Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1995-01-18 ~ . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA of January 18, 1995 7:30 P.M. * City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolution: #95-1 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL m. 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. ALENDAR 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 December 21, 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 Oftice at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. . . . ~ Page 2. City of Seal Beach Pl4nnmg Commission Agenda · 1/18/95 2. Approve Minutes of January 4, 1994 3. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated December 12, 1994 re: Orange County Staff Response to Comments Regarding DEIR for the Proposed Bolsa Chica Project (EIR 551) (Continued from December 21, 1994 meeting) 4. Receive and File: Staff Memorandum re Transfer of ABC License at 148 Main Street. (Continued from December 21, 1994 meeting) 5. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated January 9, 1995 re: Housing Element Revision - Status Report. 6. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report' dated January 9, 1995 re: Legislative Status Report - 1994 Legislative Session. 7. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated January 9, 1995 re: Los Alamitos AFRC - Airport Environs Land Use Plan Revision - Status Report 8. Plan Review 94-8 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: Request: 1524 Marine A venue Steve Cooper Steve Cooper Sun deck to be added to second story, within the height limit. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Variance 94-7 [Continued from 1-4-95] Address: 322 Main Street Business: [N 0 name at this time] Applicant: Ronald L. Bennett, Trustee Property Owner: Ronald L. Bennett Family Trust Request: To establish a restaurant with less than required parking, loading space and landscaping. The proposed restaurant will be a coffee house with the only food items being prepackaged muffins and scones. 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 Oftice at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. . . . ~ Page 3 - City of Seal Bucb P1nnning COllunission Agenda · 1/18/95 VIT. STAFF CONCERNS VIII . 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 Oftice at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. ) Page 4 - City of Seal Beach P1nnnmg Cooullissioo Agcndll · 1/18/95 . 1995 AGENDA FORECAST FEB 08 Main Street Specific Plan Community Meeting (Joint Meeting with City Council) FEB 22 Bixby EIR review (tentative) CUP 92-13/Papillon's 12 mos. review/entertainment CUP 92-25/Glider Inn indefinite extension/entertainment MAR 08 CUP #94-1/600 Marina/Radisson 12 mos. ABC Bixby EIR review (tenative) MAR 22 APR 05 APR 19 MA Y 03 MAY 17 JUN 07 ruN 21 . JUL 05 JUL 19 Election of Chairman & Vice Chairman AUG 09 A UG 23 SEP 06 SEP 20 OCT 04 OCT 18 NOY 08 NOY 22 DEC 06 DEC 20 . 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 5 - Cily of Seal Beach Planning Commiuioo Agenda · 1/18/95 6. Conditional Use Pennit 92-13 Address: 143 Main Business: Papillon's Restaurant Applicant: Nader Tahvildari Property Owner: Dorothy Nescher Request: Review of entertainment at twelve months. 7. Conditional Use Permit 92-25 Address: 1400 Pacific Coast Highway Business: Glider Inn Applicant: Karla Benzyl Property Owner: Donald A. Watts Request: Appl'oval of indefinite extension of entertainment cafe. 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. . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of January 18, 1995 The Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Dahlman calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Dahlman Commissioners Campbell, Sharp, Law, Brown Also Presen t: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Absent: Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chairman Dahlman requested Consent Calendar Items #3 and #6 be removed for separate consideration. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Campbell to approve the agenda with the requested extraction of items #3 and #6 from the consent calendar. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Campbell, Dahlman, Law, Brown ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Dahlman declared Oral Communications open. There were no oral communications. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Campbell to approve the following Consent Calendar items; 1. Approve Minutes of December 21, 1994 2. Approve Minutes of January 4, 1995 . Page 2 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg COIlumsslOn Mmutes of Janual}' 18, 1995 4. Receive and File: Staff Memorandum re Transfer of ABC License at 148 Main Street. (Continued from December 21, 1994 meeting) 5. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated January 9, 1995 re: Housing Element Revision - Status Report. 7. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated January 9, 1995 re: Los Alamitos AFRC - Airport Environs Land Use Plan Revision - Status Report 8. Approve Resolution No. 95-1, thus approving Plan Review 94-8. Plan Review 94-8 Address: Applicant: Property Owner: Request: 1524 Marine Avenue Steve Cooper Steve Cooper Sun deck to be added to second story, within the height limit. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Brown, Campbell, Law, Sharp, Dahlman . Discussion ensued on the two extracted Consent Calendar items. 3. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated December 12, 1994 re: Orange County Staff Response to Comments Regarding DEIR for the Proposed Bolsa Chica Project (EIR 551) (Continued from December 21, 1994 meeting) Referencing pages 2 and 3 of Attachment 1, Chairman Dahlman said the City has made it clear it does not want Pacific Coast Highway widened. It appears Orange County did not respond to the body of the letter, only to the Attachment to that letter. Director Whittenberg explained the City has no way to determine how the County will format its responses. On Friday, the City of Seal Beach, with the Sierra Club, challenged approval of this project. Mr. Steele explained that part of the City's objection to the adequacy of the EIR was the inadequacy of Orange County's response to the City's comments. After the Orange County Planning Commission considered the project, the City Attorney's Office sent a letter to the Board of Supervisors raising the issue of the County's inadequate responses to the City's comments. Chairman Dahlman inferred the County's bankruptcy will have to conclude before legal action can be taken against the County. Mr. Steele said that issue is being researched and he had no answer at this time. Mr. Steele indicated he has not been privy to the County's bankruptcy issues and didn't know how long it would last. . Commissioner Sharp asked to what financial extent is the City committing itself in this lawsuit? Mr. Steele replied the City Council directed the City to join the Sierra Club, the Bolsa Chica . . . Page 3 - CIty of SenJ Bench Pltllllullg ComousslOo Mmutes of JanUtlry 18, 1995 Land Trust and a couple of other organizations in a lawsuit to protect the City's interests and to economize on the costs of litigation. The Council asked to be kept informed of the costs as the case progresses. At this time the City is committed to the cost in fIling the complaint and the legal work done to this point. Chairman Dahlman said he felt it's important to limit the City's legal expenses but added it's equally important to weigh the costs of having Pacific Coast Highway become a super highway, possibly six lanes wide. 6. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated January 9, 1995 re: Legislative Status Report - 1994 Legislative Session. Chairman Dahlman pointed out that in this report, items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were signed by the Governor. It is not apparent to what degree any of these items were amended before signature. Stating there are instances where the City supports legislation it feels would be beneficial to the City, he noted the legislation can be changed or amended prior to final signature and, in the end, the legislation winds up not benefitting the City. Mr. Whittenberg commented that the items which were signed reflected the City's position in all cases. One item was signed against City protests. Item #4, AB 2788, could have a potential significant adverse financial impact on the City. A number of efforts were made by the City, the Orange County League of Cities and an Orange County lobbying group in Sacramento but it was passed in spite of City and County efforts to have the legislation changed. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Law to receive and file items #3 and #6 on the Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Brown, Campbell, Law, Sharp, Dahlman PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Variance 94-7 Address: Business: Applicant: Property Owner: [Continued from 1-4-95] 322 Main Street [No name at this time] Ronald L. Bennett, Trustee Ronald L. Bennett Family Trust Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Ronald L. Bennett, requested permission to establish a restaurant with less than required parking, loading space and landscaping. The proposed restaurant will be a coffee house with the only food items being prepackaged muffins and scones. . . . Page 4 - City of Seal Beach Planning Conmlission Minutes of Jnnuary 18, 1995 Mr. Curtis stated eight letters were received in favor of this Variance request. They are from Main Street business owners Jani Turley, Barbara Wellington, Ernie De Barber and area residents Pat Riddick of 5th Street, Tere Hemond of 5th Street, Margo and Roland Hemond of 10th Street, Juli and David Quinn of 12th Street and Julie Bush of 14th Street. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the staff report has two letters in favor of the application included as attachments. One is from Russell Ganvey of Taper Drive and the second from Nancy and Patrick Gallagher from Huntington Beach. Commission Comments on Staff Report In-Lieu Parking Fees Commissioner Brown asked what the in-lieu parking fees would be? Mr. Whittenberg said the fees are negotiated between the project proponent and the City Council. If the Planning Commission approves this Variance request, a Development Agreement will be prepared by the City Attorney's Office. As a beginning point for the negotiations it will include a fee of $3,500 per deficient parking space. In the past the City has given credits against that amount for increases in property tax revenues that come about from the sale of the property or a major remodel of the structure. Some credits are given for a substantial increase in sales tax anticipated by a restaurant use as opposed to a retail use. Previous Council-approved applications have had a final fee of $1500 - $1700 per space. This is a one time fee. The Main Street Specific Plan is anticipated to set a final determination of a parking fees and may be more than a business has paid. Those owners would have to make up the difference if the fee is greater than what has previously been paid. If the fee is less than what they have paid, there would have to be a rebate from the City. Re-establish