Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1994-07-20 CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION .. AGENDA of JULY 20, 1994 7:30 P.M. * City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolution: #94-27 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL ill. APPROVAL OF AGENDA By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to: . (a) (b) (c) Notify the public of any changes to the agenda; Rearrange the order of the agenda; and! or Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or public to request an item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning commission, provided that NO action or discussion may be undertaken by the Planning Commission unless otherwise authorized by law. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planning commission, staff or the public requests that a specific item be removed from Consent Calendar for separate action. " The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you require special assistance to attend or participate in this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. ,~ . . ~, . Page 2 - City of Seal Beach PIannmg COIDID1SSIOI1 Agenda for July 20, 1994 1. Approve Minutes of July 6, 1994 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Variance #94-3 (Continued from 6-22-94) Address: Applicant: Property Owner: Request: 1600 Pacific Coast Highway Dave Bartlett Mitchell Land and Improvement Company Approval to construct two single family dwellings with less-than-requires setbacks along the northerly side of the properties. Resolution 94-27 Approve Variance 94-3, subject to conditions in staff report, as revised by Planning Commission. 3. Conditional Use Permit #94-5 Address: Applicants: Property Owners: Request: 119 8th Street Eldon & Carolyn Alexander Eldon & Carolyn Alexander Approval for major addition/remodel to non-conforming single family dwelling. Resolution 94-28 Approve Conditional Use Permit 94-5, subject to conditions in staff report, as revised by Planning Commission. 4. Conditional Use Permit #94-4 and Variance #94-5 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: Request: 770 Pacific Coast Highway Leroy Stone Leroy Stone Approval to establish a Burger King drive-through restaurant with less-than-required on-site parking. Resolution 94-29 Approve Conditional Use Permit 94-4, subject to conditions in staff report, as revised by Planning Commission. The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you require special assistance to attend or participate in this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. . . . Page 3 - City of Seal Beach PIannmg COIIIlIWISIOD Agenda for July 20, 1994 Resolution 94-30 Approve Variance 94-5, subject to conditions in staff report, as revised by Planning Commission. 5. Variance #94-4 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: Request: 13533 Seal Beach Boulevard Howard McCurdy/Golden Rain Foundation Golden Rain Foundation Approval to install a new twenty-four square foot sign for an existing resales office located within Leisure W orId. Resolution 94-31 Approve Variance 94-4, subject to conditions in staff report, as revised by Planning Commission. 6. Negative Declaration 94-5 Adult-Oriented Business Ordinance/Zone Text Amendment #94-1 Address: Applicant: Request: C-2 and M-l Zones, Citywide City of Seal Beach Approval of Negative Declaration and establish revised provisions for the operation of an adult-oriented business within the City of Seal Beach. These changes will address recent court decisions regarding the establishment and operation of adult-oriented businesses. Resolution 94-32 Approve Negative Declaration 94-5, subject to conditions in staff report, as revised by Planning Commission. Resolution 94-33 Approve Adult-Oriented Business Ordinance/Zone Text Amendment 94-1, subject to conditions in staff report, as revised by Planning Commission. VII. STAFF CONCERNS None Vill. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you require special assistance to attend or participate in this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Page 4 - CIl~ of Seal Beach Plannmg ComnuSSIOR Agenda for luly 20,1994 . 1994 AGENDA FORECAST Aua 03 CITY DEADLINB: CUP #92-26 JON 29 Review of Tortilla Beach for receipt of ABC lie. & conditions. Study Session re: Proposed Newsrack Ordinance. AUG17 Cl'IY DEADLINE; JUL 13 SBP 07 CITY DEADLINE: AUG 03 ZC 94-1 and GPA #94-1(A)&(B) 99/101 Marina Dr. SBP 21 CITY DEADLINE; AUG 17 OCT OS CITY DEADLINE; AUa 31 CUP #92-2 @ 101 Main/SeaSide Grill/Review hours extension. OCT 19 CITY DEADLlNB: SBP 14 . NOV 09 CI1Y DBADlJNE: OCT 05 NOV 23 CITY DBADLINB: OCT 19 DEe 07 CITY DEADLINE: NOV 02 CUP #93-13 Papillon's @ 12 mos./indef. exten. of entertainment. DEe 21 CITY DEADI1NE: NOV 16 STAFF REPORTS PENDING: NOT AGENDIZED . ZTA #92-2 Bntettainm.ent Cafea ACTION: City-wide policy statement on entertainment. STATUS: Pending City Manager's input. ~ The City of Sea\. Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you require special assistance to attend or participate in this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Page S - CIty of Seal Beach PIannmg CommISSion Agenda for July 20, 1994 . 1995 JAN CUP #92-13/143 MainlPapillon'sl12 mos entertainment CUP #92-25/1400 PCH/Glider Inn/indefmite extension FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SBP . OCT NOV DEC CUP #94-1/600 Marina/Radisson 12 mos. ABC Election of Chairman & Vice Chairman -. The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you require special assistance to attend or participate in this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 431-2527 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION . MINUTES of JULY 20, 1994 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session at 7:35 p.m. with Vice Chairman Campbell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. n. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chairman Campbell Commissioners Sharp, Law, Brown Also Present: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan FilImann, Executive Secretary Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Absent: Chairman Dahlman . MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to excuse Chairman Dahlman's absence due to a death in his family. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Brown, Campbell Dahlman In. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Steele stated the Public Hearing on Variance #94-4, Agenda Item #5, should not be heard tonight. He explained there has been discussion regarding a confhct of lI1terest issue for Commissioners who are residents of Leisure World and who own a single share of stock in the Golden Rain Foundation. Because the Planning Commission is incomplete, due to Chairman Dahlman's absence, and if CommIssioners Sharp and Law declare they have a conflict on this issue and disqualify themselves, there would not be a quorum to consider this issue. He advised the City Attorney's Office has been researching the conflict of interest issue and they feel it best to seek written advice from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). He requested a continuance to the August 17, 1994 meeting. Director Whittenberg spoke with the applicant today and the applicant has no objection to this continuance. . . . . Page 2 - Clly of Seal Bench Plnnmng COIllnmqloll Mmulcs of July 2U, 1994 Commissioner Sharp said he and Commissioner Law feel they have no conflict of interest in this matter but agree to a continuance to allow contact with