The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Min 1991-09-04 . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 4, 1991 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR Ie Approval of August 21, 1991 Minutes IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS Ve PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Conditional Address: Applicant: Request: Use Permit #12-91 1120 Central Avenue Bruce Stark After-the-fact remodel 3. Conditional Address: Applicant: Use Permit #14-91 3005 Old Ranch Parkway Bixby Ranch Company for Spaghettini Rotisserie & Grill Entertainment Cafe . Request: 4. Conditional Address: Applicant: Request: Use Permit #15-91 330 Main Street, "F" Cafe Lafayette On-Sale Beer & Wine VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - At this ti.e .embers 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 lawe VII. STAFF CONCERNS *. Low level wooden decks within front yard setbacks. ... *. Determination of zoninging (Martial Arts School). *. Rossmoore Center Sign. . VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1991 The regularly scheduled Planning Commlssion meeting of September 4, 1991 was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers by Vice Chairman Dahlman. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Orsini. ROLL CALL Present: vice Chairman Dahlman Commissioners Sharp, Orsini, Law Excused Absence: Chairman Flfe MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to deem Chairman Fife's absence excused. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Orsini, Law, Dahlman Fife Also Present: Department of Development Services staff: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 21, 1991 MINUTES MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 1991 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Orsini, Dahlman, Law Fife vice Chairman Dahlman questioned the wordlng of the motlon on page 5, clarifying that the Planning Commission was not attemptlng to tell the City Council what to do but rather asklng whether the Council wished the Commission to proceed. SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no Scheduled Matters. ~ Page 2 - Planning commission Minutes of September 4, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #12-91 1120 CENTRAL AVENUE Staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicants, Bruce Stark and his wife, M1chelle Brendel, request an after-the-fact mod1fication of floor plans approved through CUP #4-89 to include a new kitchen, two new bathrooms and two new bedrooms at an existing duplex located at 1120 Central Avenue, Seal Beach. . Histor1cally, Conditional Use Permit #4-91 allowed a major remodel and addition of 811 square feet of hab1table living area and 1620 square feet of laundry, garage and storage area to the non- conforming duplex. On September 19, 1990 the Planning Commission approved the condomin1um conversion of this duplex and this conversion 1S presently being finalized. In January 1991 the City in1t1ated a Code enforcement against the subject property based on compla1nts of an unpermitted remodel of the garage area. Staff recommended two opt1ons for Planning Commission consideration: (1) Deny CUP #12-91, requiring the structure to be returned to its originally approved state or (2) Approve CUP #12-91 conditionally. Th1S would require a variance because a third unit cannot be approved through the CUP process. Staff recommended removal of the kitchen, provision a half bath on the first floor, requiring the owner to record a covenant on the title indicating that only two dwelling units exist and the first floor area 1S common area for the two eX1sting units, the CC&R's be amended to describe the remodeled first floor common area, indicating the first floor common area is not to be utilized for residential living purposes. commission Comments commissioner Ors1ni asked Mr. Curtis why he stated there are two bedrooms being added because the application and plans don't indicate "bedrooms"? Mr. Curtis explained the plans clearly show two bedrooms in accordance with the definition of a 'bedroom' in the Code. Also earlier this year the Planning Commission discussed Al Brown's applications for 123 8th Street and 601 Ocean Avenue and it was decidedd that any rooms not a kitchen, a hall or a bathroom are to be considered bedrooms. commissioner orsini asked about tandem park1ng. Mr. Curt1s said tandem parking 1S allowed but does not count toward required parking. . The Commission asked Mr. Curtis to correct the dates in the staff report; Mr. curtis agreed. ~ Page 3 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on Minutes of september 4, 1991 Public Hearing V1ce Chairman Dahlman opened the Public Hearing. Mr. curtis read, for the Record, an undated letter from Warren Morton of 153 13th street, Seal Beach request1ng the removal of the third unit and urging the Commission not to approve it. This letter was rece1ved by the city on September 3, 1991. [Letter attached to these Minutes for the Record]. The Record1ng Secretary 1ndicated no other correspondence was received by staff on th1S item. Andrew Schwartz, Attorney * 3530 Wilshire Blvd.. Los Angeles Mr. Schwartz stated he is an attorney representing the applicants. . He stated the additional work at 1120 Central Avenue was done w1thout City BU1lding Department approvals, permits or inspections. He stated this 1S a recreation and spa area for two condominiums which is a permitted use under City Code section 28-400. Regarding allegations of C1ty harassment toward Bruce Stark, Mr. Schwartz said this is just one more 1ncident in the continuing pattern of gett1ng Bruce Stark. He 1ncluded the city's requirement of having four regular and two tandem parking spaces and the City's request to remove a planters from the C1ty'S right-of-way as harassment. Mr. Wh1 ttenberg said "... we had to go through a long involved process with Mr. Stark's property... because Mr. Stark did not respond to many letter we had sent to him over a several month period of time to try to resolve the issue without getting to that point. If Mr. Stark had responded to the letters we might have been able to resolve the issue quite some time ago. That's not our position to be able to force him to respond; he chose not to. If you would like us to release the record of that information I can do that this evening. I don't intend to but if you want to bring that 1ssue up I'd be happy to respond to it". commissioner Law read Code Sect10n 28-802, asking if the tandem parking was used for guest parking? Mr. Schwartz said "No. Only four parking spaces were required". Mr. curtis clarified by saying that when there are fewer than seven units, guest parking