HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2000-08-23
.,
'.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for August 23, 2000
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Brian Brown
District 2 - Jim Sharp
District 3 - Len Cutuli
District 4 - David Hood
District 5 - Thomas Lyon
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
o
City Hall office hours are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Closed noon to 1 :00 p.m.
o
The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you
need assistance to attend this meeting please telephone the City Clerk's Office at
least 48 hours in advance of the meeting (562) 431-2527.
o
Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m.
o
Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
o
Copies of staff reports and/or written materials on each agenda item are on file in
the Department of Development Services and City libraries for public inspection.
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of August 23, 2000
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
The following is a brief explanation of the Planning Commission agenda
structure:
AGENDA APPROVAL: The Planning Commission may wish to change the order of the
items on the agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, only
on items not on tonight's agenda, may do so during this time period. No action can be
taken by the Planning Commission on these communications on this date, unless
agendized.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Public Hearings allow citizens the opportunity to speak in
favor of or against agendized items. More detailed information is found in the actual
agenda attached. If you have documents to distribute, you should have enough copies
for all Planning Commissioners, City staff and the public. Please give one to the
secretary for the City files. The documents become part of the public record and will not
be returned.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar items are considered routine items that
normally do not require separate consideration. The Planning Commission may make
one motion for approval of all the items listed on the Consent Calendar.
SCHEDULED MATTERS: These items are considered by the Planning Commission
separately and require separate motions. These transactions are considered
administrative and public testimony is not heard.
STAFF CONCERNS: Updates and reports from the Director of Development Services
(Planning and Building Departments) are presented for information to the Planning
Commission and the public.
COMMISSION CONCERNS: Items of concern are presented by the Planning.
Commissioners and discussed with staff.
All proceedings are recorded.
2
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of August 23, 2000
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for August 23, 2000
7:30 p.m.
I.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II.
ROLL CALL
AGENDA APPROVAL
III.
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this Is the time to:
(a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda;
(b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda; and/or
(c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or public to
request an item is removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any items
within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, provided that the Planning
Commission may undertake no action or discussion unless otherwise authorized by law.
V.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless
prior to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission, staff, or the public requests a specific
item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
VI.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
1. Adoption of Resolution 00-19 approving Conditional Use Permit 00-2, Starbucks Coffee, 770
Pacific Coast Highway.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Conditional Use Permit 00-7
141 Main Street
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Bob Griffith
To install a takeout only (no seating or tables) ice cream stand in an
existing retail and pharmacy building on Main Street.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-26.
3. Height Variation 00-3 .
1608 Ocean Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Michael Levin
To construct a non-habitable covered roof access structure (CRAS) to
extend by approximately 3 feet above the height limit within the zone in
which the subject property is located.
3
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of August 23, 2000
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution 00-29.
4. Site Plan Review 00-3 and Conditional Use Permit 00-8
Islands Restaurant, Seal Beach Boulevard & Lampson Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Urban Solutions, Inc. / Bixby Ranch Company
To allow construction of a 5,133 square foot single story building with a 443
square foot patio to be operated as a Islands Restaurant on a 1.346 acre
lease area. The operational hours for the restaurant and bar are
11 :00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, including Sunday and
11 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays.
Recommendation: That this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of
September 6,2000.
VIII. STAFF CONCERNS
IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ADJOURNMENT
4
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of August 23, 2000
2000 AQenda Forecast
SEP 06
Conditional Use Permit 00-8, Seal Beach Blvd. & Lampson - Islands Restaurant
Site Plan Review 00-3, Seal Beach Blvd. & Lampson - Islands Restaurant
SEP 20
CUP 99-9 Faith Christian Assembly - 12-Month Review
CUP 00-11,137 Main Street (Old Town Cafe)
OCT 04
OCT 18
NOV 08
NOV 22
DEC 06
DEC 20
TO BE SCHEDULED:
o
o
o
o
o
Study Session:
Study Session:
Study Session:
Study Session:
Staff Report:
Permitted Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Seal Beach Boulevard (10/7/98)
Anaheim Bay Villas (10/7/98)
Retaining Walls
Undergrounding of Utilities
And Beyond
Calendar: CUP 98-6 at 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard (Yucatan Grill) Review (April 2001)
ADA Handicapped-Accessible Restrooms (April 2001)
5
'. ~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of August 23, 2000
Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 23, 2000. The meeting
was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Hood
Commissioners Brown, Cutuli, Lyon, and Sharp
Also
Present: Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Absent: None
AGENDA APPROVAL
Mr. Whittenberg reported for the record that Item No.4, Site Plan Review 00-3 and
Conditional Use Permit 00-8 for Islands Restaurant will be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of September 6, 2000.
