Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1996-03-20 .' - . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA of MARCH 20, 1996 7:30 P.M. · City CouacD Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolution: #96-4 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE n. ROLL CALL ID. ~PROVALQFAG~ 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 Commi~ion, 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 Commi~ion 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 CALEMlAR 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, starr or the public requests that a specific item be removed from Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 1996. ne city or Seal BeadJ compiles with the Amerieau With Dllabilltaes Ad or IllM. It you Deed uslstaoce to aUeod th. meetlOC, please telephoDe the City Clerk'. Ofl1ce lit (JIO) 431-1527 at least 4lI houn prior to the meet1ua . . . ....e 2 - City of Seal Beach I'IaJunog CODllllluioD · Aceada for Marda 20, 1!l96 2. Resolution No. 96- , A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Denying Zone Text Amendment 96-2, a request to amend the rear yard setback requirements of the Residential Low Density zone, District V, to permit decks to be constructed within the rear yard setback. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Negative Declaration 96-1 Zone Change 96-1 Zone Text Amendment 96-3 General Plan Amendments 96-1A & 96-1B "Main Street Specific Plan" Revision 96-1 Background Studies - Main Street Specific Plan Report and AB 1600 Report. [Continued from 2/21/96, 3/6/96] Applicant: City of Seal Beach Request: The City of Seal Beach is recommending revisions to the existing Main Street Specific Plan, and conforming revisions to the General Plan's Land Use and Housing Elements, a Zone Text Amendment, and a Zone Change to designate those areas of the City to be designated Main Street Specific Plan Zone. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend the City Council adopt negative Declaration 96-1, and approve any amendments to the General Plan, Main Street Specific Plan, zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map determined appropriate, through the adoption of: a. Resolution No. 96-_, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending Adoption of Negative Declaration 96-1, Relating to Revision 96-1 of the Main Street Specific Plan; b. Resolution No. 96- _, A Resolution of the Planning Commission Recommending to the City Council approval of The city of Seal BeacIl complies willi the Amerieau WIth Disablbdes Act of 1990. If you Deed lII8istaace to attead this meeUag, please telephoDe the city Clerk'. Ollice at (310) 431-2527 at Ieut ... boon prior to the meetiac. . . . ....e 3 - City or Se8I BeadlI'Iamdoc CommlssloD · Agnda ror March 20, 1996 General Plan Amendment 96-1A, Amending the Land Use Element to Maintain consistency Between the Land Use Element and the Main Street Specific Plan Revision 96-1 and to Revise the "Summary Table of Existing and Proposed Land Uses in Acres" of the Land Use Element to Depict the Increase of Approximately 14.8 Acres of "Main street Specific Plan Zone" land and Appropriate Decreases of Other Land Use Categories Within the City. c. Resolution No. 96-_, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Approval of General Plan Amendment 96-1B, Amending Table 16 of the Housing Element to Depict the Increase of Approximately 14.8 Acres of "Main Street Specific Plan Zone" land and Appropriate Decreases of Other Land Use Categories Within the City; d. Resolution No. 96-_, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending that the City Council Approve Revision 96-1 of the Main Street Specific Plan. e. Resolution No. 96- _' A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Approval of Zone Text Amendment 96-1, Creating the "Main Street Specific Plan Zone" (Sections 28- 1250 through 28-1257) and Amending Section 28-1804.3 and 28-2408.C to Maintain Internal Consistency of chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. f. Resolution No. 96-_, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Approval of Zone Change 96-1, Changing the Zoning to Depict the Increase of Approximately 14.8 Acres of "Main Street specific Plan Zone" Land and Appropriate Decreases of Other Zoning Categories Within the City. In addition, recommend that the City Council receive and file the Background Studies - Main Street Specific Plan Report, revised and dated Janllary 1996, and theAB 1600 Repon, dated January 17,1996. The City or Se8I BeadI eomplles with Ibe Amerieaas WItb Dlsaballlle& Ad or 1!I9O It )'OU Deed asslstaDce to aUeDd ibis meet1ag, please telephoDe Ibe City Clerk'. OffIce at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 houn pnor to Ibe meet1ag . . . P8ce 4 - City or Seal Beaeh I'IaJmIaa CommluloD · Ageada ror Mareb 20, IIlH 4. Zoning Text Amendment 95-1 [Continued from 11-8-95, 12-6-95 and 1-17-96] Applicant: City of Seal Beach Request: To establish City-wide standards for the temporary display of advertising banners in commerciall industrial zones. The proposed regulations would establish a permitting process and set maximum time and size limits for the display of temporary banners. Recommendation: Recommend to City Council approval of Zoning Text Amendment 95-1, Subject to Additional provisions as determined appropriate, and Adopt Resolution No. 96-_. 5. Proposed Fee Adjustment Schedule for Transpottation Pacilities and Programs Development Pees and Transportation Pacilities & Programs Development Application Pees. Applicant: City of Seal Beach Request: To revise the Transpottation Pacilities and Programs Development Pees and Transpottation Pacilities & Programs Development Application Pees, in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of Resolution No. 4234, as amended. The City is proposing to establish a fee adjustment schedule for previously developed but currently vacant property at the time a new development plan is submitted. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval through the adoption of Resolution No. 96- _. Tbe city or Seal Beaeh eomplles wltb the AmerIcau With DlsabIhl1es Act or 1990. If you Deed lIISIStaDee to atteDd CJus meedag, please telephoDe the City Clerk'. 0fI1ee at (310) 431-2527 at Ieut . hoon prior to the meednc. . . . PBae 5 - City Dr Seal BeacIII'IanDIIII COIllllllssloD · Aguda ror March 20, 1ll!l6 6. Variance 96-1 Address: Applicants: Property Owners: 700 South Shore Drive Ted & Celeste Bowers Ted & Celeste Bowers Request: To vary from the required rear yard setback requirements in conjunction with a proposed addition to a single-family dwelling at 700 South Shore Drive, Seal Beach. The proposed addition would provide a six (6') foot rear yard setback rather than the required ten (10') setback. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial through the adoption of Resolution No. 96- _. 7. Conditional Use Permit 94-6 Address: Business: Applicants: Property Owners: [Renewal] 981 Pacific Coast Highway The Daily Grind Deborah Edwards & Susan Cooper Jerome Mossl Andrew PosseU Request: Review at twelve months for indermite extension of a drive-thru espresso bar within the parking area of the Seal Beach Center (Pavilions Center). The espresso bar serves specialty coffee drinks as well as pre-prepared food items from Pavilions market. There is no seating area. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval through the adoption of Resolution No. 96- . VB. STAFF CONCERNS 8. Conditional Use Permit 92-2 at 101 Main Street Seaside Grill * Change of Ownership and Transfer of ABC License The city Dr Seal BeacII compl1es with the AmericaDs With DIsabilities Act Dr IlIM. It you Deal uslstaDce Co atleDd tIus meebllC, pIeue telepboDe the City Clerk'. Ot1ice at (310) 431-2527 at Ieut 41 bODn prior Co the meeciDc . . . .... , - city or Seal Beach I'IamIlaa COIlUlllMloD · Acacia tor March 20. 