spaces are not required. Staff recommended tandem spaces to help partition off the first floor because staff felt the storage area could be easily converted to another living unit. The tandem parklng was not necessary to meet any specific parking requirement. . Director Whittenberg said Mr. Schwartz is not familiar with previous Plann1ng commission concerns regarding additions and modiflcat1ons to structures. The Commisslon has spent many hours dealing with potential for creating non-permitted residential units. ~ Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 1991 Commlssioner Orsini asked Mr. Schwartz if the condos are sold, rented or leased? Mr. Schwartz sald "They are leased". Commissioner orsini said to sell the condos he would have to have a tltle on all three units. So the third unlt could not be sold if there was no tltle on it. Commissioner Sharp said if this property was sold as two condominiums the common area would belong to both owners, and what would keep them from renting it out as a joint venture? Mr. Schwartz said an answer would be speculatory. ~ Mr. Schwartz asked who complained and started the Code violation proceeding agalnst Mr. Stark and Ms. Brendel? Mr. Schwartz said "We had a meeting July 22 involving City Council people, some people that are here. At that time no one identifled this person". Mr. Whittenberg said "... we do not release the name of a person who makes a complaint and I'm not going to do it this evening and we're not going to do it in the future". Commissioner Orsini said he was at the July 22nd meeting and said "I remember when the questlon was brought up who filed the complaint at that time we were told that they did not know who filed the complalnt. That was the statement that was made". Mr. Whittenberg said "I think the statement was we could not recall because we did not have the file in front of us. And even if we did know we would not have given that information. That's information we do not provide publicly". Mr. Schwartz said "I don't remember anyone saying this is the kind of lnformation that's not provlded. I think Mr. Orsini and I both heard the same thing --- that they didn't know who did it". Commlssloner Law asked if all the electrlcal, plumbing and carpentry was all f ini shed and all done without perml ts? Mr. Schwartz said all the work is finished, no permits, and no one is living there. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that "You indlcated the parklng area is used as a spa and there's nothing on the plans that indicates the location of the spa. Is lt intended to be a portable spa or a fixed faclli ty?" Mr. Schwartz said "Fixed". Mr. Whlttenberg asked lf that would be a future modificatlon to the plans? [No reply]. Commissioner Law asked where would it be, noting there are two partitioned rooms and a kitchen? Mr. Stark said "It will be in the rear room and it's a spa that would be connected to the plumbing that's in the wall by the bath. The other room is a recreation room for pool, card playing, things like that" . Mr. Stark said having a recreation room with a condo is not unusual. Commissioner Law said she thought one bath would be adequate for such a place, not two baths. ~ Mr. Stark presented the Commisslon with a contract between himself and contractor Don Cox. He stated that Mr. Cox wrote the contract, which provides for tenant improvements for $6,200. He stated he relied on Mr. Cox to do the work and get the permits. He said he had a meeting a few weeks ago with Mr. Whittenberg and for the flrst tlme was told no permits had been obtained. Commissioner Law asked if Mr. Stark had a slip of paper showlng what had been ~ Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 1991 inspected? Mr. Stark said he had lots of SllpS of paper hanging on the walls 1n the area. . . Mr. Stark said he felt Mr. whittenberg and Mr. curtis have not been truthful with h1m. He said he has done absolutely nothing unlawful. Everything he had done has been provided for under the Code and 1S permitted under the Code. vice Cha1rman Dahlman asked if the contract he presented related to the Code violation and/or the CUP appl1cat1on? Mr. Stark said the contract shows both he and Mr. Cox knew exactly what was being built --- tenant improvements and not an illegal unit. Mr. Stark stated he was applying for an after-the-fact CUP because Mr. Whittenberg, at the July 22, 1991 meeting with Mr. Orsini, Ms. Hast1ngs, the City Manager, Barry Curtis, h1S attorney and himself, 1ns1sted he apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Wh1ttenberg said "The statements that are be1ng made by Mr. Stark are incorrect. The Code does allow certain type of accessory uses as a permitted use. However, when CUP's or Var1ances are granted on particular properties any modifications to the plans that were approved under the CUP require an add1tional re-approval by the Planning Commiss1on before any new construction activ1ty can be undertaken. In this particular case a CUP was granted on the property in 1989 for modifications and expansions of the structure, an additional approval was granted for condominium converS1on. Those plans specifically approved certa1n configurations to the ground floor space of this particular structure which requ1red provision of the four required parking spaces that are required under Code, the plan approvals by the Planning Commission requ1red a total of six parking spaces to be provided and approved a specific set of building plans for the project. Any modification to those plan approvals requires a new CUP approval by the Planning Comm1ssion. It requires plan check of those plans, inspection of the work and a final sign off by the Building Department before that work is legal. Accessory uses are perfectly allowed, the plans that have been submitted to us, as someone on the Planning Commission indicated, did not indicate the ut11ization of the rooms. Under the definition section of the Code there's a specific definition of what constitutes a 'bedroom' ... and that definition classifies all rooms as bedrooms with certain specific exemptions. Under that definition, several of the rooms in th1S area that now has been modified without previous plan approvals, are classif1ed as 'bedrooms'. That may not be what they're used for but that's what they're classified for but that's what they're classified for under the provisions of the zoning Code. That's why the report reflects that at this point they are considered as 'bedrooms'. The plans do not 1nd1cate that there's a spa on the property. When we did meet with Mr. Stark and his legal representat1ve and several representatives from the City, at that point in time it was indicated that this