Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1992-05-06 . . . ~ CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MAY 6, 1992 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of April 15, 1992 2. Minor Plan Address: Applicant: OWner: Request: 3. Minor Plan Address: Architect: OWner: Request: IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS Review #92-11 A-60 Surfs ide Pete & Kay Youngsma Pete & Kay Young sma Enclosure of southerly third floor deck and installation of a roof deck over northerly third floor deck. Review #92-10 200 & 202 15th Street Mark Osborne Charles & Deborah Dickinson Addi tion of new second story balcony to seven unit apartment building. 4. Conformi ty with General Plan Finding - Property Transfer from Orange County to Golden Rain Foundation. 5. Review of Ordinance No. 1453 and Proposed Resolution regarding the Planning Commission. 6. Review of Ordinance No. 1452 regarding Merger of Parcels in contiguous OWnership. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. Minor Plan Address: Applicant: OWner: Request: Review 191-17 [Continued 1621 Seal Way Ralph Hanson Ralph Hanson Cover and enclose second-floor deck conforming duplex. from 4/15/92] an existing of a non- . . . Page 2 - City of Seal Beach Planning Commission - May 6, 1992 8. Conditional Address: Applicant: owner: Request: Use Permit #92-2 101 Main st., suite 0 Ronald & Pat Sesler Jim Watson ABc/On-sale beer & conjunction with (seaSide Grill). Height variation Address: Applicant: owner: Request: 9. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS VII. STAFF CONCERNS VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT wine license in new restaurant 192-9 105 Surf Place Jerry Greer Thomas Dutton Construction of a covered roof access structure (CRAS ) in conjunction with a second story addition. CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION . Agenda Forecast: MAY 20 CUP #6-91 (Los Cabos Restaurant/ABC renewal) New Standards: Expansions to Non-Conforming Bldgs. Public Hearing: Growth Management Element CUP '12-89 (SUper Saver Cinema Seven/CUP review) Covered Roof Access (Review on certain Addresses) J1JN 03 J1JN 17 JUL 01 Election: Chairman & Vice Chairman CUP #8-89 (Baja Bills Restaurant/ABC renewal) CUP #8-91 (Noel's Restaurant/ABC renewal) AUG 05 AUG 19 SEP 02 SEP 16 . OCT 07 OCT 21 NOV 04 NOV 18 DEC 02 DEC 16 CUP #14-91 (Spaghettini Rest./Entertainment) CUP #15-91 (Cafe Lafayette/ABC renewal) CUP #16-92 (Noel's Restaurant/Entertainment) CUP #17-91 (Pasta Grotto/ABC renewal) CUP #12-90 (Bonadonnas/ABC renewal) . . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of MAY 6, 1992 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of May 6, 1992 was called to order by Chairman Fife at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Law led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Dahlman, Sharp, Orsini, Law Staff Present: Department of Development Services: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 1992 Approval of the April 15, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes was deferred to the May 20, 1992 meeting because the photocopy process inadvertently left out two pages of text. 2. MINOR PLAN REVIEW #92-11 A-60 SURFS IDE Staff Report Ms. Fillmann delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicants, Pete and Kay Youngsma, requested approval to (1) enclose a southerly third floor deck and (2) to 1nstall a roof over a northerly third floor deck. Ms. Fillmann specifically noted Condition #5, wherein the applicants are to comply with Uniform Building Code (UBC), Section 3303 as it perta1ns to emergency exit1ng requirements. commission Comments Commissioner Law asked if an exterior ladder had been previously approved as an emergency exit? Ms. Fillmann said yes, but at this residence the requ1red emergency eX1t is proposed to be a second exterior ladder and will have to be approved through the City'S plan check process and meet the UBC intent as an emergency exit. Chairman Fife corrected the deck measurement; the staff report incorrectly states the deck is 25' wide when it is 19' w1de. j . Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 6, ~992 Chairman Fife asked about the original variances granted on this property. Mr. curtis said the 1964 Variance allowed an entry stairway to the first floor to intrude into the side yard setback. Several houses on A row have been allowed to have stairways ln the side yard setbacks because they wanted the houses elevated in case of floods. A ladder is a permitted intrusion into a side yard and would not require a Variance. UBC requires this applicant to have two (2) separate stairways from the third floor to the ground when they have a three story house. They currently have one interior stairway from the third floor to the ground and one exterior ladder from the thlrd story to the ground. For new construction or maJor remodel on a lot of 1000 square feet or less a City ordinance for Surfside allows one stairway plus requires fire sprinkling throughout the house. . commissioner orsini said he did not think an exterior fixed ladder to be used as an emergency exit was particularly safe