Beauty Shop Chairman Dahlman noted the owner voluntarily ceased operation of the beauty shop. Should this be approved, would he be able to resume that use or would the Variance prevent him from doing that? Mr. Curtis said a beauty shop owner would be restricted by the increased parking requirement and another Variance would be needed. Variance vs. Main Street Specific Plan Chairman Dahlman questioned future modification by the Main Street Specific Plan, stating it was his impression that Variances were higher on the pecking order than Specific Plans. Mr. Whittenberg explained a Variance runs with the property, but noted that if the City's overall parking requirements were modified to where the existing parking would meet the new requirements then this owner would not need a Variance to do something else. The new Specific Plan, depending on how the parking requirements are structured in that document, could require additional Variances to come before the Planning Commission or City Council. Staff can not give a definite answer at this time because the Specific Plan has not been developed yet. . . . Page 5 - City of Seal B""ch Plannmg Conunission Mmutes of January J 8, J 995 Parking Variance Findings Chairman Dahlman asked staff to restate the three mandated findings to grant a Variance. Mr. Whittenberg said Variances for parking fall under a different standard and are on page 12 of the staff report. ~28-2500 of the City's municipal Code allows a Variance to be granted when practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships or results inconsistent with the general purpose of the chapter result through the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of the Code. Pages 8 - 9 of the staff report further discuss Government Code ~65906.5 where parking variances can be granted without having to make the usual findings. Chairman Dahlman asked if the usual Variance findings, special circumstances, n<;> special privilege and uniqueness, do not apply. Mr. Whittenberg said the Commission would want to feel comfortable in making its findings in both the State law provisions and the City's ordinance. Because the City is in a Charter position, it has different standards than Government Code ~65906.5. Mr. Steele agreed, stating that in any Variance, even a parking Variance with slightly different standards, the Planning Commission is restricted from granting a special privilege. The Government Code gives the Commission the option of relaxing the Variance standards when an in-lieu parking fee is being imposed; only with regard to parking Variances. Mr. Steele said that for approximately the last four years the City has been treating the parking Variances in the same manner so that once the City established its Main Street Specific Plan and the parking plan was developed, then all of those pre-existing businesses would be covered under the same rules and playing field. Development Agreement Chairman Dahlman asked if the Development Agreement was mentioned in the Conditions of Approval? Mr. Curtis said no, Conditions have not been provided. Staff recommended that if this request is approved by the Planning Commission a Development Agreement will be required . Special Privilege Commissioner Campbell said the Planning Commission denied an application for The Ivy, a hair salon which wanted to relocate next to the nursery on Main Street. She asked what is the difference between this application and The Ivy's application? Mr. Whittenberg said the Commission considers each application on its own merits and because it approves one use at one location does not mean it will approve another use at a different location. At that time, the Commission decided to not approve the beauty shop for certain reasons. Commissioner Campbell said she wanted to be certain no one could say the Commission was granting a special privilege in this instance. Commissioner Brown rephrased Commissioner Campbell's question, noting the Commission used different criteria on The Ivy's application and asked why now are more relaxed criteria being used? Mr. Steele said these are two different properties. For purposes of looking at the issue of special privilege you compare similar uses. For example, you would compare beauty salons to beauty salons. The major difference between The Ivy's application and Ron Bennett's application is that they are two different types of uses. Chairman Dahlman recalled The Ivy's use called for increased parking whereas Ron Bennett's application proposes no change in the parking. Mr. Whittenberg said this was not technically correct because what this application is proposing would have no change over the required amount of parking that would have been required six months ago, when they had a beauty shop . . . Page 6 - CIty of SeaJ Beach PlmulIJlg COIIUll1SSIOJI Mmutes of JanUllI)' 18, 1995 in one of the building's locations. Since that use has been removed from the property, a retail establishment has gone in and it has a lesser parking requirement. So, this application is increasing the parking demand for this property today over what the demand was yesterday. But, it is not increasing the demand over what the demand was six months ago. Restaurant Use Commissioner Brown clarified that this application would be classified as a restaurant. Mr. Curtis agreed, noting that is because of the seating and the food items. The City's Code does not require on-site food preparation to be deemed a restaurant. Mr. Curtis explained that the Commission could add a condition to the Conditions of Approval stating that no food shall be prepared on-site. This would keep the