area had been converted 1nto a recreation room, spa and office area to my recollection of " # '* Page 6 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of September 4, 1991 that particular meeting. The plans that were submitted and that you have before you this evenlng, reflect a number of modlfications to that ground floor area which appear to be more extensive than what would normally be expected for an office, recreation and spa area. I think that is probably where the concern has come in, Mr. Stark, regarding the tone of the staff report itself. But in all fairness to our staff I'm not sure there was a fair representation as to the amount of modification that had been made in that area at the time of the meeting on July 22nd. There was no indication there were two full bathrooms in the area and there was no indlcation as to the extent of the kitchen faclllties where you have a dishwasher, range, over, full cabinet spaces, compactor ... so I thlnk that there has been some miscommunication on both sides as far as the extent of the modlfications". Mr. Whittenberg said the issue the Planning Commission has to deal with tonight is really one basic issue --- does the Commission wish to approve modifications to the previously approved plans which would allow for the deletion of the tandem parking spaces and utilization of that area for a recreation room. And if so, to what extent does the Commission feel that the existing lmprovements either need to be modified or allowed to remain. The main issue we're dealing with is that whatever's done needs to be done in accordance with an approved set of plans that are approved by the Planning Commisslon. Commissioner orsini asked if the CC&R's are the governing body over a condominium development and if what's ln the CC&R's is law. If the CC&R's cover a recreation room then basically it's a recreation room. Mr. Whittenberg said "Once those documents have been recorded that's correct. At this point those final CC&R's for this project have not been approved by the City. I don't believe we've seen a copy of them to this point". Mr. Schwartz said "The CC&R's were approved by the City in December of last year". Vice Chairman Dahlman indicated the CC&R' s did not come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Whittenberg discussed the issue that Mr. Stark had not been made aware as to what the problems might have been. "On January 2, 1991 and February 5, 1991 we sent Certified letters to Mr. Stark at his business address indicating that we had received complaints of a 'potentlal illegal conversion of the garage areas'. Those are the letters we dld not receive any response to". No one ln the audience wished to speak in support of CUP #12-91. Michael Cho * Huntlngton Beach Mr. Cho stated he is the former Plannlng Intern for the City of Seal Beach and spoke against CUP #12-91. 4It Page 7 - Planning Commlssion Minutes of September 4, 1991 Mr. Cho said he felt Mr. Stark knew from the beginning that he was adding an illegal unlt and was doing it without Clty approvals, permlts or inspections. He said Mr. Stark was presenting a picture of himself as an lnnocent lawyer who was relYlng solely on his contractor but in reality Mr. Stark is a major land holder in Seal Beach who attends almost every Planning Commisslon meeting and is actlve in civic affairs. He stated that Mr. Stark had been sent many letters and had to know staff had concerns. Mr. Stark fought the Cl ty, denying anything was built ln that area. Mr. Cho described Mr. Stark's duplex remodel and condo converSlon as a major remodel. The illegal building includes a new kitchen, two new bathrooms and two new bedrooms which begs the question of an illegal living unit being constructed. Mr. Cho asked when is it not safe in the community? Is it going to take someone to die in an illegal unit before the City really steps up and takes notice that there's a problem here? The City has to keep informed on what is going on. 4It . Mr. Cho alleged Mr. Stark is trying to sneak an end run around the Planning Department. Under the Code it's a misdemeanor. It's a crimlnal misdemeanor. And as an attorney he should know this. And as an attorney myself I feel almost obllgated to go to the State Bar because it constitutes and on-going fraud. He knew from the beglnning what's going on. ... We cannot be railroaded into saying 'well he put all this money into it after-the-fact so let him keep It'. I thlnk you have a duty to the citizens of this community to deny thls proJect. And at least at a minimum to rip out the ki tchen unit and one of the bathrooms. You made people remove walls in their other bedrooms and here you're allowlng them to keep these small rooms. If you want to have a recreation room, rip out all the walls, put in a pool table ... you have to look at what's the potential. Mr. Schwartz brings up the point that he [Mr. Stark] was guilty and now he has to prove his lnnocence. Well he is guilty ... if lt'S there he's guilty. He said it's there, that's the admisslon you have to look for. That's guilt. That's buildlng without a permit. That's bUllding ln vlolation of the Code. ... We have to go and look at what the Code says. The Code says you have to go and apply for a permit". The Code says that when he applied for hlS CUP if he was planning on having this little rec room why wasn't the rec room on the original plans? Why does he have to do it in a sneaky way after-the-fact? For the safety of the community, because you don't know how the construction was done in there, it should be denied. Commlssioner Law asked Mr. Cho is Mr. Cox was a licensed contractor? Mr. Cho said he thought so. Commissioner Law asked if a report could be filed against Mr. Cox statlng that he constructed this unlt without permits? Mr. Cho said he belleved you could contact the Contractors State License Board. ~ Page 8 - Plann1ng Commission Minutes of September 4, 1991 Charles Antos * 328 17th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Antos said he was not speak1ng for against th1S appl1cat10n. He stated he worked for the City of Seal Beach for eleven years and set up the Code enforcement procedures for the City. He indicated h1S prior dealings with Mr. Stark and Ms. Brendell were prompt and cooperative. He said he felt a lot of 1nformat10n came out tonight that was not covered 1n the staff report and for that reason it would be best to have CUP #12-91 held over and get all the facts together in the staff report. Commissioner Ors1ni asked Mr. Antos if the Planning Comm1SS10n should be allowed to impose a f1ne on the applicant above the double fines for after-the-fact permits? Mr. Antos said unless the Uniform Build1ng Code (UBC) is