the FPPC. Both Commissioners feel they should be al10wed to vote on an matters involving Leisure World. In this matter, neither Commissioner lives within 300' of the proposed sign. Mr. Steel advised that the City Attorney's Office can give advice on conflicts of interest and the participation of Planning Commissioners. However, they cannot protect the Commissioners from prosecution for violation of the conflict of interest laws. The only way to achieve a definitive protection for each Commission is to obtain written advice from the FPPC. MOTION by Campbell; SECOND by Brown to continue the Public Hear'ing on Variance #94-4 to the August 17, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Shal'p, Law, Brown, Campbell Dahlman Director Whittenberg advised those persons in the audience who came to speak on Variance #94-4, that the matter has been continued to August 17th and no further notification will be given of the continuance. MOTION by Law; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Planning Commission Agenda of July 20, 1994 with the continuance of Variance #94-4 to the August 17, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Shar'p, Law, Brown, Campbell Dahlman IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS David Rosenman. Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman asked Planning Department staff to talk at length about setback issues when the Planning Commission considers Conditional Use Permit #94-5. V. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to appl'ove the Planning Commission Minutes of July 6, 1994 as presented. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Brown, Campbell Dahlman 2 . . . Page 3 - CIty of Seal Beach Planmng COInnmq'OIl Mllluteq of July 20, I q94 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Variance #94-3 (Continued from 6-22-94) Address: Applicant: Property Owner: 328 Sixteenth St. & 327 Seventeenth St. Dave Bartlett Mitchell Land and Improvement Company Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Dave Bartlett for Mitchell Land and Improvement Company, requested approval to construct two single family dwellings with less-than-required setbacks along the northerly side of the properties. No written or oral communications regarding this project had been received since the July 6th meeting. Public Hearing Mr. Steele said that Commissioners Sharp and Brown were not at the July 6th Planning Commission meeting. Both Commissioners have reviewed materials and the video tape of the July 6th meeting. They are therefore qualified to participate in this continued Public Hearing and to vote on this application. Decateur Mitchell * President. Mitchell Land & Improvement Co. Mr. Mitchell said he felt an 8' wall would create a negative open space which would be utilized for unsightly storage. He wanted to create a nice outside living space/buffer in the area away from the commercial. He did not object to an average 6' setback. Dave Bartlett * Land Use & Planning Consultant Mr. Bartlett thanked the Commission for their July 6th approvals and indicated the City Council approved that part of the project also. They will take the entire project to the Coastal Commission as soon as possible. Regarding the Variance, they recognized the sensitive interface between residential and commercial uses. This resulted in the L-C designation for the commercial property which limits the type of commercial uses which can occur on the property. This includes orienting the commercial site away from residential areas and toward Pacific Coast Highway. He felt special circumstances do exist because the two residential units next to the proposed residential properties include a zero lot line garage and multi-family units; it's unique due to surrounding land uses and justifies the need for a Variance. Regarding the 6' average setback, they are 3 . I .' Page 4 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg COIIUUI..'OI1 Mmute. of July 20, 1994 recommending a minimum of 4' between the property line and the building and want the 5.44' average be substituted for the 6' average. David Rosenman * Seal Beach Speaking in favor of this proposal, Mr. Rosenman said this project was extensively discussed at the last City Council meeting. He supported the approval process of deviations from required setbacks on a case-by-case basis and not a blanket change to zoning laws. No persons wished to speak in opposition to this project. The applicant wished no rebuttal but remained available for questions. Vice Chairman Campbell closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp said Chairman Dahlman expressed strong views that a Variance is not appropriate for this application and that a Zoning Text Amendment would be more appropriate. He felt the Planning Commission should recommend to the City Council that they look into this issue to see if the City needs a Zoning Text Amendment (ZT A) or not. Commissioner Law expressed her view that a Zoning Text Amendment was not needed. Each of the 14 to 16 similarly situated City lots, should they wish to develop, would be quite unique should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, any development would probably not come up for years. Commissioner Sharp said that these were his views also. Commissioner Brown said this is a unique situation in that all the parcels have one owner. He felt a Zoning Text Amendment would be unnecessary in this situation and a Variance would be appropriate. He was not in favor of asking the City Council about aZTA. Commissioner Campbell agreed that each of the 14 to 16 similarly situated City lots is unique and at the time they come to the Commission they will be considered individually. She felt that 14 to 16 properties does not warrant a ZTA. Recognizing a ZTA might level the playing field for the 14 - 16 properties, she felt also it would be over-kill as the likelihood of their coming to the City for development all at one time is unlikely. Mr. Whittenberg said staff recommends the Commission deal with the Variance request first. 4 . . . Page S - City of Seal Beach PIamung C0IDJDJ88101l MInutes of July 20, 1994 MOTION by Campbell; SECOND by Sharp to approve Resolution #94-27, approving Variance #94-3, permitting the construction of two (2) Single Family Dwellings with Less Than the Required Side Yard Setback at 327 17th Street and 328 16th Street, Seal Beach. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Brown, Campbell Dahlman *** MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law recommending the Planning Commission does not recommend a Zoning Text Amendment to the City Council. MOTION WITHDRAWN upon advice of Mr. Steele that a negative Motion is essentially no action. Mr. Steele advised that the Commission's action on this Variance is final with the adoption of Resolution #94-27 and the ten calendar day appeal period begins tomorrow. *** 3. Conditional Use Permit #94-5 119 8th Street Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicants and property owners, Eldon and Carolyn Alexander, requested approval for a major addition/remodel to their non-conforming single family dwelling at 119 8th Street. They propose to add 1825 square feet, which includes a new second story to the structure. Mr. Curtis stated one letter had been received from a neighbor, revealing there are living quarters in the Alexander's garage. Commission Comments on Staff Report There were no Commission comments. Public Hearinf: Brent Sears. Architect * 203 Argonne Ave.. Lonf: Beach 5 . . . Page 