Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1996-04-03 -. . . . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA APRIL 3, 1996 7 30 P M * City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resoluoon: #96-6 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA By Motion of the Planmng CommIssIon, this is the orne to: (a) (b) (c) Notify the public of any changes to the agenda; Rearrange the order of the agenda; and/or Provide an opportumty for any member of the Planmng 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 Plannmg CommIssIon regarding any Items wIthm the subject matter jurisdicoon of the Planmng commission, proVIded that NO acoon or discussion may be undertaken by the Plannmg Commission unless otherwIse authonzed by law. V. SCHEDULED MATTERS 1. Consideration of Resolutions regarding "Main Street SpecIfic Plan II Revision 96-1 The Clay of Seal Beach complies WIIb Ihc Amencans W.1b Dlsabdllle. Act of 1990 If you need asslslance to attend Ibl. meetmg, please telephone Ibe Clay Clelt's Office al (310) 411-2~27 at Iea.t 48 hours pnor to Ibe mectmg . . . . . PIce 2 - CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg COOUDlSBIOII · Agenda for April 3, 1996 Request: The City of Seal Beach IS recommending reVISIons to the eXIsting Mam Street Specific Plan, and conformlOg reVISIons to the General Plan's Land Use and HouslOg Elements, a Zone Text Amendment, and a Zone Change to deSIgnate those areas of the City to be designated Mam Street Specific Plan Zone. Recommendation: That the Planmng Commission recommend the City Councll adopt Negative Declaration 96-1, and approve any amendments to the General Plan, MalO Street SpecIfic Plan, Zomng OrdlOance and Zoning Map, and recommend approval of an AB 1660 Report, determined appropriate, through the adopnon of: a. Negative DeclaratIOn 96-1 Resolution No. 96-_, A Resolunon of the Planning CommISSIon of the CIty of Seal Beach Recommending Adoption of Neganve Declaration 96-1, Relating to ReVISIon 96-1 of the Main Street Specific Plan. b. General Plan Amendments 96-1A & 96-1B Resolution No. 96-_, A Resolunon of the Planmng CommiSSIOn Recommending to the CIty Council approval of General Plan Amendment 96-1A, Amending the Land Use Element to Maintain conSIstency Between the Land Use Element and the MalO Street SpeCIfic Plan ReVISIon 96-1 and to ReVIse the "Summary Table of Existmg 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 Categones Within the City. Resolution No. 96-_, A Resolunon of the Planning Commission of the CIty of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Approval of General Plan Amendment 96-1B, AmendlOg Table 16 of the HouslOg Element to DepIct the The City of Seal Beach complies With the AmencanB With Dl8lIbll.lles Act of 1990 If you need lI8BIBtance to aaend thiS mcctmg, plessc telephone the CIty CleJt'B Office at (310) 431-2527 at Ies.t 48 hours prior to the mcctmg . . . . . PIce 3 - CJl1 of ScaI Beach PIanoJnc CommwIOll · Agenda for Apnl 3, 1996 Increase of Approximately 14.8 Acres of "Maln Street Specific Plan Zone" land and Appropriate Decreases of Other Land Use Categories WIthm the City. c. "Main Street Specific Plan II Revision 96-1 Resolution No. 96-_, A Resolution of the Planmng Commission of the CIty of Seal Beach Recommending that the City Council Approve Revision 96-1 of the Maln Street Specific Plan. d. Zone Text Amendment 96-3 Resolunon No. 96-_, A ResolutIon of the Planmng Commission of the CIty of Seal Beach Recommending to the City CouncIl Approval of Zone Text Amendment 96-3, Creanng the "Main Street SpecIfic Plan Zone" (Secnons 28-1250 through 28-1257) and Amendmg Section 28-1804.3 and 28-2408.C to Maintain Internal ConsIstency of chapter 28 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. e. Zone Change 96-1 ResolutIon No. 96-_, A Resolution of the Planmng CommIssion of the CIty of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Approval of Zone Change 96-1, Changmg 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 Withm the CIty. f. AB 1600 Report Resolution Number 96-_, A Resolunon of the Planmng CommIssIon of the City of Seal Beach Recommendmg to the City Council Adopnon of the Maln Street Specific Plan AB 1600 Report and the Proposed AB 1600 Parking Mitigation Fee Established Therem. The CIty of Scallleach compl1ca With lhc Amencans W.th D.sab.hlles Act of 1990 If you need an.stance to attend th.. mcctmg, please telephone the City Clcl1t's Office at (110) 411-2~27 at least 48 hours pnor to the mccllng . . . PIce 4 - Cd,y of Seal Be8eh PIaanmg CclmmJgKIII · Agenda for Apnl 3, 1996 g. Background Studies - Main Street Specific Plan Report. In addition, recommend that the City Council receive and file the Background Studzes - Main Street Speczfic Plan Report, revised and dated January 1996. 2. Resolution No. 96-_, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach DenY10g Variance 96-1, a Request to Vary from the Rear Yard Setback Requirement at 700 South Shore Drive. 3. Resolunon No. 96-_, A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach Recommending to the City Council Approval of Zoning Text Amendment 95-1, Amending Amcle 18, Sign ProvIsions, to Establish Standards for the Display of Temporary Adverns10g Banners in Commercial Zones. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Zoning Text Amendment 96-2 (Connnued from February 21, 1996) Applicant: City of Seal Beach Request: To amend to the Code of the CIty of Seal Beach to prohibit new third stories 10 the mediUm and high density zones of Old Town and place a blanket 25 foot heIght limit on these propemes. Currently a third story is permitted on the rear half of any lot whIch IS at least 371h feet WIde. This text amendment will also consIder permitting certain roof treatments to exceed the 25 foot height hmIt by up to 2- 3 feet, subject to a discrenonary reVIew by the Planmng CommissIOn. Recommendation: Pleasure of the CommIssion The Cd,y of Seal Be8eh complies With the ADlencans With Dlsab.llbes Act of 1990 If you need IISSIStancc to IIttcnd thiS DICCbIlg, please tc1cphOllC the CIty Cletk's Officc lit (310) 411-2~27 lit ICII.t 48 hours pnor to the IIIcc1mg . . . . I Page 5 - City of Seal Beach PIamung ComnusS.OII · Agenda for Apnl 3, 1996 5. Zoning Text Amendment 96-4 Applicant: City of Seal Beach Request: Consider an amendment to the side yard setback requirements for side yards abuttIng alleys in the Residential High Density and MedIUm Density zones of District I (Old Town). Specifically, the proposed amendment would change the side yard setback along alleys from a flat four (4') feet to 15% of the lot width, as IS the case with setbacks along a side street. The proposed amendment Will also consider specific setback reqUIrements for garages off of a Side alley. Recommendation: That the Planning Commission recommend the City CouncIl approve Zomng Text Amendment 96-4 through the adoption of ResolutIon 96- . 6. Proposed Fee Adjustment Schedule for Transportatzon Facllmes and Programs Development Fees and Transportation Facllmes & Programs Development Application Fees. (Continued from March 20, 1996) Apphcant: City of Seal Beach Request: To revise the Transportation Facilities and Programs Development Fees and Transportation Facilities & Programs Development Application Fees, 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 City of Seal Beach complies With the Amencans With Dlsabdllles Act of 1990 If you need o"lstance to attend thiS mcetmg, pleue telephone the City C1eIt's Office ot (310) 411-2~27 otleast48 hours pnor to the mcetmg . . . Plge 6 - ~ of Seal Beach PIaDnmg CmuwasIOll. Agenda for Apnl3, 1996 the time a new development plan is submitted. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval through the adoptIon of ResolutIon No. 96-_. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planmng commission, staff or the public requests that a specific Item be removed from Consent Calendar for separate action. 7. Approve Planmng CommIssIon Minutes of March 20, 1996. 8. Receive and File: City CouncIl Staff Report dated March 25, 1996, re: AB 2799 - Alcohol Fortified Products, Malt Beverages - Distnbution. 9. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated March 25, 1996, re: SB 1896 - Telecommumcations PermIt Cost Recovery LegislatIon. to. Receive and FIle: CIty CounCIl Staff Report dated March 25, 1996, re: SB 1538 - Conditional Use Permits, Regulation of Hours a Compensable Taking. 11. ReceIve and FIle: CIty Council Staff Report dated March 25, 1996, re: Proposed Federal Funding - Environmental Restoration by Department of Defense. 12. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated March 25, 1996, re: Air Quality Issues - Status Report. 