Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1995-10-04 CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION . AGENDA of OCTOBER 4, 1995 7:30 P.M. * City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolution: #95-24 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ll. ROLL CALL m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA By Motion of the Planning Commission, thIS is the nme to; . (a) Notify the pubhc of any changes to the agenda; (b) Rearrange the order of the agenda; and/or (c) Provide an opportumty 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 wlthm the subject matter junsdlcnon of the Planning commission, provided that NO action or discussion may be undertaken by the Planning Commission unless otherwise authorized by law. V. CONSENf CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be rounne and are enacted by one monon unless pnor 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. Receive and File - 1995 Plannmg Commissioner's Instltute (notebook). . ) . . . 2.. Resolution No. 95-22 [Continued from 9-20-95] A Resolution of the Plannzng CommissIOn of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the Cuy Council Approval of Zoning Text Amendment 95-2, Amendzng SectIOns 28-2407.b.l, 28-2705 and 28-2757 to Require Hearing Notices Be Mailed to Occupants As Well As Property Owners. VI. fUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Conditional Use Permit 94-8 Address: 327 Main Street (NIp 'n Stuff Liquor) Applicant: John Baker Property Owner: Richard Harbour Request: Three-month review of an alcohol-relatd land use permit for an eXIsting liquor store. VII. STAFF CO~CERNS VIII. COM:MISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT 1995 AGENDA FORECAST . OCT 18 . DWP Specific Plan (tentative) . 1733 Crestview/illegal deck (status) . Surveys - Compulsory or Optional? NOV 08 . [Commissioner Sharp on vacation] . Main Street Specific Plan (tentative) NOV 22 DEC 06 . Code Enforcement Mechamsm [tentative for Nov. or Dec.] DEC 20 1996: IAN . CUP 94-8/327 Main/Nip 'n Stuff @ 6 mos. [3 mos @ 10/4/95] FEB . MAR APR . CUP 95-111013 PCH/Pietro's 12 mos. hours. MAY . CUP 94-1/600 MarinalRadlsson 12 mos. ABC . CUP 92-11909 Ocean/EI Burnto 12 mos. ABC JUN . CUP 94-8/327 Mam/Nip 'n Stuff 6 mos. 2nd review JUL AUO SEP OCT NOV DEC . ~..~ , '. ' . . . i' .. CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of OCTOBER 4, 1995 The Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. with Chairperson Campbell calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Campbell CommisSIoners Dahlman, Brown, Sharp, Law Also Present: De.partment of Development Services: Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Barry CurbS, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Absent: Lee Whittenberg, Director APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Law; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Campbell, Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Brown ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no persons wishing to speak at Oral Communications. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the Consent Calendar, with this vote indicating a "No" vote on item #2 by Commissioners Sharp and Law. 1. Receive and File -1995 Planning Commissioner's Institute (notebook). 2. Resolution No. 95-22 [Continued from 9-20-95] A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Approval of Zoning Text Amendment 95-2, Amending Sections 28-2407.b.1, 28-2705 and 28-2757 to Require Hearing Notices Be Mailed to Occupants As WeU As Properly Owners. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Campbell, Sharp, Law, Dahlman, Brown 1 . . . . .. ;, Pege 2 - CtlJ of Seal Belch PIamuna CclmmwIOO Mmutea of October 4. 1994 PUlILIC BEARINiZS 3. Conditional Use Permit 94-8 Address: 327 Main Street (Nip 'n Stuff Liquor) Applicant: John Baker Property Owner: Richard Harbour Staff Re,port Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant requested a three-month review of an alcohol-related land use permit for an existing liquor store (Nip 'n Stuff Liquor) at 327 Main Street. This is the first of four review periods over the next 18 months. Mr. Curtis indicated no oral or written comments had been received in response to the mailed or published Notice. Notices were mailed to both property owners and occupants within a 300' radius. Commission Comments to Staff Report Notice to Occupants and Property Owners Commissioner Dahlman asked if this was the first Public Hearing at which legal Nonces were mailed to both property owners and occupants. Mr. Curtis said he believed the CommiSSIOn had requested this be done for the applicant's second Public Hearing. Commissioner Dahlman sald he would like to see what this mailing looked like. Mr. Curtis said this application is outside the scope of the recently passed resolution which requires Notices be sent to both occupants and owners. This mail out was done in this manner at the Planning Commission's direction. Deliveries Commissioner Dahlman asked about the applicant's deliveries