Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1994-12-07 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA of DECEMBER 7, 1994 7:30 P.M. * City Council Chambers 211 Eighth street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolution: #94-44 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL ill. APPROVAL OF AGENDA By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to: (a) Notify the public of any changes to the agenda; (b) Rearrange the order of the agenda; and/or (c) 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. 1. Approve Minutes of October 19, 1994 2. Approve Minutes of November 9, 1994 3. Approve Minutes of November 23, 1994 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 48 hours prior to the meeting. Receive and File: city council staff Report dated september 26, 1994 re: 1994 Leqislative status Report Receive and File: city council staff Report dated September 26, 1994 re: City response to "REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) for the PROPOSED BOLSA CHICA PROJECT", prepared by the county of Oranqe, dated Auqust 22, 1994 6. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated september 26, 1994 re: City of Huntinqton Beach General Plan Update - Receipt of Notice of Preparation (NOP) 4. . 5. 7. Receive and File: city council Staff Report dated October 10, 1994 re: City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: UNOCAL Material Amendment Application No. E-85-E to California Coastal Commission (UNOCAL - Platform Esther) 8. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated October 10, 1994 re: Coastal Commission Comment Letter, Application No. 5-94-189 - Mitchell Land & Improvement Company (Rumrunner's site) 9. Receive and File: Guides to the Political Reform Act. . 10. Receive and File: Planninq Department Staff Memorandum dated December 7, 1994 re transfer of ABC license #21- 252547 at 112 Main Street from,Mary Scheid to Nneilco Liquor Inc. 11. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated November 28, 1994 re: Notice of Intent to Prepare EIS/EIR - Queens Gate Entrance Channel Deepeninq project - U.S. Army Corps ofEnqineers and Port of Lonq Beach. 12. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated November 28, 1994, re: Additional Oranqe County Staff Reports reqardinq "Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Bolsa Chica project" (EIR 551). VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 13. . Conditional Use Address: Business: Applicant: Property Owner: Request: Permit 94-8 327 Main Street Nip 'n Stuff Liquor John Baker Richard Harbour Approval to open a new liquor store at 327 Main Street. Approve CUP 94-8 subject to conditions and adopt Resolution No. 94-44. Recommendation: . . . Page 3 - CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg Cooum.sioo Agenda · 12n /94 14. Heiqht variation Address: Applicants: Property OWners: Request: Recommendation: VII. STAFF CONCERNS VIII. 94-5 C-34 Surfs ide Ronald , Sonia Putney Ronald , Sonia Putney CRAS per new sinqle family residence. Approve Heiqht variation 94-5 subject to conditions and adopt Resolution 94-45. 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 48 hours prior to the meeting. Page 4 - City of Seal Beach Planning COIIU11ISSIOn Agenda · 12n /94 . DEe 21 1994 AGENDA FORECAST CITY DEADLINE: NOV 16 STAFF REPORTS PENDING; NOT AGENDIZED . ZTA #92-2 City-wide policy statement on entertainment. . Study Session re: Proposed Newsrack Ordinance. 1995 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY . JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC CUP #92-13/143 Main/Papillon's/12 mos entertainment CUP #92-25/1400 PCH/Glider Inn/indefinite extension 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 48 hours prior to the meeting. . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ~ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ~ CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of DECEMBER 7, 1994 The City of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session at 7:32 p.m. by Chairman Dahlman calling the meeting to order with the salute to the flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Dahlman Commissioners Sharp, Law, Campbell, Brown Also Present: Department of Develo.,pment Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney AGENDA APPROVAL Chairman Dahlman stated the Draft EIR (DEIR) for the proposed Bixby project has been received by the City. On December 13th the Environmental Quality Control Board will meet at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall to receive comments on the DEIR. December 27th at 5:00 p.m. is the deadline for comments on the DEIR to be delivered to Mr. Whittenberg. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve the Planning Commission Agenda for December 7, 1994. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Campbell, Brown ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Linda Krueger * Seal Beach (No Address Given) Ms. Krueger explained her residence is adjacent to the Jack-In-The-Box property and asked the Planning Commission for help in changing their delivery hours, which now include Sunday deliveries at 7:00 a.m. Staffis to look into what can be done and report at the next meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve the Consent Calendar as presented in the Agenda: 1. Approve Minutes of October 19, 1994 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 - Page 2 - City of Seal Beach PIanniDg CommisSion MInutes · 12n/94 2. Approve Minutes of November 9, 1994 3. Approve Minutes of November 23, 1994 4. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated September 26, 1994 re: 1994 Legislative Status Report 5. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated September 26, 1994 re: City response to "REVISED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) for the PROPOSED BOLSA CmCA PROJECT", prepared by the County of Orange, dated August 22, 1994 6. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated September 26, 1994 re: City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update - Receipt of Notice of Preparation (NOp) 7. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated October 10,1994 re: City of Seal Beach Comment Letter re: UNOCAL Material Amendment Application No. E-85-E to California Coastal Commission (UNOCAL - Platform Esther) 8. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated October 10, 1994 re: Coastal Commission Comment Letter, Application No. 5-94-189 - Mitchell Land & Improvement Company (Rumrunner's Site) 9. Receive and File: Guides to the Political Reform Act. 10. Receive and File: Planning Department Staff Memorandum dated December 7,1994 re transfer of ABC license #21-252547 at 112 Main Street from Mary Scheid to Nneilco Liquor Inc. 11. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated November 28, 1994 re: Notice of Intent to Prepare EIS/EIR - Queens Gate Entrance Channel Deepening Project - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Port of Long Beach. 12. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated November 28, 1994, re: Additional Orange County Staff Reports regarding "Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Bolsa Chica Project" (EIR 551). MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Law, Brown, Dahlman, Campbell . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 .4 Page 3 - Cily of Seal Beach PIannmg Cammissioo Mmutes · 12rl/94 PUBLIC HEARINGS 13. Conditional Use Pennit 94-8 Address: 327 Main Street Business: Nip 'n Stuff Liquor Applicant: John Baker Property Owner: Richard Harbour Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, John Baker, requested Planning Commission approval to move his existing liquor store from 322 Main Street to 327 Main Street. Staff recommended approval subject to Conditions of Approval through the adoption of Resolution No. 94-44. Mr. Curtis indicated a letter had been received from Rich Harbour of Harbour Surfboards (attached). Mr. Harbour expressed concerns the applicant would have parallel parking in front of 327 Main Street and this could create a parking problem. Additionally, his lessee, Robert Howson, expressed concerns the applicant's adult magazines and videos may not be appropriate next to a family tyPe business on Main Street. Commission Comments on Staff RC4)ort Relinquishing CUP 92-22 The Commission discussed the problem of creating two CUP's which allow alcohol sales across the street from one another. The existing CUP, CUP 92-22, is for Nip 'n Stuff Liquor at 322 Main Street. The application for CUP 94-8, would be for Nip 'n Stuff Liquor at 327 Main Street. Mr. Curtis stated Ron Bennett, the property owner of 322 Main Street, told staff he would provide the City with a letter relinquishing his rights to CUP 92-22. Staff anticipated having the letter this evening but did not receive it. Mr. Steele explained the City does have some control on CUP 92-22. While CUP 92-22 runs with the land, it's existence is dependent on a signed Acceptance of Conditions form by a new business owner attempting to take over the CUP. CUP 92-22 will remain in effect until the use is abandoned or the CUP is relinquished. Chairman Dahlman noted the staff report states this application is a premise-to-premise transfer but Mr. Steele's legal interpretation makes it sound as though this is a new alcohol sales permit and should be treated as such. Mr. Steele replied the staff report indicates this is a change of address on an ABC license which is one of the reasons that ABC's over concentration rules do not apply; this is not a new ABC license. If a use is not re-established within 90 days, a strict interpretation of the rules would mandate the use reapply, accept the conditions and start the business or the CUP would expire. ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . Page 4 - CIty of Seal Beach PIanmng Commissim Minutell · 12f1194 Commissioner Campbell asked if the Commission could just say no to a new application for alcohol sales at 327 Main Street? Mr. Steele answered the Permit Streamlining Act makes the time period within which the Commission may make a decision short. But because Mr. Curtis indicated a letter would be provided by the property owner of 322 Main Street, the Commission has the option of continuing the Public Hearing tonight to see if staff can obtain Mr. Bennett's letter stating CUP 92-22 has been relinquished. Commissioner Campbell asked what happens if Mr. Bennett changes his mind in the interim? Mr. Steele said the Commission would then have to make its decision on the merits of this application, knowing there's a CUP in effect across the street. Commissioner Law asked if someone having an ABC license from another city could transfer it to 322 Main Street? Mr. Steele said that's a possibility but he didn't know what the time periods with ABC would be. Commissioner Brown asked if CUP 94-8 runs with all the stores at 327 Main Street or just with the 1500 square foot liquor store? Mr. Curtis said it would be just the 1500 square feet of the proposed liquor store. Commissioner Brown said this building is subdivided. If it were un- subdivided would the CUP then apply to the entire building? Mr. Curtis said no, because they would be changing the provisions under which the existing CUP was granted. Any change would have to come back before the Planning Commission for approval. Compliance and Enforcement of Conditions of Ap.proval Commissioner Brown said the staff report says the Conditions of Approval for CUP 92-22 have not been complied with. He asked if anything has or can be done to ensure a new CUP would be complied with? Mr. Curtis replied several liquor stores and markets in the City have their liquor brand advertising signs back up in their window areas. Staff sent out letters this week to all of them requesting removal of the signs. In this case, staff is recommending a series of short review periods. If, at any time during those review periods, the applicant doesn't comply the Commission can take that into consideration when deciding whether or not to grant an extension of this CUP. Chairman Dahlman asked Mr. Steele what the enforcement process amounts to? Mr. Steele said one method of enforcing a CUP is reviewing compliance with all conditions of approval. The Commission has the option to modify or revoke a CUP if it finds the conditions have been consistently violated. Occasional violations are normally not grounds for revocation. Additionally, violations of some conditions can be misdemeanors under the municipal Code and can be prosecuted criminally. He stated the City Attorney's Office was in the process of reviewing whether that particular provision applied to this violation when Mr. Curtis indicated the owner would be coming before the Planning Commission for CUP 94-8. The City Attorney's Office decided to back off on the case at that time. ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . Page S - City of ScaI Beach PIannmg Commission Minutes · 12nt94 Parking Variance Commissioners Brown and Campbell noted the subject property is nonconforming due to lack of parking, providing 5 of the 16 required parking spaces on site and asked how this application could be approved without a Variance for lack of parking? Mr. Whittenberg explained most of the Main Street businesses are in a legal, nonconforming situation. They do not meet current ~ requirements but they did meet whatever Code requirements were in place when they were built. In this case, there are no Variances on the property, so whatever parking is provided met the requirements at the time the structure was built. The number of parking spaces needed for the proposed liquor store is based on the size of the building and is no different than the use previously in the building. This is why there is no Variance required. If a use required parking at an increased ratio (above the previous use of the property) then a Variance would be needed. Commissioner Campbell asked how many parking spaces are allotted to the office space in the rear? Mr. Whittenberg said there are five parking spaces on the property which are allotted to the entire property. All City parking requirements are based on the square footage of a building. The five parking spaces are for the use of Harbour Surfboards, the music store and this application. Mr. Curtis said Charo Chicken's back office is entitled to use those spaces also, Charo Chicken proper is not. It has it's own parking because it's in a different building. Commissioner Brown asked if the building pays in-lieu parking fees for the lack of 11 parking spaces? Mr. Whittenberg said no, because it's a legal, pre-existing use that has not had to come before the City for a Variance or a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Sharp asked if there was short-term parking in front of 327 Main Street? Mr. Whittenberg said the applicant could answer that. Commissioner Sharp noted liquor store patrons come and go quickly, maybe needing ten minutes to make their purchase. Commissioner Brown noted there is diagonal parking at 322 Main Street. He asked what provisions will be made at 327 Main Street? Mr. Whittenberg said the change of parking requirements on Main Street is under the City Council's purview. The Planning Commission could make a recommendation to the Council if it felt one was appropriate. It would be a separate action from any action taken on this application. Staff Scenario Attempting to alleviate the Planning Commission's concerns, Mr. Whittenberg suggested a scenario to the Commission for their consideration and one which the applicant could address during his testimony. The Commission has expressed concerns regarding the current viability of the ABC license at 322 Main Street and the issuance of a CUP allowing alcohol sales at 327 Main Street could be addressed by continuing the matter tonight to the January 4th meeting. Staff would be able to schedule a hearing for revocation of CUP 92-22 due to non-compliance with conditions and the Commission could take an action to revoke CUP 92-22 prior to considering CUP 94-8. ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . Page 6 - ~ of Seal Beach Planning CmumsaIOll Minutes · 12f1/94 Commissioner Brown disliked that scenario, stating it doesn't make sense for the Commission to revoke CUP 92-22 for non-compliance and then turn around and grant the same applicant CUP 94-8. Revocation Chairman Dahlman said it appeared the Commission could schedule a hearing for revocation of CUP 92-22 for no particular reason and give the new owner an opportunity to say that's fme. Mr. Steele said the Commission could not revoke a CUP for no particular reason, explaining the Commission can revoke or modify existing CUPs only for non-compliance with conditions of approval. The addition of a similar use across the street is not non-compliance with the original CUP. Chairman Dahlman said in the absence of a signed Acceptance of Conditions form a person would be in violation. Mr. Steele said in the absence of a signed Acceptance of Conditions form the CUP does not have any effect. If Ron Bennett is willing to surrender CUP 92-22 and won't sign the Acceptance of Conditions form, then CUP 92-22 is null and void and does not exist any more. All CUPs have a standard condition which says "This permit is not valid for any purpose unless the notarized Acceptance of Conditions form is filed". Commissioner Sharp asked if there is any reason why the Commission can't condition CUP 94-8 to state it's in limbo until the City receives a letter from Ron Bennett relinquishing CUP 92-22? This would not hold the applicant up for a month. Mr. Steele said the property owner to which CUP 92-22 is attached could voluntarily relinquish the CUP if he does so in writing. He thought that would be binding on the property as an intentional abandonment of the use and there would be no 90 day waiting period; the 90 day period is intended for the situation where the property is in limbo and nobody knows what is going to happen. If Ron Bennett voluntarily relinquishes a property right, thereby giving it back to the City, the City's entitled to rely on that relinquishment and extinguish the CUP. Commissioner Brown asked Mr. Steele if he needed to further research this matter? Mr. Steele said that because he thinks this matter will be continued for two weeks, while the City's waiting for the letter from Mr. Bennett, he will research this issue and make sure it goes into the record at the next meeting. Commissioner Campbell asked if the property owner voluntarily relinquished the CUP could he change his mind? Mr. Steele said no. Public Hearing Chairman Dahlman opened the Public Hearing. Mrs. Fillmann said there have been no communications other than the one letter from Rich Harbour of Harbour Surfboards. Chairman Dahlman asked if Rich Harbour is the landlord of 327 Main Street? Mr. Curtis said yes, he owns the building at 327 Main Street and is the landlord. Moe Bonakdar is Mr. ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 fi Page 7 - CiIy of ScaI Beacb Planoq CommissJOII Minutes · 12rJ 194 Harbor's lessee and John Baker would be subleasing from Moo Bonakdar. Ron Bennett owns the building at 322 Main Street. Mr. Steele said the lessee leases the CUP and is the person entitled to use the CUP. John Baker * Nip 'n Stuff Liquor * 322 Main Street. Seal Beach Mr. Baker introduced himself as the owner of Nip 'n Stuff Liquor for fifteen years. Regarding signage, Mr. Baker said he complied with the sign regulations until the time of the volleyball tournament when the building's owner changed. The new owner removed his store front awnings, thus removing any identification that here was a liquor store. He felt compelled to put the lighted neon brand name advertising signs back in his windows so as not to lose too many sales. He talked to Lee Whittenberg about this and was told he would have to appear before the Planning Commission and it would take a month or so to get on their agenda. He realized he was in violation of the sign ordinance but also knew that at the first of the year, when he hoped to change his location, he would no longer put the neon signs in his window. He stated he has no intention of placing lighted neon brand name advertising liquor signs in the window at 327 Main Street. He might put a lighted neon sign in the window but it won't be a liquor brand name. Regarding deliveries he said he doesn't receive deliveries off the alley currently because of the alley's design. Most of his deliveries are made after 9:00 a.m. but are in the early part of the day and are made via the front door. There are no Saturday or Sunday deliveries, strictly Monday thru Friday. The parking lot adjacent to the new location has two driveway curb cuts. For the time his deliveries take, about twenty minutes, there is a red zone where the trucks could pull into for a few minutes. Regarding the CUP situation, he understood the new owner plans to put in a bagel shop. The new owner suggested he would speak tonight in Mr. Baker's favor but he was not present at this point. A delay of Commission action would cause him financial difficulty as he will be paying rent on two locations as of January 1, 1995. Mr. Baker stated he was evicted from his location and it was not a friendly eviction. He is forced to move in a timely manner. He has received ABC's permission to move the license to a different address. The ABC also told him they could not put another liquor store at 322 Main Street because of the over-concentration of liquor licenses; they would not allow it. He would also be concerned if another liquor store were to come in directly across the street and would not like it. The ABC is very specific on what they allow. He agreed to staff s short review periods and realized he had been in violation regarding the signage but said he was not trying to break any laws. Regarding the street striping, in front of 327 Main Street there is one un-striped curb. In front of Charo Chicken and Harbour Surfboard there are three twenty-four minute zones. In 1984 when diagonal parking was initially designed, it was not put in that location as they were concerned about the left hand turn off Pacific Coast Highway and the busses leaving from in ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 .4 PlIllll 8 - Cdy of Seal Beach PIauning ComnuSSIOO Minulc8 · 12nt94 front of the service station. They are far enough back to not interfere with any car parked diagonally. Relinquish First Chairman Dahlman said it's important to note this is a premise-to-premise transfer of an ABC liquor license. However, the Commission has had testimony that looks as if this application must be considered on its merits and even ask the question of whether they would permit another liquor store. He said the City Council Chambers would be filled if there was any chance another liquor selling establishment were to go in at 322 Main Street. Mr. Baker said nobody wants six liquor stores on Main Street. When talking to the ABC he noted they are very specific about over-concentration and are very protective of Seal Beach. The ABC flatly turned down a restaurant that wanted to come into Seal Beach due to over-concentration. Additionally, Ron Bennett, does not want a liquor store in his building. Chairman Dahlman said it may be necessary to continue consideration on this CUP until the Planning Commission receives a letter from Ron Bennett relinquishing his interests in CUP 92- 22. He asked Mr. Baker if he had any alternative suggestions on how this could be best handled? Mr. Baker said he felt Mr. Bennett would keep to his word on giving up the CUP. Mr. Baker said he did not remember signing an Acceptance of Conditions form for CUP 92-22. Mr. Whittenberg said when the finall'esolution was signed a copy would have been mailed to Mr. Baker. At that point an Acceptance of Conditions form would have accompanied the resolution and Mr. Baker would have been asked to sign the form, have it notarized and return it to the Planning Department. Chairman Dahlman said if he has not signed the Acceptance of Conditions form it's a violation of his CUP. Hours of Operation Commissioner Brown expressed his concern for area residents that Mr. Baker would be staying open until 2:00 a.m. and Jack-in-the Box is also open to 2:00 a.m. He asked if Mr. Baker would limit his hours of operation to closing at midnight? Mr. Baker said he would not want to do that, noting he has been open until 2:00 a.m. for 365 days per year for fifteen years. There has never been a problem in the past and he did not envision any problems. He stated his store at 327 Main Street would not be exposed to Jack-in-the Box in any way. He would not take deliveries from the alley and would not enter from the back of the building. His trash would go out the front door, be carried around to the back and placed in plastic trash cans. He does not have any bottles to throw out. He has paper trash, like a beer box. Deliveries Commissioner Brown asked again about deliveries. Mr. Baker said currently the delivery trucks arrive early and park diagonally. Charo Chicken doesn't open until 11:00 a.m. He said the delivery times could be specified and he could talk to the companies. Although the attorney's office next door does have a parking lot he could not use it. But their two curb cuts do provide a space in between (which is a red zone) and if his delivery trucks blocked one part of the curb cut and the space between the trucks would be in and gone before the law offices would know ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 C 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . Page 9 - City of Seal Beach PIannmg CommiSSIClIl Minutes · 12n194 about it. Commissioner Brown said he would like to hear the law offices say they wouldn't mind the applicant's delivery trucks parking in front of their curb cuts. Commissioner Sharp said it's more dangerous for the applicant's suppliers to park diagonally than to park parallel, even if they're double parked because the end of the truck blocks the whole lane. Mr. Baker said the supplier's trucks do damage to the curbs on Main Street because they pull in and because they can't pull in far enough, they pull one wheel up onto the curb. They split the sidewalk or crush the curb. Lease Ran Out Chairman Dahlman said the Commission could decide not to approve this application because the applicant has been out of compliance with the current permit. Mr. Baker explained the extenuating circumstances, noting the new property owner took down the store's 45' lighted awning that said IlLiquor'l, leaving the store without signage and without lights on the sidewalk. Mr. Baker put lights around the edge of the windows for Christmas so he would have some light on the front of his store. The new owner was allowed to do this because his lease ran out approximately I1h years ago. When the owner inherited the building he sold it; he was not talking lease. When the new owner came in, he wrote IlLeasell on notes he wrote to the tenants but there was no note for Mr. Baker. So he had to relocate. He respects Mr. Bennett's remodeling and was not going to put up a tacky banner on the new facade. Chairman Dahlman asked why didn't he put up a window sign that said IINip 'n Stuff Liquorll instead of the lighted neon alcohol signs which are illegal? Mr. Baker replied liDo you mean you wanted a paper banner up there?1I Chairman Dahlman advised banners are limited. Adult Materials Chairman Dahlman gave Mr. Baker a copy of Rich Harbour's December 7th letter and said