6 - ell)' of Seal Bench Planmng Comnll."on MlIlute. or July 20, 19'14 Mr. Sears stated he is the Alexander's architect on this project. He explained his clients want to remodel their home to provide a first floor bedroom for the grandfather who has recently had surgery. This application is before the Planning Commission because the existing house was built too close to the property line. He explained the Alexander's house was built in 1906 with the setbacks on the north side at 2' and 7' on the south side. The building's footprint remains the same while the interior has undergone some modifications. Explaining the proposed project, he said the second story addition must conform to today's codes, therefore on the north property line the existing first floor wall will be set 2' back and the second story wall will jog back to provide a 3'9" setback. He said the existing garage is set back 9' from the alley as required. When they initially measured the site they mistakenly measured the front property line as the rear of the sidewalk; it should have been 2' inside of the sidewalk. There is no rear encroachment. Mr. Sears stated the Alexander's have no intention of making the house a duplex while they plan to make one of their three garages into living quarters. The Alexanders' agree to the placing of a covenant on this property, establishing it in perpetuity as a single family dwelling. Mr. Sears presented a petition to the Commission which was signed by immediate homeowners who support this proposal; attached. Commissioner Sharp asked how much of the original house will be retained? Mr. Sears replied almost all of the original house will remain. On the first floor, at the front, they will enlarge an existing enclosed porch to create a den. Commissioner Brown asked if the remodel will tOlqch the north wall that's within the 2'1 Mr. Sears said that wall may have to be sheared with plywood as earthquake reinforcement but it will not be moved or torn down. At that time they will do an electrical upgrade and insulation. The supports for the second story will be dug underneath the existing footings because the second story will rest on the north wall. Because the second story will be set back there will not be direct stacking on the north wall. No one in the audience wished to speak in favor or against this application and Vice Chairman Campbell closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments Commissioner Law said she felt a five bedroom house would attract more than two cars on a regular basis. Therefore she felt the garage should be converted back to auto use only. Commissioner Sharp said the municipal Code does not require a three car garage, only two parking spaces are required. Mr. Steele explained the Commission would have 6 . . .\ Page 7 - CIIy of Seal Beach Planmng COlllllmq,oll Mllluteq of Jllly 20. 1'194 to a find a nexus between the five-bedroom house and the need for a particular number of parking spaces at the residence. Mr. Curtis said this proposal calls for a bedroom where the third garage bay would be. Commissioner Brown said this would be the ideal time to bring this property into conformity with current municipal codes. Commissioner Campbell asked if the City had ever required a structure to be moved to meet setback requirements? Mr. Whittenberg said yes, the City has required setbacks to be met when it has been discovered that a structure was incorrectly placed after the standards were adopted. In this case, the house was built 28 years prior to zoning codes. In such a situation, the City has historically allowed the structure to remain. Public Hearing Reopened Vice Chairman Campbell reopened the Public Hearing to allow the applicant to respond the Commissioner Law's question. Commissioner Law asked the applicant if she would be willing to convert their three-car garage to auto use only? Carolyn Alexander said no, she wishes to use the space in the garage. She said the garage room may not be used as a bedroom but perhaps as an office. She explained this property has been in the family for generations, with the understa~g it would stay within the family. She wants to reta1l1 the option to have this room as a;.place change clothes and shower when using the beach. She and her husband are both teachers and they would like to have an oftice to grade papers and have a photocopy machine. H~r father will live in one of the house's downstairs bedrooms. Commissioner Law, noy\ing there is a shortage of parking spaces in Seal Beach, felt that as the Alexander's three children grow up and have cars they would have no place to park at that residence. Mrs. Alexander said she felt it is unjust of the Planning Commission to ask them to adhere to a higher standard of parking than the municipal Code requires. Commissioner Sharp explained that when a room has a closet, it's termed a "bedroom" and that doesn't mean it will necessarily be llsed as a bedroom. He said he could not see asking the applicants to provide more parking than what the Code calls for. Vice Chairman Campbell explained that the City is trY1l1g to stop property owners from allowing people to live in their garages because that policy is not in accordance with the City's Codes. She suggested the floor plans should have been labeled with a different term. Mrs. Alexander assured the Commission that in the history of this property, back to 1914 in her family, the property has been used solely by the family with no renting to anyone. Commissioner Law read from Condition of Approval #3, which says the garage will be converted to a functioning three car garage. Mr. Curtis said his presentation of the staff report mentioned a two or three car garage. Vice Chairman Campbell said the intent is 7 . . . Page 8 - CIty of SCIll Beach Pl:mmng 1.:011I11"""011 Mlllutc& or luly 20. 1'lQ4 for the garage to be returned to a non-habitable state. Mr. Curtis said staff's intent is that the garage not be used as another living unit. If it becomes a bedroom for the house, that would not conflict with the municipal Code provided it's not a separate living unit. This is why staff is recommending a covenant be placed on the title. Commissioner Sharp suggested Condition #3 be changed to reflect it must be a two car garage with a storage and laundry room. Mrs. Alexander said that is within the use she's intending for that space. She said she does not want to put a covenant on the title for future generations. Mr. Whittenberg said the municipal Code does not allow a bedroom or living area to be within a garage. Any area used for human habitation must be separated by a fire wall between. This area could be designed to meet the requirements for human use either as a study or workroom; they would have to meet fire codes, building codes and separation requirements. Vice Chairman Campbell said she did not see a reason to narrowly define the use by specifying a two-car garage and laundry/storage room. The City's intent is to be sure it's not used for human habitation. Mr. Whittenberg said the covenant would meet the City's concerns to ensure the property is used only as a single family residence. It would allow the flexibility for the property owners to determine what use would be appropriate for them for the third garage bay. Vice Chairman Campbell asked staff if Condition of Approval #4 was correctly worded to reflect only a single family dwelling on the property? Mr. WhIttenberg said yes. Commissioner Brown asked if a single family residence can have two dwellings on the property? Mr. Whittenberg said no. No one wished to speak further and the Public Hearing was closed by Vice Chairman Campbell. Commission Comments Vice Chairman Campbell indicated the only change being proposed is a change to Condition #3. Mr. Steele suggested the following rewording to Condition #3 from: 3. "The xarage shall he converted hack to a.timctioninx three (3) car garage prior to issuance qf any building permit covering work permitted through this approval. " to: 3. The applicanr shallmainrain the garage on the property in compliance with the municipal Code. 8 . . . Page 9 - CIty of Se.,1 Beach PlanJllIIg COIllIllM.on MlI\lIle~ of '"ly 20. 