and delivery hours, indicating he saw nothing in the previous resolunon about this subject. Commissioner Brown said he beheved the Commission had decided not to limit the deliveries as there was no sense in makmg a condition that could not be enforced or controlled by either the applicant or the City. Chairperson Campbell indicated the deliveries were via the front door and not off the alley. Cost of Meetings Commissioner Sharp asked staff for clarification on the costs for CUP reviews. Mr. Curtis explained applicants pay for their initial application and for each review. The City's billing is based on actual expenses and/or actual costs incurred by the City. The cost for a review is usually less than consideration of the initial applicanon. At this time, this apphcant has not completely used his $250 deposit for this first review. Commissioner Sharp said this applicant has been required by the Planning Commission to have three reviews after hiS initial application and this will cost him $1,000. To assist the business community, he felt the Planning Commission should carefully conSider how many reVlew periods they require as it is a large expense for a businessman. -; . , f Page 3 - C1l1 of Seal Bach PIaoomg CclmmJssIOll Mtnutca of October 4, 1994 . Commissioner Brown reminded Commissioner Sharp that staff recommended having four reviews because they had many problems inducing this applicant to comply with the requirements of his previous CUP. Commissioner Sharp said he was aware of that situation but he didn't realize the applicants have to pay for therr own reviews. He thought the reviews were covered in the original $250 cost of the CUP application. Chairperson Campbell said not every applicant is requIred to be reviewed every three months and there must be extenuating circumstances for this requirement. Commissioner Brown reminded the Commission that according to staff, the more the Commission talks the more the applicant owes. Mr. Curtis said one of the Conditions of Approval, based on the term limits, did indicate that if there were no problems over the frrst three review periods the Commission could waive the final reVIew period. Chairperson Campbell said each situation gets reviewed for what the Commission considers appropriate for each individual situation and we'll go with that. . . Public Hearing John Baker · Seal Beach [No Address Glvenl Mr. Baker introduced himself as a Seal Beach resident and the owner of Nip 'n Stuff Liquor. Mr. Baker requested (1) not to have three additional review periods and (2) for a refund on the $1,000 he paid for the December 21, 1994 meeting. Mr. Baker explained that on December 7, 1994 the Planning CommissIOn reviewed his application for CUP 94-8. The Commission decided it was necessary to contmue the Public Hearing on his application in order to re-Notice the neighbors in the area "because of a change in the rules mid-stream". Commissioner Dahlman objected to Mr. Baker's comment, saying the Planning Commission did not change the rules mid-stream. Mr. Baker said he was charged $1,000 for the December 21st Planning Commission hearing but was not told the December 21st meeting would be a special meeting to hear his CUP and he did not learn about the $1,000 charge until he went to apply for hIs building permits. When he went to obtain his building permits he was told no permits would be Issued until he paid his $1,000 for the meeting. "It was extorted out of me that day... is that the way you treat people in Seal Beach? I don't think the people in this town know what goes on down here". He said "Maybe I had put a sign in my window, trying to survive in my busmess. And I'm not the only person who had that sign. But there are other businesses you didn't do a thing about. But you certainly leaned on me." He said he has complied with all the City's rules since he moved across Main Street. He said he would not like to have to reappear before the Planning Commission for four reviews. "I would like not to have to come back here and spend the money again and again and again, just to satisfy your concerns. If I'm illegal I have a CUP and you can put that at any time ... I shouldn't have to come back here, that CUP is the law and I must obey that law." He said he agreed to the Conditions of Approval on his CUP because he didn't know the penalties of it, Le. the costs he would have to pay for the reviews. He was hurt and offended by the way the City treated him, not telling him all the fees up front. " ". Page 4 . C1If of Sell Bcacb PIamuD& ComnussIOll Mmutea of October 4, 1994 . Mr. Baker asked for clarification of Condition of Approval #8, which reads: No SIgns odw:rtlSmg alcoholic bew:rages shall be placed in the Window areas, nor shall any other SIgns odvemnng speajic brands of alcoholic beverages be permitted In the Window areas faCing a public street or nght-of-way. Intenor displays of alcoholic beverage SIgns wluch are clearly VISIble to the extenor shbll constitute a VIolation of tIus conthhon. He asked if his widow signs could say "beer" or "wine" or "liquor"? Commissioner Dahlman explained the word "specific" in the condition is intened to prohibit specific brand names from being advertised in the window areas. Mr. Steele added the City's policy on window advertising had always been to prohIbit specific brand names of alcohol being used. He interpreted thiS as meaning that if you want to advertise alcoholic beverages for sale you may not use the brand name but you may say you are a liquor store and you sell beer, wine and/or spirits. . Chairperson Campbell addressed the applicant, indicating he had had a CUP at 322 Main Street, hIs former location and the City could not get him to pull the specific brand name advertising signs out of the windows and that he did not remove those signs until he moved across the street. Mr. Baker said when the landlord at 322 Main Street began to remodel the complex, he asked Lee Whittenberg for permission to leave his brand name advertising signs in his windows for two or three months. Mr. Whittenberg told him he would have to go before the Planmng Commission; he decided not to spend his money this way. He agreed he had been given ample time to remove those signs and he did not remove those signs at first. But he did pull all the signs out and replaced them with non-alcoholic beverage signs. But the minute he moved to 327 Main Street he began following the rules as he realized he would not get a new CUP If he didn't. Chairperson Campbell said the Commission had been trying for a year or eighteen months to get him to pull those signs out and they finally were pulled out a week or two before he moved. Mr. Baker said he had no choice. Chairperson Campbell told him he was right, the Commission would not have granted a new CUP when he was violating the conditions of his old CUP. The City has established rules in place and his attitude seemed to be he was going to do whatever he wanted to do and that is why the Commission invoked the addlllonal review periods. Commissioner Dahlman asked staff about linking the payment of CUP costs to obtaining buildmg permits, indicating they are not related to one another. Mr. Curtis said he believed he had told the applicant of the costs for hiS CUP and that they would need to be paid prior to opening for business. Commissioner Dahlman asked if it is City policy that everybody who needs a building permit needs to pay any outstanding City Hall bills before they can get their building permits? Mr. Steele said all of the City's permit fees, unless there is a specific provision for some kmd of installment payment, have to be paid up front. The CUP is not in effect until the permit fees are paid. Just as building permits are not in effect until building permit fees are paid. There's not a particular linkage between the two but as a practical matter, neither one of those permits is gomg to have any effect until the permit fees are paid. Mr. Baker said he asked Mr. Curtis what the $1000 was for and Mr. Curtis told him the $1,000 . went to pay the Planning Commissioners, staff, attorney ... "After all, it was a special meeting . . ; Plao 5 - ~ of Seal Beach PIaluuo8 ComouIaIOll Mmutcs of 0ct0IJ0r 4, 1994 . for you and you won't be issued a building permit until those fees are paid", He said he was forced to borrow the money to pay that fee, When he received the Minutes of that meeting, the first line read "The City of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session ..," and he was told it was a special session. Chairperson Campbell indicated the December 21 st meeting was a special meetIng in that It was held for him because he was in a bind. For the Minutes to read "regular meetIng" is a misnomer, having more to do with format. The Planning Commission usually does not hold their meeting just before Christmas and if they had gone from their December 7th meeting to the rust meeting in January 1995 it would bave created a financial hardship according to the applicant's explanation at that time. Mr. Steele recalled there was nothing on the December 21st regular meeting and the Commission met on that date to accommodate the applicant's time line. Mr. Baker said that if someone had said to him at that moment that it's going to cost you $1,000 he would have waited a couple of weeks. He was totally unaware he was going to be assessed this kind of money. Commlssioner Dahlman satd none of the Commissioners had any idea of these fees either. Chairperson Campbell asked then why was the December 21st meeting held? Mr. Baker satd because the Commission had decided there were not enough notifications sent out. Commissioner Brown disagreed, saying the continuance was to allow staff time to obtain a letter from Ron Bennett, the property owner at 322 Main Street, revoking the CUP at that Site and to . obtain information on loading facihtIes for 327 Main Street. CommisSloner Brown asked Mr. Curtis what the cost of tonight's meeting would be --- noting It'S a regularly scheduled meeting but has only one Public Hearing item? Mr. Curbs satd the applicant is only charged for the amount of time the