Mr. Howson expressed concerns about the adult types of magazines and videos being sold at Nip 'n Stuff liquor; he asked Mr. Baker to comment. Mr. Baker said his floor plan shows the adult materials will be in a 4'x'4 area and if they didn't help pay the rent he probably would not sell them. While it's not illegal to sell these materials, he definitely will have them in an enclosed area, like the Wherehouse does. They will not be exposed to children. He said he does not sell Surfer or People magazines to draw young people into his store. Mr. Baker said Mr. Harbour didn't have any problems when he discussed this issue with him. He has a tenant up front for which he is concerned. He was surprised Mr. Harbour didn't face him directly with his concerns; he would have gladly shown him his floor plans. Commissioner Campbell said the floor plan does not show where the adult only materials will be located. Mr. Baker said it's where the word IIMagazinesll is written. She asked how does this differ from an adults-only business? Mr. Baker said he did not think he had an adults-only business. For example, the Wherehouse has the adult materials in an open area that you can walk right into. His area would be at the back of his store. Chairman Dahlman indicated the City has a new ordinance on adult materials and asked staff for clarification as to whether the sale or magazines and videos constitutes adult entertainment under that ordinance. Mr. Steele replied that part of the classification of any particular business ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . Pace ) 0 . ~ of Seal Beach PJannmg ClIIDIDiasioo Minutes · ) 2f7/94 as an adult-oriented business under that ordinance is whether the sale of adult materials comprises greater than 50 % of the total sales of the business. This is a Constitutional requirement stemming from a United States Supreme Court case. The United States Supreme Court has said a city or other governmental agency can't regulate just any sale of adult materials at a particular business, it must be the majority of the businesses' sales are adult materials. Mr. Steele clarified the record by asking Mr. Baker if the adult materials in his store comprise 50% or more of the sales. Mr. Baker said no they do not. No one in the audience wished to speak in favor of this application. The following persons spoke in opposition: Mitzie Morton * 153 13th Street. Seal Beach Mrs. Morton said she was not really speaking against this application. For clarification, she requested the words" Adult Materials and Videos" be written on the floor plans. She asked the hours for both liquor stores on Main Street be the same. She asked if the property owner of 327 Main Street obtained building permits to partition off the store? Mr. Curtis said Mrs. Morton met with the Building Inspector to go over the plans and found no permits were pulled to put in the partition wall between what is now Charo Chicken's office and this space. The applicant will be required to pull this permit. Mrs. Morton asked if the City will now reward the landlord for violating the City's laws? Mr. Whittenberg said he will be required to get a permit and pay a double fee for an after-the-fact permit. Mrs. Morton asked if an electrical permit was pulled? Mr. Whittenberg said staff will have to check the permits to see. Linda Krueger * 332 8th Street. Seal Beach Ms. Krueger expressed her concerns about the delivery hours as she is across the alley from Harbour Surfboards and the proposed liquor store. She noted this would block the alley for residents to come and go. She was concerned if/when the liquor store opens there will be more people there racing up and down the alley. Commissioner Campbell asked Ms. Krueger if she got the Notice for this hearing or did her father, the property owner, get the Notice? Ms. Krueger said her father received the Notice as he is the property owner, she received nothing as the tenant. Commissioner Campbell said she thought the Commission had discussed and decided to Notice both tenants and property owners. Mr. Steele thought this was just for the Burger King application. Mr. Curtis said he would check the minutes of that meeting. Commissioner Campbell said so many of these units are rentals and the tenants don't know what's going on. Commissioner Sharp said when comparing Jack-in-the-Box and Nip 'n Stuff for noise at night there is no comparison because mainly adults will patronize the liquor store. It's the younger group who are boisterous while patronizing Jack-in-the-Box. Mr. Curtis said the liquor store has been in existence for 35 years. It is right across the street and also backs up to residences and the City has no history of complaints regarding late night noise at that location. Nip'n Stuff ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . Page II - CIty of Seal Bl3:h PIanniDg Commission MInutes · 12nJ94 is ten feet away from residences in its present location and would also be about ten feet away from residences if it moves across the street. Chairman Dahlman said he could not attend the meeting for the Burger King hearings but local ordinances provide for the Noticing. Mr. Steele said the municipal Code mandates the Noticing and the applicant pays the postage for the mailing. Chairman Dahlman said the Planning Commission would need to recommend to the City Council a change to this ordinance to include noticing of tenants too. Rebuttal * John Baker Regarding Notices, Mr. Baker said the ABC requires Notices be mailed to residences within 600' of the subject property. He was at the ABC on December 2nd and obtained their form letter. He filled out their letter, duplicated it and mailed it out December 7th. Mr. Whittenberg said ABC has a different Noticing requirement than the City does. City Notices are specifically for the Planning Commission Public Hearings. If the desire of the Commission is to have all Public Hearing Notices go to not only property owners but also tenants, staff would need to do that under a Code revision to the existing ordinance. The time and effort to accomplish that type of Notice is much greater than the current Noticing requirement. Mr. Curtis said typically 80 to 100 Notices are sent for a hearing on an Old Town matter. Mr. Baker said he mailed 177 Notices for the ABC Notices. Regarding deliveries, there will be none from the back of the building because he has no access to the back of the store from the alley because it would involve going through someone else's office. Harbour Surfboard deliveries are off the alley. Regarding storage, Commission Campbell asked where he would be storing empty crates for the suppliers to remove? Mr. Baker said he has no empty crates, all his supplies come in boxes which are folded and trashed. Mr. Baker said he has a small back room, approximately 7' x 10', in which he will have his desk and will store a portable bar and displays. Regarding a door from the back of the liquor office into Charo Chicken's office, Commissioner Campbell asked about this access. Mr. Baker said there's a hallway back there for access to a rest room. Regarding rest room facilities, Commissioner Campbell said Mr. Baker's floor plan doesn't show any rest room facilities and asked if he would be using the Charo Chicken facilities? Mr. Baker said yes, that arrangement has been worked out. That door is secured at night. Commissioner Campbell said that if he was going to be using their rest room what would stop him from using the back door for deliveries? Mr. Baker said he does not have a key to his back door. Commissioner Campbell asked if the hallway was separate from Charo Chicken's office? ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 C 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . Page 12 - Ci1;y of Sat Beach PIannmg Commission MInutes · 12n194 Mr. Baker said they have separate offices and then there's a hallway. His offices are closed and he doesn't have to enter them at all. Commissioner Brown noted the present store is 1200 square feet and asked what is the square footage of the proposed store? Mr. Baker said 1000 square feet which includes the use of the hallway. Commissioner Brown asked about the requirement for each establishment to have a rest room and does this rest room count? Mr. Curtis explained when the applicant applies to the Building Department for his tenant improvement permits, the rest room facilities will be reviewed by the plan check engineer. This should be sufficient although it will be required to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. One Exit Commissioner Brown said one exit could be a fire hazard. Mr. Baker said his office area will not be a storage area which is piled with hazardous materials. No door way will be blocked. His storage will be a couple of coolers. Commissioner Brown said if there's a fire at the front of the store he would be trapped. Mr. Baker said he could walk out the back door although it would be bolted at night. However, he has had the same situation for years --- he has had only one door in his store. Mr. Whittenberg clarified the Fire Codes require two exiting points if the building occupancy is rated at 50 persons or more. If the occupancy is rated at 49 persons