1 'l'l4 He felt that would cover the two car garage requirement, the building code and fire code requirements if the applicant chooses to provide habitable space or would allow them to provide a three-car garage. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by B.oown to app.oove Conditional Use Pe.omit #94-5, through the adoption of Resolution Noo 94-28, with the following change to Condition of Approval #3: 3. The applicant shall maintain the garage on (he property in compliance with the municipal Code. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: ,4-0-1 Sharp, B.oown, Law, Campbell Dahlman Mr. Steel advised that with the adoption of Resolution #94-28 tonight, the Planning Commission's action is final and the ten calendar day appeal period will begin to run on April 21, 1994. *** 4. Conditional Use Permit #94-4 and Variance #94-5 770 Pacific Coast Highway Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant and property owner, Leroy Stone, requested Planning Commission approval to establish a Burger King drive-through restaurant with less-than-required on- site parking at 770 Pacific Coast Highway. The applicant proposed to permanently dedicate a portion of the interior of the building as an interior play area for children. The applicant's request is that this portion of the building not be considered as part of the gross floor area of the building for purposes of determining the required on-site parking. Mr. Whittenberg indicated three letters have been received and copies have been presented to the Commissioners. The letters in opposition are from Robert A. Von Esch, Jr. & Associates (legal counsel to Sun Gir, Inc. and Harshad Dharod as owners of the Jack in the Box restaurant at 800 Pacific Coast Highway), Donald E. Pasch of 332 8th Street, Seal Beach and D.M. Callis, Jr., owner of 700-714 Manna Drive, Seal Beach. 9 . . . Page 10 - City of Seal Beach PlaRlung Conllll,,,,ml Mnllllf\ of July 2U, 1994 Commission Comments on Staff Report Commissioner Brown asked how many parking spaces Jack In The Box, Taco Bell and McDonald's have and what are the sizes of these restaurants? Mr. Curtis said he would research these figures during the Public Hearing. Commissioner Sharp asked if the Variance were approved, with the 1450 square foot play area, would that make the parking conform? Mr. Curtis said yes, it would leave 1800 square feet of restaurant which requires 24 parking spaces, which is what they have on site. Public Hearing Vice Chairman Campbell opened the Public Hearing. Leroy Stone. Applicant * III Marina Drive. Long Beach. CA Mr. Stone introduced himself as the property owner and applicant. He stated he owns two Burger Kings, one in Stanton and one in Cerritos. The Stanton facility has 2874 square feet, 96 seats inside. The Cerritos store has 4000 square feet, 130 seats. The proposed facility would have 1800 square feet, 48 inside seats, 19 parking spaces plus one handicapped parking space. Mr. Stone said he read the staff report and agrees to the Conditions of Approval with exceptions to #3 and #11. Regarding #3: 3. There shall he no maintenance or other husiness related activifies during qtf hours. He asked to close at 12:01 a.m. and then clean the kitchen. This language mandates closing and going home. Commissioner Sharp asked staff if this language relates to inside the premises or outside? Mr. Whittenberg said staff believes the language relates to both inside and outside. He explained staff has received many complaints about Jack In The Box's interior maintenance activities. Even with their doors closed their noise was so loud it disturbed neighboring residents and the Police Department has been called. Commissioner Sharp said health reasons mandate the grill should not be left dirty until the next morning. Therefore, the CommiSSIOn should require he close a half-hour earlier or give him an extra half-hour for interior cleaning only. Mr. Stone estimated interior cleanup would need one hour. He stated he does not allow employees to take trash out after dark for security reasons; there would be no outside maintenance. 10 . . . Page 11 - Cily of Seal B~nch Plnnmng <':Olllm'...OI1 Ml1lul~. of ruly 20. I qq4 Vice Chairman Campbel1 asked Mr. Stone what percentage of his business originated at the drive-thru? Mr. Stone said 50% to 60%. Regarding Condition of Approval #11: 4. The volume on the orderinR pedestal shall he turned qff after 9:00 p.m. Mr. Stone said that in consideration of the neighbors, he proposes to install a $3,500 ordering/speaker system. He stated he does not want to be associated with Jack In The Box nor penalized for their business problems. He said he does not want to have to turn this system off at 9:00 p.m. and suggested he be al10wed to turn it down at 9:00 p.m. He described the proposed ordering system as being an LCD system which prints customer's orders on a screen. This eliminates ~O% of the communication back to the customer, which might annoy the neighbors. Some questions cannot be answered on the LCD display and those would require interaction which could be heard outside. Commissioner Sharp thanked the applicant for his invitation to an open house. He said California's Brown Act legislation prohibits the Planning Commissioners from attending such a function. Commissioner Brown noted the Conditions of Approval don't require the applicant to instalI the hi-tech LCD ordering system. The applicant agreed with him and said he would not object to having a condition requiring this. Commissioner Campbell asked about the inside play area. The applicant said there are a few restaurant play areas around but not in this local area. They are designed for children ages 3 - 5. Commissioner Brown asked if the inside play area would make the customers stay longer? The applicant answered yes. Commissioner Campbell asked what the sign at this area would say? The applicant said he was not sure. Mr. Whittenberg said it will indicate the play area is to be used by customers of Burger King and not the general public. David Rosenman * Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman spoke in favor of this proposal. Saying he has a concern for smal1 children, indicated that some fast food enterprises instal1 video cameras and momtors in play areas to keep an eye on what is happening. Regarding the exterior lighting, he questioned if it was a good idea to turn off al1 exterior lighting after closing hours as that might pose a security problem. II . . . Page 12 - C.ly of Seal Beach Planning (;01111111'''011 MIIlIItes of Jllly 2u, I Q'l4 Mark Von Esch. Esquire * Attorney for Jack In The Box Mr. Von Esch stated he represents the owner of the Jack In The Box in Seal Beach. He said his client has experienced a severe parking problem at his facility and they have fought a long battle with an adjacent apartment building due to the apartment's inadequate