establishment as a coffee shop and not a full blown restaurant. He noted the parking requirements for a full blown restaurant are greater than they are for a muffin stand. Commissioner Brown said the applicant is being asked to comply with the requirements for a full blown restaurant, seven parking spaces. So if he is paying for the seven spaces he should be able to have a full blown restaurant. Public Hearing Ron Bennett * 935 Catalina Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. Bennett introduced himself as the applicant. He said he objected to the term "muffin stand". He had no objections to the staff report and addressed the areas of concern --- loading, landscaping and parking. Regarding the loading, the only other store on the property which has supplies delivered is Desk Drawer stationers. That is usually by a small UPS truck or the owner's Ford wagon which can park in a regular parking space. He intends to use a mini-van to pick up his bakery goods at 6:00 a.m. Coffee deliveries will be made off-site and will be brought in his mini-van. There is no need for a loading area as there will be no trucks. Regarding landscaping, most of the places on Main Street have no landscaping. He did, however, double the size of a planter in the parkway. He would be glad to bring in more planters and window boxes. Regarding parking, the seven parking spaces he has are over-sized and he could get an eighth space in plus a trash area. He added that the prior use of the two buildings required 27 parking spaces, so the actual densities of what was and what could be are the same. The parking studies done for the 300 block of Main Street represent parking at the curb and not in the two parking lots. Most of their business is anticipated to be between 7:00 a.m.- 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. At 9:00 a.m. there are no cars parked in the 300 block. He noted that staff suggested he wait for the Main Street Specific Plan to be set in place. He felt the Plan may change the parking requirement from the gross footage of the building to be based on the actual seating area square footage. Also, the question as to whether there is a parking issue in the 300 block will be addressed. And thirdly, the Plan will probably encourage retail sales businesses over service business. There is no tax coming to the City from a service business. He said he does not care to wait for the Main Street Specific Plan because it may take a year to be discussed and approved and his cost for each vacant shop is approximately $5,000 per month. He jokingly said "If it is passed by this time next year I will buy you all dinner". Regarding economics, the City has costs and income. He doesn't think the City can reduce its manpower any further without resulting in decreased services. Regarding income, the City has . . . Page 7 - CIty of Seal Beach Planning ComnllsslOn Mmutes of January 18, 1995 an $11 million dollar general fund approximately. Generally, the largest increment to the City's general fund is sales tax revenue but, in Seal Beach it's utility tax --- twice what it was two years ago. The second largest revenue source, 2.5 million dollars, is property tax. The City may get only 2/3 of what it got last year according to Orange County. A third increment, 1.2 million dollars, is sales tax revenue --- this should be number one. Seal Beach gets 1 C out of every 8C collected. His projection is that his coffee shop will provide $6,000 - $10,000 per year in sales tax increment to the City, which is $60,000 - $100,000 over a ten year lease term. He noted that it is the 200 square feet that will bring the tax income in. The State Board of Equalization is very clear that no tax is put on take out items. He felt the primary reason to grant this Variance request is that it has no adverse impacts and it brings income to the City. Chairman Dahlman stated for the Record that he received a written presentation from the applicant. The other Commissioner's received them also. Commissioner Campbell asked when will Nip 'n Stuffliquor be out of its present location? Mr. Bennett said he did not know the exact date but it will be before March 1, 1995. The following persons spoke in favor of this application: David Roseman * (No Address Given) Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman suggested the conditions of any Development Agreement be carefully written, saying a condition should be placed which states the applicant will abide by future Main Street Specific Plan considerations. Secondly, he urged the Commission to be consistent and not grant something that appears to be a special privilege. He added the Commission should not be stampeded to approve an application in anticipation of sales tax revenues. He expressed his concern that an establishment be approved as one type of business but gradually turns into another type of business and urged the Commission to be careful about this. Chairman Dahlman asked Mr. Steele if on prior applications the Planning Commission had seen a Development Agreement prior to granting a Variance? Mr. Steele replied that because a Development Agreement has its own process required under the Code to ensure consistency with the City's General Plan, there was a condition on the Variance which said the Variance will not take effect until the execution of a Development Agreement and approval of the Agreement by the City Council. Mr. Whittenberg said the Public Hearing process on a Development Agreement does require a review by the Planning Commission and its recommendation is forwarded to the Council. Normally a dollar amount on the in-lieu parking