or less, only one exit out of the building is required. The facility will be inspected by the Fire Department and will meet all their requirements. Mr. Baker said he would appreciate an approval tonight so he may proceed on in a timely manner. It could be a financial disaster if it goes on too long and he has to pay two rents, hold one business open and get another one started. Another Store Mr. Whittenberg suggested the application to ABC is for a premises-to-premises transfer. Assuming that license is approved by ABC, the current location will not have an ABC license. For a new license to come for consideration by the City and ABC, an applicant would have to f11e an application with ABC for a new license and to the City for an approval of a new liquor license. Even though the location is already licensed under our CUP, they would still need to come to the City because it's a new license being applied for. Realistically that process cannot occur within 90 days. Once an application is filed the City has 30 days to ensure the application is complete. The applicant cannot be considered for Commission review for 45 days. The Public Hearing process is next, followed by the ten day appeal period. That would be past the 90 days. He hoped this would give the Planning Commission a comfort level as technically it's not practical to assume an application can come in to reactivate that location within the 90 days the ~ would allow for. Commissioner Campbell said she didn't think another liquor store would come in, but she could foresee a restaurant coming in. Mr. Whittenberg said that would be worse situation, as they . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 C 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 .4 Page 13 - CI~ of Seal Beach Planning Comnussioo Minutes · 12n194 would have to request a Variance from the City for parking and a new CUP because the current CUP is only for off-premise sales. Commissioner Brown said if someone were to take an existing ABC license they probably could come in under the 90 days. In an effort to make sure the Planning Commission was aware there are mechanisms in place to stop a liquor sales license in Seal Beach, Mr. Whittenberg said he didn't think that situation could happen because of over-concentration of liquor licenses and high crime in that census tract. ABC's Rule 61.3 gives ABC the right to automatically deny an application in a high crime, over-concentrated area subject to their not being a CUP requirement at the City level. When a CUP is required, ABC will contact the City and ask if the City wishes to have it considered. The City would automatically notify ABC it will not accept an application for a new license for the area; the Commission could request staff do this. Time To Open Commissioner Brown asked if this application were continued to January 4th and were followed by a ten day appeal period, he would be able to open his store by January 15th. Mr. Baker noted he still has to build his liquor store. Mr. Whittenberg said he could move furniture but not alcohol stock. He could not get building permits for things which are directly related to the alcohol sales. He would also be at a risk that an appeal would not be filed. Commissioner Sharp said he would have a walk-in cooler that must be built for that location. He would be lucky to open by February 1st. The Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments Commissioner Brown stated he is uncomfortable approving CUP 94-8 while CUP 92-22 still exists. He would feel more secure if the Planning Commission had a letter from Ron Bennett but it does not. He is also concerned for the tenants in the back of these establishments. Regarding the hours of operation, he would like to see more equity, consistency and fairness. If he must vote tonight he would vote against this application. It would be another matter if continued to January 4th. Commissioner Sharp stated he felt a thirty day delay is a disservice to a good businessman. And this matter could be resolved in twenty-four hours if/when Ron Bennett's letter is received. He noted the applicant was evicted, this move isn't something he's doing on his own. The applicant has a good reputation, has been in business for fifteen years without any problems. " Commissioner Campbell stated she sees a problem with the 2:00 a.m. closing hour for nearby residents. She noted the testimony showed the building at 322 Main Street was sold a year ago and therefore the applicant had prior knowledge he would have to move. She said she would like to see the hours of operation changed. ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 .4 Page 14 - City of Seal Beach Planning CclmmJsSIOIl Minutes · 12n194 Commissioner Sharp asked for a legal opinion on changing an applicant's requested hours of operation. He questioned whether the liquor store in the 100 block of Main Street had had its hours imposed by the Planning Commission? Mr. Curtis said Seal Beach Liquor's shorter hours of operation at Main Street Liquor were of her choosing. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the property owner of 322 Main Street, Ron Bennett, is now present and wants to address the Commission. Commissioner Brown said this is a new CUP permit and because of this the Commission could impose more stringent conditions. Mr. Steele said grandfathering only applies if you're talking about the same property. He agreed with Commissioner Brown that this is a new CUP and the Conditions of Approval are up for consideration. He added it's a legal grey area as to whether a City can impose more stringent operating hours than those imposed by ABC. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND Unanimous to reopen the Public Hearing to allow Ron Bennett to address the Planning Commission. Public Hearing Ron Bennett * 322 Main Street Mr. Bennett testified he has no intention of having any liquor selling establishment at 322 Main Street. And, he would be happy to sign anything the Commission would desire that he relinquishes his rights to CUP 92-22 and Resolution No. 93-2. The Commission took a straw poll and agreed it does not need to vary from its usual routine to adjourn to an earlier meeting. It will hold its regularly scheduled December 21st meeting to consider a resolution on this application. The Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments Continued Commissioner Law said she saw nothing wrong with this applicant's desire to move across the street and to get moved in as soon as possible. Chairman Dahlman said when he first saw this application he was already aware the applicant's signage was in violation of the City's Code. He recalled the approval of CUP 92-22 and the statements made by this applicant. The applicant was asked specifically why he should be the only one in town operating a liquor store who is still permitted to have neon signs advertising brand name alcoholic beverages in the windows. First the applicant stated he was here frrst, he's grandfathered and he had no concern for a level playing field for the other businessmen. Chairman Dahlman felt the continued presence of the window signs, despite the applicant's ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 - 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . PIIllC 15 - Ci~ of Seal Beach PIaDning Commission Mmutes · 12f7/94 statement there was a reason for it and he was forced to keep them up, is hard to believe. The Commission now has an application from the applicant who is currently in violation of the Conditions of Approval of CUP 92-22. He mayor may not have signed an Acceptance of Conditions form for CUP 92-22 and it's over one year old. Mr. Whittenberg said staff believes the applicant has signed that form, adding that the fact building permits have not been obtained is a problem of another property owner, not the applicant. The Chairman said this is the place to do ~ enforcement of CUP 92-22. The appropriate enforcement would be to suspend City approval to sell alcoholic beverages until the lighted new brand advertising signs are removed from the windows. While this application does not make things better it appears not to make them worse. Chairman Dahlman was not sure if he could believe the applicant's statement that there will be no neon lighted signage at the new store and wondered if a more firm commitment could be obtained from the applicant. It appears the present landlord wants this applicant to move across the street and he is apparently welcome there. Seeing this application does not make the situation worse he would be willing to vote in favor of its approval, assuming the Planning Commission does get the letter from Ron Bennett relinquishing CUP 92-22. He suggested the staff report was in error where it said staff had inspected the store and found it in compliance with City Code provisions because it was not in compliance due to signage. He wished the parking situation could be improved. If it were a new CUP he would pursue this further but the Main Street Specific Plan is on the back burner. Commissioner Brown said he would still like to see this application continued to another Commission meeting to allow receipt of the letter relinquishing