13. Receive and File: City CounCIl Staff Report dated March 25, 1996, re: SCAQMD "quick Charge Program" and "EV Corridor Communities Program II PartICIpatIon 14. Receive and FIle: City CounCIl Staff Report dated March 25, 1996, re: SCAG Regional Transportation Plan Preparation The ~ of Seal Beach compbea With the Amencans With Dlsablbllea Act of 1990 If you need I118lslance to attend thl' meetmg, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (310) 411-2527 at lea,t 48 houn pnor to the Jlleetmg . . . Plrce 7 - CII)' of Sea) BelIch PlaDnIlll CooumSSlon · Agenda for April 3, 1996 VIII. IX. X. STAFF CONCERNS COMMISSION COl'iCERNS AD.JOURNMEK[ The CIty of Seal Beach complies WIth the Amencans With DlllIblhltes Act of 1990 If you need assIstance to attend thll mectmg, p1esse telephone the CIty C1eIt's Office at (310) 431-2~27 at lea~ 48 houR pnor to the mecltng P&ce 8 - CIty of Seal Beach J>Iamung CmumUlIlII · A,eoda for Apnl3, 1996 . 1996 AGENDA FORECAST APR 17 . . CUP 95-1/1013 PCH/Pietro's @ 12 mos.lhours. CUP 94-4/770 PCH/Burger King @ 3 mos. MAY 08 MAY 22 . CUP 92-11909 Ocean/EI Burrito 12 mos. ABC [Changed ownershIp 1/96] . CUP 94-8/327 Main/NIp 'n Stuff @ 8 mos. JUN 05 . CUP 94-11600 MarmalRadisson 12 mos. ABC ]UN 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 DEC 04 DEC 18 . The CIty of Seal Beach compbea WIth the Amencans With Disabilities Act of 1990 If you need assIStance to aUend thIS meetmg, please telephone the CIty Clerk's Office at (310) 411-2527 at lea.t 48 hours pnor to the llleetmg . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of APRIL 3, 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 Brown, Dahlman, Law Also Present: Development Services Department Lee WhIttenberg, DIrector Craig Steele, Assistant CIty Attorney Barry Curtis, Admimstrative Assistant Joan FIllmann, Executive Secretary Absent: CommissIOner Sharp Commissioner Sharp had not amved as the meeting began. Director Whittenberg thought he recalled hearing CommIssIoner Sharp state he would be absent at the next meetIng. The Commission decided to wait untIl the end of the meeting to see what transpIred. If Commissioner Sharp had not arrived, the Commission would excuse his absence. AGENDA APPROVAL The CommIssion asked why the Agenda was rearranged? Mr. WhIttenberg explamed this was done purposely in order to retam the tabs for the Main Street SpecIfic Plan. The Chair said she wanted to move the Consent Calendar behind Oral CommunicatIOns and ahead of Scheduled Matters. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to approve the Agenda with the Consent Calendar being between Oral Communications and Scheduled Matters. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Dahlman, Brown, Law, Campbell Sharp ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no persons WIshing to speak at oral commumcatIons. r -. Page 2 - City of Seal Beach Plannlllll Coomusalon Mmulc8 of Apn13, 1996 . CONSENT CALENDAR o MOTION by Law; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: 7. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of March 20, 1996. 8. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated March 25, 1996, re: AB 2799 - Alcohol Fortified Products, Malt Beverages - Distribution. 9. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated March 25, 1996, re: SB 1896 - Telecommunications Pennit Cost Recovery Legislation. 10. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated March 25, 1996, re: SB 1538 - Conditional Use Pennits, Regulation of Hours a Compensable Taking. 11. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated March 25, 1996, re: Proposed Federal Funding - Environmental Restoration by Department of Defense. . 12. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated March 25, 1996, re: Air Quality Issues - Status Report. 13. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated March 25, 1996, re: SCAQMD "quick Charge Program" and "EV Corridor Communities Program" Participation 14. Receive and File: City Council Staff Report dated March 25, 1996, re: SCAG Regional Transportation Plan Preparation MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Dahlman, Brown, Law, Campbell Sharp . Plgc 3 - CIty of Seal Beach PIaonmg COOU1II88100 MInutes of Apnl 3, 1996 . SCHEDULED MATTERS 1. Consideration of Resolutions regarding "Main Street Specific Plan" Revision 96-1 Staff Report Mr. W1uttenberg presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for reference]. He explained the PlanOlng Commission has held three Public Hearing on the proposed Main Street Specific Plan revisions and reviSIOns to other implementing City documents [the General Plan, the zoning ordinance and the AB 1600 report]. Tonight, the Commission will consider six (6) resolutlons. The resolutions are recommending separate actions to the City Council. He then gave an overview each of the six resolutions and what they propose. He explained the Commission's recommendations are not a final actlon and there is a full set of Public Hearings before the City Council on all these documents. The Council may/may not decide to make modificatlons. He suggested he would hke to go through what the Commission had talked about to thiS pomt and try to gain a consensus on all the items other than the AB 1600; the AB 1600 should be dealt with separately. . CommiSSIOn Comments Off-Sales Establishments The CommiSSIOn discussed the number and kind of estabhshments on Main Street which have City entitlements allowing them to sell alcohohc beverages for off-Site consumptlon. Comffilssioner Dahlman felt some confusion stemmed from the Commission's grouping the two existing liquor stores with the eXisting market and commg up with the number of three. He asked if the Main Street Specific Plan has a hmltatlon on liquor stores? Director Whittenberg said staff proposed the Main Street Specific Plan limits the number of hquor stores on Main Street to three (3) off-sale locations. He said Commissioner Brown thought it should be one (1) locatlon because he thought the PlanOlng CommiSSIOn was excludmg liquor stores from any future consideratlon. Commissioner Dahlman said the Plan uses the term grocery stores and that's the language the Commission didn't realize would be in place. Director Whittenberg asserted the market is the only other establishment With off-site sales other than the liquor stores. He felt the City would want to keep at least one hcense available for a . P8&e 4 - Cdy of Seal Beacb PIannmg CommwIOll Mmule8 of Apn13. 1996 . premises off-sale license. Whether the CommIssion would want to allow an expansIon of thIS number for something other than a liquor store is another questIon. CommissIoner Dahlman suggested the CommIssIon allow three (3) off-sale premIses licenses and not specify whether they're to be grocery stores or liquor stores. Chairperson Campbell offered that If the grocery store were to shut down and a hquor store were to go in that site the City couldn't get another grocery. She felt speclfymg the types of off-sales sites would be best and suggested there be only two hquor stores and one grocery store. In response to a question about the Plan's language, Mr. Whittenberg explamed the Plan does not allow for liquor stores at all. The two existIng liquor stores would be placed into a legal non-conforming status and would be allowed to remain and do business as hquor stores as long as they stay open. However, once they ceased to operate as a liquor store, the bulldmgs they occupy would then have to be utIlized as an allowed Plan use. He mdIcated he and Commissioner Brown were discussmg the opportunity for a specialty market. If one of the two eXIsting liquor stores were to go out, a SpecIalty market could come in and sell specialty beers and wines. . Commissioner Brown added the Commission appeared to be in agreement when talking about two liquor stores and one grocery store WIth off-sale privileges. He explained the DIrector stated the Plan does not include or allow any hquor stores. But, he was suggesting the Commission allow a total of two (2) grocery stores WIth off-sales alcohol --- but no liquor stores. Commissioner Brown asked what would happen if Nip 'n Stuff LIquor were to move across the street? Mr. Whittenberg smd the eXIsting locations are the allowed locatIons penod; the businesses cannot be moved. Chairperson Campbell asked where the 7-11 Store fits in? Mr. Whittenberg Sald It'S not m the Main Street Specific Plan boundaries. CommIssioner Brown said a 7-11 IS a convemence market and carries a different definition under the municIpal Code. Commissioner Brown saId he felt it was the Commission's mtentIon to specIfy three off-sale hquor estabhshments --- including grocery stores. But If hquor stores are excluded, it would be appropriate to include one grocery store with off-site sales. Mr. Whittenberg said if the Commission sets the cap at two or three, and If the liquor stores stay operatIng as liquor stores, the CommiSSIOn is stIll allowing the opportunity for an addItIonal off- sale premises on Main Street because it's not tied to the fact a hquor store would go out of business. . Chairperson Campbell said what the Commission does not want to see IS allowing another liquor store. Mr. Whittenberg said the CommISSIon would not allow any new hquor stores but it could allow another market on Main Street with off-sale privileges. . . . Pace S - CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg ConumaBIOIl Mmutes of Apnl 3. 