and he would vote approval only because exterior ladders have been previously approved. Commissioner Dahlman noted Commisslon approval of this appllcation does not vOld UBC exiting requirements. The Commission discussed ladders made of wood versus metal. Mr. Whittenberg said wood ladders are the preferred material because metal ladders corrode due to exposure to salt and water. Commlssioner Orsini asked if and by whom routine inspections were made of these ladders? Mr. Whittenberg said it is the homeowner's responsibility to maintain their structure in a safe condition. It is not a ci ty responsibility. commissioner Orsinl said he wlshed there was a mechanism or condition to ensure ladders were made of the best possible material and maintained regularly. Mr. Whittenberg said that to conform with UBC requirements the plans go through the Fire Department in the plan check process. Chairman Fife said a person using a ladder as a fire exi t would have to be very agile because it would require climbing onto a window sill, reaching out to grab the ladder and swinging onto the ladder rungs. The UBC doesn't require any access facilitator. Chairman Fife asked if it would be within the commission's prerogative to require annual inspections of the exiting ladders? Mr. Whittenberg said staff could explore this issue with the City Attorney's Office and report back. Chairman Fife asked staff to do this. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Minor Plan Review #92-11 subject to five (5) conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report. . MOTION CARRIES: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Sharp, Law, Fife, Dahlman, Orsini --:.ii . . . Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 6, 1992 3. MINOR PLAN REVIEW #92-10 200 and 202 15TH STREET Staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Mark Osborn for owner's Charles and Deborah Dick1nson, requests approval to add an 8' x 10' second floor balcony in conjunction with an interior and exterior property maintenance of a nonconform1ng seven-unit apartment building. commission Comments Commissioner Dahlman said he was encouraged by the addition of two new parking spaces, however he felt this is a major rehabilitation of a nonconforming structure which is seven units where four units could be rebuilt. Mr. Whittenberg said ~ revisions regarding nonconforming structures will probably take place at the June 3rd meeting. Mr. Curt1s said the weight bearing walls are not being changed, this is an exterior rehabil1tation. Chairman Fife asked 1f this property owner could request to enclose this balcony? Mr. curtis said yes, it meets setback requirements and the owner could request to add up to 10% of the allowable floor area. commissioners Orsini, Sharp and Law said they liked the application because the owner is improving the property, add1ng two park1ng spaces thus bringing the property more into conformity and not adding square footage. MOTION by Law: SECOND by Sharp to approve Minor Plan Review #92-10 subject to the three (3) conditions outlined in the staff report. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Law, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman, Orsini *** SCHEDULED MATTERS 4. CONFORMITY WITH GENERAL PLAN FINDING - Property Transfer from Orange County to Golden Rain Foundation Staff Report Commissioners Law and Sharp, as Leisure World residents and shareholders of the Golden Rain Foundation, abstained from participating in this discussion and left the Council Chambers. . . . 5. Page 4 - P1anning Commission Minutes of May 6, ~992 Mr. Whittenberg presented the staff report. [staff report on file ln the Planning Department]. The Golden Rain Foundation requests a finding of conformity with the Clty'S General Plan. The property is approximately a 320 square foot parcel currently part of the Leisure World Branch of the Orange County Library and it would be sold by Orange County to the Golden Rain Foundation. Commisslon Comments Chalrman Fife asked if once this sale is completed will the property go back on the tax rolls? Mr. Whittenberg said yes. Chairman Fife asked if the loss of this property would ln any way interfere with the library's function? Mr. Whittenberg sald no. commissioner Dahlman asked why Golden Rain would want to acquire this? Mr. Whittenberg said the Golden Rain Foundation has been making lease payments on this parcel Slnce 1974. This transfer would have them making tax payments, not lease payments. Chairman Fife asked if the public could access Leisure World via the library? Mr. curtis said access to Leisure World is through a key gate and the library is located outside of Leisure World. commissioner Orslni noted this sale would not take needed property away from the library and Orange County has agreed to the sale. Chairman Flfe said he thought the origlnal property transfer was probably a mistake. MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Dahlman to find the proposed property transfer is consistent with the General Plan and is categorically exempt under CEQA. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSTAIN: 3 - 0 - 2 Orsini, Dahlman, Fife Sharp, Law *** REVIEW of ORDINANCE No. 1453 and PROPOSED RESOLUTION REGARDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Mr. Whittenberg explained the City Council considered this matter at their April 27th meeting and forwarded it to the Planning Commission for review ",j . page 5 - P1anning commission Minutes of May 6, ~992 and comments. Ordinance No. 1453 amends Chapter 17 of the munlcipal Code relating to the creation and functions of the Planning Commission. The major area of Council concern was the required Commission vote for approval of certain applications. The City Council revised the Ordinance to require a majority vote of the entire Commission on all matters coming before it. state law makes provislon for sltuations where it is not possible to have quorum. Another major change the City Council discussed is an unwritten commission policy to hold over an agendized item when the Commissioner from that district is not present. The City Attorney's Office and staff will render the Council and Commission a policy statement indicating that will be the general policy of the Planning commission. Additionally, Commlssion expense relmbursement will be dealt with as a resolution, not part of Ordinance No. 1453. . commission Comments commissioner Sharp said in past years the Planning Commission had many absences and asked how would this be handled under the new Ordlnance? Chairman Fife discussed how a Commissioner's office would be vacated, saying the Ordinance does not cover whether or not permission must be granted or an absence must be approved in advance. There should be an lndication of the tlme period within which three unexcused absences constitutes an automatic vacating of the office --- is it three absences in your entire term --- three cumulative from the time you first came on the Commission --- three in one year? There should be a formal indication that an office has been vacated by reason of this self-executing clause. Mr. Whittenberg said no consideration is being given to amending this Code section by the city Attorney's Office. It is usually three unexcused absences in a one-year time period. If the Planning commission reached this point, staff would request Council formalization of that vacation. Staff will report this idea to the Council and City Attorney's Office. Chairman Fife discussed Council elections/Commisslon appointments at section 17-3. Mr. Whittenberg said it should be lndicated that the terms of the Commissioners expire in concert with the term of their appointing Council member. Mr. Whittenberg said his understanding was the Commisslon desires clarification re the term of appointment of Commission members coinciding with the Council members term. As far as vacation of a Commissions seat due to unexcused absences, clarification as to the time period in which that occurs and the insertion of language regarding formal Council action to declare that seat vacant. . . . . Page 6 - P1anning Commission Minutes of May 6, 1992 Mr. whittenberg said he would recommend the Commisslon recommend to the Council that the vacation would occur upon three unexcused absences in a twelve month tlme period and that Council would need to formally declare that seat vacated at thelr next regularly scheduled Council meeting after the vacation under the terms of the ordinance. Commissioner Dahlman said this would be an appropriate time to standardize clarifying verbiage adding that the Planning Commission meets on the first and third Wednesdays monthly. The Planning commission Handbook states "The usual time for Plannlng Commission meetings is the first and third Wednesdays following the first Monday of the month". He said he personally did not have a preference. commissioner orsini asked about affirmative votes. Mr. Whittenberg said the Ordinance before the Commission would require any matter before the Planning Commission receive three affirmative votes to be approved. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law for the Planning Commission to report back to the City Council that it recommends the following changes should be considered: section 17-3 regarding rewording the language to indicate the terms of the Planning Commissioners would expire upon the expiration date of the appointing Council Member's term of office. Under Section 17-5 that clarifying language be added regarding a period. of time under which a vacation would occur would be three unexcused absences in a twelve month period of time and that a report from the Director of Development Services to the City Council indicating that a vacation has occurred would be required under Code provisions. Clarify Section 17-3 re the first and third Wednesdays as Planning Commission meeting dates. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Fife, Dahlman, Law, Sharp, Orsini commissioner orsini asked about Planning commissioners having conflict(s) of interest. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that if the Planning Commission has less than five members present and of those members present one or more has a conflict of interest, the members having the conflict of interest would declare that conflict and absent themselves from the Council Chambers. Then if there was not a quorum, the Government Code procedures would allow calling those members back lnto the . . . Paq8 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of Kay 6, 1992 Chambers, they declare what their conflict is and then they can vote on the matter. *** 6. REVIEW of ORDINANCE No. 1452 re MERGER of PARCELS in CONTIGUOUS OWNERSHIP staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Mr. Whittenberg explained thlS action is needed to bring Chapter 21, Section 21-22 of the City's municipal Code into conformity with State law (Subdivision Map Act, Government Code, section 66451.10 - 66452.21). The current Code provisions were written in 1983 to effectuate a 1981 amendment to the Subdivision Map Act. In 1984 the State amended this section of the Subdivision Map Act and changed the requirements and the current provisions of the City's Code are not complying with State law. commission Comments commissioner orsini asked if there was a fee for a lot merger? Mr. Whittenberg said the lot line adjustment fee would be $50 or $75. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to receive and file this staff report. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. MINOR PLAN REVIEW #91-17 1621 SEAL WAY Staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report, noting this matter has been continued from the April 15, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. [Staff report on file ln the Planning Department]. The applicant, Ralph Hanson, requested permission to cover and enclose an existing second story deck, adding approximately 192 square feet of area to his nonconforming duplex. Commisslon Comments There were no Commission comments. Public Hearing Chairman Flfe opened the Public Hearing. Ralph Hanson * 1700 Harbor Way. Seal Beach Mr. Hanson told the Commission he wants to enclose the balcony . Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 6, 1992 to keep out the driving rains of winter storms, which damage the ground floor living room. The deck itself does not leak. He assured the Commission this enclosure will remain a sun porch and will not become a bedroom. The Commission asked if the windows are removable or sliding? Mr. Hanson said the windows are both --- they can be easily removed and/or slide exposlng screens. commissioner Orslni said this property is located at a point where the beach starts taking a turn. If this balcony were enclosed the houses to the right will lose their view toward the pier. Mr. Hanson showed a photo of this view, stating the house next to his, to the immediate right, is actually at the point referred to. Commissioner Orsini said if the Commission approves this enclosure there would be a chain reaction and the other homes could not be turned down. Mr. Orsini said he saw more than 10% - 20% view loss. Mr. Hanson, referencing his photo, said there would be no view loss of the pier from hlS unlt because the pier is too far away, they actually look at a volleyball area. . Regarding views and ocean front lots, Mr. Hanson sald everyone ln that area has an 1800 view from the front of their lot, it's hard to legislate views from the side or through someone else's property. Mr. Hanson stated he had reviewed the Aprll 15, 1992 Planning Commission minutes and walked the area in question, conducting his own survey. Mr. Hanson pointed out that even on uncovered balconies furniture and plants could block a view. commissioner Orsini said umbrellas are not permanent structures, like a deck enclosure. Mr. Whittenberg noted that if someone built a new house on the property, they could build to the property line, completely obscuring the view. commissioner Sharp said the view issue will be ever-present and he didn't think the Commission had the rlght to deny this enclosure unless Mr. Hanson were blocking the Vlew entirely. Commissioner Orsini said "... I got four phone calls on this one because they know what's going to happen ... you are all of a sudden have a rampage ... how do you justify it? ... two wrongs don't make a right ... the theory of 'we approved it in the past so let's keep approving it' it's got to be better". . commissioner Orsini and Mr. Hanson agreed there are other decks in the area that are enclosed and they agreed on the water problem. But Commissioner Orsini felt the deck should be enclosed only partially. For example, make a lower parapet wall-like enclose and extend the roof. He suggested roll-down tarps to keep the dri ving rains out. The neighbors are concerned about loss of views in the summertime. Mr. Hanson . page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 6, 1992 this arrangement would not be as water tight and you cannot guarantee side-to-side views. Dave Hoxeng * 1400 block of Seal Way Mr. Hoxeng spoke in favor of Minor Plan Review #91-17. He said consldering the uniqueness of this property it would be improper to now allow Mr. Hanson to complete his project. Tom Greeley * Seal Way * Seal Beach Mr. Greeley spoke in opposition to Minor Plan Review #91-17. He stated he has lived in Seal Beach twenty years and owns the house next door to