rights in CUP 92-22 from Ron Bennett as of a certain date. He would also like to see the building permit issues addressed. Realizing this is a new CUP application, Commissioner Brown asked if the Commission is rewarding this applicant for violating his existing CUP with a new CUP? If the Commission is rewarding the property owner at 327 Main Street for subdividing his building without getting building permits and for not having adequate parking by allowing the lack of parking situation to go on? He asked why 327 Main Street is not paying in-lieu parking fees whereas another new business would have to pay these fees? How long do you get grandfathered when you have a new business coming into a building? Mr. Whittenberg explained a building will lose its grandfathering when (1) the property is tom down, (2) the building is vacated for over 90 days or (3) a new use is introduced with an increased parking requirement. This application meets none of the criteria referenced above. Commissioner Brown said that still does not make sense. MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Dahlman to continue Conditional Use Pennit 94-8 ... The Commission continued its discussion. Commissioner Campbell asked if no building permit(s) exist, will a second electrical line be needed because there will be two separate tenants? Mr. Whittenberg said it would depend on how the existing electrical service is set up and how it would be modified. ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . Page 16 - City of Seal Beach PIamung Commission Minutes · 12n194 Commissioner Campbell noted the applicant said he might have a neon sign in his window and asked what it would look like? Mr. Whittenberg said the sign would have to meet Code requirements. Commissioner Brown said if this matter is continued, he would like to see Notices go to both property owners and tenants. Mr. Whittenberg explained he is talking about a different type of continuance, which would involve re-opening the Public Hearing, re-advertising and re-Noticing. If you re-Notice, the law requires a ten-day Notice. The City must advertise in the newspaper ten days before the continued hearing and staff could not do this by the Commission's December 21st meeting due to publication dates in the newspaper. If the Public Hearing is kept closed and re-Notices are not mailed, the Commission could continue its consideration of the resolution to any time that's convenient for the Commission. You could not have a continued Public Hearing until January 4th at the earliest. Mr. Steele said the Commission could re-open the Public Hearing tonight and continue the Public Hearing to the next meeting. MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Dahlman to re-open the Public Hearing for the purpose of continuing CUP 94-8 to the Planning Commission meeting of December 21, 1994. Commissioner Sharp reviewed other options and noted he was concerned about the costs to hold this second meeting, noting the costs of having legal counsel attend. Mr. Whittenberg explained the purpose of re-opening the Public Hearing on December 21st -- (1) to instruct staff to Notice all tenants within 300' of the location and (2) to allow the public to comment on the resolution itself. Mr. Steele explained the City Council expressed its desire to have legal counsel present when the Commission is going to make a final decision (whether or not a Public Hearing takes place). Mr. Curtis said the cost of mailing Notices is borne by the applicant. Mr. Steele said if the Commission decides to continue this matter the Public Hearing should be open because part of what the decision is being based on is the letter from the existing landlord. That letter needs to get into the Record and you cannot get evidence into the Record unless a Public Hearing is open --- even if it's written evidence. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Brown, Sharp, Campbell, Law With regard to the CUP's Conditions of Approval, it is the desire of the Commission to have a condition prohibiting deliveries' from the alley? The Commission said it would be helpful even though he can't get deliveries off the alley. The Commission requested the resolution include the following: 1. That magazines and videos will be partitioned from view of the general public; 2. That supply deliveries will be made between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. and only emergency deliveries may be made after 11:00 a.m. ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . P"ll ]7 - CII1 of Seal Beach Planning Comnussion Minutes · ]2n194 3. The resolution be left open regarding hours of operation to allow for public input. Chairman Dahlman reminded the public the Public Hearing on this issue is being re-opened and will be continued briefly to allow any additional testimony in two weeks. City staff will make an effort to notify tenants and property owners in the immediate area and a resolution will be brought back to this meeting. *** Chairman Dahlman, with Commission agreement, called a recess at 9:45 p.m. The meeting resumed at 9:50 p.m. 14. Height Variation 94-5 Address: Applicants: Property Owners: C-34 Surfside Ronald & Sonia Putney Ronald & Sonia Putney Staff Re.port Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on ftle in the Planning Department]. The applicants, Ronald and Sonia Putney, request commission approval to construct a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in excess of the height limit with the construction of a new single family dwelling at C-34 Surfside. The proposed CRAS conforms with the provisions of ~28- 2317(4) of The Code of the City of Seal Beach (Code). Mr. Curtis said one communication had been received from Harland C. Anderson, B-108 Surside, regarding this project. (Attached). Commission Comments on Staff Re.port There were no Commission questions. Public Hearing Sonia Putney * C-34 Surfside Mrs. Putney deferred her comments for the rebuttal period. There were no persons in the audience wishing to speak in favor of this application. The following person spoke against this application: Harland C. Anderson * B-108 Surfside. CA Mr. Anderson said his primary objections were (1) if not restricted, the height of the proposed structure at C-34 would restrict his view of Anaheim Bay and (2) he suggested the plans for C- 34 be flip-flopped, thus bringing the C-34 CRAS in alignment with his CRAS, not reducing the bay view and maintaining a corridor view to the ocean; a benefit to both residences. .1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . Page 18 - City of Seal Beach Planning ConuniSSIOII Minutes · 12nJ94 Chairman Dahlman asked Mr. Anderson about his primary view, the ocean and Catalina Island, noting he cannot see these for the most part. His remaining primary view is inland. Chairman Dahlman asked how wide would his Northerly primary view be if a protractor was set to arc it? Mr. Curtis said the arc would be approximately 750 - 1000 view to the North. He is blocked by a couple of buildings further down C row as well as the Simple Green building. With the new construction at C-34 planned, Mr. Anderson's view would be reduced by 250 - 300 which includes Mr. Anderson's problem of having his house built at 2' below what the City's municipal Code allows. Mr. Curtis explained the California Coastal Commission put a special condition on Mr. Anderson's house, requiring it to be 2' lower than the City's ~ allows. Mr. Curtis said he has never seen such a condition before and he assumed the Coastal Commission's analyst at that time misunderstood the City's Code and felt that there was an absolute 35' height limit. The City Code says it's a 35' limit plus 2' for chimneys. The Coastal Commission told Mr. Anderson everything has to be under the 35' . Chairman Dahlman asked Mr. Curtis if the plans were flip-flopped, would the degree loss still be 250 - 300'] Mr. Curtis said no, if the plans were flip-flopped it would cut the view loss in half --- to 120 - 150. Mr. Curtis noted part of Mr. Anderson's view is blocked by his own CRAS. Mr. Anderson's view to the North is a split view -- part on the left side, then blocked by his own CRAS in the middle -- then the other part on the right side. Chairman Dahlman said 1'1 would say it's really not fair to the other applicant to consider his own dog house a part of his obstructed view and cause the other applicant to change his manner of construction based on the manner of construction of your dog house. That doesn't sound right to me. You could modify yours if you want". Mr. Curtis explained the Putney's are in plan check at this time and they've paid for their plans to be drawn. Staff spoke to the plan checker and the Putney's architect on this issue. The plan checker said they can check the plans as they exist and indicate they will be flip-flopped. Additional engineering would be required for shear strength due to the change in windows plus wind load. Mr. Anderson said he's petitioning the California Coastal Commission as C-34 is not yet rebuilt. Sonia Putney * C-34 Surfside. CA Mrs. Putney gave the Commission four reasons why they do not wish to alter their plans: 1. They would have to re-do part of their plans. They have worked on their plans for over three years and have had many copies printed. They would have additional costs to redraw the plans. 