fee is left blank as that is a separate deliberation at the Council level. Jim Funk * 2151/2 Tenth Street. Seal Beach Mr. Funk said this is a great location for a gourmet coffee shop and felt this would be a beneficial use for the City. He noted the applicant purchased the property about six months ago and since that time he has made outstanding improvements to his facility. He wished there could be outside dining in that plaza. Mr. Funk, saying he is the Economic Development . . . Page 8 - City of Seal Beach PlaIIIllng COIlUlllSSIOIl Mmutes of January 18, 1995 Director for the City of Alhambra, said he would love this coffee shop in Seal Beach but if it is not approved, they would love to have this same shop in Alhambra. Stanley Smallitz * 4509 Guava. Seal Beach He said he and his family use and enjoy Main Street and would like to see this coffee shop. Jim Watson * 101 Main Street. Suite A. Seal Beach Mr. Watson said he was in favor of this gourmet coffee shop. He said he has known Ron Bennett as a friend for twenty years and he is known for doing quality operations. The 300 block of Main Street is the weakest, in terms of pedestrian strolling and shopping, of the three blocks on Main Street and this type of use is exactly the kind of use that would generate more foot traffic and activity in that block. Secondly, not many outside visitors come to Main Street to shop. They come for the beach. This application is another service which will create retail sales tax and services for visitors and residents. The following person spoke in opposition to this application: Aaron Weiner * (No Address Given) Mr. Weiner said he owns the mixed-use facility at 330 Main Street. He said his building is one of the few buildings on Main Street that is parked up to Code with off-street parking and he has a minor concern, over time, of a Variance being granted for this food use and that use impinging on his parking. He will enforce the rights he has on his private property to tow cars and hopes that this does not become a problem. He asked if the second floor of the applicant's building are apartments? Mr. Curtis said they are legal non-conforming apartments. While the area is not zoned for apartments anymore, they are allowed to remain as long as they are used continuously. Mr. Weiner asked if the applicant has the parking for the apartments and for the commercial uses? Twenty- seven spaces then and twenty-seven spaces now but, is there going to be a change in use of the second floor and will that further affect the parking? Mr. Curtis said the twenty-seven spaces included the apartments then and now. If the applicant chose to change from apartments to another use, if the use had a higher parking requirement than the two spaces required per apartment, the applicant would have to apply for another Variance. Mr. Weiner said he is in favor of liberalizing parking requirements to achieve a village-type street. Rebuttal Mr. Bennett reviewed the three staff report choices for this application. He suggested a fourth choice --- to legally grant this Variance without requiring a Development Agreement. Chairman Dahlman asked the applicant if he objected to the Development Agreement? Mr. Bennett said yes, he objected to a Development Agreement because he would be going into business without knowing what he would be paying for it. If he were to sign a Development Agreement to pay $3500 per parking space does that go with the property? Is that a legal parking space on paper that goes with the deed? Mr. Steele said the last two Development Agreements have provided that the benefits of the Agreement run with the property to the successors in interest. . . . Pnge 9 - Cily of Seal Beach Plnnning COllulIiss,OIl Mmutes of January 18, 1995 Commissioner Brown asked about the food preparation on site. He asked the applicant if he would object to a Condition of Approval that there be no food preparation on site? Mr. Bennett said he would like a definition of food preparation. He said they were going to specialize in bagels and would have convection warming ovens with creme cheese. They may slice fruit to offer it with the bagels. They will not cook, there is no kitchen. Commissioner Sharp said there must be an exact description of food preparation. Commissioner Brown said he did visit the site and spoke with the applicant. Commissioner Brown asked about the massage parlor sign. Mr. Bennett said this is a well-run shop, with three ladies who massage ladies. Commissioner Brown suggested Mr. Bennett might want to clarify that sign. RECESS: Chairman Dahlman called a recess at 9:03 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:12 p.m. Commission Comments Parking Requirements Based on Actual Seating Area Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Curtis what the applicant's parking requirements would be for a small, 10' x 20', hamburger stand? Mr. Curtis said they are the same for any restaurant --- one space per 100 feet of gross floor area. Mr. Curtis said that would be two parking spaces if the area was 10' x 20'. Chairman Dahlman said that implies Commissioner Sharp doesn't like the way the Code if written for parking and Commissioner Sharp agreed. Commissioner Brown asked how many seats can you put in a 10' x 20' spaces? Mr. Curtis said about twenty. Chairman Dahlman, referencing Commissioner Sharp's comment, said the parking requirement seems unreasonable and asked if parking requirements will be addressed by the Main Street Specific Plan? Mr. Whittenberg said the City's parking standards are under review as part of the Main Street Specific Plan with particular focus on appropriate