1M VIn. COMMISSION CO~C~ IX. ADJO~ The City or Seal Beach complies with the Americans Wdh DisabUitirs Act or 1990. It you Deed assistaDce 10 attend this meetmg, please telephoDe the City Clerk's 0fIice at (310) 431-2527 at 1east 48 boun prior 10 the meedDc. Pace 7 - City or SeeI BeacII JlIanDIoa COIlllllluloD · Aleada ror MardI 20, I'" . 1996 AGENDA FORECAST APR 03 . . ZT A 96-2/Third Stories [Continued from 2/21/96] CUP 92-1/909 Ocean/El Burrito Jr./12 mos. review. APR 17 . . CUP 95-1/1013 PCB/Pietro's @ 12 mos./hours. CUP 94-4/770 PCB/Burger King @ 3 mos. MAY 08 MAY 22 . CUP 92-1/909 Ocean/El Burrito 12 mos. ABC [Changed ownership 1/96] . CUP 94-8/327 Main/Nip 'n Stuff @ 8 mos. JUN 05 . CUP 94-1/600 MarinalRadisson 12 mos. ABC JUN 19 . JUL 03 JUL 17 AUG 07 AUG 21 SEP 04 . CUP 94-8/327 Main/Nip 'n Stuff 6 mos. 2nd review SEP 18 OCT 09 OCT 23 NOV 06 NOV 20 DEe 04 DEe 18 . The city or SeeI Beach complies with the Amerlams With DlaabaUtIes Act or 1990. It you Deed .....taDCC to attead thIS meetilll. please telephoDe the City Clerk'. Ofllee at (310) 431-2527 at least 48 boun prior to the meetiD&. ,. . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of MARCH 20, 1996 The City of Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session in City Council chambers at 7:35 p.m. The Chair called the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Campbell Commissioners Dahlman, Sharp, Law, Brown Also Present: Development Services Department Lee Whittenberg, Director Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Absent: Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant APPROVAL OF AGENDA . Commissioner Dahlman requested separate consideration of Item #2, Director Whittenberg requested item #5 be moved to the last Public Hearing in consideration of those persons participating in the other agendized items, and CommissIOner Brown requested items #6 and #7 be moved forward to become items #3 and #4. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to approve the Agenda with the above- referenced modifications. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Brown, Dahlman, Campbell, Law, Sharp ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Roger West * 1201A Electric Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. West said the consultant's term parking management problem IS correct. The City is not managing the parking problems in Old Town. "You are not managIng it. You're responSible for the situation in parking in Old Town. You have at your hands a tool to take care of that problem immediately and you're not using It. And that IS parlong meters". He continued to say that by installing parking meters, the parking demand could be adjusted to the spaces aVaIlable; this could be done at a profit. The meters could be fine tuned to dlstnbute the parking proportIonately. For example, If the parlong IS too dense on Main Street the parlong rates could be raised there and lower the rates on 8th Street. Also, the beach parking rates could be made . lower than the Main Street. He could not understand how so many people feel It'S the reSident's PIce 2 - CIty of ScaI Beach PIlIImmc CclmnusSIOIl Mmutcs of March 20, 1996 . duty to provide parking spaces for the MalO Street merchants free of charge. This is not done for Rossmoor Center or the Seal Beach Center. He saId welfare for MalO Street should be ended. Commissioner Dahlman said some businesses have a large parking deficit and they use much of the Main Street parking. Other businesses, who have parking, would find their customers putting money in the parking meters. Mr. West saId nobody on MalO Street complies completely with Code requirements. For example, the Bank of America bought out Secunty Pacific Bank. The former Security Pacific Bank build 109 had numerous parking places but when the banks were combined into the one location on Main Street it tnpled the parking requirement and yet they didn't provide additional parking. The City didn't even talk to them about It. The merchants on Main Street are a drag on the taxpayers as they generate only 1% % - 2 % of the sales tax revenue City-wide but they consume 50% of the City's services. He said there are too many merchants in Seal Beach now. Commissioner Dahlman said the California Coastal Commission doesn't want the City to do anything that wIll move retail customers to park in the beach lots. . Mr. West said the Coastal Commission doesn't matter anymore and IS largely Ignored by everyone today. He could not understand why Seal Beach couldn't have parking meters. Every beach community from Mexico to San Francisco does it and Seal Beach could do It too. If a MalO Street merchants provides his own parking then hIS patrons Will not have to use meters. He was talking about property which IS owned by the City resIdents, whIch is paid for and maintained by the citizen's tax dollars. Gordon Shanks * 215 Surf Place. Seal Beach Mr. Shanks said Mr. West made some valid points, one of which IS the census shows the population of Old Town going down. But on MalO Street you can't park. A dichotomy IS going on --- the parking IS full but the merchant's say buslOess Isn't good. The answer may be that the businessmen can never be happy. He thought the Planmng Commission and City Council need to look at this. Karen Kettering * Angel ConnectIon. Main Street Ms. Kettering said the majority of the merchants would like to have parking meters. The problem is charging for parking at the beach whIle not charging for parking on MalO Street. She said she talked to a lot of her customers and they don't feel parking meters would be a problem. She said the merchants pay 11 % utIlity tax and 1% % sales tax; the merchants try their hardest to help the City. With no other speakers the Chair closed Oral Commumcations. . ....0 3 - Cdy of Seal Beach PIannmg CommwlOl1 Mmulell of March 20, 1996 . CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to approve the Consent Calendar: 1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of March 6, 1996. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Dahlman, Brown, Sharp, Law, Campbell The Commission considered item #2 separately: 2. Resolution No. 96-4, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Denying Zone Text Amendment 96-2, a request to amend the rear yard setback requirements of the Residential Low Density zone, District V, to permit decks to be constructed within the rear yard setback. . Commissioner Dahlman said he asked for this resolutIon to be extracted because he was excluded from participating with the Commission on thiS issue, other than hiS testimony along with other neighbors. He does not have a conflict of interest on this Issue, but a Falr PolItIcal Practices Commission (FPPC) rule prohibited him from voting on thiS. The FPPC rule is a disenfranchisement and short-circuiting of the democratic process and he asked for this to be extracted so he could vote against it. MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Law to approve Resolution No. 96-4 MOTION CARRIED: A YES: NOES: 4-1-0 Brown, Law, Campbell, Sharp Dahlman Director Whittenberg indicated that anyone Wishing to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council had ten calendar days to file that appeal begmmng tomorrow morning. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Address: Applicants: Property Owners: Variance 96-1 700 South Shore Drive Ted & Celeste Bowers Ted & Celeste Bowers . . PIa" 4 . ~ of Scalllcach PIannuJa Commwlon Manutea of March 20, 1996 Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planmng Department for reference]. The basic request is to vary from the required rear yard setback requirements In conjunction with a proposed addition to a single-family dwelling at 700 South Shore Drive, Seal Beach. The proposed addition would provide a six (6') foot rear yard setback rather than the required ten (10') setback. Staff recommends denial through the adoption of an appropriate resolution. The existing residence is approximately 1900 square feet in area, and covers 35% of the lot area, and the Code allows a 45 % lot coverage. The additional 10 % lot coverage could be approved by staff assuming all normal development standards of the City are met. The property immediately to the rear, at 701 Taper, did receive a vanance from the City in 1965 for the same type of request. In reviewing the findings for thiS earber vanance, staff feels the current provisions of law do not permit the making of the necessary findings to grant a vanance in light of today's standards for the granting of a variance. In addition, the Commission has granted several recent variances as part of a proposed additIon. All of those requests granted a variance to a legal pre-existing structure which was bUllt many years ago and does not meet current setback requirements, while requiring the new addition to comply With current setback requirements. If this variance were to be granted, you would be making an existIng legal conforming structure into a non-conforming structure. Public Hearing . The Chair opened the public hearing. Ted Bowers * 700 South Shore Drive . Mr. Bowers, applicant and property owner, indicated they are requesting special consideratIon basically because the property to their rear has already received a Similar vanance. The existIng terracing and fencing of the property does not allow for any impact to sightbnes from neighboring properties as a result of the requested vanance. Mr. Bowers submitted photos showing the existing property and the views towards adjacent properties. In response to a question from CommiSSioner Dahlman, Mr. Bowers indicated the property to the rear has a 2 foot overlap, and further discussed the photos submitted. In response to a question from Chairperson Campbell, Mr. Bowers indicated the two reSidences would be 12 feet apart if the variance were to be granted. The reason for the proposed addition on the ground floor, and not on the second floor, is that hiS mother-in-law would be takIng care of their children and has trouble negotiatIng stairs. There being no other speakers, the Chair closed the Public Heanng. Commission Comments Commissioner Dahlman confirmed the house under conSideratIon IS an "atrIUm" model, and inquired as to the reasons for setbacks In additIon to view and pnvacy concerns. Mr. . . . ....e 5 . CIty of Seal Beach Plaanlllll CoaunuaIOD MInutes of March 20, 1996 Whittenberg indicated there are several other issues that relate to setbacks, such as easements for utility services, separation for fire protection, and the provIsion of a minimum private recreation area for famIly use. Commissioner Dahlman indicated the "atrium" model has a useable recreation area within the house, and the lot coverage requirements do restrIct theIr ability to add on unless they convert the atrium area to hVIng area. He feels this IS a special circumstance, particularly since the neighbor has received a similar variance in the past. Commissioner Brown indicated he didn't see how the CommissIOn could grant this variance since the Commission has just denied a Zone Text Amendment which is essentially the same request under consideration. He further indicated that if the zone text amendment had been approved, it would be very difficult to deny this request. If this request IS granted, it becomes more difficult to maintain the provIsions of the Code. If the setback reqUirements are wrong, they should be changed, but not on a case-by-case baSIS. He feels staff has summed thiS case very well, and that a legal basis for approval does not eXIst. Commission Law indicated she opposes the variance request also, and that the reSidence can be expanded without requiring a variance. Commissioner Sharp agreed with the pOints raised by Commissioner Brown and Law. Chairperson Campbell indicated she agrees with Commissioners Brown, Sharp, and Law, and is in opposition to the granting of the variance. MOTION by Law: SECOND by Sharp to deny Variance 96-1, and instruct Staffto prepare a resolution for consideration at the April 3 Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION FAILED: AYES: NOES: 2-3-0 Law, Sharp Dahhnan, Campbell, Brown Chairperson Campbell indicated she had pushed the wrong button and incorrectly voted. Commissioner Dahlman indicated that a motion to reconsider IS required. Mr. Steele indicated that is correct. MOTION by Campbell: SECOND by Law to reconsider MOTION PASSED: AYES: NOES: 4-1-0 Law, Sharp, Campbell, Brown Dahhnan MOTION by Law: SECOND by Sharp to deny Variance 96-1, and instruct Staffto prepare a resolution for consideration at the April 3 Planning Commission Meeting. . . . ....0 6 - City of S08l Beach PIaJuung ComnuIIIClll Mmulo8 of March 20, 1996 MOTION PASSED: A YES: NOES: 4-1-0 Law, Sharp, Campbell, Brown Dahlman Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Planning Commission Will consider adoption of a resolutIOn of denial at the April 3 meeting, and if adopted the lO-day appeal period Will begin on April 4, 1996. 4. Conditional Use Permit 94-6 [Renewal] Address: 981 Pacific Coast Highway Business: The Daily Grind Applicants: Deborah Edwards & Susan Cooper Property Owners: Jerome Mossl Andrew Posse II Staff Re,port Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for reference]. The basic request is to review at twelve months a request for Indefinite extension of a drive-thru espresso bar within the parking area of the Seal Beach Center (pavllions Center). The espresso bar serves specialty coffee dnnks as well as pre-prepared food Items from Pavilions market. There is no seating area. Staff recommends approval through the adoption of Resolution 96-5, provided with the staff report. Mr. Whittenberg Indicated the bUSiness has not received any complaints and that all conditions of approval have been complied With. Public Hearing The Chair opened the public hearing. The applicant indicated she did not wish to speak, and there were no other persons wishing to speak on thiS matter. CommiSSIOn Comments Commissioner Sharp indicated he felt the mitial proposal was a nsky venture, but hiS observations have Indicated the business is a real success and congratulated the operators for running a successful bUSiness. MOTION by Dahlman: SECOND by Law to approve the indefinite extension of Conditional Use Permit 94-6 and adopt Resolution 96-5 as prepared by staff. MOTION PASSED: A YES: NOES: 5-0-0 Law, Sharp, Dahlman, Campbell, Brown None Mr. Steele indicated the lO-dayappeal period Will begin to run tomorrow. PIce 7 . Cll)' of Seal Beach PlamaUl& Comml881011 Mmutca of March 20, 1996 . s. Negative Declaration 96-1 Zone Change 96-1 Zone Text Amendment 96-3 General Plan Amendments 96-1A & 96-1B "Main Street Specific Plan" Revision 96-1 Background Studies - Main Street Specific Plan Report and AB 1600 Report. [Continued from 2/21/96 and 3/6/96] Applicant: City of Seal Beach Staff Re.port Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for reference]. The basic request IS to recommend revisions to the existmg Mazn Street Specific Plan. and conforming revisions to the General Plan's Land Use and Housing Elements, a Zone Text Amendment, and a Zone Change to designate those areas of the City to be designated Mam Street Specific Plan Zone. Mr. Whittenberg further mdicated staff has attempted to respond to additional issues discussed at the March 6 public hearing on thiS matter. . The first issue discussed is the regulation of alcohol-related businesses regarding standard hours of