1th gazeboes that are too close to the setbacks. Later, . . . Page 14 - Planning Commission Mlnutes of August 7, 1991 commissioner Sharp said, he found that this particular plece of property had been used for a meeting when there was rumor of a recall. He said he was very upset by this reversal. Chairman Fife said the response of the City Council was almost as though they were sending a message to the Planning Commission to "... tell us who's running the ranch here and I don't like that at all. I thought what we did was perfectly reasonable and I'm almost getting the feeling that we may have to start dOlng the reverse of what we think is proper so we don't get it snuffed out by the Council. I don't like to play those kind of games but I think that declslon stank" . Commissioner orsini said he went along with the other Planning Commissloners on that declsion also because "I really felt we made the right decision. I can't see where we went wrong because we dld deny it. She (the applicant) agreed to take it out and was given time to take it out. There are so many violations in town that are glven time to correct them --- I have to go along wi th everybody else on this board --- it just wasn' t handled right". Commissioner Sharp said "At the Council meeting they did not present any of the letters from her nelghbors who were property owners and of all the neighbors who were property owners there wasn't one of them who objected to it. Yet someone who is renting can throw a monkey wrench in it". Chairman Fife indicated it was his understanding that the appeal to the City Councll was filed by Charles Antos. Chairman Fife indicated that not only did the neighbors not object they were in favor of retention of the tra1ler and he felt the person most immediately affected liked it there because it kept the wind from blowing dust 1nto his garage. It would seem his point of view should get a little bit more weight than a disinterested citizen. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, C\.oa..- ;dan Fillmann Recording Secretary *** These Minutes are tentative and subject to Planning Commisslon approval. *** The Planning Comm1ssion Mlnutes of August 7, 1991 were approved on August 21 1991. .V>\ .. \ -> . e City of Seal Besch Planning CommIssion SUBMITIED FOR RECOR:t BYW~ Date ~/ '11 ~~ I COMMENTS ON STAFF REPORT August 7, 1991 To: Chairman and Members of the Plannlng CommlSSlon Through: Lee Whlttenberg, Dlrector Development Servlces Walt Mlller, Property owner 227, 231 Seal Beach BIVd'~L1~ From: Subject: RESTRIPING OF SEAL BEACH BOULEVARD -- Between Landing Avenue and Electrlc Avenue Alley After reading your proposals for the implementation of a new bike path conflguratlon on the rlght of way, I gave it some thought and walked the entire length of the proposed area this morning, tape measure ln hand. Here are some concerns: #1 A blke path between the eXlsting curb and the palm trees a. Removes the opportunlty for landscaping and benches WhlCh we, as property owners have proposed. b. Introduces the unexpected entry of a car passenger into the bike lane after exiting hlS car. c. Requires car bumpers to insulate bike corredor. The street may take on the appearance of a parking lot and lose the charm we are trying to brlng back. d. Car bumpers may create difflculties for street sweeplng. Alternatlve might be continuous asphalt berm. e. Would requlre the removal of the new telephone equlpment just lnstalled at the south end of the proposed path. I spoke with the telephone company and they lndlcated thlS installatlon is part of their new underground and would not be relocatable. f. Requlres that the enforcement slgns (5) be relocated east of the palm trees creatlng a visibl}lty problem. g. Requlres the ralslng of GTE manholes to the surface of the proposed asphalt pathway. Also requires that the curb cut and utlllty drlveway entrances to the Navy be removed and flIed in to make a safe path. e e . COMMENTS ON STAFF REPORT (continued) August 7, 1991 If Alternat~ve 2 could be modified, or Alternative 2B added, I would support a Bi-Directional Bike Lane on East S~de of Seal Beach Boulevard East of the palm trees, rather than East of the curb because ~t would a. Allow a corredor for landscap~ng and screening the bike path. b. EI~minate the need for car bumpers and ma~ntain the street sweeping procedures now in effect. c. Eliminate the need to relocate GTE equipment and/or ra~se GTE manhole covers. d. Eliminate the need to alter the access driveway to the Navy property and follow the Navy green stripe delinating ~ts property l~ne across the Landing entrance. The path itself, although narrow, would be contained at grade w~thout obstruct~ons or changes ~n elevat~on. e. The assessed costs to property owners on Seal Beach Boulevard would be less. If the proposed modificat~on to Alternative 