1996 Commissioner Law asked if the discussion was to allow two l1quor stores and one grocery store? CommIssioner Brown said no, It was zero liquor stores and two markets/grocery stores with off- SIte sales. John's Food King is existing and this would allow, for example, for a SpecIalty market to come in. Commissioner Dahlman indicated the Chair would get to vote tWIce on the Main Street SpecIfic Plan --- once as Chauman of the Planning CommIssIon and once, later, as a Councllperson. Chairperson Campbell said it was her understanding that the CIty Attorney, Qumn Barrow, was reviewmg her tenure and would advise her in the near future as there are some Items she cannot vote on. CommisslOner Dahlman congratulated Chairperson Campbell on her recent VIctOry m the City Council election. Commissioner Dahlman asked if there would be any problems? Mr. Steele said no, not on a legislative matter. Chairperson Campbell said she would be sworn m as a Councllperson on May 21st and sits at the next Councll meeting. Commissioner Law said if the two existmg l1quor stores were to go out, there wlll be no more liquor stores allowed on Main Street and she didn't agree WIth that. She felt there should always be a hquor store. For example, a market will not supply SpecIalty l1quors that you mIght want. Chairperson Campbell Said the general consensus of the people IS that there's an over- concentration of alcohol-sell1ng establishments both of on-sale and off-sale hcenses. Commissioner Law felt two is not too many. CommIssioner Dahlman said Morey's market m Belmont Shore does a very good job of selhng specialty l1quors. He felt that if a store hke Morey's were to come to Main Street It would provide all the choices of liquor specIaltles without having to have a liquor store. Commissioner Law Said she didn't agree WIth thIS but noted she could vote against it. Mr. Steele said the Public Hearing on this matter has been closed but people could comment on the wording of the resolutions themselves. CommissIoner Dahlman said he felt there were three Commissioners in agreement for settlng the number at two (2) grocery stores and zero (0) liquor stores. He asked CommIssIoner Law if she had a better suggestion that perhaps all the CommisslOners could agree upon. Commissioner Law said she didn't see anything wrong with the way things are now. Commissioner Dahlman said "I'm dead agamst the way It IS now". Mr. Whittenberg said the Commission would need to take a vote on the actual resolution. He asked for clarification on the operatlng hours. He asked if the CommIssion wants to retain the hours limitation for the off-sale licenses or should It be deleted? The Plan now is proposed to read at page 65, item (d): d. ReVIse proposed Section 28-125D-B, Uses Subject to Issuance of a CUP ... Liquor establishment, if part of a grocery store, wzth permitted operating hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., provided that the number of such establzshments permitted in the Main Street Specific Plan Zone shall not exceed three (3) at any one time. ....0 6 - ~ of Seal Beach Plannmg COIlIIJlI8lIIOll Mmutca of Apnl 3, 1996 . The Planning Commission directed this wordIng be changed. Commissioner Brown said the CommIssIon, when dISCUSSIng hours, was addressIng the off-sale establishments. Chairperson Campbell said she wanted the hours limItation retained in the Plan but change the wording to not to exceed two (2) at anyone time because lIquor stores are not beIng considered. Commissioner Brown said there was no question about allowing two establIshments but the operating hours should be pre-determined. For example, Pavilion's market is open 24-hours a day and they're allowed to sell liquor until 2:00 a.m. ImpOSIng hours for MaIn Street establishments is appropriate because Main Street abuts residentIal properties. Mr. Whittenberg said a grocery store requires a CondItional Use PermIt (CUP) and the Commission would retain the opportunity to set hours through the CUP --- If the hours weren't specified In thIS Plan. He noted there has been CommIssion dIScussion on establIshIng hours In the Plan so new business owners would know what to expect and he was taking that dIscussion to apply to the off-premIse locatIons also. The Chair said she wanted to see the pre-determined hours left in the Plan because the market does back to residences. . Commissioner Dahlman said he felt the CUP process is adequate and good but was willIng to go along with CommIssioner Brown on this matter as he dIdn't feel It was an Important distinction. CommissIOner Brown said he wanted to pre-determine the hours. He added it would not be fair to say a market in a residentIal area could be open to 12:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. He thought John's Food King closes at 9:00 p.m. although their permItted hours are longer. David Rosenman * Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman indicated that several years ago the Main Street DelI at 305 Main Street came before the Commission for an hours extension. There was consideratIon of hIS off-sale lIcense. There was a questIon on whether the owner had a Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) entitlement for off-sale pnvileges. He made the CommIssIOn aware that In the recent past we were talking about things other than grocery stores and cautIoned the Commission to look very carefully at what they are and are not permitting. Secondly, when John's Food KIng got their CUP, the applicant said they would like to stay open late for special OCCasIOns. He felt special circumstances was one idea but this Plan would be sweeping, allowing ItS set hours for all time. Mr. Whittenberg saId John's Food King is allowed to remain open Sunday - Thursday to 10:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturdays to 11:00 p.m. CommissIOner Brown said he felt, then, that the . Pa,c 7 - CIty of Seal Beach PIaonmg CoounlSSIClO Mmulc8 of Apnl3, 1996 . Commission should set the hours consistent with those established for John's Food King as that would be consistent with the restaurants serving alcohol. The Chair recapped the discussion on hours by indlcatmg: Sunday thru Thursday to 10:00 p.m. Friday, Saturday and Hohdays to 11:00 p.m. The Chair asked staff if the Commission were specifying grocery stores by sticking to the wording of ... liquor establishment, ifpan of a grocery store wzth permitted hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and Z.OO a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Friday, Saturday and Holidays, provided that the number of such establishments permitted in the Mazn Street Specific Plan Zone shall not exceed two (2) at anyone time. Mr. Whittenberg swd yes. The Chair asked how staff would like to proceed, by Motion or consensus? Mr. Steele said by consensus would be fine. . CONSENSUS: By a 3 - 1 mlijority, with Commissioner Law deciding No, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to adopt the wording... liquor establishment, if part 0/ a grocery store with pennitted hours 0/7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Friday, Saturday and Holidays, provided that the number of such establishments pennitted in the Main Street Specific Plan Zone shall not exceed two (2) at any one time. The Commission next discussed on-sale establishments. Commissioner Brown, referring to page 6 of the Supplemental Report #4, swd the Commission's last discussion was that for new businesses, specifically restaurants selhng and servmg alcohol, the Commission would set their hours. The new businesses' hours would be to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and to 11:00 p.m. on Fnday and Saturday. Commissioner Law asked if this would have any effect on the currently estabhshed restaurants? Commissioner Brown said no, thiS would be for new estabhshments. Commissioner Law swd she was concerned the City could not get a good restaurant to come mto the City With these restrictions. Chairperson Campbell questioned that comment, indicating that after 10:00 p.m. an establishment is no longer a restaurant but a bar. Commissioner Law said what's been done IS the legitlmate restaurants are required to close and the three bars in town can stay open to 2:00 a.m. and the City can't do anythmg about that. Commissioner Campbell swd "Well, we sure can't have 'em all open". . Page 8 - C11;y of Seal Beach Plannmg CommlSSIOD MmulcB of Apnl3, 1996 . CommIssioner Law sald there's a different class of people 10 a restaurant who are dnnlong versus the patrons of a bar. She added "I'd rather see them in a restaurant than in the bar drinking" . Commissioner Dahlman said "I think ETOH molecule is Identical in both situations and does exactly the same physiological thing". Commission Law objected, saying most people who drink in a restaurant don't dnnk that much. Chairperson Campbell said the CIty just does not want the hours left wide open. Commissioner Brown said if it were possible the Commission would lIke to see the bars close before 2:00 a. m. but this can't be done; CommissIoner Law agreed. Commissioner Brown suggested that settIng hours of operation is what the CommissIon can do. The fmer restaurants do close at 10:00 p.m. and the CommIssion is saymg that a restaurant open beyond 10:00 p.m. is a bar and that's what we don't want. Commissioner Law disagreed, saying she sees people walkmg down Maln Street to go eat at 10:00 p.m. and they have chIldren with them. Commissioner Brown dIsagreed, noting he didn't thmk there were many people eating after . 