parking. They are forced to patrol their parking lot for the purpose of asking people to move their cars outside of the restaurant's lot. He felt the proposal for an interior play area would exacerbate the area's parking problems by customers staying longer to let the children play. He felt the average customer would stay ten minutes whereas they may now stay 45 minutes. There would not be enough parking spaces on the Burger King lot and those customers may try to use the Jack In The Box's lot. He felt approval of an interior play area which is exempt from parking regulations would be a special privilege. He said no valid justification exists to grant a Conditional Use Permit or Variance. This proposal should meet the requirement of one parking space for every 75 square foot of restaurant. He suggested the owner may, at a future time, want to change the play area to another use, and that would exacerbate the park1l1g problem. He said there is nothing in this application which says there is anything about this property (topography, location, size, shape) which would allow anything less than a strict, literal interpretation of the municipal Code requirements. He urged the Commission to require this applicant to adhere to Code standards. He felt now was the time to stop this application, before the applicant has invested any time or money in this proposal. Joe DiMento * Seal Beach (No Addresses Offered) Mr. DiMento said he lives across the street from the subject property and has concerns about noise. He said he moved to Seal Beach for what it had to offer his family and accepted the businesses in place at that time as being the noise he would have to put up with. Noise has gotten increasingly worse. He has had to call the Police because of the type of customers these fast-food establishments attract; these people don't keep regular hours. They are a younger set of people and make a lot of noise by screaming. This business is not needed because there are three fast-food businesses there already. If approved, he felt the parking lot should be maintained constantly to avoid the trash blowing around. He felt the manager would not monitor the parking lot for people loitering, as suggested in the staff report, because he has better uses to make of his time. Regarding the review periods proposed by the staff report, he felt that once this bus1l1ess has its 'foot in the door' it would be difficult to get them out. They WIll have 1I1vested time and money by that time. He said that the applicant appears to have good intentions, but the real intention of a business is to make money and if the applicant cannot make money under the terms that exist now he may subsequently apply to have later hours etc. He suggested the City not let it happen to begin with. Regarding parking, he said that 12 . . . Page 13 - City of Seal Beach PlnnnUlll COll1ml~~IOn MlIlul~\ or July 20, 19Q4 ifthe customers can't park in the lot they will park on the street. He asked the Planning Commission to help him maintain his quality of life and ensure peaceful nights. Linda Kruger * Seal Beach (No Address Offered) Ms. Kruger spoke in opposition to this proposal, stating she lives next door to Jack In The Box. She asked how late would the Burger King be allowed to serve meals? If they have customers going through his drive-thru at midnight are they allowed to serve them? Mr. Steele said the Planning Commission may regulate this in the Conditions of Approval. Vice Chairman Campbell asked what are the current closing hours for Jack In The Box? Ms. Kruger said she thought they opened at 6:00 a.m. and close at 2:00 a.m. However, their lights are on at 5:00 a.m. At 2:00 a.m. the parking lot lights go out and nobody comes out to tell the cars in the drive-thru line that the restaurant is closed. So those people start honking their horns. Some people get out of their cars and holler to find out why their orders are not being taken. Mr. Whittenberg advised the Commission to separate the issues and not discuss Jack In The Box problems. Garrell Pasch * Sacramento. CA Mr. Pasch spoke in opposition to this proposal, stating his father has owned the house which Linda Kruger lives in since 1927. Mr. Pasch said he comes to Seal Beach to maintain the property and has experienced the loud speakers, parking problems and cockroaches covering the back yard. He stated he has had to park in the Jack In The Box parking lot because there is no street parking available. He stated he has fought with Jack In The Box for more than ten years about their noise, sprinkler water coming under the wall which he is forced to pump out daily and the bug control. He presented his father's letter to the Commission; attached. He said he would rather see a doctor's office go in this location. He stated his has video taped the noise level at Jack In The Box and gave a copy to Mr. Curtis; it's extreme. He asked the Commission to keep a very close eye on this business if they allow it to go in. Rebuttal: Sherideth Stone. Operating Franchisee Ms. Stone introduced herself as the operating franchisee of this proposed Burger King. She addressed the comments brought up in the Public Hearing: Trash Pickup will be by the City's contract hauler so it would not create extra noise; Exterior Litter will be picked up at 6:00 a.m. by one employee (so there won't be anyone else to talk to); Monitor Parking Lot will be done because they want family business as that's where the 13 Page 14 - CIty of Seal Beach PlaoolOg COIlUlII'\IOIl MlOulc. of July 20. I Q'l4 . money is. The teenagers hanging around don't bring them money. Their playground will be for children 48" to 52" tall or less. Good Neighbor She noted all the complaints appear to originate with Jack In The Box's not being a good neighbor and she found it interesting that their lawyer's here and he doesn't want them to open; Parking They can only use 1800 square feet for the restaurant, they have 14 tables and 24 parking spaces so she didn't see parking being a problem; Late & Noisy Customers She indicated that because Jack In The Box is open to 2:00 a.m. she felt they do get noisy patrons at 2:00 a.m. because they are leaving the bars. Conversely, they would not have this problem because they will close at 12:01 a.m. When they close they turn off the speaker box and all the lights. She said she does not mind placing a sign that says "We Close At Midnight"; Not Invested Anything Regarding Mark Von Esch's comments that they have not yet invested any money in this proposal, Ms. Stone said they have invested over $700,000 already; Time to Get Cars Out of Line If there were four cars in line at midnight, their speed of service is three (3) minutes from the time the car gets in line; Street Parking she felt that Jack In The Box might have more seating than the Burger King would because they have outside seating but she felt Jack In The Box patrons probably parked on their lot and not in the street. . Vice Chairman Campbell asked if they would be opposed to closing at 11 :00 p.m. since they stated they run a family oriented business? That would have all employees off the premises by midnight. Ms. Stone said that in the winter she couldn't see their being open past 11:00 p.m. But in the summer, she felt there could be later customers. In their business, if they aren't doing $100 per hour in sales they will close up by 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. They want midnight for Friday and Saturday nights, especially during the summer. Vice Chairman Campbell