2 ~s not acceptable, Alternative 4 should be added as ~nstructed by the City Council at the last meeting. That is, the Navy should be contacted to provide an easement and set back the~r fence ten (10) feet between Landing southbound to the pump house. The b~ke path could then be located within that easement with minimum cost and disruption to the overal program. Also the City could avo~d the cost of trimming the bases of the ex~sting palm trees to gain the b~ke path width stated ~n the proposals. As you point out, bike path mark~ng is inconsistent within the C~ty. The proposed path would supply a short connector path off street for maximum safety from veh~cles and pedestrians. A bi-directional path would ~ntroduce a potential conflict between cyclists travel~ng ~n oppos~te d~rections on the bike lane. However this exposure would be el~minated by the reduced speed requ~red and the un~mpa~red v~sib~lity available on a dedicated b~ke path. The highest incidents of acc~dents, car or bicycle, is caused by the unexpected. The l~ab~l~ty attorney might address this issue for the 450 foot sect~on bordered by the Navy fense. The rema~n~ng 120 feet would not be ~pacted because ~t ~s the Land~ng entrance to the Navy stat~on. I would like th~s document presented to the Plann~ng Comm~ssion meeting this evening if you are unable to ~ntroduce these ideas through your normal dialogue. Thank you again for your excellent presentat~ons on solving matters that are long overdue for our street. 2 - City of Seal Beach Planflll\~ C~"fIMI~\Qf\ SUBMITTED fOk IitCORU I By G. W~Dateo g - 1- Cf -,-, . ST ATEMENT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 7p t 99 t liE! lTLEI1ErJ flY NAf-IE IS GERALlJlr,JE WE5T AND I LI \IE AT 120 I ELECTRIC A \IE~,jUE I AI I HERE THI S E'vEt,Jlt'4G Tu S~JEAr-. I ~J OPPOSI TION TO THE REI lUES T FUh' V ARI ANCES Ot\j THE ~JR!)PERTV AT 323 l"IAI N STREET I If API At~CE 6-91 Or~ TONI GHT'S A6ENDA I-Il' ()~JC'(<lITltJ~\115 BASE[) U~Jl)N THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY DOES Nc)T r'IEET THE PEIJUIREI'JENTS NECESSARY U! JDER SECTlt)~~ 28-25(j~ OF THE l~ilnJI(lh:~L ((l[lE IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT e lAi TI-jERE ARE S~'ECIAL CIRCUI"lSTA~JCES APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTy JJHI(H. ThROUGH APPLICATION OF THE ZONING CODE, DEPRI vE THE ~JR()CJEh, Tv I)F ~JRI VIlE6ES ENJUYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES ItJ THE SAl"IE \J II: I NIT '( AND ZONE AN[l (Ell THAT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE Wl)ULD NOT CONSTITUTE THE I)RA,hJTIN6 0F A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE INOJNSISTENT WITH L1rvllTATIONS UPON OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SArvlE Vie/NIT i AND ZONE I ASr ff-4,AT rCJU [JEt,jy THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE 6-91 THAI'J~: rl)1) - e e ", e [' EXHIBIT A I () .. ) '-- CIty of $wI C.;'.~h f'lall\\,p2 lj,yn,lll~~ll\" SUBlalillv fUll REl(ll..U By J~es QalI ~ - 'f-Cf I ~€.t. c. ce ,t Off street Parking Survey e Main Street, Seal Beach, CA August 6, 1991 ADDRESS DESCRIPTION . Oll" SPACES 101 Main Ocean Plaza 20 110 Kinda Lahaina Broiler 7 111 Clancy's 6 112 Liquor Store 0 113 B-Scene 2 113 1/2 Hair Salon 1 115 Taco Surf 2 116 Sam Roberts 0 e 117 Smorgasbord 0 118 Cleaners 0 119 Medical Office 3 121 The Irisher 0 123 Hair Salon 2 123 1/2 Wool Merchant 1 124 Endless Summer 0 125 Condo's Shell Shop 2 126 Photo 0 127 Consignment Shop 6 128 Rage Wear Clothing 0 129 Hair Salon 3 . 129 1/2 Collection 3 1 e e 130 Art Gallery 5 . 131 Razz Matazz 5 132 Various Shops 0 133-135 Cycle Shop 5 134 Hair Salon 0 136 Coffee/Dessert Shop 1 136 1/2 Glass Art 2 137 Old Town Cafe 4 138 Clothing 0 139 Hair Salon 4 139 1/2 Flowers 3 140 Hennessy's 0 141 Bob's Rexall 0 . 142A Psychic 0 142B Seal Beach Company 0 143 & 148 Spaces shared by Papillon & Johns Food King 19 201 Walt's Wharf 6 205 Bay Financial 7 206 Bank of America 21 207 Gifts 4 209 Restaurant 2 210 Copies 0 211 Antiques 1 211 1/2 Jewelry 2 212 Masonic Temple 0 . 213 Bookstore 2 2 e . . 214 215 216 217 218 218 1/2 219 219 1/2 220 221 222 223 224, 226, 228, 240, 244, 246 225 231 245 302 303-315 304 308 317 317 1/2 318 320 321 e Health Habit Hardware store Seal Beach Journal Antiques Jewelry Antiques Antiques Shoes Frames Post Office Office Building Nick's Deli Various Offices, Flowers, Clothing, etc. Nursery Picture Show Gallery Realty Drug store and Office Building Seal Beach Mall Chinese Restaurant Warno Sport J. Moore Gallery & Frames Main Street Barber Pet Shop Mall Hair Salon 3 e 2 4 3 3 2 1 o o 3 2 2 o 29 3 3 3 20 36 o o o o 7 5 12 e e r 322 Mall 12 . 323 Law Office 11 327 united Interests 2 329 Harbour Surfboards 3 330 Mall 29 331 Seal Beach Cleaners 5 333 Char-O-Chicken 2 334 Theatre 0 . . 4 . e ~-::~--:-~- --~ " , --,---;,. e