Mr. Hanson. Mr. Greeley thought Mr. Hanson was trying to maximize the area of his rental property. He said the reality is that it's an expansion of a nonconforming property. . Reva Olsen * Seal Way * Seal Beach Ms. Olsen spoke in opposition to Minor Plan Review #91-17. Ms. Olsen stated people are buying a view when they purchase homes in this area. She cautioned that a domino effect could occur lf the Commission approved this enclosure, noting if she enclosed her deck she would block six building's views. She urged the Commission to not keep approving projects today solely because they had been approved in the past. Ralph Hanson Mr. Hanson spoke in rebuttal, saying he would not financially gain from enclosing the balcony, other than saving on repairs from water damage each year. Public Hearing closed by Chairman Fife. commission Comments commissioner Sharp asked Director Whittenberg if this project could be denied on a Vlew issue? Mr. Whittenberg said the Commission has dlscretion under general police powers to deny a request only if it is found to threaten the public health, safety and welfare. He indicated the existing nonconforming si tuations are not a basis for a denial of this request because this request meets the setback and height requirements. . commissioner orsini debated denial pursuant to municipal Code section 28-2407.2 (d) . Commissioner orsini asked if the Commissioners could interpret the municipal ~ sections or was staff the only entity who could interpret it? He said Section 28-2407.2(d) says the roof can be extended but not enclose the patio deck. Mr. Whittenberg said this matter was brought up at the April 15th Commission meeting and staff subsequently reviewed the issue with the City Attorney's Office who felt that Code provision does allow both requests to be approved. The Planning Commission's authority is based . Page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 6, 1992 on pollce powers to deny the request or portions of it based on adverse impact on health, safety and welfare. Mr. Whittenberg said he could not tell Mr. Orsini why section 28- 2407(d) was placed in the Code because most of those provlsions were put in place ln the late 1970' s to early 1980's and no one present then is present now. That Code came about during the 1970's and the last major amendments to the Code were in 1984. The Minor Plan Review process is informational to allow the Commission to be aware of the types of requests that are coming before the City as far as expanslons to nonconforming structures. This particular Section, under the Minor Plan ReVlew process, with no major additlons was basically an information process, not a discretionary process. The major additions is a more discretionary process. At the Council-Commission study session regarding expanslon of nonconforming uses, there was not a lot of discussion from anyone to dramatically change that process other than to involve a wider notification process and they would be scheduled as Public Hearing matters as opposed to Consent Calendar actions. . commissioner Dahlman said the paragraph does not say "Minor structural alterations shall be approved unless you can find the health, safety and welfare of the public is impaired". This is not a permitted improvements. This Code section allows the Commission to listen to the testimony and possible approve ~ disapprove an application. The Commission's hands should not be bound by this language. Mr. Whittenberg said a memo was provided by the City Attorney's Office that discussed this issue in relation to the proposed modifications to the Al Brown apartment structures; he would be glad to provide that memo. Commissioner Dahlman expressed frustration with the City Attorney's Office, saying "But the City Attorney came here and told us we shouldn't go to look at projects before ... this is somehow ethically wrong ... they say things that don't make sense sometimes ... and I'm afraid this is another example". Mr. Whittenberg said he thought the City Attorney didn't say to not look at a property but rather to not talk to the persons on the property on how you might vote on the matter. Commissioner Dahlman said Attorney Colantuono said do not personally go and visit a project that's on your agenda, this would give you bias. Commissioner Dahlman continued "This is obviously wrong; this is not common sense". Chalrman Fife said the Commission must consider not only the obvious uses but also the uses to which something may be put; that's an objective standard. He felt nothing would really prohibit making this enclosed porch a sleeping area. . Mr. Whittenberg said he felt when the Commission is talking about a view issue you're talking about a public welfare issue. When dealing with a view issue the Commission should . . . page ~~ - Planning commission Minutes of Hay 6, 1992 remember a Vlew is not guaranteed slde-to-side to any property in that area under a situation where someone is proposing to build a new home. A new structure could be built to the property at the front property line, 25' high. This would comply with Code and would not come before the Commission. Chairman Fife said the city may need a view ordinance of general applicability. MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Dahlman to partially approve Minor Plan Review #91-17, allowing the roof to be extended over the deck and to allow the required railing around the deck at the minimum height to be enclosed. MOTION FAILS: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 2 - 0 - 3 Orsini, Dahlman Fife, Sharp, Law o MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Minor Plan Review #91-17 as proposed with the three (3) conditions listed in the staff report. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 3 - 0 - 2 Sharp, Law, Fife Orsini, Dahlman o Mr. Whittenberg stated there is an appeal period to the Clty Council; any questions should be directed to Mr. Whittenberg or the City Clerk's Offlce. Chairman Fife called a recess from 9:30 p.m. to 9:47 p.m. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 192-2 101 MAIN STREET, SUITE 0 * SEASIDE GRILL Staff Report Mr. curtis dellvered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicants, Ronald and Patricia Sesler, are requesting an on-sale beer and wine license in conjunction with a new restaurant, SeaSide Grill, at 101 Main Street, suite o. Staff has received no public comments from mailed the Notice. Staff's main concern is the hours of operation, preferring 10:00 p.m. daily. commissioner Orsini expressed a conflict of interest (he lives wlthln 300' of this new restaurant). He left the Council Chambers. . . . Page 12 - P~anning Commission Minutes of Kay 6, 1992 Mr. curtis said staff had begun Code enforcements on the two Main street establishments displaying liquor sale advertising in their windows and the flower merchant on Marina Drlve having flowers on the sidewalk; these items were mentioned at the previous commission meeting. Mr. curtis corrected the staff report --- there are 24 not 25 on-site parking spaces. The property is deficient 5 not 4 parking spaces. Technically this is a liquor license transfer but because the other restaurant was closed so long it's considered a new application. commission Comments Commissloner Dahlman said a parking mitigation fee is to be lncluded; it will be $500 per year for five grandfathered spaces. commissioner Dahlman corrected condition #3 to read "without permits". Chairman Fife suggested more realistic hours of operation: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday - Thursday; 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Public Hearing Opened Ronald Sesler * [No address glven] Mr. Sesler said he liked 11:00 p.m. closing but would prefer 12:00 a.m. on the week-ends, would like hlS hours to correspond to other Main Street merchant's hours for special events but on holidays he and hlS wife would be at home. The Commission discussed hours of operation of restaurants on Main Street. Mr. Curtls said most Main Street restaurants close at 10:00 p.m. but Hennessey's and Kinda LaHinda close at 2: 00 a. m.. Commissioner Dahlman said Old Town resldents would like to see Hennessey's close before 2:00 a.m. and recent applications have been approved to 11:00 p.m. Chairman Fife suggested SeaSide's hours be 11:00 p.m. on week-ends and speclal occasions with a review and reconsideration ln 12 months. Jack smith * 1405 Seal Way. Seal Beach Mr. smith said he has lived in Seal Beach 25 years. He has known Ron Sesler for five years and said he is a good restaurant man. Additionally, he likes the midnight hour for Friday and Saturday for financial reasons. Public Hearing Closed The applicant did not desire a rebuttal period and Chalrman Fife closed the Public Hearing. . . . Page 13 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 6, 1992 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Conditional Use Permit #92-1 by the adoption of Resolution No. 92-8 subject to the ten (10) condltions set forth in the staff report with changes to those conditions as follows: #3. No video games or similar amusements shall be permitted on the premises without ~e-e8~aiftmeft~~~~ permits from the City. #8. Wi th the applicants consent, the hours of operation shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday. 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Friday, Saturday and special events/holidays. and the addition of a condition #11 to read: #11. The City shall bill the applicant $500 per year in parking mitigation fees for the five (5) delinquent parking spaces. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSTAIN: 4 - 0 - 1 Sharp, Dahlman, Law, Fife Orsini *** 9. HEIGHT VARIATION #92-9 105 SURF PLACE RESOLUTION No. 92-9 staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on flle in the Planning Department]. The applicant, contractor Jerry Greer, requests approval to construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in conjunction with a second story additlon at 105 Surf Place. For the Records, Mr. Curtis read a note he received from Francis Johnston of 125 Coastline who is against Variances. Commission Comments Chairman Fife corrected the staff report to acknowledge all references are to Height Variation #92-9 not #92-12. commissioner Dahlman noted this application inltlates an interesting issue: because this proposed CRAS exceeds the height limit by 1.5 feet and not the allowed 7', is he entitled to a wider CRAS? commissioner Dahlman suggested staff prepare the Commlssion a spread sheet of what the Planning Commission has approved in the past so any future policies on CRASs can be consistent. . . . Page 14 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 6, ~992 The Commission dlscussed the design of this CRAS. Mr. curtis stated that what the Planning Commission has approved in the past for stralght run staircases has been 6' to 7' in helght and 12\' long. This proposed CRAS is 5'6" x 14~' . Chalrman Fife said he interpreted the staff report's remarks to mean that since there's a minimum intruslon into the excess height allowance relief should be given on the horizontal dimension if it helps his architectural needs. He asked how Mr. curtis would square that idea with the language which says a CRAS must be the minimum size both vertically and horlzontally to cover the stalrcase? It was noted that thls CRAS is 56' to 60' square feet where it is over the height limit which is not larger than other CRASs prevlously approved. Commlssioner Dahlman noted there is no provision to treat an applicant that's 7' above the height differently than an applicant that's 6" above the height limit. Chairman Fife said that the Commission has told a number of applicants that no matter how much better their CRAS would look the emphasis on minimum vertical and horizontal Slze. ThlS is nice but can we expand the horizontal dimension? Public Hearing Jerry Greer * 640 Island View * Seal Beach Mr. Greer introduced himself as the contractor for property owner Thomas E. Dutton. He stated that to stay away from a "sore thumb" CRAS he raised the ridge 1.5' and put the stalr underneath. This gave him a wider stairway with a wider dormer roof with windows which shed natural light over the entire stairway. commissioner Orsini said he appreciates this design. His only question concerns minimal adjustments to CRAS designs resulting in large CRASs again. Mr. Curtls said the Commission would be considering each CRAS on its own merits. Thomas Dutton * 125 Surf Place * Seal Beach Mr. Dutton said he is the homeowner and in favor of thlS design because the house has a potentially good view of the Hellman Ranch property. PubllC Hearing Closed - No one wished to speak further either for or against this application and Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. . . . page 15 - Planning ComMission Minutes of May 6, 1992 MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to approve Height Variation #92-9 by adopting Resolution No. 92-9, subject to two (2 ) conditions of approval. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: 5 - 0 - 0 Dahlman, Sharp, Fife, Law, Orsini *** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no persons wishing to speak during this period. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg said he had provided all Commissioners an advance copy of a report entitled "Off-site Hazardous Waste Facilities, ZTA 92-1". This will be on the May 20, 1992 Planning commission agenda for Public Hearing. On May 20, 1992 the Commission will hold Publ1C Hearings on the Growth Management Element to the General Plan and Zone Text Amendment 92-1, Off-site Hazardous Waste Facilities. COMMISSION COMMENTS commissioner orsini asked if the Commission can make changes or insertions to Conditional Use Permits when they come before the Commission for review? staff said yes, that's appropriate on review. commissioner orsini referenced a resident's letter to a local newspaper talking about legal limits and his name was brought up, 1nferring there was favoritism in the Planning Comm1ssion's consideration for Tootsie's restaurant (CUP #92-1). Commissioner Ors1ni said he 1S Tootsie's corporate secretary but receives no pay and owns no stock. Commissioner Dahlman said he had not given Mr. Orsini any special consideration. Chairman Fife sa1d CUP #92-1 was reviewed on its merits. Chairman Fife asked staff if they had had a chance to reV1ew the telephone box in the middle of the sidewalk with no safety reflectors and the nitrogen gas cylinder chained to a policy at Seal Beach Boulevard and st. Cloud? Mr. Whittenberg said he had mentioned this to the Building Inspector but has not had the opportunity to follow-up; this will be done. Chairman Fife suggested staff propose to the City Council the Planning Commission consider a general ordinance for handling view issues. Such an ordinance would cover what is a view issue, . . . Page ~6 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 6, ~992 Mr. Whlttenberg said he would prepare a report for Commission consideration WhlCh would focus on various concerns. The Commission could review and modify this before it is sent to Councll. This will be done for the June 3rd meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~~ oan Fillmann Recording Secretary *** These Minutes are tentative until approved by the Planning Commission. *** The Planning Commlssion Minutes of ~ 6, 1992 were approved by the Plannlng Commlsslon on f'.(\. ~ dO- 1992.~