amended the Planning commission is stuck with UBC penalties. . Terry O'Sullivan * 123 Second Street. Seal Beach Mr. O'Sull1van spoke aga1nst CUP #12-91. He wondered what the population density is on Mr. Stark's units at 1120 Central versus the Hellman Ranch Wh1Ch Mr. Stark clearly opposed? He said it's the lower populat10n density that attracts many people to Seal Beach and if the Commission approves illegal modifications to units or approves non-conforming modificat10ns the whole face of Seal Beach will change. We'll have a c1ty just like Belmont Shore. There w111 be lots of non-conforming units Wh1Ch will not go away. There's too much profit to be made on those rental 1ncomes. He urged the Commission not to allow any exceptions to the Code on these matters and to enforce the Code the way 1t'S supposed to be enforced. Don Cox * 114 First Street. Seal Beach Mr. Cox said he 1S a contractor and had a contract with Bruce Stark to do some of the tenant improvements for Mr. Stark at 1120 Central Avenue. Mr. Cox said he was not telephoned by Barry Curt1s to show up at the Planning Commission tonight as alleged by Bruce Stark. ~ Mr. Cox asked staff how somebody gets a Conditional Use Permit on legal non-conforming property to add 2\ t1mes the square footage of what was demolished when the Code reads only 10% can be added? Several of h1S clients wanted to add addi t10ns to legal non- conforming properties yet were turned down by the Planning Department. He asked how Mr. Stark obtained a CUP to build that building? Mr. Curtis said "There is a provis10n in the Code which allows additions greater than 50% to non-conforming structures provided they meet all Code requirements except density. Mr. Stark's addition w1th the duplex and the four parking units and the two tandems, irregardless of the two tandems, did meet all Code requirements except density. Density was the only non-conformity on the property once the parking spaces were put on. So, through that Code section he could add over 50%, there's no upward limits, ~ Page 9 - Plann1ng Commission Minutes of September 4, 1991 so theoretically he could add right up to the very maximum ...". Mr. Cox asked Mr. Curtis if that was explained to all the people who come to the Planning Department? Mr. curtis said "Yes. There aren't too may properties who meet all Code requ1rements except dens1ty ... the width of the property is 55' x 50' ... because of the configuration of th1S lot it was able to fit four standard parking spaces across the width of the alley. There may be six or seven properties in the whole City that can meet those requirements. So ... we don't get too many requests from people wish1ng to do it. But it 1S explained to people who fall under that situation". Mr. Cox asked when CUP 4-91 first came in was it considered condos or apartments? Mr. curtis sa1d it was a remodel of the existing duplex of two units. . . Mr. Cox said "Since Mr. Stark has chosen to blasphemy me I would 11ke to say a few words on my behalf. I knowingly did do some of the bootleg work that was done there. Mr. Stark did several quite a bit of the work himself. He did his own electrical in the building. He d1d his own ceramic t1le work 1n the bU1lding. He did a good portion of it h1mself". Mr. Cox presented the Commission with his copy of the contract between himself and Mr. Stark saying "I don't think he probably showed you all of the contract that he passed up there to you but I'd 11ke you to see this addendum that was typed on his typewriter and you can see it was typed by an attorney... if you look at Item #6 it says that 'Work on this contract shall begin immediately following final inspection of first contract'. I think he knew exactly what he was doing when he was putt1ng this un1t in. When I was building this thing 1t was always gOlng to be two units and then he was going to put this un1t in afterwards. Where this condo conversion came in afterwards, I think, 1S just to cover h1m because where he's planned to put a spa he doesn't have any venting or anything like that for the spa. Why didn't he do some of that work at the same time he was doing th1s other bathroom work? I was not told to do anything for a future spa". vice Chairman Dahlman asked Mr. Cox, w1th regard to the departure work done from CUP #4-89 and with regard to what is before the Comm1ss10n tonight to be permitted, if he correctly referred to the work as a 'unit'? Mr. Cox said "That's the way I was led to believe. Of course I was only doing a port10n of the work. Most of the finish part of the work was done by Mr. Stark. I don't think the unit's even finished personally. And if you believe for one minute Mr. Stark, who's in this Chamber two n1ghts a month, did not know that that was an 11legal unit and didn't have to have perm1ts he's really pulling the wool over everybody's eyes here". Commiss10ner Orsin1 asked Mr. Cox about the front page of the building contract where it states the 'Contractor is to apply and obtain all requ1red permits, pay all fees'. Mr. Cox said "Yes. That's what 1t says. But in 11eu of this, this is written in on the addendum". Mr. Cox said Mr. Stark obtained his own permits on , . . Page 10 - Plann1ng Commission Minutes of September 4, 1991 the first contract and did all his own running on the first contract. "I didn't do any of that either. So, that really shouldn't be a part of the contract, that slipped by. I knew that I couldn't get permits on 1t. ... that's why we closed in things. We kept the garage doors closed and did all the work. Both of them knew about it. So I'm just defending myself -- that he knew exactly what was going on and that's all I have to say". vice Chairman Dahlman closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Whittenberg advised it would be appropriate to reopen the Public Hearing to allow the applicant rebuttal time. vice Chairman Dahlman reopened the Public Hearing. Bruce Stark * 204 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach Mr. Stark clarified certain points. First, the o~iginal plans called for a recreat10n room in that area. Those plans were submitted to Mr. Whittenberg and Mr. curtis who said they weren't going to approve them. Second, tandem parking totalling three spaces per unit was required by staff although nobody else in town has to provide three spaces per un1t. He had to have new plans drawn at his expense. Third, his plans did not have to come before the Planning Commission because staff had approved them. Fourth, he had an attoreny in West Los Angeles prepare the CC&R' sand incurred additional expenses to change them back to two parking spaces. The CC&R's were approved by the City in December 1990. They may be recorded with