Chairperson Hood requested that Staff provide an explanation of the procedure for
adoption of Resolution 00-19 as presented under Scheduled Matters. Mr.
Whittenberg reported that this resolution represents Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
00-2 for which the Planning Commission held two public hearings. He stated that
the public hearing was closed on August 9, 2000 after the Planning Commission had
voted to approve this CUP subject to additional conditions being incorporated into
Resolution 00-19. The Planning Commission had requested that this amended
resolution be brought back before them this evening for adoption. He indicated that
because the public hearing had been closed, this item was no longer a public
hearing item. He noted that if anyone wished to address the Commission regarding
the content of the resolution, they could do so during the Public Comment portion of
tonight's meeting. Mr. Whittenberg cautioned that anything that the Commission has
used to make its decision regarding this resolution would need to be restricted to the
information received during the public hearing of August 9, 2000. He stated
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
1
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26 .
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2000
assuming the Planning Commission takes action on Resolution 00-19 tonight, this
would then begin a 10-day calendar appeal period to the City Council.
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Hood opened oral communications.
Ms. Gwen Forsythe stated that the General Plan (GP) for the City of Seal Beach is a
document that dictates what should or should not occur in the City. She continued
by stating that Specific Plans (SP), which pertain to specific areas of the City, fall
under the umbrella of the GP. She provided a history of the adoption of the Main
Street Specific Plan (MSSP), noting that both Commissioners Brown and Sharp
were involved in this process. She noted that the information for the MSSP was
produced through several public hearings and surveys mailed to the residents and
business owners of Seal Beach. She said that the MSSP includes the previous C-1
Zoning District surrounding Main Street, and it is important to note that the MSSP is
also under the umbrella of the Seal Beach GP, which categorizes the entire area as
the coastal section. She stated that it would be difficult to argue that the proposed
location for Starbucks is not in the coastal section of the City, which would then be
consistent with the goals established on Page 5 of the Land Use Element of the GP.
This section states that under Commercial Development Designations a SP should
be adopted for the coastal commercial district. She noted that this was eventually
done in 1996. Ms. Forsythe continued by stating that the SP includes the coastal
commercial district and thus implements the goals of the Circulation Element of the
GP under the Land Use Element to improve traffic circulation in the coastal section
of the City. She remarked that to state that the proposed Starbucks would not be an
intensification of use affecting traffic would be incorrect. She said that the proposed
building was originally designed to be a bank and its traffic management was
engineered for that use. She stated that to intensify the use to a Burger King and
then to a drive-thru coffeehouse, which affects prime time traffic, is undeniably an
intensification of use. Ms. Forsythe noted that the intersection of Pacific Coast
Highway and Marina Drive is already dangerous, as pulling out from Marina Drive to
make a right turn onto Pacific Coast Highway requires constant monitoring of
oncoming traffic and for those cars pulling out of the Bay City Center. She stated
that is was a public safety issue that cannot be ignored. She referred to the Mission
Statement adopted with the MSSP, which states:
2
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2000
Although it is recognized that the area will have businesses that
serve both residents and visitors, the goal is not to have a
visitor-serving use overwhelm the area at the expense of the
small town character... What makes a community special is
often the vel}' same factor that causes pressure for change.
The more charming a town appears, the greater the demand
upon the community from the outside. The need to serve the
visitor brings with it new businesses that can change the
character of the town.
She reported that currently a video produced by the City and the Chamber of
Commerce is being presented by Comcast where the Chief of Police is depicted
walking around town with an "Opie type little boy," patronizing the Seal Beach locale.
She said that it is frustrating to think that a lot of effort has gone into the campaign to
encourage support of local businesses, yet the City turns around and ignores this
effort and philosophy and accommodates a business that will force local businesses
out. She stated that many cities have begun adopting specific laws that prohibit
chain stores from coming into their communities. She reported that the mayor of
Santa Cruz recently stated, "These kinds of predatory chains pose a threat to our
town and to local business and to the character of our community. We want them
out."