Commission spends on his application. If it's a meeting which is held at the request of an applicant, that applicant is charged the costs of the entire meeting. Commissioner Brown asked what the cost of fifteen minutes would be? Mr. Curtis said he would have to figure that out -- probably less than $200. Commissioner Brown said he didn't think anybody was aware the applicant would be charged for the entire costs of the meeting but he did recall the Commission wanted to hold the next meeting on January 6th. Mr. Baker said he felt it was personal, that he was penalized $1,000. . Chairperson Campbell said "Well, Mr. Baker, for what it's worth, I was not aware, and I think the other Commissioners were not aware either that that's how the fee setup was structured. Because had we known, we could have presented it to you and we could have said these are your choices --- special meeting $x or you wait until the next regularly scheduled meeting which would have been in January. But at the time, you were very anxious to get started and so we tried to accommodate you in that way". Mr. Baker said "I realize that. And at this point I would like a refund, or at least a partial refund. I don't think $1,000 was fair at all". CommiSSioner Dahlman indicated there is no way to turn the clock back and have the meetlng in January. Mr. Baker said he was not asking for a full refund as a fair amount of time was spent and he didn't mind paying for a fair amount of time. But he did mind paying for excessive fees. . . . Plae 6 - CII;y of Sell Beach J>Jamuaa o-m.ulClll Muwtea of October 4. 1994 . Mr. Steele said the Planning Commission doesn't have the authority to determine refunds or fee waivers, so the Commission is discussing something that's outside its jurisdiction. Mr. Baker said he would then take the matter to the City Council. Commissioner Dahlman asked the applicant about his replacing the alcoholic signs with non- alcoholic signs. Mr. Baker said that was at 322 Main. His sign at 327 Main is neon and is shaped like a beer bottle with no brand name. There were no persons wishing to speak in favor of or against this application and the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp said he didn't think the next three month review was warranted and would like to make the next review at six months; Commissioner Brown agreed. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Resolution No. 95-24, thus approving the three month review of Conditional Use Permit 94-8 and waive the next three month review, making the review at six months. . Before the vote, Commissioner Dahlman said the Planning Commission has never before granted a CUP for liquor sales indefmitely after less than one year's experience. To approve the Motion as stated would be breaking new ground and he would be opposed. The Planmng Commission discussed the framing of the Motion on the floor. Mr. Steele reworded the Motion: MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Resolution No. 95-24, thus approving the three month review of Conditional Use Permit 94-8, and moving to delete the next three month extension, and provide for two six-month extensions after which the applicant may apply for an indermite extension: 21. The term of this permit shaD be for six (6) months, followed by a second six (6) month extension, and thereafter indermitely, provided aD conditions of approval have been satisfied and no extraordinary demand for law enforcement services occur with respect to the subject property. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Dahlman, Law, Campbell, Brown Mr. Baker said he didn't go into business until April 15, 1995. He said the review is today. Will the review period be six months from today? Mr. Steele said almost, noting the approval of this resolution does not take effect for ten calendar days to allow the appeal period to run beginning tomorrow. . - . . . . . Q Ptgc 7 - CIty of SaIl Beach l'JImuIIa CcJamumOll Mmutea of October 4, 1994 vu. ~TAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. vm. COl\1MlSSIOl~LCONCERN.s Tree Removal Commissioner Brown said a local resident was very upset that the 30' mature tree m front of Main Street Ice Cream was removed and asked staff why. Mr. Curtis said he did not know but would look into it and get back to the Commission with that information. Gum Grove Park Commissioner Dahlman indicated that neighbors have said Gum Grove Park has been used recently to dispose of asphalt chips by whoever is resurfacing the Old Town streets. The Park is a mess. Mr. Curtis said the Duector of Public Works was gomg to preparing a memo for the EQCB and he would get that memo to the Commission. Chanperson Campbell indicated the Environmental Qual1ty Control Board will handle this issue. ~ With the consensus of the Commission, Chairperson Campbell adjourned the meetmg at 8: 15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, <io~cno Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary APPROVAL: The Planning ~ommission Minutes of October 4, 1995 were approved on Ck-rnbl n... \ & J 1995. ~