requirements for restaurant uses. Commissioner Brown's Comments Commissioner Brown said again that he had visited the site and spoke with Mr. Bennett and he was impressed that there's no intensification of the parking requirement from six months ago. This differentiates this application from The Ivy's application because The Ivy was a parking intensification. He said he told Mr. Bennett that we can trade a beauty parlor and a liquor store for a coffee shop; that is the type of retail sales business the Commission wants to encourage on Main Street. He felt this would bring in additional foot traffic and hopefully that would bring additional retail businesses. He said it is appropriate to charge in-lieu parking fees if this Variance request is approved. He said that any business which requires parking does generate wear and tear on City streets and sidewalks, the repair of which is paid for by the City. He said he was impressed that this applicant came before the Commission and requested the Variance, noting Sweet Jill's was approved for no seating and when walking by Sweet Jill's today, he noted four tables with seating there now. He felt that if this applicant is paying for the parking spaces to have a restaurant then he ought to be allowed to prepare food on site. Regarding the . . . Page 10 - City of Seal Bench PWUlIlIg COlllllllSSJOII Mmules of January 18, 1995 loading zone, he agreed with the fact that this business would be no different than any other business on Main Street, as far as not having a loading zone. Regarding landscaping, additional planters would look nice and the interior courtyard does look bare. Regarding the additional sales tax, many businesses come before the Commission stating how much sales tax revenue they will bring to the City. However, in the scheme of things it isn't really that much. When you generate additional traffic, you generate wear and tear on City property that the City has to fix. At the last meeting Mr. Baker mentioned that his delivery trucks park up on the curb and are breaking the curb up. Mr. Baker doesn't pay for that, it's the City that pays for the repairs. He favored granting the Variance because there's no intensification of the parking requirements and it's the type of business we want to see on Main Street. Due Process Violation Commissioner Sharp noted Commissioner Brown made the statement that he spoke with the applicant at the site and asked if this was a Brown Act violation? Chairman Dahlman asked if this should have been declared during the Public Hearing? Mr. Steele said Commissioner Brown did state during the Public Hearing that he had visited the site and spoke with the applicant. This is not a Brown Act violation but a due process problem which is not a problem in this instance because Commissioner Brown disclosed the facts and met the requirements of due process. Commissioner Sharp said the Planning Commissioners had been instructed not to visit the sites or to talk to the applicants unless this was disclosed at the very beginning of the meeting. Mr. Steele said he has always discouraged members of Planning Commissions from doing independent research outside the Record. To the extent it happens, he encourages that person to disclose this on the Record so that all the members of the Commission have the same basic knowledge of a particular issue that that person has. There is really no legal prohibition against independent research but once it's done, you must share that information with your colleagues on the Commission so there's a complete record. Commissioner Law's Comments Commissioner Law said she would like to see this approved. Commissioner Campbell's Comments Commissioner Campbell said she agreed with Commissioner Brown's comment that this applicant should be allowed food preparation on-site if he is paying for the parking spaces. The option should be left open to the applicant. She would like to see this as a Condition of Approval. Mr. Steele clarified that it's an issue of not writing this out of the Conditions. Development Agreement Preparation Commissioner Sharp asked who would draw up the Development Agreement? Director Whittenberg said the City Attorney's Office has provided staff with a general format for the document. Staff individualizes it. It will be forwarded to the City Manager who will enter into negotiations with the applicant to finalize the document, including the in-lieu parking figures. The document will come back to the Planning Commission for review, at a Public Hearing. . . . Page 11 - CIty of Seal Beach P1nnnmg COIlumssion Minutes of JanlUlry 18, 1995 Parking Based on Actual Seating Area Only Commissioner Sharp asked if the 200 square feet seating area could be considered a restaurant with the remainder of the store's 700 square feet being considered retail sales and what would the parking requirement be? Mr. Whittenberg said the parking calculation would be one space per 300 square feet of retail area. Commissioner Sharp recommended the Development Agreement be considered on the basis of 700 square feet of retail space and 200 square feet of seating area. Chairman Dahlman said he agreed that the Code, as it's presently written, seems like an unreasonable application of the rules but he saw an enforcement problem if applications were accommodated that specifically. Chairman Sharp asked if this were done for the Burger King application? Director Whittenberg said no, that application was considered at one space per 100 square feet. Regarding the separation of the 200 square feet and the 700 square feet, Mr. Whittenberg said both he and Mr. Steele had concerns