operation and number of establishments. Staff still recommends the CUP process, as it provides the maximum flexibihty to the City. If the CommissIOn determmes to recommend standard hours for new alcohol-related land uses on MalO Street, staff has provided proposed amending language and the current hours of those types of businesses on MalO Street. From staff's viewpoint, if the CUP process is retained, the hour issue can be dealt with through an amendment to the proposed zomng ordinance for Main Street or as a separate policy statement. Hours restrictions in the ordinance will bind future CommissIOns and Counctls, and not allow any flexibility regarding operating hours unless the ordinance is subsequently amended. The second issue relates to the proposed retentIOn of the $loo.00/space/year fee for eXisting parking agreements and the proposed AB 1600 parking space fee of $3,614.14. As mdlcated on March 6 by Commissioner Dahlman, the fee could be mcreased to around $250.00- $3oo.oo/year and would equal the approximate present value of the AB 1600 proposed one-time fee of $3,614.14/space. An additional concern was expressed that the proposed AB 1600 Parking Fee of $3,614.14 per space is inadequate to provide the additlonal number of parktng spaces desired. The AB 1600 fee is derived from an analysIs of antiCIpated public actions and improvements as set forth on Table 2 of the AB 1600 Report and potentlal revenue sources as set forth in Table 3 of the AB 1600 Report. . These issues relate to each other, in that the AB 1600 fee must relate to the level to pay for the costs of planned programs and improvements to be undertaken by the City. The fee cannot be greater than necessary to pay for the unfunded components of the program. Staff has prOVided . . . P1ge B - Cd;y of Seal Beach Plannlllll CamoU881l11l Mmule8 of March 20, 1996 several different alternatives to illustrate this point. As the Commission ulnmately determInes the appropriate programs and projects, and the revenue sources aVallable, the AB 1600 fee may need revision. In response to a question from Commissioner Dahlman regarding the costs of developing a parking structure in Laguna Beach, and could our AB 1600 fee be set at that level, Mr. Whittenberg responded that the site designated in the Specific Plan has been costed out at current construction costs, and accurately reflects costs today. Mr. Whittenberg further indicated this specific plan is not similar to the current specific plan, and is basically a public improvement program. The proposed revision deals with appropriate land uses, the inter-relationships between resident and visitor serving commercial uses, the image of the area, and the parking management Issues of the area. Mr. Whittenberg also indicated a letter has been received from Reva Olson today regardIng the issue of a business improvement district, and her strong oppositIOn to this proposal. Staff understands this is and has been an Issue of controversy, but beheves the proposal snll has merit and could be used in a manner beneficial to both the bUSIness and residential areas of Maln Street. Staff does feel the proposal should not be summanly dismissed at thiS point. If the Commission feels strongly enough to ehminate the proposal, staff would have no obJecnon, since the Specific Plan is not dependent on this proposal, and can funcnon very well Without that component. Mr. Whittenberg then reviewed the issue of an appropriate parlang standard for desert shops and coffee houses, indicating stafrs mitial proposal was to be the same as for a retail store. The use is not as traffic intensive as a restaurant, and the parking should not be the same. If the Commission feels a middle ground is appropnate, staff would recommend the Commission establish the parking standard the same as for a profeSSIOnal office, as it would allow flexibility to change the current ground floor professional office uses on Maln Street to a retail use and not to face a different parking requirement. The last issue for conSideration is the issue of Coastal CommissIOn review and buy-off on the proposed parking program and standards set forth in the revised specific plan. SInce Seal Beach does not have an approved Coastal Plan, the Coastal Commission does retain Jurisdiction in these matters. The position of the Coastal Commission seems to be changing, whereby the City has received permission to modify its parking rates in the pubhc beach parlang lots without a coastal permit. The Coastal Commission is still concerned about an overall development and management scheme for the Maln Street area, and staff and the consultant have dealt With the Commission in these matters. It is easier for Coastal CommiSSion staff to take an apphcation to their commission members with a approval recommendanon when all of the parts of the program are set forth, and the City is attempting to prOVide that long-range overview through this specific plan. Pace 9 - CIty of ScaI Beach Plannmg ComnulSlOIl Mmutca of March 20, 1996 . Commission Comments Commissioner Brown inquired if those businesses which now pay the yearly fee could convert to the established AB 1600 fee, and Mr. Whittenberg indicated that would be correct. He also indicated the current yearly fee can be revised, as the current fee is clearly indicated in the agreements to be an interim fee. In response to a question from Commissioner Law as to the ability of a BID to levy taxes and assessments, Mr. Whittenberg indicated a BID mayor may not have that abIlIty, the BID can choose certain funding mechanisms, and may determine which fundmg mechanisms are appropriate. Public Hearing The Chair opened the public hearing. Gordon Shanks * 215 Surf Place . Mr. Shanks congratulated the consultant and staff for doing an excellent job for listening to what the community wants, and commended their understanding of the communIty, as he feels the report is very good on most things. He sees no reason why a cap on the number of alcohol- serving establishments cannot be established. The cap makes everyone's job easIer. He further favors a different payment program for the beach lots, and feels parking meters on Main Street is a viable program. The upcoming banner ordmance should also be considered in light of the proposals for Main Street, as they may be at cross purposes. Reva Olson * Seal Beach Read her letter submitted to the Planning CommiSSIon earlier into the record (Attached to these minutes and made a part hereof). Ron Bennett * Seal Beach Mr. Bennett complimented Zucker systems and staff for their efforts in developing this proposal. He feels the parking reqUIrements for desert shops and coffee houses as originally proposed is sufficient. These uses experience primarily short-term walk-in use, pnmanly local reSIdents, not persons driving specifically to their particular business. He also supports parking meters on Mam Street, and indicated the busmess assocIation has supported parking meters on Mam Street for the past year. Brian Kyle * Seal Beach . Mr. Kyle indicated that for those busmesses whIch have been paymg the yearly fee for many years, there should some credit given for those previous payments if a business determmes to . . . Pege 10. CIty of &41 Beach PIannmg COIIUI1IIIIOII Manule8 of March 20, 1996 convert to the AB 1600 fee. He further indicated he actually provided additIonal parking spaces by restripping portions of the beach parking lot and created 28 additional spaces. Residents along 8th Street do not seem to favor a 2-level parkIng structure and he personally does not hke parking meters on Main Street. Gary Putnam * 210% Main Street Mr. Putnam also congratulated the Commission and staff for the hard work done on this proposal. He questioned the provisions regardmg benches and that there needs to some control