asked if employees will be parking on their lot and if they had been included in the parking calculations? Mr. Whittenberg said yes and that's why the parking ratio is set at 1 space for every 75 square feet of the building. That includes employee parking generated by the use. Vice Chairman Campbell noted that one of the letters they received requested 8th Street between Electric and Pacific Coast Highway be changed to a residential permit parking street limited to one hour parking without a permit. So Burger King employees would not be able to use the residential street for parking. She asked what would be the need to make 8th Street residential parking? Mr. Whittenberg said the letter writer would have to be asked about that. Staff has been surveying the on-street parking between 5th Street and 12th Street from Pacific Coast Highway to Ocean Avenue as part of the Main Street Specific Plan process. Staff found a heavy use of on-street parking at 8th Street during the day, particularly in the 300 block. It is heavier than the 100 block or the 200 block during the day. If the residents want to restrict parking to a one or two hour limit they could make that request to the City; it would be handled through normal channels. . 14 . . . Page 1S - C.1y of Seal Beach Plnlllllllg COIIIIIIIS"OIl Mlllutes or July 2U, 1'l1l4 Commissioner Brown asked Ms. Stone how she felt about an earlier closing hour during the week, say 11 :00 p. m., and midnight on the week-ends? Commissioner Sharp replied that the amount of business they do will dictate the hours they will be open; he felt midnight was a good time to close. Rebuttal: Leroy Stone Mr. Stone said he received a telephone call from the owner of Jack In The Box and felt his motives are strictly money driven and is afraid of competition. He presented the Commissioners with photos (attached) of 8th Street. He took these photos to show there is not much parking on 8th Street. He commented that Jack In The Box has 20 parking spaces which includes one handicapped space, the have 80 seats (both inside and outside) whereas he would have approximately 48 seats and 24 parking spaces. He asked the City and the neighbors not to put him in the same category as Jack In The Box and consider his application as an individual. He indicated that he plans to install the playground as a community service but noted he could have closed off the area. Commissioner Campbell asked the residents who spoke in opposition to this proposal, because all their problems were prefaced with comments about Jack In The Box, of the problems they are currently having with Jack In The Box which problems do they envision being so similar in nature that this proposal could not avoid? Mr. Von Esch came to the microphone to object and said Jack In The Box has attempted to be a good neighbor. Mr. Steele interrupted, informing Mr. Von Esch that under the procedures of the Planning Commission that the applicant is entitled to a rebuttal period but rebuttal time is not offered to other members of the public. Garrell Pesch said the main problems are lack of parking, the noise level and trash. He asked if Mr. Stone would be willing to meet with the City Council and the area residents after the Burger King opens in three to six months to explore hours of operation again? He felt the apartment house residents might want to give input. Commissioner Sharp advised the applicant will be before the Planning Commission in three months for that and public testimony will be taken. Mr. Pesch asked for notification to be given to all area residents. Mr. Whittenberg advised State law requires a Notice will be sent to all property owners within a 300' radius of the site. Mr. Pesch said that the property owners may not live on site and wished the renters to be notified too. Mr. Whittenberg said the Notice will be in the local newspaper and at the Commission's direction, staff would include occupants within that 300' radius also. Mr. Pesch said the 8th Street parking problems come from Charo Chicken's and Jack In The Box's employees parking on 8th Street. He said he's concerned that the addition of another business which will generate a lot of parking would exacerbate the intolerable parking situation. Mr. Von Esch asked why he would not be allowed to speak in rebuttal if the residents are allowed to speak in rebuttal? He is representing an affected property owner and should have the same right. Mr. Steele clarified that Mr. Von Esch has had the 15 . . . Page 16 . Cdy of Seal Beach Planning CommiSSion Minutes of July 20, 1994 opportunity to present his client's perspective on this issue as had every other party who has spoken in opposition to this. The Chair had a particular question to adjoining residents. If any of the Commissioners have any questions to Mr. Von Esch or his client they will address them and it would be appropriate for Mr. Von Esch to respond. Otherwise, the rules of the Commission provide for only a rebuttal by the applicant. Mr. Stone said he is different than Jack In The Box and he knows they have had some past problems and asked that he not be associated with Jack In The Box. He said his lot would have plenty of parking for his employees. Mr. Whittenberg asked Mr. Stone about customers arriving at closing time. He indicated the Planning Commission has, in the past, imposed a condition requiring the restaurant to serve the last meal 20 to 30 minutes prior to closing time. He asked if that type of a condition would be agreeable? Mr. Stone objected, noting he is already closing a minimum of two hours earlier than McDonalds and 2.5 hours earlier than Jack In The Box he wants to stay open to midnight. Vice Chairman Campbell asked if he would be willing to close the drive-thru window at 11:30 p.m.? Mr. Stone said he might be agreeable to that but noted that Jack In The Box would still be open until 2:00 a.m. He will consider this. No one wished to speak further on this subject and Vice Chairman Campbell closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Comments Mr. Curtis provided the information requested by Commissioner Brown: TACO BELL 2250 300 MC DONALD'S 3200 NONE JACK IN THE BOX 1575 455 SHARED/CENTER SHARED/CENTER 20 SPACES, 29 REQUIRED Taco Bell and McDonald's is not differentiated individually, they share the Bay City Center's parking area. The Center's parking, as of 1991, was determined to meet parking requirements for all uses in the Center. Jack In The Box requires 29 parking spaces and has 20 spaces but they received a Variance from the parking requirements in 1972. Commissioner Sharp asked if Jack In The Box is paying in lieu parking fees? Mr. Curtis said no, in 1972 the City did not have a parking program. Mr. Whittenberg reviewed this proposal for the Planning Commission. He noted the applicant could provide the required parking for the structure by demolishing that portion 16 . . . Page 17 - CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg (;OIlUlII...OII MlIlIIl.. or July 2U. 1994 of the building and making it an outside area and putting a playground area. He recommended adding another condition: 24. The subject property is to be developed in accordance with the plans as submitted, including the provision of the Horizon visual order confirmation system. Mr. Steele clarified due process issues, stating that each application must stand on its own and must be reviewed independently by the Planning Commission. The Commission has a duty to separate out the applicant from any other uses. He said in this