10:00 p.m. and most of the restaurants close their kitchen after 10:00 p.m. Commissioner Dahlman said about eight out of ten of the fine restaurants 10 Seal Beach are usmg the exact hours presented here. "ThIS is perfectly acceptable". The Chair asked if there was a consensus on the wording of I (b) at page 61 The CommIssion agreed by consensus to the following language as presented in the Staff Report - Supplemental #4: l.b. Revise proposed Section 28-1250... Restaurant, with or without alcohol sales (not mcludmg dnve-m restaurants), with permitted operating hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Fnday, Saturday and Holldays. Director Whittenberg said staff has received the CommIssIon's consensus to add the language presented for 1(b) into the exhibits for the resolutions. He Said the CommIssIon should now take action on all the resolutIons except for the AB 1600 resolution. . Mr. Whittenberg said that he would prefer the CommIssion to Walt and take action on all the resolutions at once. Then staff can make sure there is consistency between the documents. But "0" and "E" would be the resolutions, from the discussion to thIS pomt, whIch staff would have an attachment to the resolutions in the imtial staff report. These would be changes the Commission would recommend the City Council consIder. Peao9 - Caty of Seal Beach PIannmg ConunlSSIOD Mmutea of Apnl3, 1996 . Chairperson Campbell asked if the CommissIon should take a consensus now on the Issues WhIch were presented? Mr. Whittenberg said that would be helpful to staff. Commissioner Dahlman, referencing the number of alcohol serving establtshments, saId that If there's a consensus to establish a number then the Commission should consIder what the number should be. The Chair said there are a number of Issues under alcohol-related bus10esses --- sett10g a cap, the hours of operation. She asked if there were other issues on this subject? Mr. Whittenberg said staff is hearing, from the Commission as a whole, that the CUP process is one the Commission would like to see retained. The changes to the current provisions of the CUP process are set forth standard hours for new establtshments so there's snll a Publtc Heanng If the caps would allow for new uses on Main Street. The Charr suggested discussing setnng a cap on the number of alcohol-related businesses on Main Street. If no new establishments are allowed because of the cap, then there's no need to discuss hours of operanon. The CommIssIOn may wish to place a caveat that If the sItuanon were to change the hours of operation would be standardized. Commissioner Brown agreed, suggesting the Commission could set a cap and if the City Counctl decided it didn't want a cap they would then have no Idea what the CommIssIon would want for . hours of operation. Mr. Steele Satd another reason to establIsh hours of operation is there may be an occaSIOn where an existing CUP returns to the Planning Commission for modIficanon or an enforcement acnon. The matter may be so sigmficant that the CommIssIon would be Jusnfied in adJusnng the hours of operation. It should be done now, whIle the Plan IS under consideranon. Commissioner Brown, referenc10g page 14 of Supplemental Staff Report #3, Satd the term Business Improvement District is crossed out and the text now says Business Improvement Program. He said that given the amount of testimony the CommissIOn received agaInst a Business Improvement DIStriCt (BID) the Plan should not have any kind of language that would suggest a Business Assessment District (BAD), Bus10ess Improvement DIStnCt (BID) or Bus10ess Improvement Program (BIP). He was 10 favor of stnking that policy. CommIssioner Dahlman suggested us10g the follow1Og language: The local business community may wish to develop additIOnal organizational. promotIOnal and economzc restructurzng This would specifically be in place of saying the Czty should encourage ... the local business community to do this or that. All the testImony receIved SaId It would be 1Oappropnate for the CIty to encourage a BID. . Plge 10 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg ComnuSSIOIl MIRuleS of Apnl 3, 1996 . Commissioner Brown said the questIOn is voluntarily gomg along or a voluntary groupmg as opposed to a mandated grouping. Whether the City mandates a BID or the busmess owners mandate a BID you end up with the same thing. The Seal Beach Busmessmen's Assoclabon is a mechamsm for the businessmen to do things voluntanly together; that should be encouraged. He was against mandatory assessments. Director Whittenberg saId staff feels the language as presented doesn't indicate mandatory assessment. He referenced Supplemental Staff Report #3, page 7, the last paragraph of 5 .a. 7, noting the language which had been struck. He suggested the words on a voluntary basiS could be added at that point If the Commission wanted. He Said staff felt It was still important for the business community to understand that the organizational, promobonal and improvement ideas which are discussed in the Plan are valid items for them to be conSidering in the future. Staff didn't want to eliminate all that language from the Plan and suggested the Commission may want to keep it but indicate it would be on a voluntary baSIS. CommiSSIOner Law agreed that if the words on a voluntary basiS were added it clearly mdlcates it is something the City encourages them to be domg but It'S up to them whether or not they want to proceed to do somethmg. It's up to them to make those declslonsll. The Chair asked Commissioner Dahlman to restate his chOIce of wordmg. . Commissioner Dahlman said he would suggest, at page 14, strike the first line and starting at the second line say, the local bUSiness communuy may wish to develop adduional organizational. promotional. economic restructuring and improvement programs. Mr. Whittenberg asked if the Commission would want to still include the words on a voluntary basis as it's saying the same thing twice. CONSENSUS: The Chair said yes, to include it and that it was alright to say the same thing twice. At the end of section 7, the Chair asked staff to add ... by the City to be undertaken by the local business community on a voluntary basis... and then at policy 16, say the local business community may wish to develop additional organiZJltional .... There was a consensus of the Commission that this is what they wanted. The Chair reviewed the three areas the Commission had discussed: (1) the tak10g of the grocery stores from three (3) to two (2); (2) the setting of operational hours for on-sales; and (3) changed the language in the BID program. Mr. Steele said the CommiSSion may want to conSider the resolutions 10 order, starbng With #96- 6. They looked at the resolution for the Negative Declaration. . Commissioner Brown said this resolution contained AB 1600 fees. Staff wIll revise the language on page 30 and make It consistent With what the Commission ultimately adopts in the AB 1600 analysis. Pegc 11 - Cdy of Seal Beach Plannmg COOUUISSIOIl Mmutcs of Apn1 3, 1996 . Commissioner Brown asked if the resolutIons would return for a second vote? Staff smd they could bring the resolutIons back at the next meeting 10 final form. CommissIOner Brown said that given the number of changes he would like to see the final resolutions so he was defimte on what he was voting on. The Chmr agreed. Mr. Steele said in that case the Commission did not need to move the resolutIons but could proceed directly to the AB 1600 discussion. The Chair, referencing page 30, noted the second Item says elzminatzon of the establishment of a BID. She asked why the CommissIon