that the Planning Commission was creating a special designation for that area that it has not created in the past for other uses and one that is not recognized in the municipal Code. They have a real concern that the Commission is creating a special circumstance for this particular application. Commissioner Sharp asked what would be the difference if the applicant railed off the seating area and had two separate licenses for two separate businesses? Chairman Dahlman said this was the type of issue to take up while considering the Main Street Specific Plan. Mr. Steele pointed out that the benefit of the Development Agreement to the applicant is exactly Chairman Dahlman's point. If, in the Specific Plan, the parking requirement is altered somehow and goes down, the benefit of the Development Agreement is that the payment that is paid under the Agreement is rebated. Commissioner Sharp said he was thoroughly convinced that his suggestion would not be taken but suggesting it would get it discussed. He added there may never be another business like this because the service of coffee and rolls is for people to sample the different type coffees and drinks he has; his money will come from the coffee people take home and brew themselves. Commissioner Brown said Cinnamon Productions and Sweet Jill's and every other restaurant in town is the same --- they have an area where people eat and an area where food is prepared. He felt a review of the Code could be done if it's felt too much parking is required but it could not be done tonight. Chairman Sharp said he was not going to argue the point but still felt this application is different and still maintained the parking should be considered differently. Chairman Dahlman asked Commissioner Law if she agreed with that? Commissioner Law said "I don't know". Chairman Dahlman said "O.K., well then there isn't a consensus and so ... your comments will be taken to heart when we look at the Specific Plan and I'm sure they will be part of the staff recommendations that we've discussed this". Commissioner Law said she hoped the Main Street Specific Plan would be approved in the near future as it will give the Planning Commission guidelines to go by. Loading Zone Chairman Dahlman said this application is not an intensification of use and considering Commissioner Sharp's comments, may actually be a decrease in the intensity of use. He could therefore support the application for a parking Variance. The loading zone Variance is subject to the normal Variance standards. . . . Page 12 - City of Seal Bench PlmulIng Conmlission Minutes of January 18, 1995 Commissioner Brown asked why the Planning Commission was considering a loading zone Variance? Mr. Whittenberg said the City's ordinance requires a separate loading area on the private property and not on City streets or a public alley. The Code indicates a parking space cannot be used for a loading zone. A loading zone measures 22' x 45', therefore a parking space would not be large enough for one. Chairman Dahlman indicated the Commission could insist on a stricter standard here but the mitigation is that the use is one that all the Commission members approve of. Landscaping Regarding landscaping, Chairman Dahlman suggested an agreement could be reached between staff and the applicant as to how much landscaping is to be approved. He now has 10% of what is required. Mr. Curtis said BJ's and the former Masonic Lodge were required to do public improvements (street trees, benches) along Main Street. Commissioner Brown said he would prefer to handle the landscaping through the Development Agreement. Poll All Commissioners Commissioner Sharp asked Chairman Dahlman why he asked only Commissioner Law if she agreed with his remarks on the separation of the 900 square feet into two parcels and consider the parking on that? Chairman Dahlman said he assumed that of the four Planning Commissioners, Commissioner Law might be the most likely to be in agreement. If she had previously thought of it, she have might have said immediately "yes", and in which case with two people in favor, he would have seen a perfect reason to go ahead and try to decide it. Commissioner Sharp said he was trying to find out why Chairman Dahlman felt Commissioners Brown and Campbell would not be in agreement? Commissioner Sharp said this had bothered him and he wanted it out in the open so it was on the table. Chairman Dahlman asked Commissioner Campbell if she would have seconded Commissioner Sharp's comments had he made a motion? Commissioner Campbell asked for the question to be repeated. Commissioner Sharp said he was not asking for a vote or a recount, he just didn't want it to happen again. Chairman Dahlman said he saw no evidence of support for Commissioner Sharp's position. Therefore, rather than embarrass Commissioner Sharp by putting it to a vote and having it voted down, the Commission went on to other business. Commissioner Sharp said he has never been embarrassed when he has been voted down because everyone's allowed their own opinion. Commissioner Sharp said "I still say that if you're going to ask one of the Commissioners how they feel on an issue you should ask all the Commissioners how they feel on an issue, whether there's going to be a vote or not. I just felt you were assuming that Mrs. Law and I were the only two that voted together and the three of you voted together and I don't like that assumption because it's not true". Chairman Dahlman said "Not at all. I knew how I felt about it and only if Mrs. Law also agreed with you would there even be a chance for three votes". Commissioner Sharp