situation, where the Commission is trying to determine neighborhood compatibility, the experience of the neighbors with other similar uses is relevant to help the Planning Commissioners determine what conditions ought to be imposed on this business if it's approved. Mr. Steele noted Commissioner Sharp mentioned an invitation to an event which the applicant put on for members of the community; copy of invitation included in staff report. Mr. Steele said that if any of the Commissioners attended that event and took information on this project outside the record, he advised them to put this fact on the Record. None of the Commissioners said they attended. Mr. Steele reviewed the Commission's options regarding this proposal; these were outlined on page 5 of the staff report. Mr. Steele outlined the findings the Commissioners would have to make. For a Conditional Use Permit the Code requires the Commission find that the use has been conditioned to ensure the proposed uses are compatible with surrounding uses and not detrimental to the neighborhood. The Variance (from the parking requirements) findings are (1) the Variance will not adversely affect the General Plan, (2) there are special property-related circumstances and (3) this is not granting a special privilege. Commissioner Sharp commented that he felt the Commission could grant the Variance because the building already exists and as long as there is a covenant placed against the property which states it is exempted from parking requirements per the playground area as long as it's a restaurant. Regarding Condition #11: 11. The volume on the ordering pedestal shall be turned t1f downed to its lowest audible level after 9:00 p.m. 2. The daily hours of operation shall be: Daily 6:00 a.m. IV} .'2:00 p.m. the last meal shall he served at 11:30 p.m. and all patrons out f!f the building by /2:0/ a.m. Mail1lenance activities to be done by 12:30 a.m. Commissioner Sharp said he did not think it necessary to condition the Horizon visual order confirmation system. 17 .. . '. Page 18 - CIty of Seal Beach PI~nnl/lg COJ)IlIlJ~,ioJ) MUII/"" of July 2U. 1994 Commissioner Law asked if Conditions of Approval can be changed, added or deleted at the review periods? Mr. Steele said yes. Commissioner Brown said he felt the Horizon system conditioned. Mr. Steele suggested: 24. The applicant shall install a .\'tate-oj-the art orderin~ system to meet with the approval of the Director qf Development Services. Commissioner Brown said his big concern with the project was their lack of parking. He agreed with Commissioner Sharp's comments that if they were going to build the playground outside they would have no parking problems. He said he was distressed that Mr. Von Esch didn't mention that Jack In The Box has a Variance for parking themselves. Most of the neighbor's complaints were not about the parking, noting Mr. Pesch said he parks in the Jack In The Box's parking lot. That led Commissioner Brown to feel the parking problems stem from the apartment building and not Jack In The Box. Most of the other resident concerns were about noise and he felt those can be mitigated. He felt it would be a good idea to notify the area residents as well as the property owners. Mr. Curtis said he had a slight correction to Condition #23: 23. The term of this permit shall befor three (3) months qftrr tile opening of the business, after which time the Commission shall review the use and may extend the permitfor a six (6) month extension, followed by a twelve (12) month extension, and thereafter inde;finitely, provided all conditions qf approval have been sati.~fied and no extraordinary demand for law enforcement services occurs with respect to the subject property, or other significant problems associated with the drive-in use arise. {fat any time the commission determines negative impacts on surrounding land uses associated with the drive-in use qf the property are not resolvable the Commission may revoke this permit, thereby terminating drive-in privileges for the restaurant. Vice Chairman Campbell said she is sensitive to resident concerns as the Commission's first responsibility is to the residents. However, she was concerned that Mr. Stone be considered individually and not tainted by prior problems with Jack In The Box as he is attempting to mitigate problems. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this application does allow for periodic reviews of the operation. The Jack In The Box is not subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) because the use was established prior to the Code provisions. They ceased their 24-hour operation, not operating between the hours of 2:00 a.m. - 6:00 a.m., so they would not 18 . . . Page 19 - City of Seal Beach l'lannmg ('OIllIllI~~IOIl MlI1ulcQ of July 20. 1'194 have to come under a CUP. Therefore, the City has no review system for Jack In The Box. Vice Chairman Campbell commented that she can see where Jack In The Box would be concerned about competition. Conversely, she was sure Mr. Stone did market research to determine whether the area can support an additional fast food restaurant. Mr. Whittenberg explained that once the Planning Commission takes an action, staff wilI come back with Resolutions based on the Commission's comments. Commissioner Sharp spoke on the operating hours, saying the doors shall be locked at 11:30 p.m. and no one shall be seated after 11:30 p.m. If a patron is already inside at 11:30 p.m. he will be served, no new patrons will be admitted or served. The drive-thru can stay open until 12:01 a.m. because they will not be inside a half-hour eating. They will have to keep one extra person in the restaurant to clean up in a half hour. The patrons inside will still be able to exit although the doors are locked. The Commission and staff discussed the following Conditions of Approval and modifications to them: 2. The hours of operation shall be: Daily - 6:00 a.m. to 12:01 a.m. The last meal shall be served at 11:30 p.m. and all patrons out of till' building hy 12:01 a.m. Maintenance activities to be done by ]2;300.m. The tlrlve-thru window shall remain opl'n until12:0J a.m. 3. There shall be no interior maintenance or other business- related activities during qff nONrs, between the hours f?l12:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. (!l the same day. There. shall he no exterior maintenance between (he hours of 12:01 a.I11. and 6:00 a.I11. 11. The volume on the ordering pedestal shall he turned fif.!' downed fO its lowest audible level a,tter 9:00 p.m. 12. The applicant shalllnsfall and maintain the Horizon drive-(hru ordJ..Iring system or a substantially similar altetnmive with the approval f!f ,hi) Director of D(~vel()pment Services. 23. The term of this permit shall he for three (3) months after thl! ope.ning of the business, after which time the Commission shal/ revIew the use ... 19 . . . PlI8C 20 - CIty of Selll B~lIch Plol1111Dg (;0111111".,011 MlIlutes of July 20. 1994 All construction shall be in sl1bstantla1 compliance with the plans approved through Conditional Use Permit 1194~4. 2S. The stipulated review periods under Condition #23 shall be Noticed also to all tenants within 300' of the subject property. 