has to state it is elIminating this from the Plan? Mr. Whittenberg explained that in the imtial environmental document It was 1Ocluded. Now, staff is indicating is that even though the Commission is elIminatIng this language, it still is not causing any adverse impacts to the environment. Commissioner Brown indIcated that was quite bureaucratic. Mr. Whittenberg explmned laWSUits have been filed where programs were proposed as part of a multI-phase activity and part of It is dropped out. Then certain challenges were made that by dropping the one part the other parts don't work as well and so there could be an adverse environmental impact because someth1Og was removed. ThIS proposed statement hopefully covers any potential lawsuits. . The Commission next discussed the AB 1600 analysis, referring to Supplemental Staff Report #4. Mr. Whittenberg reviewed SIX different scenanos, explaimng tables 2 and 3, their shortfalls and how they arrived at 48 park10g spaces. He noted all the analyses are based on 48 park10g spaces. The CommissIOn discussed staffs presentation and AB 1600 at length. Toward the end of thIS discussIOn Commissioner Brown spoke on what a parking space IS actually worth. For example, a garage space in Seal Beach rents for about $100 per month. He was not sure on what an open space rented for. In this calculatIon, the figure of $500 per space IS too hIgh. If it was $350 per year per space that would be $30 per space per month and that mIght be better. The cost to rent a parking space at an airport for a month would be similar. If the math figures were done with that thinking 10 mind, the AB 1600 fee would increase to $5,171. He lIked those numbers because It comes up WIth an additIonal 78 parking spaces, allows for the acquisitIon of property, includes park10g meters which he felt may/may not happen. But If parking meters are not included the numbers are adjusted. He SaJ.d he would lIke to provide for everyth10g we might provide for and use the figure of $350 for the 1O-lieu spaces, result10g in an AB 1600 fee of $5,171. This is reasonable and sustainable. It provides for the acquisItion of extra property, the decking of the 8th Street lot and it's a maximum program that the CIty might do. . Commissioner Dahlman said he agreed WIth the specIfics and WIth the strategy Issue of over- shoot or under-shoot. Com~llssioner Law agreed. The Chair smd she agreed with Commissioner Brown's approach to cover all bases because it's easier to refund money than It IS to get it. She said she wanted to stIll play around With It. CommissIOner Brown suggested staff include this analysis and she could still play with it on her own. Mr. Whittenberg said no action would be taken until the next meetIng. CommissIOner Brown said he wants to see one Pugc 12 - CIty of Seal Beach PIannmg Commll8101l Minutes of Apnl3, 1996 . scenario of increasing the in-heu parking fees to $350 per space per year with the acquisition of the property. The actual revenue would drop from $784,000 to $548,000. He explamed his math on this. Commissioner Dahlman complimented staff on domg a lot of homework resulting in these alternatives which make it quite clear. He agreed with settling on a single scenano as It would people something to shoot at. At least people Will know where the CommissIOn stands and the testImony will be more cogent. Director Whittenberg said that with this directIon, staff will come back With that scenano incorporated mto all the resolutions and have the resolutions in final form based on it. Renee Bollen Mrs. Bollen addressed the language of the resolutions, asking if the Commission had considered the aesthetic look of a parking structure? The ChaIr SaId thiS IS not something the City is dealing with now. The City is 'only dlscussmg allowing for a parkmg structure and provldmg funding for it. Commissioner Dahlman SaId such a structure may not be bUIlt and may not even wind up in the final Plan. He noted she could/should attend the City CouncIl meetIngs to testify on the parking structure. Commissioner Brown indicated the Plan contaIns a drawing of a . proposed structure with design suggestions and a parkmg layout CONSENSUS: It was the consensus of the Planning Commission for staff to return with modified resolutions based on the previous changes discussed and the one scenario on the AD 1600. Recess. The Chair declared a recess at 9:02 p.m. and resumed the meetmg at 9: 15 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Zoning Text Amendment 96-2 (Continued from February 21, 1996) . Zoning Text Amendment 96-2 was contInued from the February 21, 1996 Plannmg Commission meetIng. At that meeting ChaIrperson Campbell requested ZT A 96-2, regardmg prohibitIon of new third stories in Old Town, be contmued to the April 3 meeting. She indicated CouncIlwoman HastIngs had received mne letters on thiS subject and felt further study orne was needed; she didn't realize the matter was so controversial. The applicant, the City of Seal Beach, requests permission to amend the Code of the City of Seal Beach to prohibit new third Page J3 - City of Sc:aJ Beach PIannmg CommlSSIOII MInutes of April 3, 1996 . stories in the medium and high density zones of Old Town and place a blanket 25 foot height hmit on these propertIes. Currently a third story is permitted on the rear half of any lot which is at least 37Jh feet wide. Secondly, thiS text amendment Will also consider permitting certaIn roof treatments to exceed the 25 foot height lImit by up to 2-3 feet, subject to a discretIonary review by the Planning Commission. Staff Re.port Mr. CurtIs presented the staff report. [Staff report on file 10 the Planning Department for reference]. Mr. CurtIs mdlcated that prior to the meeting staff received two letters 10 favor of this applicant and four against It. Since that time, two additional letters 10 opposition have been received [attached] from Eldon and Carolyn Alexander of 119 8th Street and Mr. and Mrs. Marlow Lewis, Jr. of Old Town Seal Beach. Mr. Curtis explained sixty (60) lots Will become non-conforming if this ZT A goes forward. Fanny Bollen . Director Whittenberg quickly reviewed the history of the Bollen's applIcatIon for theIr property at 1101 Seal Way. The Bollen's applied to the City to remodel and raise the roof line. Their site was 1/8" too narrow to allow a third story. In preparing the staff report, Plannmg Department staff found a Planning Commission policy which mdlcated that a lot, the size of the Bollen's lot, could be considered at 37Jh' lot for determmatIOn of heights. This recommendation was brought to the Planning Commission with the recommendation to mcorporate the polIcy into the Code and thus change the City's mUnIcipal Code. The Plannmg Commission adopted the policy and recommended approval to the City Council. The City CouncIl determmed not to approve the change, which placed the property back to the 25' height limitatIon. Since that time the Bollen's have been approachmg the City 10 an attempt to get to the pOlOt they're at tOnIght. Staff apologized to the Bollen's for the length of time it has taken but indicated the City never had the nght to issue a bUlldmg permit for a third story structure on the Bollen's lot because It'S not 371h' wide. Mrs. Bollen asked that if this ZT A were passed tOnIght they would have to watt 2 - 3 months. Mr. Whittenberg agreed. Carolyn Alexander * Seal Beach Mrs. Alexander spoke 10 favor of allowing 2 -3 foot height varIatIons for non-habitable roof treatments. She SaId thiS IS an opportunIty to allow property owners to do somethmg aesthetically pleasing with their properties. The flat roof lInes look awkward and could be made more appealing. It Will not negatively Impact on people. The Planning CommiSSIOn wIll retam review authority. . Puge 14 - CJty of Seal Beach P/amung COlIIIIIJISIOII Mmutes of Apnl 3, 1996 . Commissioner Dahlman asked if this should apply to apply to all homes 10 Old Town whIch are limited to 25' height limits or should it be CIty-wide or Just to the wIder lots? Mrs. Alexander said she thought this should apply to all lots, particularly those properties WhICh are sandwIched next to a three story building or an older non-conforming bUlldlOg with a hIgher roof hne. These properties could make aesthetic adjustments to fit 10 better. Flexlblhty in planmng would be advisable. Eldon Alexander * Seal Beach Mr. Alexander again encouraged the CommissIOn to allow the 2 - 3 foot height vanatIons for non-habitable roof treatments and recommend approval of the resolutIOn. There being no further persons wishing to testIfy, the Chair closed the Pubhc Hearing. Commission Discussion . Commissioner Dahlman saId the current mumcipal Code IS defective and isn't the k10d of Code the CIty should have. One of Seal Beach's outstanding charactenstIcs IS dIVerSIty and yet the Code encourages