2. They want their entrance on the East side of the residence as prevailing wind is from the West. 3. The CRAS is 3' x 6' wide and will obstruct the same 3' x 6' view regardless of where located. ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 . 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . Page 19 - Ci~ of Seal Beach PIannmg Commission Mmules · 12nt94 4. They have been extremely careful to adhere to the City's municipal Code and ask for no special favors. She said they would not presume to re-design a neighbor's home and feels Mr. Anderson does not have the right re-design theirs. She noted their ocean view has been obstructed when Mr. Anderson's house was built ten years ago. There is no 100% guarantee anyone will keep the view they have in Surfside unless they move to A row. She felt people must learn to live with the view they have. She and her husband would like to continue to build without any changes. They are building within the 35' height limit and have the smallest CRAS in Surfside. Commissioner Brown asked if they had a cost estimate of what it would cost to re-draw the plans to flip-flop the structure? Mrs. Putney said they just heard about Mr. Anderson's suggestion within the last three days and have not had the time to get estimates on changes to their plans. Mrs. Putney said she didn't want the Planning Commission to think this would be a big house and they are not building over the 35' height limit. They have three children and a family of five. It's not like the Blake house. Commissioner Law asked Mrs. Putney if she were Mr. Anderson, what would she think of having more of her view blocked? Mrs. Putney said she agreed that what's happened to Mr. Anderson's view is terrible but, it has happened to them too. She feels really bad it has happened to him and knows that he has been extremely upset. It has caused a lot of strain in the neighborhood. Commissioner Sharp asked if pictures are available of this view issue? Mrs. Putney said she didn't have any but suggested Mr. Anderson might. Commissioner Sharp said it's a fact of life that when you buy a piece of property you don't have any control of someone coming from next door and building a legal residence. The Putney's are building a legal residence, in fact, they could go 3' higher with the CRAS. Mrs. Putney said she is not working, her husband is working and they cannot afford to change their plans to accommodate a neighbor. Commissioner Campbell asked what is the difference in view by placing the CRAS on one side of the residence or the other? How significant is it? Mrs. Putney said if the Broten's next door were to build Mr. Anderson would lose the West view. If the Brady's were to build, Mr. Anderson would lose his other part of the view. They want their entrance on the East because the wind is so hard from the West. Her neighbor had explained to her that children can be hurt while using the CRAS door due to the wind. Since she has three children this is one of her considerations. The Public Hearing was closed. ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 C 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 . Page 20 - Cil1 of Seal Beach PIamJing Commissioo Mmutes · 12nt94 Commission Discussion Commissioner Brown said he sees Surfside has problems with view loss. He lives on Seal Way and knows the wind does come out of the West and is thankful his door is on the East side of the house. He feels the Putney's are making a reasonable choice. To say to the Putney's you have to flip-flop your building for the view of your neighbor may not be reasonable. The Putney's residence meets current Codes and he would vote in favor of the application. Chairman Dahlman said he felt this was entirely a view issue. He felt the view issue should have been considered when this ordinance was written, but it wasn't. He said his position has always been that the City height limits should lead to whatever the resulting view is and the Planning Commission should not get involved in one persons view and the subjective elements. He would vote in favor of the application. Commissioner Law said the Commission could not force the Putney's to flip-flop the house, she thought it would be neighborly if they did. There's no reason to vote against this application as it is within legal height limits. Commissioner Brown suggested Mr. Anderson might want to share the costs if the Putney's did decide to flip-flop the house. Commissioner Campbell said she could see where Mr. Anderson is upset due to past and cumulative inequities. It's not the Putney's responsibility to correct problems done to Mr. Anderson by other persons. She added when people design a house they take into consideration a myriad of details that suit them specifically. To suddenly flip-flop a house can throw all that off. Commissioner Sharp said he always had sympathy for people who lose their view. But that's one of the sad things in this world that happens and the Planning Commission has been unsuccessful in the past to do anything about it. The Putney's have abided by all City rules and regulations and are 3' under the height they could legally build to. He felt the Commission had no course but to approve the application as presented. MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to approve Height Variance 94-5 through the adoption of Resolution No. 94-44. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Brown, Sharp, Dahlman, Law, Campbell Chairman Dahlman advised the Putney's the ten calendar day appeal period begins tonight. Page 21 - Ci1;y of Seal &Ich PIaoning CommissiOD Minutes · 12f1/94 ~ STAFF CONCERNS 3 Mr. Whittenberg reminded the Commission there will be a continued Public Hearing on 4 December 21st. CUP 94-8 will be the sole Agenda item. 5 6 COMMISSION CONCERNS 7 8 Ordinance Chang:e on Noticing 9 Commissioner Campbell said she would like to see the issue of Noticing to tenants as well as 10 residents be placed before the City Council. Mr. Whittenberg suggested the Commission allow 11 staff to come back to the Commission on January 4th with a proposed ordinance change for their 12 review with a recommendation to forward that on to the City Council. 13 14 Observadome Gone 15 Commissioner Sharp said the CRAS on Sandpiper Drive has been removed. 16 17 Crestview Deck 18 Chairman Dahlman asked staff the status of the Crestview Avenue patio deck which is 5' into 19 the allowable setback? Mr. Whittenberg said this continues to be pending issue for a zoning text 20 amendment which the Commission has instructed staff to hold up on pursuing that matter until 21 the zoning text amendment is prepared. This has been several years ago but stafrs schedule has . not allowed revisiting this issue. 24 ADJOURNMENT 25 26 Chairman Dahlman adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. 27 28 Respectfully Submitted, 29 ~~ q.D~..~ 32 Joan Fillmann 33 Recording Secretary 34 35 36 37 38 APPROVAL: The Planning Commission Minutes of December 7, 1994 were approved by the 39 Planning Commission on December , 1994. . . . . HARBOUR SURFBOARDS 329' MAIN ST 'SEAL BEACH' CA 90740-0095 SHAPE ROOM 310-430-'0076 FAX 310-430-3856 December 7, 1994 Planning Commission City of Seal Beach 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Honorable members: I am writing this communication to express my feelings on the possibility of having John Baker's Nip'Stuff liquor as my neighbor. As owner of the building at 327 Main Street, you should know that Moe Bonakdar, leases it from me and has the right to choose to his tenant. I have known John for a long time and when he initially contacted me on this subject, I saw the possibility of a stable, long lasting neighbor. This is what Seal Beach needs. Since I talked to him, it was brought to my attention the many trucks that deliver to his front door. We have only parallel parking in front of our building, as compared to the diagonal parking on the east side where he presently rents. This probably will create a problem. Robert Howson, my tenant at Harbour Surfboards retail, 329 Main Street, shares my thoughts about the parking. Mr. Howson also expressed concern about the adult types of magazines and videos being sold. He feels that they may not be appropriate next to a family type business on Main Street. If some arrangement is made for rear deliveries, and a more polished version of his existing business, we would be delighted to have him as a neighbor. Sincerely, r;;:2- ~~ Rich Harbour . . . HarlRnd C. Anderson B 108 Surfside Ave., Surfside, Ca. 90743 De c. 3, 1994 F, t'\ ~.,,) b~' . - . ",I.: .' ~ ".. . .' . . . . : ~ jf . . t I . I ',~ I, ., ,>.-~-'1'L ~m ~ "0 , . Plann;nr Commissjon City of Se21 BeFch 211 Ei('"l'1th St., Seal Be~ch, Ca. ~ . J:f.;..&Od_ey;sotJ he: Heif'rd: Variation C;lJ.-5 C 3Ll SlTfsj de Dear CO~Missioners: I wisn to nrim: to :'our atter.tion the AnpreiJ'Y' Pa;' viev! rf:striction this J"1ev' cor:structior> vlill hwe on JTl;' pro}:'E'rt;T, djrectly bebj'-d C 34, if not in compliRnce w5th t~e C08si?1 Co~mission Special COJ"1dition requirement in perMit 5-H5-139. A co~r of this permit is 8ttached. T~e Coast?l Commission per~it st8tes, "No part of tte prorosed structure, includinF chi~nE;'s and open raiJirfs, shell exceed 35' in l'1eip-l-Jt above -the centerline of the frol'1tare rOHd". If C 3~ construction is rot in confor~ance with the Coastal Corr.