24, Commissioner Campbell asked what would happen if the applicant decided not to use the area as a play area? Mr. Steele said the option is for either the play area to comply with the parking requirements. If he were to establish another use for that area, he would have to find some way to deal with the parking requirements. He would have to come before the Commission to have another use for that area. Mr. Curtis, replying to Commissioner Brown's question, said this restaurant could be 2400 square feet if it did not have a drive-thru as opposed to the 1800 square feet with the drive-thru. The parking requirements for a drive-thru are more stringent than those for a regular restaurant. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Conditional Use Pel"mit #94-4 with the Conditions of Approval as revised. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Brown, Campbell Dahlman *** MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to app.-ove Variance #94-5. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Brown, Campbell Dahlman Mr. Whittenberg explained the Planning Commission has taken an action demonstrating their intent to approve Resolutions which would approve both of these applications. Staff will prepare the Resolutions and present them to the Planning Commission at their next meeting, August 3, 1994. If the Resolutions are adopted by the Commission on August 3rd, the ten calendar day appeal period wi11 start on August 4th. Vice Chairman Campbel1 commented to City residents that this application wi11 be reviewed by the Planning Commission three months after the restaurant opens. She urged those persons who have problems to come forward and speak to the Planning Commission. 20 . . . Page 21 - CIty of Seal Beach Planmng COl1lllll~~IOIl Mmutes or July 20, 1994 Mr. Whittenberg indicated that Notices of those review periods wi11 be sent to all property owners and residents within 300' radius of the subject property. A Notice wi11 also be published in the local newspaper. Vice Chairman Campbell noted that people may telephone City Hall to ascertain when the item has been placed on the agenda. *** RECESS: Vice Chairman Campbell called a recess at 10:30 p.m. The meeting resumed at 10:38 p.m. 6. Negative Declaration 94-5 Adult-Oriented Business Ordinance/Zone Text Amendment #94-1 Address: Applicant: C-2 and M-l Zones, Citywide City of Seal Beach Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The City is seeking approval of Negative Declaration and establish revised provisions for the operation of an adult-oriented business withm the City of Seal Beach. These changes will address recent court decisions regarding the establishment and operation of adult-oriented businesses. Commission Comments on Staff Report Commissioner Law said that midnight should be reflected as 12:01 a.m. to be correct; staff will correct this. Vice Chairman Campbel1 asked if the hours of operation be regulated to 10:00 p. m. rather than midnight? Mr. Steele replied the specific hours permissible may be different that hours in another community based on control of the business' secondary effects. To change the hours of operation of a business, specific evidence would have to be presented to the City Council that a particular secondary effect was caused by the businesses and it necessitated changing the hours. Midnight is in the staff report because these hours of operation has been upheld in a Federal or State court case. Vice Chairman Campbell said that the staff report indicates that malls having adult-oriented businesses have increased crime rates after 10:00 p.m. Mr. Whittenberg said staff was concerned that that information has come from only one study. Since only one study indicated that 10:00 p.m. was a potential cutoff point, staff felt it would be more conservative to go to midnight, which is a time the courts have upheld. Mr. Steele said a problem the City would face in changing the hours is finding a difference between the particular impact 21 . . . Page 22 - CIty of Selll Beach Plalllllllg c.:OIllIlIl...OO Mlllutc. of July 20. 1994 on crime between this business and, for example, a bar which might be al10wed to stay open to midnight or 2:00 a. m. Public Hearing Vice Chairman Campbell opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Steele indicated staff prepared a color-coded map which was presented on the bulletin board. The map shows the disbursion requirement would apply; the thousand foot and five hundred foot radii between the different types of businesses and the residential and churches. Mr. Whittenberg further explained the color-codings on the map and noted the adult-oriented businesses could locate in the City's four shopping centers, i.e., Rossmoor, Leisure World Center, Pavilion Center and Bay City Center. No one wished to speak for or against this application and the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Negative Declaration #94-5, through the adoption of Resolution #94-32, subject to conditions outlined in the staff report. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Campbell, Brown Dahlman *** MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to recommend approval of the Adult- Oriented Business Ordinance and Zone Text Amendment #94-1 to the City Council, through the adoption of Resolution #94-33. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Campbell, Brown Dahlman VII. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg passed a brochure to the Commissioners regarding a Planning Commissioners training session for the Commissioners to attend at Glendale in August or San Clemente in September. Commissioners were asked to contact staff if they wish to attend and staff wi11 make the necessary arrangements. 22 . . . Page 23 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg COIlUllIRRlllIl Mlllulc~ or July 20, 1994 Vill. IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Law congratulated Mr. Steele on the birth of his son, Tyler. Commissioner Law indicated the sidewalk has been repaired at St. Cloud and Seal Beach Blvd. Also that the Chevron station at that location is under repairs. Commissioner Brown asked staff for a status on the sand replenishment. Mr. Whittenberg said the City Manager is handling this matter and it will not come before the Planning Commission. He understood the negotiations are on-going with the contractor who has the contract with the Army Corps of Engineers to remove the sand from the Santa Ana riverbed. Mr. Whittenberg thought the City Manager was updating the City Council on a regular basis at their meeting. Commissioner Brown asked if there was a City-wide tree ordinance? Mr. Whittenberg said there is an ordinance before the City Council but it is being held by the City Manager. After resolution of technicalities it will come before the City Council again. Mr. Curtis advised that this ordinance would deal with maintenance and removal of public trees. For residential projects there is a requirement to plant trees in the public right-of-way and some landscaping in the front yard but for residential projects there is no requirement for trees except for the parkway tree. For commercial developments, they are required to have one tree for each five parking spaces. Vice Chairman Campbell indicated that Resolution #94-20 needed to be reviewed for change in the wording. Mr. Whittenberg said he would review the Minutes and correct the wording. The Resolution will be reviewed and re-signed at the next meeting. Mr. Steele said what controls is the Motion in the Minutes of the meeting. ADJOURNMENT Vice Chairman Campbell adJourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~O~I'J' Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary ~,--. APPROV AL: The Planning Commission Minutes of July 20, 1994 were approved on August~, 1994.~ 23