continued, saying "I just wanted to call this to your attention so that if you're going to poll this committee as to how they're going to vote before we have a motion on the floor, that you do it to all of them" . Chairman Dahlman indicated that he had added his voting figures incorrectly and apologized. But said that since the issue was brought up he would like to poll the other Commissioners. Commissioner Campbell said she felt Commissioner Sharp's comments have merit but she didn't feel it the responsibility of this Commission tonight to start . . . Page 13 - City of Senl BeJlch Planning Commission Minutes of January 18, 1995 adjusting the Code in relation to this one case before it. This application must be judged on the requirements as they exist. Commissioner Brown said he already spoke extensively on this issue and agreed with Commissioner Sharp that the Commission should just move on. His prior comments were in disagreement with Commissioner Sharp's. Chairman Dahlman said he too was in disagreement with Commissioner Sharp's comments. MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Law to approve Variance 94-7, subject to the proposed conditions in the staff report, and no restriction on food preparation. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Brown, Law, Sharp, Dahlman, Campbell Chairman Dahlman stated staff will prepare a resolution which will be before the Commission on February 8, 1995 for consideration and signature. Provided the resolution is approved and signed, the ten calendar-day appeal period will begin. Director Whittenberg advised the applicant that staff will begin the formal process of generating the Development Agreement and will be scheduling that for hearings before the Planning Commission as soon as legally permissible. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whittenberg said that for the Commission's February 8th meeting staff has scheduled a community meeting regarding the Main Street Specific Plan and is anticipating a presentation by the consultant. Staff will be requesting the Council on Monday night to adjourn their meeting to be able to join the Planning Commission at their meeting at 7:45 p.m. This will give the Commission fifteen minutes to consider the resolution just discussed. Mr. Steele indicated that when the Planning Commission approved the Consent Calendar they also approved Resolution 95-1 for 1524 Marine Avenue and their ten day appeal period begins to run tonight. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Brown said he would like to revisit, as a future Agenda item, the Brown Act and speaking to applicants, visiting the sites and speaking to the public. Chairman Dahlman agreed. Commissioner Sharp said he thought he had been instructed not to make site visitations but before such instruction he had always visited the site beforehand and felt those visits were very beneficial. Commissioner Campbell commented that she visited many sites because she felt she needed additional information. She felt that if she is limited to a staff report" ... then literally, why are we here?". Mr. Whittenberg said that the staff report gives a background as to what the general requirements of the City area and what staff feels is reasonable or unreasonable given the policies and guidance. The Public Hearing gives public testimony. The attorneys are saying that the time to get information is at the Public Hearing when everyone hears the same thing at . . . Page 14 - City of SelII Beach Planning COllullis,ion MUlUtes of January 18, 1995 the same time. Mr. Whittenberg said it was his opinion that if a Commissioner were to just visit a property and look at it but not talk to anyone that is not nearly the concern as when you start talking to an applicant or neighbor. Mr. Steele said he would be glad to update the Commission tonight or to agendize it for a future meeting. Chairman Dahlman said he would prefer to have something in a future packet. Chairman Dahlman said an additional technical appendix to the DEIR for the Bixby project had been received by the Commission and asked if a comment period now exists for the draft EIR? Has the comment period for the community period been lost? Mr. Whittenberg said no, the document has always been available for the public to come down and look at. The City has not been able to make additional copies for awhile. Chairman Dahlman said this is a very interesting document. Mr. Whittenberg cautioned the Chairman not to make comments since there will be a Public Hearing at a future date. Chairman Dahlman said there's a table which shows 112 decibels coming out of an A 7 and yet on another table, which uses a different classification system, shows only 3 decibels above the City noise limit. Commissioner Law asked if the project proposal will show the widths of the streets, the size of the lots? Mr. Whittenberg said yes. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Dahlman reopened oral communications for one minute. David Rosenman asked what needed to be done to document the will of the Planning Com mission for a certain property so "... we don't have developmental creep II . Mr. Whittenberg said a formal resolution will be coming back to the Commission for consideration at their next meeting. He also asked about Code enforcement at Sweet Jill's? ADJOURNMENT Chairman Dahlman adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, . 9-o~~- Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary NOTE: These minutes were transcribed from the audio tape of that meeting. APPROV AL: The Planning {J?mmission minutes of January 18, 1995 were approved on February ~995.~