~ission requirement. tl'1e additional r.eiel'1t will put our rcsir.erce in a hole. restrictinv our Ipst rE'TY1?ininp view. whicl'1 is the ba~T. Vie I'rese:r;tlv nave our ocean view obstructed bi' A 109. 'r'r-;s over- ,. . neip-ht buildinr ar>d oversized roof access is directl: ir. fror.+ 0: us. rlus tl'1e i' famous E12ke structure at h 102 c?usinf additioye] Sout~ coastal view obstruction fro~ our roof deck. Tl'1e C )4 propertj' is 'bordered on both sidE'S by sinfle stcr: r'! f.:j eel,ces. At tl1e i r ded si or. :1:'or r>ew construct ion I will pf c:dn loose roof ,k ok view if tney are not ir> compliance wjth t~e Coastal Commission requiremert of w~ich I was cOJ'Y'pelled to build. It ;s evident to me thaL tre Coastal Commission. with the help of ~e?l Fepch. is slowly buildil'1f a wall around my resider.ce. In additirn. I woulrl request corsideration to r~ve C 34 reof access in aJ ign1""ent with m:' roof access. puttinp, it on tre opposj te side of their plannerl siructtlre. A flip-flop of the p]pr,s, BS SUf"Fested bv Lee thittenberg. would reduce bay view restrictior> fro~ our deck and also allow C jlJ. a view corridor' 10 the ocean. A benefit to both residences. Sincerel;' yours. ~(P~ . Harlpl'1d C. Ar.derson Encl: 3 ~ Slale of Cahfornl~. George Deukmejlan. Governor . @ ..i I 1 I \ ~..._---::.--- _ ... r... '---- Page 1 of - 3 .cahforn1a-.coaslal Commission SOUTH COAST DISTRICT 245 West Broadwav. SUite 380 POBox 1450 Long Beach. California 90801-1450 (213) 54{J-5071 Date: March 25. 1985 Pemit Application No. 5-85-139 GT:!:d 1 ADMIN]ST~TIVE PERMIT , APPLICANT: ,t.ir. & Mrs. Harland C. 'Anderson PROJECT DESC~]PTION: Demolitit>n .of a single-story residence and construction of a three-stroy single family dwelling with two car garage on an inland lot.in Surfside Colony. PROJECT LOCATION: B-lO 8 Surfs ide Avenue, Seal Beach, Orange County EXECuiIVE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION: Pursuant to PRC Section 30624, the Executive Director hereby dete~1nes that the proposed development, subject to Stahdard and Special Conditions as attached, is in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976, wi" not prejudice the abilit) of the local government to prepare a Local Coastal Program that is in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3, and will not have Iny significant impacts on the environment within the ~aning of the Ca'- ifornia Environmental Quality Act. Any development located between the near- est publiC road and the sea is in conformity with the publiC access and publiC ecreation poliCies of Chapter 3. Additional reasons for this determination, and for any special conditions, may be discussed on the reverse (Page 2). NOTE: The Commission's Regulations provide that this permit shall be reported to the Commission at its next meeting. If one-third or more of the appointed membership of the Commission so request, a permit wil' not be issued for this permit application. Instead, the application wi'l be removed from the admin- fstrative calendar and set for public hearing at a subsequent Commission meet- tinge Our office will notify you if such removal occurs. This penmit will be reported to the Commission It the following time Ind piice; Wednesday, April 10, 1985 at 9:00 a.m. Board of Supervisors' Chambers, l05 E. Anapamu Street, 4th ~'loor, Santa IMPORTANT - Before you may proceed with development the following IIl.Ist occur: Barbara . For this permit to become effective you must sign Plge 2 of the enclosed duplicate acknow'edgingthe penmit's receipt and Iccepting its contents, including all conditions, and return it to our office. Following the Com- mission's meeting. and once we have received the signed acknowledgment and evidence of compliance with all speCial conditions, we will send you an authorization to proceed with development. . r.JCHAEl l. FISCHER ExecutiY~ Director by: ~ /., '4J'~4 . . ", '" .' . . .4r_~ '.. , 'age 2'C)f 3 - - Pennft App11clt10n No. 5- RI)-l ~q"" .ANOARO CONDITIONS: . 1. ,,,tie. or Ilece11lt. ~ Aclcnowhdu....nt.. "- pelW1t. S. _ w.1Sd 8IIlS dllftl~ IdII11 .,., ~C. .nUl a cow ot "h. penll1~, 11Cned &J, t.be pelW1t.t.ee or aut.bAr1&elS ...m., ac~lldc"-"I nce1pt. or \M pelW1t. and acc.pe.anc. ot t.be ,.... IllS "'.1t.1C1D1, Sa .....1IIMd '0 \oM ec-ulS.an otfiC.. 2. JrviNtiDn. It deft1op1C'1t .... 8CIt __*, ,he pend.t. wS1i api.. tollO ,...,.. t... ,be dat.. ,hi. pelW1t. 11 ..pon.ld t.o t.h. c:o.s...lon. Drt.1.-r&.hIJ.1 be panuelS in a d11.1&n. ....,. Dd ca- plAid in a .....onabl. plriod 01 "SM. AppUcat.1an tor -,,__1011 01 t.he pel'II1t. .... ... ...s. prior " t.M ....Uan dA.. . ,. eo.illlne.. Au dllftlopMnt. _A OC:CW' Sa Arid. co.pUanc. trlt.1l t.be prvpoaal .. Nt. tOl1.b in t.he applic:auon tor plnII1t., INbJ~ct '0 M:I .pec:1al ccnUUOftI 'A lort.h belaw. "" d.Y1aUan Ira. t.he apprcmd p1anI IlIA be 1'n1...s anr:S apprvnd ., t.bI ItAt! ...s ~ nqu1n, ec-ial1on appl'Gft1. 4. .Jnt.e~.Uon. "" .,"'10l'I.l ot iftt.ent. or SaL.rpret.aUan 01 M:I CClId1t.1aD tr111 ... ....abc ., t.hl 'lUCut.lft ~"'c&.or 01' t.1II ea..1ulon. ,. IM~etlonJ. "" ec-s..l1on Italt IM11 be a11a.elS '0 WpIC't. ..... 11t.. enS t.hI project tIaIzUIlt.. ~op8ent, 8lallJlct. '0 ~ 8dwancl _lee. 6. ~:rt.. The plNit. ., .. a..~elS t.o M:I c,a&llIlelS pe,..an, JII"'OridelS ...1pM tu.. .uta t.he IIlon an arl1cSn1t. ac:c.pt.1nI aU I...... &lIS canUt.1ona or to... pend.t.. 1. rlr'lllS and CordlUOI'I.I Illn with t.h. lAnd. !'he.. h~ anr:S eand1Uou .hall be plJ1lftual, ...s 1t. 1. t.hl 1nLent.1on ot t.he ec-i..1on an1 t.he pene\t... t.o "ind aU Mun ...,.. ...s poa...ea,.. or t.be wb.1lct. proper1.7 '0 ,be t..,.. and condJ.t.lou. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S DETE~4INATION (continued): , see page 3, . SPECIAL CONDITIONS: . No.p~rt of the proposed structure, including chimneys and open ra~l~ngs, shall exceed, 35 feet in height above the cent~rline of \~ ~ _.~~~-~~~~g~~~-;( . . - -=- ~.- -=-~ - - - - - - ----------- ~----- I . CJi/E~ i 35 /n' ~ i ,. ;4)') 3,t; lIe/~/ 11u-4 '. . ACKNOwtEDGD~ENT OF PERMIT RECEIPT/ACCEPTANCE OF CONTENTS: I/We acknowledge that I/we have received I copy of this permit and have accepted 1t~_.cont/inC1Ud1ng 111 conditions. / / e;J . . /?" ~L ~/ -d ~ ~ / /~ ..--;'-- / /l~<</rc( (t.//-:~tZ;/1"-I/-'-Ot./ / J A ---'-. ' S~. - pllcant', SIgnature .~ .~at. o~,5Ignlng .~ Page 3 5-85-139 ----- r I~ r . . EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION (continued): A. Public Access. The proposed development is located in the private community of Surfs ide where the beach ~s privately owned by the Community Association along a ~ mdle stretch of sand. No permanent public easements have been granted because the entire Community owns the streets. Vertical public access to the Surfside beach is available by way of a gate located at the southern end of the community which is to be unlocked during dayl~t hours pursuant to conditional approval of past permdt applications by the Commission (P-76-6364). While public access through the Colony is inadequate, the Executive Director determines that because of the nature of ownership within, the applicant does not have the legal ability to 9 rdll t:. 5 ucl'1 acces 5 . . B. Visual Impacts. The Commission, in previous actions, has consistently limited the hejght of residential structures in Surfside Colony to_35 feetf Prior to the Coastal Act new construct1on reached as high as 50 feet which tended to create the visual effect of a large wall along the beach, because most structures occupy the entire width of the narrow lots. As a result, the Commission has adopted guidelines restricting the maximum height in_Surfside to 35 fee~in order to mitigate the visual impact along this I section of beach as required by Section 30251 of the Coastal Act, Therefore, the Executive Director further deterrnine~that only as condi tioned, to require a maximum height of 35 feet, is the proposed project consistent with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act. I -- --- ~ .,... ':-:--- ...: ~ -=-=:::::::::' - . 1t -........-............ _~ _."..,. ~.-r'-" ,.. - . I ... L__ '--- 1 ~ -<. Stilte of Carlfomia. George Deukmejian. CiovemO..../ - California Coastal Commission " ~UTH COAST DISTRICT .45 West Broadway. Suite 380 P.O. Box 1450 Long Beach. California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 :-"".. - Dlte: April 15, 1985 Pennit No. 5-85-139 GT:sjl , ., PERMIT AUTHORIZATION Mr. & Mrs. Harland C. Anderson .C/O William Bruton B-6l Surfside Colony, CA 9Q743 Please be advised that you are hereby authorized to proceed with development of your project. pennit number 5-85-139 . which was reported to the Comniss10n on · April 10, 1985. Development Of your project is subject to compliance with an tenns and conditions specified in the Administrative Pennft which was sent to you on March 25, 1985. ~DUld you have any questions please contact our office. MICHAEL l. FISCHER Executive Director _y,:J~ . ; by: .