boxes. This proposal would provide for more variety yet a person could not take advantage of it to add habitable space or use it if they had a third story. There are plenty of safeguards and It would require Planmng CommIssIon approval. He was not certain of hIS feelings on a 2' hmlt or a 3' hmit however. Commissioner Law questIoned how this would work? CommIssIoner Brown expla10ed that CommissIOner Law is saymg you don't want to allow a habItable space wlthm the 28' WhICh could conceivably be a third story. Commissioner Dahlman agreed, noting nothing should be approved whIch could be habItable. CommIssioner Law said a thIrd story IS now allowed on a 371J2' lot and she wants It to stay that way. Commissioner Dahlman agreed, saying that the bUlld10g of thIrd stones where they are currently allowed should not be taken away from those homeowners. Commissioner Brown agreed that he would not want to encourage to bulld boxes. But before the Commission decides whether the measurement should be 2' or 3' he would want more concrete examples from staff on how they antICIpate it would be worded. It could be defined as a roof pitch or as a percentage of the building. . Director Whittenberg said of the citIes emploY1Og thIS WIth which he is familiar, they set a maximum height to the peak of the roof and also has a provision that only a certain percentage Page IS - CII.)' of Seal Beach PIannmg ComnuSSIOD Manutes of Apn13, 1996 . of the roof area can be above the 25' height lImit. That restncts the buildable area to the highest portion of the peak: of the roof. This is the type of language staff anticipates coming back to the Commission with at the next meeting 10 resolutIon form. Staff could also prepare a graphic drawing illustratIng this. Commissioner Brown said the difference between 2' and 3' could best be demonstrated graphIcally. He would prefer to keep thiS as a Pubhc Hearing Item versus a Consent Calendar item simply to provide the one additional safeguard. Commissioner Brown asked staff what the financial impact of a Public Hear10g would be --- versus a Consent Calendar item? Mr. Curtis replied the dIfference would be several hundred dollars. He explained that With a Consent Calendar item you still notIce everyone who lives within 100'. Also, the CommissIon could pull items from the Consent Calendar If they wished. Mr. Whittenberg said there's a $250 filIng fee for a Public Hearmg matter with a greater notIcing area to 300'. That Noticing becomes expenSIve. At the 100' dIstance you've decreased that expense by a third. . Commissioner Brown said the cost of Noticing is not a bIg expense when talkmg about a house's roof where thousands of dollars would be spent. He would lIke to see this a Pubhc Hearing matter simply to monitor this more closely to make sure homeowners are doing what they should or what the CommissIOn thinks It wants. If things were gomg well and the CommissIon felt the Public Hearings were unnecessary, at a future time It could be changed back to a Consent Calendar item. To expand this idea further, Commissioner Brown, said he would be in favor of raising the height limit from 25' to 28'. One of the letters the CommissIOn received related to flood1Og 10 Seal Beach. He suggested that for those properties 10 flood prone areas, they should be allowed to raise their first floor so they're out of the flood area. They should not be penalIzed on the height limit. Secondly, he would like to see that ground area be allowed to be used for tandem parking. That would allow parking, and perhaps storage, along the entire bottom floor and yet not to count that as living space. That would ease the parkmg problems in Seal Beach. The house would be limited to two (2) habItable stones but allow the other area for parking. He felt if this suggestion were implemented it would make this Item for the roof treatments unnecessary as it would give people the 28' to use as they please. . Director Whittenberg SaId another Public Hearing would need to be held on thIS Issue. Staff will come back to the CommiSSion at theIr April 17th meetIng WIth a SImple staff report dlscuss10g these two issues and includ10g a recommendatIon that the CommIssIon forward the request to the City Council to InItiate PublIc Heanngs to consIder those types of amendments. CouncIl concurrence IS needed before the process can be started. He felt the agendlzed issue should be considered tonight and separately from Commissioner Brown's suggestIOn because It could be six months before an answer may come from the CIty Council. It would not be fair to the community to hold thiS up. Additionally, many areas are not 10 identIfied flood zone areas. hac 16. CIty of 8caI Beacb Plannlllll ComouSSIOII Mmulcs of Apn13. 1996 . CommiSSIoner Brown saId he was actually ImplYing his suggestIon be City-wide. The main reason for this to be CIty-wide is the additional parlong which would be provided. Commissioner Brown did agree that It could take SIX months. Chairperson Campbell asked if there would be additIonal items on thiS issue to diSCUSS at the next meeting? Director Whittenberg said the PublIc Heanng could be re-opened to allow the public to address the graphics provided and the resolutIon that would be appropnate. The Chair said she would like to do this. The Chair re-opened the Public Hearing to continue It to the Planning CommissIon meetIng of April 17, 1996. Commissioner Dahlman asked if It would be advisable to restrict the discussion to this issue having dealt with the issue of no more third stories. Chairperson Campbell said the issue of the no third stories IS fimshed as far as the Planmng CommIssion is concerned. Therefore, it would be reasonable to have the Public Heanng restricted to only the additIonal roof treatment height limits. Mr. Whittenberg saId staff would return With a resolution In final form With a couple of alternatives to the height and what portion of the structure could be above the 25' heIght. . Commissioner Dahlman suggested having ZTA 96-2(a) and 96-2(b) so the two Issues would be treated separately when they go to the City Council. Mr. Steele replied that the issue of no more third stones will not go on to the City CouncIl and would die here with the Planning Commission unless appealed. For ease of admimstratIon the Commission could have a motion to divide them into (a) and (b). MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to divide Zoning Text Amendment 96-2 into ZTA 96-2(a) and 96-2(b) for ease of administration. The Commission will consider ZTA 96-2(b) on April 17, 1996. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Dahlman, Brown, Campbell, Law Sharp 5. Zoning Text Amendment 96-4 . The applIcant, the City of Seal Beach, requests the Planning Commission conSider an amendment to the side yard setback reqUirements for Side yards abutting alleys in the ReSidentIal High Density and MedIUm Density zones of District I (Old Town). Specifically, the proposed amendment would change the side yard setback along alleys from a flat four . . . Page 17 - ~ of Seal Beach PIaomng Comousslon MlDules of Apol3, 1996 (4') feet to 15% of the lot width, as is the case with setbacks along a side street. The proposed amendment will also consider specific setback requirements for garages off of a side alley. Planning Department staff recommends the Planmng CommiSSIOn recommend the City Council approve Zo~ing Text Amendment 96-4 through the adoption of ResolutIon 96- Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planmng Department for reference] . Commission Questtons on Staff Report The Commission had no questIons regardmg the staff report. Public Hearin~ There were no persons wishing to speak for or agaInst this ZT A. The Chair closed the Public Hearing. Commission Discussion Commissioner Law asked if the setback in question was along the Side of the garage? Mr. Curtis clarified that it was the long Side of the property abutttng the alley. For the specific setbacks for garages, the setback measurement would be from the door. Commissioner Dahlman SaId he did not receive any telephone calls on this matter and staff did not receive any written correspondence. He said he was interested in heartng Commissioner Brown's thoughts. Commissioner Brown said It sounded reasonable to him as the Commission is talking about 3". MOTION by Law; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Resolution No. 96-8, thus approving Zoning Text Amendment 96-4. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Law, Dahlman, Brown, Campbell ABS~T: Sharp Mr. Steele indicated there IS no appeal period for a legislative matter. . . . Pagll18 - CIty of SllaI Beach Plannmg ConUlIIsSIOII MlDules of ApralJ, 1996 6. Proposed Fee Adjustment Schedule for Transportation Facilities and Programs Development Fees and Transportation Facilities & Programs Development Application Fees. This matter was continued from March 20, 1996. The applIcant, the CIty of Seal Beach, requested revision of the Transportation FacllUles and Programs Development Fees and Transportation Facilities & Programs Development Application Fees, 10 accordance wIth the provisions of Section 6 of ResolutIon No. 4234, as amended. The City is proposmg to establish a fee adjustment schedule for previously developed but currently vacant property at the time a new development plan is submItted. Planning Department staff recommended approval through the adoption of ResolutIon No. 96-_. Staff Re.port Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for reference]. The Director explained this matter has come to the Planning CommIssIon on a recommendation from the City Council. The applIcation for waiver was for the old Rum Runner restaurant property. The restaurant stood vacant for a number of years and was ultimately demolished. The property then sat vacant without any structures on It for a couple of years. A new development was proposed. Those applIcants made a request to the CIty to waive the fees which would have been imposed saymg that at the tIme the CIty establIshed ItS program, that building was in use and was creatmg traffic on the street. So that traffic was already accounted for and they shouldn't have to pay a fee for new traffic that was accounted for previously because of existing development on the property. The CIty CouncIl agreed with that argument and agreed to grant a waiver to the applIcant's proposal. The CouncIl then instructed staff to develop a standard waIver process for future applicants so mdIvidual applicatIons dId not have to go to the CIty CouncIl on a case-by-case baSIS. CommissIOn Comments on Staff Report Commissioner Dahlman, askmg how long the Rum Runner's property had been vacant, said he read it was vacant between one and two years. And they agreed percent of the fee was 40% yet the staff report says one to two years and 20%. To be completely consistent with what the City Council dId, the .5 to 1 year should be 20% of the fee, 1 to 2 years should be 40%, 2 to 3 years should be 60% and 3 to 4 years 80% and at 4 years It would become 100 % of the fee. Page 19 - City of Seal Beach PIannmg ConlR118810ll Mmut.es of Apnl3, 1996 . The Chair referenced page two of the staff report and noted it said: Based on the above discussion at the public heanng before the City Council, the Council determined to reduce the applicable fee by 60% on the subject property ... . . She explained it was reduced by 60% from what it was before. Commissioner Dahlman indicated the amount of the fee to be paid was 40 % for one year and ten months according to the City Council Mmutes. He felt the CouncIl wanted the Commission to use 40% for the one year interval. PublIc Hearing The Chair opened the PublIc Hearing. No persons wished to speak for or against this application and with a consensus of the CommIssIon the Chair closed the PublIc Hearing. Commission Comments CommIssioner Brown said this is a generous fee schedule The property was in use and then it becomes vacant. The question is how long does It take the traffic patterns to change to the vacant property rather than to the pre-existing use? He saId the traffic patterns changed immediately, withm one week. How long dId It take for the public to get used to the fact that extra traffic wasn't there? He Said quickly. The five years is mcredIbly generous and would be more stringent than Commissioner Dahlman. He felt that after one year of vacancy the fee should be 100% of the traffic fees as the traffic patterns have certainly changed m that time. Because the traffic patterns would have changed by that orne. If the CIty wants to allow some additional time for somebody to buy a property, demolish any exisong structure and to think about what they want to do and get architectural plans he could see extendmg the orne without penaloes. But on the other hand, he felt the amount of the fees involved, especially on the Mitchell property that is being referred to, he felt the fees weren't that great in comparison to the total amount of money spent on the proJect. He felt the CIty Council was overly generous and he would lIke to send thIS matter back to the CouncIl and say let's not be qUite so generous and let's not gIve away thIS money. Chairperson Campbell Said another issue needs consIderatIOn and that issue is the new use generates less traffic than the old use. That's why the reduction m fees was requested. Commissioner Brown SaId he realIzed that but the old use was two years and the traffic patterns had changed. And now the applicant is commg m and generatmg more traffic. After two years it should be 100% and after one year 50%. He dIdn't see any reason for the Plge 20 - CJ1y of Seal Beach Plannmg ConUJIISSIOII Mmutes of Apn1 3. 1996 . City to be that generous to throwaway the money and to say after five years it's 100%. After five years on a vacant property, whatever the use was was a distant memory. Commissioner Brown suggested the following percentages of the total fees: . 0 - .5 years 0% . .5 - 1 year 20% . 1 - 2 years 50% . 2+ years 100% The Commission considered this Motion. Commissioner Law asked if staff had made up this payment schedule? Mr. WhIttenberg said the matter was discussed at the City CouncIl and the CouncIl referred It back to the CommissIOn to get some numbers. The numbers reflected 10 the staff report are not cast 10 stone. This is not what the Council recommended, the numbers are someth1Og staff compiled based on the discussion at the CouncIl's Public Hear1Og. The CouncIl really never talked about the numbers. He felt it would be appropriate to give the Council the CommISSIon's best recommendation without the Commission bas10g ItS recommendation on the staff report's figures if the Commission feels they are not approprIate. . Chairperson Campbell asked Commissioner Brown if he saw any difference between a new use that's going to generate less traffic and the old use whIch generated more traffic? Commissioner Brown said that would be good and he'd like that and If Rum Runner's restaurant had been demolished and then Immediately a structure had been put up that generated less traffic then certa10ly that apphcant should not pay a fee for that. The Chair noted that is exactly why those applicants asked for a reductIOn 10 the fee. Commissioner Brown said he understood that but he felt the traffic patterns change very quickly. And while he did not know the reason why that site sat vacant that long. But the traffic patterns change immediately. That also allows the City to upgrade areas that are over-burdened with traffic. Pacific Coast Highway is a good example of thiS, it's an over- burdened area where improvements would be welcome. These fees make those improvements pOSSible. Chairperson Campbell suggested the follow1Og percentages of the total fees: . 0 -.5 years 0% . .5 - 1 year 50% . 1 - 2 years 75 % . 2 - 3 years 100% . The Chair commented that WIth all the paperwork an applicant needs to do and WIth Coastal Commission requirements two years IS not a long ome. Pace 21 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg CommiSSion MlDule8 of Apnl3, 1996 . Commissioner Brown said the Coastal CommIssion time is not being counted. The Chair said the time involved, minus the Coastal Commission time, was 1 year and 10 months. Before that the restaurant was empty, and there was another owner-applicant between the owners of Rum Runners and MItchell. Commissioner Brown said, for example, if somebody came In and increased the net traffic density, would the CIty want to allow them a 50% fee reductIon? The Chair said this is only applicable if the new use coming in is less than what had eXIsted. . Mr. WhIttenberg said the language does not indicate that. The reason for this IS the existIng buildIngs in town are already counted for generatIng traffic at the time the fee was established; the eXIsting traffic they generated has already been counted once. The thinking was that we've already counted that --- it was an eXIstIng baselIne level --- and even If they generated more traffic, it's not gOIng to be substantIally more than what the prevIous business generated. That's why staff didn't make a difference. Ten years from now the CIty may not know what the prevIous use was; the records may not be around. It's hard to determine what the traffic generation IS gOIng to be by dIfferent land uses. If a donut shop becomes a 7-11, for example, IS there a different traffic pattern? He dIdn't know and to try to find that out, on a case-by-case basis, becomes very dIfficult. Staff then recommended the fees remain at the suggested levels regardless of whether it's more or less traffic. The traffic was counted once and if a business were to generate more or less