the County after he obtains his engineering work from the city. There was nothing secretive about 1t. Nothing under the table about it. It was thoroughly discussed with Mr. Wh1ttenberg, Mr. curtis and Mr. Cho. Mr. Stark said "Now, Mr. Cox was saY1ng and presented the contract, it's the same one I presented to you. I presented it in its ent1rety, nothing 1S deleted. The Addendum says 'yes' the work on the second contract is going to begin as soon as the first one is through. The reason for that is I wanted him on the job. I didn't want h1m wander1ng off somewhere. Because Mr. Cox has had a reputation in the past when I've done work w1th him that he gets preoccup1ed with some of his spec houses and sort of leaves you hanging. Mr. Wh1ttenberg was quick to point out he sent me two letters back in January. Mr. Whittenberg knows I was out of the country during January and February. Everyone has poo'd-poo-d the fact that there has been no harassment. I've gone over this before and the same Planning Commissioners were here, that Mr. Curt1s who has no claim to be1ng a Building Inspector, in fact I think he's a L1feguard by profession, was out tramp1ng around on my property, saying that the plumbing is out of place and the foundation is out of place and telling Mr. Cox's foreman on the job that he knew this was Stark's property and he was going to watch 1t. Mr. Cox came to me and said 'I don't want to do a Job with the C1ty breath1ng down my neck'. I went to see Mr. Whittenberg about it. Mr. Whittenberg says 'No problem, everything's under control, you're going to be treated 11ke everyone else'. Didn't work out that way. The next . --. . Page 11 - Plannlng commission Minutes of September 4, 1991 thlng I know, when I'm starting my condo converSlon papers, gettlng my engineering work done, getting my surveys Mr. curtis and Mr. Whlttenberg are saying 'Well, we went out there and took a look and your planter which was built with a permit and inspected by your (sic) Buildlng Inspector encroaches sixteen inches into the public rlght-of-way'. The mortar isn't even dry on the blocks yet and he wants me to pull it out. I've got dirt put in there and I've got a sprinkler installed, I've got shrubbery installed. I put in additional palm trees to beautify the place and he wants me to tear it out. You say he's not after me? I say 'Alright you want me to move it back sixteen inches? What are you going to do with that space between the sidewalk and the wall? 'Well, we'll just leave that'. I sald lsn't that more dangerous to a passerby than having the wall out there? 'Well, lt doesn't make any difference. You've got to move your wall back sixteen inches'. That makes a lot of sense. OK. So I put ln a sprinkler system, put in ice plant. Meanwhile, two blocks away at the corner of Landing and Twelfth Street I drlve by and here's a man cementing ln his parking strip. I say 'How come?' 'Well, he got a permit, he was allowed to do that'. I ask 'Why wasn't I?' 'You'll have to take that up with somebody else'. So I've got a lovely ice plant in there that I like but a man two blocks away can cement ln his parking strip. You say Mr. curtis isn't after me? It's been one damn thing after another. And you want to know why lt isn't completed? I had to have three water meters. That's required for condo conversion. Every unit has to have its own water meter. Over $2000 I pay the City for two more water meters". Commissloner Law asked why he had to have three meters lf he had only two units? Mr. Stark said one meter is for the condo association; they have to have their own meters to take care of the common areas. "I found out that not every condo converSlon needs a water meter for each unit, plus one for the common areas, just Stark. Peculiar isn't it. It starts to make you wonder. At least it makes me wonder. Once or twice might be a coincidence but when it becomes repetitive one rlght after the other. The only thing that I recel ved from the City was an allegation was that you've got an illegal living unit in there. I deny it; I don't have an illegal 11ving unit. I have the same thing that every other condo ln town has and that's a recreation unlt. And it was origlnally intended that way and the staff knows it was because they saw the original prints. And they can be changed. The City Attorney required that they be changed again and I end up with one of your permitted uses. And Mr. Chairman I would respectfully request that you refer thls matter to the city Attorney and have him take a look at the Code and continue the matter for two weeks or four weeks at your pleasure until you have a chance to get an obJective opinion. I don't expect you to take my word for it because I'm a partisan. And I think that the staff should have showed to you by this tlme that they're not giving you all the facts. So I would urge you to continue the matter and discuss it Wl th the City Attorney and see if you can get some straight information that you can rely on. Thankyou". ~ Page 12 - Plann1ng Comm1ssion M1nutes of September 4, 1991 Vice Chairman Dahlman closed the Public Hearing. commission Comments commissioner Sharp sa1d he was hoping th1S matter could be considered object1vely instead of having a lot of character assassination but it didn't work out that way. He said that because of the parking and the amount of coverage, the way it's set up, the way the Code describes 'bedrooms', with a full k1tchen he said "I absolutely see no way that we can grant this". commissioner orsini said he would llke this continued because he wanted to see a set of the f1rst set of plans that actually show that it was prepared as a rec room. commissioner Law said that because it was done illegally and without permits she could not see passing it. . V1ce Chairman Dahlman said he personally would have trouble approving a rec room given the possibil1ty it would open a Pandora's Box and begin to weaken the hard line the Commiss10n drawn on the def1nition of a 'bedroom' which 1S all about what needs to happen in Old Town if the City is to have a meaningful Code. He agreed with commissioner orsini and the applicant for a continuance due to issues being present that are not normally before the Commission on a CUP --- the issue of b1as and so forth. He said "I would like to stay out of court and if the best way to do that 1S to postpone a decision for four weeks then that's what I would tend to favor". MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Law to continue Conditional Use Permit #12-91 for two meetings until October 2, 1991, advise Planning Department staff to contact the City Attorney, to have the City Attorney present at the October 2, 1991 meeting and to continue the Public Hearing. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Orsini, Law, Sharp, Dahlman Fife commissioner Sharp 1ndicated he wanted the City Attorney to be present at the October 2nd meeting the Motion's Maker and the Second agreed and incorporated this into their Motion. . commissioner Law said "It's a lot of money though". Commiss10ner Orsini said "It depends on which attorney we get. I hate to say that but I'll tell you right now, that what I've seen out of the C1ty Attorney's Off1ce I'd like to hand-pick the one we get". Mr. Wh1ttenberg said Mr. Colantuono would be the attorney present because he's been work1ng with this matter since the Code enforcement act1vity was begun on it back in January 1991. ~ Page 13 - Planning CommlSSlon Mlnutes of September 4, 1991 Commlssioner Orsini said "Then I'll go with the Motion". Mr. Whittenberg said, for all persons in the audience, the matter has been continued to October 2nd and there will no future Notices of this contlnuance. Addl tlonal testimony will be received at that time. The City Attorney's Office will be in attendance. *** vice Chairman Dahlman called a short recess at 9:15 p.m. 3. Conditional Use Permit #14-91 3005 Old Ranch Parkway Bixby Ranch Company for Spaghettini Rotisserie & Grill Staff Report Mr. Curtls dellvered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Bixby Ranch Company, is requesting to provide live Jazz music in the lounge of Spaghettini's Rotisserle and Grill Wednesday through Sunday evenings from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. This request is before the Commission because the applicant's were operatlng an entertainment cafe without City permlts. . commission Comments Commlssioner Sharp asked why the music was limited to jazz and to four persons? Mr. Curtis sald that's what the applicant requested. It's speclfic so the City would know what entertainment they are havlng. The applicant also proposed the hours. vice Chairman Dahlman asked staff about Condition #3, questioning who would monitor the termination of the entertaiment at 11: 00 p.m.? Mr. Curtis advised staff will inspect periodically. If any complaints are received those will be brought before the Commission. PubllC Hearing The Recording Secretary stated there has been no correspondence received on this item. . Cary Hardwick * 3005 Old Ranch Parkway/Spaghettini Rotisserle & Grlll Mr. Hardwick lntroduced himself of one of the owners of Spaghettlni's. He indlcated he agrees with all aspects of the staff report. He said he had been operating an entertalnment cafe for 1\ years without a CUP. He explained he requested a temporary permit which was allowed to him in the beginning but he is at fault for not pursuing and flnalizing the CUP permit. ~ Page 14 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 1991 Michael Cho * Huntington Beach Mr. Cho spoke in support of the application, indicating light entertainment is a nice amenity and will bring more people into the Clty which is dying for funds. Charles Antos * 328 17th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Antos said he was not speaking for or against this application but asked what the difference was between this application and Mr. Stark's application as both are after-the-fact? Commissioner Sharp sald there is no comparison what so ever and nelther appllcation appears to be being judged on the fact that lt'S coming ln late. vice Chalrman Dahlman closed the PubllC Hearing. Commlssion Comments Commissioner Law said she saw nothing wrong with this application because there have been no complaints from nelghbors or police. ~ commissioner orsini said he favored grantlng this appllcation with a fine imposed for operating 1~ years without a CUP. He noted the municipal Code imposes as $1000 per day. Mr. Whittenberg clarifled the provision for a Code misdemeanor sets a maximum $1000 per day flne but that must be imposed by a court of law. The Planning Commission, under the municipal Code, does not have the authority to impose a penalty. When a Surfside resldent paid a $150 fee for lnstalling railings without permits it was because that resident agreed to pay the fee as part of hlS approval. If the applicant does not agree to pay the fee that can be appealed to the City Council. MOTION by Orsini to approve Conditional Use Permit 114-91 with a fee imposed. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. commissioner Sharp asked what the penalty fees have been for prior after-the-fact Code enforcements comparable to this? Mr. Whittenberg said that on this type of application there is the double fee permit that's referred to in the Uniform Buildlng Code (UBC) for building without proper building permits; that doesn't apply. A CUP application fee is $250 plus a business license fee of $116 annually. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Conditional Use Permlt #14-91 subject to the imposition of a $500 fee, subject to eleven (11) Conditions of Approval as outlined in the staff report, by the adoption of Resolution No. 1649. ~ MOTION by Orsini to approve Conditional Use Permit 114-91 subject to a $750 fee imposed. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 4It Page 15 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 1991 Commissioner Sharp asked for the applicant to speak. Mr. Hardwick sa1d wh1le he would agree to paY1ng a penalty fee for operating 1~ years without a CUP he thought tr1pling the $250 figure was exceSS1ve and punitive. He was not be1ng malic10uS and did follow through immediately after receiving the City's letter. vice Chairman Dahlman asked staff if this was processed as a CUP initial request or as an after-the-fact request? Mr. Whittenberg sa1d it was after-the-fact. Comm1ssioner Sharp said he would stick will his Motion as stated. Commissioner orsini said that 1f Commissioner Sharp did not get a Second he would restate his Motion to triple the fee. Commissioner Law Seconded Commissioner Sharp's Motion. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Conditional Use Permit #14-91 subject to the imposition of a $500 fee, subject to eleven (11) Conditions of Approval as outlined in the staff report, by the adoption of Resolution No. 1649. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Dahlman, Law, Sharp, Orsini Fife . *** 4. Conditional Use Permit #15-91 330 Main Street, Suite "F" * Cafe Lafayette Staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. the Planning Department]. [Staff report on file 1n commission Comments Commissioner Sharp asked if there is an elevator in the building? Mr. Curtis said "No". The restrooms on the second floor are reached by stairs. The one restroom 1n Cafe Lafayette 1S handicap accessible and is unisex. commissioner Orsin1 asked what number the range hood was on the plans. Mr. Curtis said it's #6 and will be extended over #8. Public Hearing The Recording Secretary stated no correspondence has been received on this 1tem. . Fred Middaugh. Esq. * 320 Main Street, Seal Beach Mr. Middaugh introduced h1mself as representing Slma Torabi and 4It Page 16 - Planning Commission Minutes of september 4, 1991 Monireh B1darian, owners of Cafe Lafayette. They are in agreement with the staff report and added the following supplementary points: 1. The names of the spouses of the two owners be added to this CUP. The spouses of the owners are Mohamad Tabrizi and Abdollah Torabi, husbands of Sima Torabi and Monierh Bidarian. The ABC licensing will require the spouses names be included even though they are not owners because they w1ll assist on the premises from time to time. 2. The hours of operation are listed as 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. da1ly. On Fr1day and Saturday nights they want to stay open to 10:00 p.m. 3. The term "high cr1me area" is inappropr1ate based on the character of the business and affiremed by the Seal Beach Police Department. vice Chairman Dahlman explained the "high crime area" designat~on 1S so named because the Police Department has several cr1me report1ng districts and certain areas are higher in crime than others. . commissioner Ors1ni asked if the owners could get a letter from the property owner, Aaron Weiner and the upstairs tenants, stating they know the doors will be open to allow access to the restrooms upstairs? Commiss10ner Sharp suggested having a key available at the cashier's desk or another suitable place. This would eliminate leav1ng the door open for possible cr1me if the doors were left unlocked. V1ce Chairman Dahlman, noted the doors must be 'open to the pub11C at all times wh1le the restaurant 1S in operation'. Mr. Curtis said that was the interpretation of the City's Plan Checker and he belived he was inferring the bathrooms must be available to the customers of the restaurant which was providing alcoholic beverages. Staff would recommend a key be made available as Comm1SS10ner Sharp suggested. 4It V1ce Chairman Dahlman asked how ' bona f ide eating place' is defined. Mr. curtis said "Over 50% of the total gross receipts for the year are for food items". Commissioner orsini stated it was a 60%/40% sp11t. Commiss10ner Dahlman said the ABC could change that percentage, making it more liberal than it is now and suggested embodying that particular rule in this applicat10n. Comm1ssioner Ors1ni said it 1S an eating establishment and the State, or ABC, controls this matter and is more strict than the city. This establishment could not physically be turned into a tavern, there's no space. Additionally, he stated "Beer and wine has become a way of life 1n a restaurant, it helps pay the rent". Mr. Wh1ttenberg indicated the Commission has previously applied th1S condition to many other establishments throughout the City who serve alcoholic 4It Page 17 - Planning Commission Mlnutes of September 4, 1991 beverages. So if ABC changed thelr definition it would impact all those establlshments. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve Conditional Use Perm1 t #15-91 by the adoption of Resolution No. 1646 subJect to the twelve (12) Conditions of Approval outlined in the Staff Report and with the following three (3) changes: 1. CUP 15-91 is approved for an on-sale beer and wine license at 330 Main Street, suite F and is issued to Sima Torabi and/or Mon1reh Bidarian and their respective husbands, Mohamad Tabrizi and Abdollah Torabi. 8. With the applicant's consent, the hours of operation shall be from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily except for Friday and Saturday nights when they will be open to 10:00 p.m.. 9. The common restroom facilities located on the second story of 330 Main Street shall be open to restaurant patrons at all hours when the restaurant is open for business. Door keys will be kept at the cashier's desk. . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Orsini, Law, Dahlman Fife *** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communicatlons from the audience. STAFF CONCERNS * Low-level wooden decks within front yard setbacks. Staff Memo - Mr. Curtis presented a staff memorandum statlng staff has been approached with a request to construct a low- level wooden deck within the required front yard setback of a property. Staff provided the Comm1ssion with a brief video displace of some existing decks. Staff recommended the Commission consider the possible merl ts of a zoning text amendment to allow thlS construction. . Commlssion Comments - Commissioner Sharp said consideration of this item lnvolves two things, (1) the wooden deck and (2) landscaping. They go together. Vice Chairman Dahlman and Commissioner Law said they should be approached together and have a plot plan subm1 tted showing both the deck and the landscaping. Commissioner Sharp asked what was going on with the decks on the Hill? Mr. Whittenberg said staff has not 4It Page 18 - Plann1ng Commiss1on M1nutes of September 4, 1991 done work on that for some t1me due to the Planning Department's workload Wh1Ch required immediate attention to meet processing deadlines. Staff hopes to get back to that issue in SlX weeks. Comm1ssioner Sharp said an immediate problem is no way to enforce those infract1ons. Mr. Whittenberg said he was responding on how staff was progress1ng with development standards for decks in certain areas of the City. That's a separate issue from Code enforcement activities. The Commiss1on and staff d1scussed briefly the heavy workload in the Planning Department, staff cutbacks and resignations without replacement and scheduling. Chairman Sharp said the Commission must stop and think who 1S going to do the work. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to request City Council authorization for staff to further investigate wooden decks and landscaping requirements within front yard setbacks and prepare proposed municipal Code amendments for future consideration by the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Dahlman, Fife, Law Fife . *** *. Determination of Proper Zoning (Martial Arts School) Staff Memo - Mr. Curtis presented a staff memorandum which stated staff has recently been approached with a request to establish a mart1al arts school in the Rossmoor Business Center. Staff recommended the Commission accept the propsed martial arts school as meeting the intent of the General Commercial zone. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to interpret that the martial arts school meets the intent of the General Commercial Zone of C-2 zoning and is permitted in the Rossmoor Center. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Law, Dahlman, orsini Fife *** *. Rossmoor Center Slgn 4It Staff Memo - Mr. Curtis delived the staff memo. [Staff memo on file in the Plann1ng Department]. The memo states staff has been approached by the Rossmoor Business Center to install a new Rossmoore Center/City of Seal Beach 1dent1fication sign in conjunction with the present re- 4It Page 19 - Planning Commission Minutes of September 4, 1991 landscaping of the Center. commission Comments - commissioner Sharp said Commissioners Dahlman, Orsini and Law are new enough that they were not present when the extens1ve Public Hearings were held on the landscaping for the Rossmoor Center and asked staff what they were/weren't doing now that does/doesn't go along with the decision three years ago? Mr. Whittenberg said what is going on now is in conformance with their earl1er approvals. They are upgrading their existing landscaping. Those approvals were granted over a f1ve year time per10d for completion; the work 1S now being finalized along Seal Beach Boulevard. Additional work will need to be done in the rear parking lot areas. The sign be1ng requested would go in the new landscape area. Staff feels a Public Hearing process would be in order before 1t's approved; Commissioner Sharp agreed. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to receive and file the staff memorandum with the Public Hearing having been Noticed and scheduled for the Planning commission meeting of September 18, 1991. 4It MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT : 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Orsini, Dahlman, Law Fife *** COMMISSION CONCERNS Old Ranch Country Club Commissioner Sharp asked staff 1f the Old Ranch Country Club comes under the entertainment cafe license and do they have enterta1nment? Mr. Curtis said the Country Club is in a separate zoning that regular commercial zoning --- a Recreational Golf Zone --- but he would check on (1) whether they have entertainment and (2) whether it's a permitted use to have an entertainment cafe in that permitted zoning. Reflectors on Chain at Lampson Avenue Commissioner Sharp said he has not seen more than one reflector on this chain and cont1nues to feel it's an extremely unsafe situation. Mr. Curt1s said staff has written a letter requesting additional reflectors on the chain to Bixby Ranch and Ron Bradsh~aw of B1Xby Ranch has given his verbal agreement to remedy the sltuation. Staff will continue to press the issue. 4It ADJOURNMENT V1ce Chairman Dahlman adjourned the meeting at 10:32 p.m. 4It Page 20 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of September 4, 1991 4It . Respectfully Submltted, C\'" ~. ;d;:~llmann --- Recording Secretary *** These Minutes are tentative and subject to Planning Commisslon approval. *** The Plannlng Commission Minutes of September 4, 1991 were approved by the Planning Commission on September Ig~, 1991. ~ ~ ~~ ~- "~ UIJJ- ~~ ~\L-O ~ ~ <;:(S CIty of Sc~1 Bf ?;~~ planning CommIssIon 5lJ6~ITfEI) fOR r.ECORD By ~. ~OltTO.v Date q-3 -91 T \.'2.-QI ~~ ~~~ruJL~~ ~,^-~~,Q.~~ ~ ~~ 4 ~ ~ ~(l~ ~ 0-.- ~ ~ {:ld-- Jb ~ Q ~ ~O-Jl~ OL~ ~ L~ ~ ~l~ :JtiL... aJZ;\,~ ~~+~~~J~ '-:S~~, ~ ~fY'-~ =- \ ~~ ~ ~ bc.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~cl~~ ~~~ _,~ d.-~ ~ ~ ~ 4C>-.~, \ Q.~ ~ ~ !2-tVU ~~ ~ O-JU.- ~ A~~~~C~~ , ~~u--~ O--~~ ~ ~ ~ 0-~~~~~~;~~~A --SrJ- u--..J: \.~~,.,t 1 ~~ ~~ (A~~~ ... -I- WARREN W MGh TON l-:--3-i~h-Street ~';>cl O~'::..rl, CA 90740 "'... I 1._.. ... , .,. , , , City 0' Seal Beach Planning Com "1J~JSUB~TlED fOR RECORD mIssIon 81 au h Date 9,'-1 -91 ~ - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION '15-91 SUPPLEMENTAL DATA CAFE LAFAYETTE 330-F MAIN STREET SEAL BEACH, CA 90740 CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 4, 1991 ./ .... LAW OFFICES OF FRED H. MIDDAUGH 320 Main Street, SU1te B Seal Beach, CA 90740 , , 1. It is requested that the Commission allow the names odfd the spouses of the two owners of Cafe Lafayette to be ad e to this Conditional Use Permit. The ABC licensing will require that their names be included, even though they are not owners, because they will assist on the premises from time to time. The spouses of the owners are: Mohamad Tabrizi and Abdollah Torabi, husbands of Sima Torabi and Monireh Bidarian. 2. The hours of operation are listed in the application and staff report as 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. daily. Actually, Cafe Lafayette's hours on Friday and Satur~ay nights extend to 10:00 P.M. It is requested that the Conditional Use Permit reflect these actual hours of operation. 3. The ABC's concerns about Seal Beach's "high crime area" are inappropriate in this case, based upon the character of the business and affirmed by observable experience, as reflected by the Seal Beach Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (please refer to copy of August 1991, article, below, published in the Seal Beach Journal). It is extremely unlikely that the clientele of Cafe Lafayette would contribute to this city's crime statistics as a result of the availability of beer and wine. Seal Beach proves safest town in crime report Seal Beach was much safer erty crimesand violent crimes cy of rapes than Its neighbors Bgam in 1990, There was one mBJOt' vanation The highest level of crime according to Saturday's FBI from these trends Seal Beach 10,498 per JOO,OOO re5J(jents, was report. reported the fifth highest frequen- PlttUt rtt SA.FE ptll,8 Total crimes in Seal Beach . .' were 65% lower than in Los Long Beach looms wIth crImes Alamitos, Cypress and Huntington Beach and over 400% lower than in Long Beach The only safer citIes in Orange Couoly In 1990 were MIssIon VieJO, Villa Park, Yorha Lmda, and Laguna Nlquel In total crimes, Los Alamltos ranked 15th out of 30 Huntington Beach ranked 14th and Cypress ~ same held !rue rOO" pmp- - SAFE Fro", PilI_ 1 in Stanton. I community immedi- ately east of C1Pl'ess Stanton's crime levels are about twice as high as those in LO! Alamltos, Huntington Beach and Cypress Crime adjacent to Seal Beach is out of control, according to Doug Drummond, councilman for the Naples, Belmont Shore, and CSULB areal! of Long Beach, wher~ vlolf'nt cnme Increased 26% the fll'St four months of 199 I "We have a runaway problem of cnme, gangs, guns, drugs, and graffiti ," said Drummond in a recent letter to the editor pubhshed in the Press Thlegram Drummond feels part of the solution IS a change from Long Beach police coverage to LA Sheriff coverage. He hAs S81d con- tracting with LA county for pohce Pltast Sit NEXT DOOR, ptll' 8