of the location of them, and hoped that sidewalk and tree Improvements would be done at the same time. He further indicated parking meters are a good idea, it works in other commumties and cannot see why it wouldn't work here. Mr. Putnam also inqUired what mcentives the City could offer to encourage local businesses to remodel their storefronts? Mr. Whittenberg indicated the provisions of the specific plan only addresses the style of benches, the location would be controlled through permits issued by the Pubhc Works Department. Sidewalk and tree improvements would hopeful occur on a parallel track, and would be more cost effective that way. Bob Collins * 321 Main Street Mr. Collins indicated he supports some banner control and they can be effectIve for a partIcular business. His business has off-street parkIng, and meters are a good idea. The meter revenues can be used to maintain the street. He is not 10 favor of a BID, mdicatmg the current situatIon in Long Beach. Let the business community organize and create a way to advertise theIr businesses. Charles Antos * 328 17th Street Mr. Antos indicated the last time a BID was proposed it split the commumty. The downtown merchant's association should legitimize itself at the state level and try to get the local busmesses to voluntarily join into a joint marketing effort, it should not be forced upon the local business. A few weeks ago he had discussed this issue with the City Manager and the City Manager had indicated he was not at all interested in having one in Seal Beach, as he had gone through that effort in another city. If the Commission leaves the BID in and It gets before the City CouncIl, in all probability, the City Manager will take at least a neutral, If not a negative stance toward the concept of a BID. Commissioner Brown asked through the Chair if he could ask Mr. Bennett a questIon. With the concurrence of the Chair, Commissioner Brown inquired how the issue of "business creep" from a coffee house to a deli to a restaurant could be addressed. Mr. Bennett indicated he did not see the issue being a problem, as they are two different businesses, and you cannot run a successful restaurant without a beer and wme license, which the City controls through the CUP process. His business is 900 square feet 10 total size. . . . ....0 11 - City of Seal Beach PIanaung CommlSBIOO Mmulc8 or March 20, 1996 Mr. Putnam indicated his tenant is Grandma's and it is 1050 square feet in Size, and the traffic is primarily short-term pedestrian traffic. Mr. Bennett also Invited the Commission to the Car Show on April 20, 1996. There being no other speakers, the Chair closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments After discussion as to how to proceed, the Commission determined to allow each member of the Commission to address the issues of concern to them. Commissioner Law indicated she likes the Idea of textured sidewalks as long as they are not slippery and would cause a safety hazard. She also opposes the BID and lImitatIons on the hours and number of businesses for alcohol-related uses. Commissioner Law indicated she favors parking meters on Main Street and feels the origInally proposed AB 1600 fees are acceptable. She clarified that the current requirements for service stations is Included. Commissioner Dahlman indicated he favors providIng standard operatIng hours for new alcohol- related uses on Main Street, but they should not be set forth in the ordinance. He does feel an upper limit on the number of alcohol-related businesses can be establIshed. This number should be the guidelIne number established by Department of AlcoholIc Beverage Control, as this would prevent someone from coming to the City and getting a quick CUP. He favors an increase In the per year fee to match the AB 1600 fee, and questioned if the AB 1600 fee is appropriate, in light of the construction costs of the proposed 8th Street parking structure. He does not favor a BID, and it should not be included as part of the SpeCific Plan. He questioned the relaxation in parking standards, indicating he would favor an Increase in parking requirements for less desirable uses rather than a relaxation in parking requirements for deSired uses. This IS the city's chance to deal with the parking Issues for many years, and the City needs to look ahead and determine appropriate standards. CommiSSioner Dahlman IS not sure that banner prOVisions for Main Street may need to be different from the proposed City-wide standards. Commissioner Sharp indicated he does not object to limiting the number of lIquor establishments, but that they should come before the City on their own ments. He feels the parking management problem can be dealt with by parking meters and feels the sidewalks need repair. Commissioner Brown Indicated he is in oppositIon to a BID, feels alcohol-related establishments stIll need a CUP but would like to set the operatIng hours In advance for new locatIons on the street in the ordinance, and would favor limiting the number of alcohol servIng establishments. If the City sets a limit on the number of establIshments will that freeze into place those eXistIng businesses, limiting opportunItIes for new operators to come Into the City? In regards to the proposed parking fees, the report buries the issue of inclusion of the beach parking lot, and this IS not a fair way to deal With the issue. He questions the appropnateness of thiS nexus and IS not sure the beach lots should be utilIzed as proposed. In additIon, the parking shortage In the ....e 12 - CIty of Seal Beach Plannma ComnUlllOD MUlulcI of March 20, 1996 . adjoining residential areas is pri~arily caused by the lack of resident parking, as indicated in the consultants reports. Commissioner Brown further reviewed the per parking space costs in providmg additional parking in the area, and that it makes the most economic sense to deck the 8th Street lot, even though he is not sure that will happen. The costs for a new space are a mmimum of $14,000.00 in Seal Beach, and those costs are too high. The proposed AB 1600 fee does not accurately reflect the true costs of spaces, and feels the proposed parking fees are too low, and should be set around $5001 space/year. He further stated the concern for creep of a desert shop IS very real, and the limiting of the size to around 1,000 square feet is a way to deter a future restaurant in that small of a building. In response to a question from Commissioner Dahlman, Commissioner Brown indicated If a desert shop exceeds the 1,000 square foot size, it would be required to provide the parking for the excess area at the restaurant parking standard. Lastly, he addressed the question of why the CommIssion is involved with Main Street, indicatIng the street functions as a mall, without a mall manager. If the busmess community could voluntarily take on those functIons, then the City would not have to have a hand m thIS issue. The specIfic plan is seen to be a structure to ,allow this to happen. . Chairperson Campbell mdIcated she would favor settIng hours and a cap on the number of businesses for new alcohol serving businesses on Main Street. Would hope to regulate the mIX of busmesses to provide an attractive mIX within the area. Mrs. Campbell mdicated the proposed parking fees are inadequate, and that the idea of a 2-story parking Structure may not fly. She cannot approve a BID within the specific plan, and favors a reduction in size of the desert shops/coffee houses to around 1,000 square feet with the parking standard at one space per 500 square feet. Chairperson Campbell indicated parking meters should be seriously conSIdered, and should start with the beach parking lots, and then revisit meters on Main Street. Chairperson Campbell asked how the CommissIOn would wish to proceed. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Commission should wait to take actIon on all of the resolutions at once, since amendments may be necessary based on the determmations of the Commission. Commissioner Dahlman suggested they deal with the alcohol-related uses first. Mr. Whittenberg indicated his understanding of the discussion to thIS pomt IS that the majorIty of the CommiSSion prefer to retain the CUP process and that the issue of standard operating hours for new establishments and a cap on the number of businesses needs further clanficatIon. If you set a cap on the number of businesses which is less than the current number on the street, you do not need to deal with operating hours as only the existing busmesses would be allowed. Chairperson Campbell suggested discussion as to the settIng of a cap on the number of businesses, smce that number may preclude having to deal with operating hours. CommiSSioner Brown suggested recommending standard hours m case the CIty CouncIl ultimately determmes to not Impose a cap, they wIll then be aware of the position of the CommiSSion regarding operating hours for new establishments. Mr. Steele also indicated the hours issue could arise if an existing alcohol establishment has to come before the Commission for a ViolatIon of conditions, then the standard hours could be imposed if the situation warrants that type of action. . . . . Plgc 13 - CIty of Seal Beach PIannmg CommlSSlOII Mmlllc8 of March 20, 1996 Charrperson lOquired as to the position of the CommIssIoners regarding the setting of caps for the different types of establishments. Mr. WhIttenberg 10dIcated he would prefer three different caps, off-premise, on-premise beer and wine, and on-premise general, also indIcating the ABC criteria is a guideline and it can be exceeded in certain circumstances. CommIssioner Law indicated the non-food, on-sale licenses should be set at zero. It was the consensus of the Commission to set this number at zero. The Commission had discussion regarding on-premise food sale location caps, WIth Commissioners Law and Sharp indicat10g a preference to not place a cap on this type of use, as it is not possible to predIct when a hIghly desirable restaurant use may wish to locate within the area. If an existing beer and W10e restaurant wishes to upgrade its license to a general license, a CUP would be required. Commissioner Law indicated off-site locations should not exceed the number currently on the street, which IS three, and the Commission concurred. Chairperson Campbell indIcated the CommissIOn now needs to discuss a cap on the restaurants, with Commissioner Law indicating opposition to a cap on restaurants. CommIssioner Sharp indicated if a restaurant wants to expand its license from beer and wine to a general license, the CUP process will allow the Commission to review that request, and the City should reta10 ItS flexibility. Commissioner Brown indicates he supports CommissIOner Sharps concern and could support a good restaurant in the 300 block with a general license. CommissIOner Dahlman indicated the issue of upgrading bcenses has not really been discussed dunng this public hearing process, with Commissioner Brown indicating this issue was discussed during the earber study sessions with the City Council. Commissioner Dahlman expressed concern that the Commission may be getting too specific on thiS issue, and the CUP process should control thIS Issue. Commissioner Brown indicated the current number of restaurant businesses on the street is 15, and a cap may dive the costs of those businesses up. Chairperson Campbell and Commissioner Law indicated they did not feel a cap should be placed on on-premise restaurant bcenses, With the remaining commissioner in agreement. Commissioner Brown proposed setting standard hours for new restaurants on the street, as a help to future business operators. Commissioner Dahlman indicated the locational differences could warrant not setting standard hours, but if established, would favor those preViously set by the Commission. The majonty of the Commission did 10dicate in favor of this proposal, with the understanding the CUP process may modify those. Chairperson Campbell asked the Commission to focus on the AB 1600 report next. Commissioner Brown focused on the future program of the City, particularly the acqUisition of additional surface parking in the area. Mr. Zucker indicated the CommissIOn needs to indicate the additional program components which the Commission would prefer to see 10 the specific plan, and then the fee would be re-calculated. Commissioner Brown asked the Commission to focus on the proposed projects included and the reasonableness of those projects and the costs thereof, indicating the fee should be greater than the $3,600.00 fee in the AB 1600 report. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Commission should focus on the revenue source and expenditure programs included in the AB 1600 report, the ultImate chOIces 10 regards to those areas Will . . . PIce 14. CIty of Seal Beach Plannmc Comm.II.OO Mmule8 of March 20. 1996 ultimately determine the AB 1600 fee. Mr. Whittenberg 10dicated the program as proposed includes the decking of the 8th Street parking lot and significant parkIng meter revenues, and referred the Commission to pages 6 and 7 of the AB 1600 Revenue Report for a list10g of the programs and revenue sources. The CommissIon needs to dIrect staff as to any amendments to those proposed programs and revenues, so the AB 1600 fee can be properly calculated. Mr. Steele indicated AB 1600 is results oriented, not dollar oriented, and the Commission needs to focus on the components of the AB 1600 program to solve the parking problem, not the dollar amount, in order to make the proper nexus. Commissioner Brown indicated any additIonal projects should be included, such as acquisition of additional off-street parkIng 10 the vicinity of Main Street and Central Avenue. Mr. Whittenberg further indicated the City can set the fee at an amount less than the analysis would indicate if the City ultImately determ10es the determ10ed amount is not a market acceptable number. Commissioner Brown reviewed the proposed expenditures for the AB 1600 program, indicating the addItional property acquiSItion would Impact the fee calculation. CommIssIoner Brown recommended the acquIsition of additional off-street parking be included, with the Commission requestIng staff to prepare some alternatives analysis for consideration at the next meeting. Mr. Whittenberg reviewed the stepped process set forth in the AB 1600 Report, indicating the fee can be modified based on significant changes to the expenditure programs and revenue sources, at the discretion of the CIty. Commissioner Brown clanfied the beach parkIng lot Will not have meters, but will be metered. Mr. Whittenberg clarified the parkIng meter revenues indicated in the AB 1600 Report refer to revenues from the CIty-owned lots along Main Street, not the beach lots. Chairperson Campbell confirmed with the Commission the deletion of a BID from the provisions of the Specific Plan. There were no objections. Chairperson Campbell asked for input regarding the deSIred parkIng requirement for desert shops, coffee houses and similar establishments, with Chairperson Campbell favoring setting a size limit on this type of use. CommIssioner Law inquired what will be the status of this type of business if their current location is larger than the size being discussed. CommIssioner Brown indicated the provisions Will only apply to new business locations. After further diScussIon among the Commission it was determined to reopen the public heanng to allow Mr. Bennett to address the Commission regarding the size and impact on eXIsting bus10esses of the dIScussIon regarding