traffic after a couple of years it's probably not a significant enough number of trips to make a major difference. Most of the City's development WIll not be very large. The Rum Runner's site is one of the larger parcels along Pacific Coast HIghway. The only larger SItes are the shopping centers and he didn't enVISIon those being torn down and rebuIlt in the foreseeable future. Commissioner Dahlman said he didn't understand that because the staff report table says 0 - .5 years would be no fee. If a developer were to come In and propose to increase traffic over the previous use he would owe the CIty a fee. Mr. Whittenberg said staff IS saying that for a pre-eXIstIng developed piece of property, where the property has been vacant for less than SIX months, and a new applIcant has a proposal there would be no traffic fee charged even If the new applIcant IS IncreasIng the traffic. Commissioner Dahlman and Campbell dIsagreed with this, saYIng that would not be equitable. Chairperson Campbell saId the CouncIl wanted to increase uses that aren't going be generating more traffic and that's why they were wIllIng to gIve a fee reductIon because the Mitchell project would generate less traffic than the ongInal use. Mr. Whittenberg said that was one of the CouncIl's consideratIons. The Chair said a greater traffic impact should carry a fee. . hce 22 - CIty of Seal Beach PIamung Camml881011 Mmulc8 of Apnl3, 1996 . Mr. Whittenberg said if the Commission desired, staff could add a clause that would Indicate It applies to those projects which would generate less traffic than the prevIous use and then the same schedule would apply. With projects generating more traffic thIS would not apply but the City's fee resolutIon would apply. CommissIOner Brown said the fee is based on additional traffic. CommissIOner Dahlman said the City has been grandfathering pnor uses for SIX months. Now instead of going to 100% responsibility for all traffic created by a new use It'S now graduated. Mr. Whittenberg said that under the current prOVIsIons of the TransportatIon Ordinance they pay the full fee regardless of how long a property has been vacant. Chairperson Campbell said the use under consIderatIon, the MItchell development of the old Rum Runner's restaurant site, is generatIng less traffic than the pnor restaurant use. The City Council must have felt this applIcant should be compensation for a use which generates less traffic. Commissioner Brown said the tIme frames are far too generous. The Chair said the Commission must develop numbers they can live with If they can't live with the numbers presented in the staff report. . Commissioner Brown said he would like to see two years but could live with three. Commissioner Law opted for three years. If an applIcant proposes a development WIth greater traffic impacts the current City fee schedule would apply. Commissioner Dahlman said he was not committee to eIther two or three years. The Chair asked if an applicant could apply for a fee reduction due to SpecIal CIrcumstances why is the CommIssIon bothenng WIth these numbers? Commissioner Dahlman saId the City CouncIl dIdn't want to consider each application. Mr. Whittenberg said there has been only one request over a two year penod of time. David Rosenman * Seal Beach Mr. Rosenman said one of the concerns heard at the CIty CounCIl was that If thIS was not memorialized there was potential for succeedIng requests for special CIrcumstances to startIng gettIng into doing favors for your buddIes. It was hoped a set of rules whIch were faIr to everyone could be established. Mr. Steele said, for the Record, the basis for cutting the numbers In thIS manner IS the Commission is findIng that traffic IS increaSIng Incrementally over those period of years. There is an incremental increase each year as the property lIes vacant. . . Page 23 - ~ of Seal Beach Plannmg CommlSSIOII MlIlutes of Apnl3, 1996 . MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Law to approve Resolution No. 96-9 recommending to the City Council amendments to the language to the following fees for the Transportation Facilities and Programs Development Fees: The following fees will apply to those uses which generate less vehicle trips than the previous use and the scale will be: 3 + years 2 - 3 years 1 - 2 years Ih - 1 year o - Ih year 100% of the fee 75% of the fee 50% of the fee 25% of the fee 0% of the fee MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Dahlman, Law, Brown, Campbell ABSENT: Sharp *** STAFF CONCERNS . Mr. Whittenberg said he had no staff concerns tomght. Senate Bill 1538 Commissioner Dahlman saId the Consent Calendar contained several position papers on Senate bIlls. He asked If Senator Johnson had replted? Mr. Whittenberg Said the CIty Manager and Mayor met with Senator Johnson to diSCUSS the City's concerns. The CIty did not pursuant Senator Johnson as his position remained the same. The CIty IS preparing another comment letter for Council to conSider. It Will restate the City's opposition. Mr. Steele saId the City feels the Bill is unconstitutional. COMMISSION CONCERNS Height Limit - Third Stories Commissioner Brown asked what staff will do procedurally on the third-story height limit matter? Mr. Whittenberg said it will appear on Commission Concerns at the next meetmg's Agenda. The matter can be discussed at that time. . Page 24 - City of Seal Beach Plannmg CommiSSion Mmutes of Apnl3, 1996 . Beach Berm CommissIOner Brown noted the sand berm was being removed from the beach. He asked if there were any plans to add sand to the beach? Mr. Whittenberg said the State seems wllling to provide funding to the City to acquIre addItional sand. In talking with the Department of luildin, and WaterWays the issue in Seal Beach seems to have the hIghest prionty at the State level. Sand will be placed at Surfside by the Army Corps of Engineers beginmng thIs year. That sand will be pumped from the ocean, from an off-shore locatlon. The areas staff is exploring is obtaining sand from inside the arrowhead jettys of the Naval Weapons Statlon for the main beach at Seal Beach. ThIs would be dredged and placed on the beach. Staff is exploring this very zealously at this tlme. DWP ProJ)erty & Hotel Commissioner Brown said that in his conversatlons WIth people about the DWP property and a possible hotel on that SIte, he is hearmg that they don't want a hotel there at all. They would rather see residentlal properties. He said he wanted to brmg thIs back to the Commission for Pubhc Hearings to conSIder resldentlal development. Commissioner Law asked how much would be left for a park? CommissIOner Brown said 70% would be left for a park. On the three acres 12 large homes could be bUIlt mcely on 1,4 . acre per home. Director Whittenberg responded to a question on how to schedule this Item by saying It would be best to schedule this item for consideration at the CommIssion's next meeting and to forward a request to the Council to consider that type of a change to the CIty's General Plan and Specific Plan. It will be a CIty Council decision as to whether they WIsh to consider this a change after they Just made a change. Commissioner Brown said he thought he heard at the CIty CouncIl level strong interest 10 residential development. Mr. Whittenberg said this issue is more than a local issue. The Cahforma Coastal Commission will be involved and he was not sure what theIr reactIOn would be. Staff would like to explore this with them before the issue gets too involved. The Coastal CommISSIOn has a major concern that properties 10 the coastal zone be available for VIsitor-serving commercial uses. A park IS a visltor-servmg use but it's not a commercIal use. Commissioner Law asked whIch type of proposal would bnng the most revenue to the CIty? Mr. Whittenberg said it IS hard to say. Commissioner Brown said if the CIty had a hotel on that sIte whIch sat empty and became an eyesore that could be a terrible burden on the CIty. . , \J I ,. PIce 25 - Cdy of Seal Beach PIannmg CooumSSllID Mmutes of Apn13, 1996 . Congratulations CommisslOner Brown congratulated Chairperson Campbell on her recent election wm and ensuing seat on the CIty Council. Commissioner Shar.p's Absence MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Brown to excuse Commissioner Sharp's absence this evening. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 A YES: Dahlman, Brown, Campbell, Law ABSENT: Sharp David Rosenman Mr. Rosenman suggested a joint meeting of the pubbc, the Planmng Commission and the City Council for the Main Street Specific Plan. . ADJOURNMENT The Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, qo~. ., Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary .c:a.",..,._ APPROVAL: The Planning Commission Mmutes of Apnl 3, 1996 were approved by the Planning CommIssion on Apnl _' 1996. _ .