desert shops, coffee house and other similar uses. Public Hearing Reopened for Limited Discussion Ron Bennett * Seal Beach Mr. Bennett indicated his concern was related to how the new proVIsions of the Main Street Specific Plan impacts those businesses which have a development agreement. Mr. Steele indicated the development agreement stipulates a certain number of parkIng spaces and a dollar amount per space. The vanable IS the dollar amount per space, not the number of parking Page IS - City of Seal Beach PIannmg ComnuSSlon Mmutes of March 20, 1996 . spaces. Mr. Bennett indicated his parking requirement was based on the reqUIrement for a restaurant, and if the parking ratio changes, it should change his parking fee as established in the development agreement. Mr. Whittenberg indicated staff would need to review the language in the development agreement to review this issue. Mr. Bennett further indicated the size issue IS not a problem, it should be easy to see if a desert shop IS now operating as a restaurant. Commissioner Brown indicated that has been a problem, with changes occurring and causing a retroactIve enforcement problem. . Chairperson Campbell closed the publIc hearing. Chairperson Campbell indicated she felt the proposed parking standard of I spacel250 square feet for desert shops, coffee houses and other similar uses is insufficient, and can the issue of creep be addressed also. Commissioner Brown suggested if the parking standard for desert shops, etc., is relaxed, the Size should be severely reduced to ensure as much as practIcal that the use will remain as a desert shop, etc., and suggested a size lImitatIon of 1,000 square feet. Mr. Whittenberg reminded the CommiSSion the current proposal relatmg to desert shops, etc., is to allow them to open automatIcally if they are under 1,200 square feet In size and prOVide 12 seats or less, if a desert shop exceeds those requirements a CUP would be required. He suggested as the Commission fine tunes this area of concern, it deal With both Size and seatIng capacity. Commissioner Dahlman suggested setting the separation from permitted and conditionally permitted for desert shops, etc., at 1,000 square feet and 10 seats. There was a consensus among the Commission to this proposal. Commission Dahlman asked which page summarizes the current and proposed parking requirements. Mr. Zucker Indicated that appears on page 3 of the AB 1600 Report, Attachment 12 of the February 21 Staff Report. Commissioner Dahlman confirmed the current and proposed parking requirements for desert shops, etc., is 1/ 100 square feet and 1/500 square feet, respectively. He further indicated he felt that is too much of a relaxation. Mr. Whittenberg indicated staff would recommend a standard of 1/250 square feet, which is the same ratio for professional offices. Commissioner Dahlman indicated that standard may also prOVide less incentive for creep to occur. Commissioner Brown indicated he could support 1 parking space/250 square feet of buildmg area for desert shops, etc. The Commission reviewed the other recommended parking standard revisions, determming to leave the other parking ratios as proposed. It was the consensus of the CommiSSion to revise the parking standard for desert shops, etc., to 1 parking space/250 square feet of buildmg area. . Mr. Whittenberg indicated staff will revise the language regarding service stations to reflect the recommendation of staff, retain the proposed parking meter phasmg program, includmg the revision to the beach parking lots, as he has heard no negative discussion regardmg those proposals. Commissioner Dahlman mquIred as to how the proposed banner proviSions Will fit into this specific plan. Mr. Whittenberg indicated staff would propose to include the Main Street Specific Plan Zone as one subject to the same conditions proposed for banners throughout the City, indicating the banner ordinance should be considered an Implementing action document, . . . Pace 16. CIty of Seal Beach PIaonmg CommiSSion Mmutcs of March 20, 1996 as will be a newsrack ordinance, and does not need to be specIfically set forth in the specific plan. It was the consensus to discuss banner prOVISIons relatIng to Mam Street as part of the next public hearing Item. It was the consensus of the Commission to instruct staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions for consIderation on April 3, with the modifications as discussed thIS evemng. The Chair declared a recess at 10:25 P.M. The Chair reconvened the Planning Commission at 10:38 P.M>, with all member present. Mr. Steele indicated for the record the CIty IS not presently considenng the acqUISItion of any specific parcel of property. The discussion is hypothetical, and the revisions whIch the Commission will review on April 3 WIll be the cost of acquisitIon of a parcel of a certain SIze so the CommIssion can have an idea of a reasonable acquISItion cost. There IS no formal consideration at thIS point of any particular parcel of property. 6. Zoning Text Amendment 95-1 [Continued from 11-8-95, 12-6-95 and 1-17-96] Applicant: City of Seal Beach Staff R~port Mr. Whittenberg delIvered the staff report. [Staff report on file m the Planning Department for reference]. The basic request IS to establish City-wide standards for the temporary display of advertising banners in commercial/industrial zones. The proposed regulations would establIsh a permitting process and set maximum time and size lImits for the dIsplay of temporary banners. Mr. WhIttenberg further indicated staff is proposing the banner proviSIons apply to all commercial areas within the City, including the proposed Main Street Specific Plan area. The proposed ordinance will allow banners to be legally displayed, whIle they are currently prohibited; secondly, he reviewed the size, tIme of dIsplay and permItting processes proposed. Banners are bemg used as a permanent business identIficatIon SIgn, and that IS not and should not be their purpose. Staff feels the proposed ordinance is a reasonable accommodation to allow the business community to advertise their businesses as appropriate. Commission Comments Commissioner Dahlman clarified the proposed SIze requirements for banners will apply to the buildmg, not to the number of businesses located withm the structure. Mr. WhIttenberg indicated that is correct, the various tenants will need to work out those display arrangements, and it is not the City's responsibility to solve those problems. The local busmess commumty will need to deal with this issue, and staff will be making a copy available to all businesses within the City and also hold workshops as to the Implementation and complIance with the . . . Pace 17 - City of Seal Beach PIannm& Comau88\lll1 MmutcB of March 20, 1996 proposed ordinance. In additIon, the ordinance may need to be fine-tuned after some tIme to reflect issues or procedures that have not been foreseen at thiS time. Commissioner Dahlman asked if a future review has been proposed, With Mr. Whittenberg mdicatIng it has not been, but can be and would recommend a 6-month review period. The Chair opened the public hearing. Karen Kettering * Angel Connection. MalO Street Ms. Kettering asked what sort of a grace penod would be established before implementatIon of the ordinance. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the ordmance as proposed stipulates a thirty-day period before implementation, and in addition, staff wIll be providing the ordmance to the local business community during the prior thirty-day time period before the ordmance actually takes effect, providing approximately sixty days of time to comply. Ms. Kettering indicated a com,mlttee of about 6 merchants has met and is requesting the successive display penod and total display period be increased to 60 and 120 days, respectively. It is felt the banners really work, but that the additional time would be helpful. In additIon, she requested additional consideration for those businesses which do not front on Main Street. In response to a question from Commissioner Brown as to why those busmesses could not provide a permanent sign, Ms. Kettering indicated she wIll be putting up a permanent sign, but she cannot speak for the other businesses. Mr. Whittenberg mdicated there is no technical reason why a business could not provide a permanent sign, unless in a multI-tenant buIlding the allowable sign area is used by other tenants, and that IS an Issue the City cannot solve. Commissioner Dahlman inquired why at this late time in the hearmg process are these major changes coming forward. Ms. Kettering indicated she had preViously asked the CommiSSIOn to hold of on adoptIng an ordinance untIl the economy Improves, that does not appear pOSSible, and some additional flexibility is requested. Ron Bennett * Seal Beach Mr. Bennett indicated he was impressed with the cooperatIon between staff and the busmess community in developing the proposed ordmance. He stressed that there needs to be consistency, clarity, and enforcement of the ordmance. The Chair closed the public hearing. Commission DiSCUSSIon Commissioner Dahlman inquired if lighting of banners was addressed in the ordmance. Mr. Whittenberg indicated no. Commissioner Dahlman further indicated previous testImony has indicated concern that the City should not allow a lIberal banner ordmance for Main Street, and would oppose increasing the tIme lImits proposed by staff. . . . Pile 18 - Cdy of ScaI Beach PIaonma Cooun.II.OIl Mmutca of March 20, 1996 Commissioner Law verified that the provisions relatmg to a "deposit" has been removed. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that is correct, only a permit fee is proposed. Commissioner Law indicated she favored the deposit as an incentive to ensure the banner IS removed when it should be. Mr. Whittenberg concurred, but indicated the business community had a major concern with that proposal, and in fairness, indicated some lines of trust between the City and business community needs to be built, and felt this is a way to initiate that trust. Chairperson Campbell indicated if the process does not work, the City can revise the ordinance and develop a more stringent deposit process to ensure compliance. Mr. Whittenberg indicated a cooperative approach, rather than an adversarial approach, is proposed and would hope that process is allowed a reasonable time to succeed. , Chairperson Campbell asked for discussion regarding the extended time periods requested by Mrs. Kettering. Mr. Whittenberg indicated the Commission has a policy to not take up a new item for consideration after 11:00 PM, and that time is approaching. The Commission may continue to discuss the banner ordmance, but staff would recommend that Agenda Item 7 be continued to April 3, 1996. 7. Proposed Fee Adjustment Schedule for TranspOrlation Facilities and Programs Development Fees and Transporlation Facilities & Programs Development Application Fees. Applicant: City of Seal Beach The Chair opened the Public Hearing. MOTION by Law: SECOND by Dahhnan to continue the Public Hearing to April 3, 1996. MOTION PASSED: A YES: NOES: 5-0-0 Law, Sharp, Dahhnan, Campbell, Brown None The Commission returned to discussion regarding Zone Text Amendment 95-1, a proposed banner ordmance. After discussion among the Commission, It was felt to be mappropnate to consider the requested changes at this time. Commissioner Brown concurred, mdlcating the banners are for temporary advertismg, not permanent signs. MOTION by Dahhnan: SECOND by Law to approve Zone Text Amendment 95-1 as recommended in the Staff Report, with an additional recommendation to the City Council to provide a six-month review before the Planning Commission, and instruct staff to prepare the necessary resolution for consideration at the April 3 Planning Commission Meeting. . . . . . Page 19 . C1ly of Seal Beach PlannIll8 Comnus8101l Mmuta of March 20, 1996 MOTION PASSED: A YES: NOES: 5-0-0 Law, Sharp, Dahlman, Campbell, Brown None STAFF CONCERNS 8. Conditional Use Permit 92-2 at 101 Main Street Seaside Grill * Change of Ownership and Transfer of ABC License Mr. Whittenberg indicated staff has prepared an informational memorandum regarding a change m ownership at Seaside Gnll for the information of the Planmng CommiSSIOn. COMMISSIQN CONCERNS Commissioner Brown discussed the issue of enforcement, including bus10ess hcense enforcement. Mr. Whittenberg 10dicated business hcense enforcement should Improve thIS next fiscal year as new computer tracking programs for bus10ess hcense purposes are be10g acquired by the CIty. Commissioner Sharp stated comments made off the record as a joke by a previous member of the Planning Commission have been taken out of context and used in a brochure improperly. He felt the Commission should be able to make an occasIonal joke WIthout It be10g used improperly. Commissioner Dahlman thanked Mr. Whittenberg for preparing a thank you letter to Senator Feinstein. He further indicated the Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course plan is a bad plan, and If anybody wants information as to why the CommiSSIOn turned the plan down, to contact hIm. He further stated his comment is not an endorsement of eIther SIde, and It should not be construed as such. Commissioner Brown agrees with Commissioner Dahlman's statement regarding the BIxby project. He further inquired if the AB 1600 fees WIll allow for no additional revIew If a proposal to expand an existing structure is submItted to the City. Mr. Whittenberg 10dicated a park10g analysis would be required, and If the proposed expanSIOn does not proVIde the requIred parking under the parking standards then 10 effect, a vanance approval would be reqUIred and the AB 1600 fee could be applied as part of the mltlgatlon of the impacts of the proJect. With the new Specific Plan 10 effect, it WIll more difficult to make the required findings. Mr. Steele indicated the AB 1600 process ehminates this charge that the CIty has been "selhng" variances. The AB 1600 process establishes a supportable, not an arbitrary, 1O-heu fee. Chairperson Campbell 10quired which negative declaratIOns and EIRs come before the Planmng Commission, and which do not. Mr. WhIttenberg indicated most negatlve declarations will .' . . . " ....c 20 - CIty of sw Beach PIannmg ComousllOll Mmulcl of March 20, 1996 come before the Planning Commission. The CIty Council has the authority to grant leases on public land use property within the City, and in those cases a negatIve declaration would go directly to the City Council, as the CommIssion is not involved in those dehberations. For an action which would stop at the Planning CommIssion level. e.g., variances and CUPs, the City CouncIl would not take an actIon on a negative declaratIon unless an appeal were to be f1led. In matters which have to go to the CIty Council for a final action, the Planning Commission is then recommending approval of a negative declaration or an EIR. Chairperson Campbell asked If there was a timehne for the conversion of illegal UnIts back to garages as part of a variance approval. Mr. Whittenberg indIcated the conversion needs to be completed prior to the issuance of the buIldmg permit for the new addItIon. AI;>JOURNMEN,I The Charr adjourned the meeting at 11 :20 p. m. She mdlcated the next Planning CommIssIon meeting will be Wednesday, April 3, 1996. Respectfully Submitted, Whittenberg Secretary to the Planning Co Attachments (1) NOTE: These Minutes were transcrIbed from an audIO tape. APPROVAL: The Planning CommIssion Mmutes of March 20, 1996 were approved on Apnl ~cR, 1996. ~