Ms. Forsythe stated that the public's disdain for Starbucks has become the topic of
talk shows because of its aggressiveness and overconcentration. She reported that
other Orange County cities have denied their requests for drive-thrus. She stated
that we are turning our backs on locally owned businesses that hire our local kids,
donate generously to our local schools where their children attend, and provide
service with a warm smile and friendly conversation because they are our neighbors.
She commented that corporate Starbucks does not even know where Seal Beach is.
She indicated that the difference between locally owned stores and Starbucks is that
instead of seeing Debbie or Susan at the Daily Grind unloading bagels out of the
back of their sports utility vehicle, we will hear the roar of a semi-truck rumbling
down Pacific Coast Highway, tossing out it computer printout of products necessary
for that day. Ms. Forsythe stated that she is concerned with a predatory type of
business taking root in our community, driving out local businesses, with the traffic
impact and safety of residents, but more seriously with the clear incompatibility and
disregard of the City's GP and SP. . She said that these items must be satisfied
before an approval can take place, and a finding must be made that this location is
not in the coastal section of the City, therefore, not affected by the SP, therefore not
affected by the vision adopted in 1996.
Karen, a resident of Seal Beach, expressed her opposition to Starbucks. She said
that she was in total agreement with Ms. Forsythe regarding traffic issues. She
reported that she had been struck by a car while riding her bike along Pacific Coast
Highway. She stated that Pacific Coast Highway gets very crowded between the
hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. She said that she did not understand why
3
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2000
Starbucks would decide to establish a coffeehouse in a small town like Seal Beach.
She stated that there were many other small coffeehouses that have been in
business in Seal Beach for years, and she is sure that they are also frustrated by
this situation. She said that many residents do not agree with the Planning
Commission's decision to approve Starbucks' application. She expressed her
concern over the drive-thru hours of 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. stating that this was the
busiest time of day for traffic along Pacific Coast Highway. She said that this is a
small, very charming city, and most of the residents would like it to remain this way.
She stated that residents were "little fishes" without power, but they can speak up for
themselves. She recommended that the Planning Commission reconsider its
decision to approve this application.
Ms. Jane McCloud expressed her opposition to Starbucks. She said that when she
considers the Specific Plan (SP) as well as the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP),
making the decision to bring a large corporation into town has the potential of
changing the town because of what may happen to the smaller businesses. She
stated that she wanted to go on record by stating that if the City is going to go in this
direction, she would hope that rather than it being the decision of just a few people,
such as the Planning Commission or City Council, she would prefer to see that this
issue be voted upon by the residents of Seal Beach. She said that it should be up to
the citizens to decide whether they wish to maintain the integrity of Old Town Main
Street as a unique place for tourist visitation, or whether this will be changed for the
future.
Ms. Susan Cooper, a partner in the Daily Grind, stated that at the Planning
Commission of August 9, 2000, she had questioned several of the numbers
presented by Starbucks in their traffic analysis. She said that she and her partner
could not understand why, in order to give a projection of the traffic generated at the
Seal Beach location, why Starbucks chose to use their store locations in Palm
Springs and Cathedral City, which are hot, desert retirement communities, that have
very little rush hour traffic. She stated that it didn't appear to be "comparing apples
to apples." Ms. Cooper stated that in light of this, she and her partner had decided
to call Southland Car Counters and asked them to count the cars at the Starbucks
Drive-Thru in Lakewood, thinking that this might present a better idea of the kind of
traffic Starbucks might bring. She noted that the Seal Beach Burger King count for
peak rush hour was 41 cars per hour, and that last week's peak hour in Lakewood
was 191 cars per hour, calculating to 150 more vehicle trips per hour. She reported
that Lakewood Starbucks has half the traffic that Pacific Coast Highway has yet
generates more vehicle trips per hour. Ms. Cooper stated that she was confident
that the Planning Commission wants to make an intelligent decision, and she feels
that the numbers presented are important enough that they demonstrate that the
traffic analysis previously presented were not accurate. She expressed her concern
over the safety of residents and children of Seal Beach, and for motorists driving
through town. She encouraged reversal of the Planning Commission's decision to
approve this application.
4
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2000
Chairperson Hood closed oral communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
1. Adoption of Resolution 00-19 approving Conditional Use Permit 00-2, Starbucks
Coffee, 770 Pacific Coast Highway.
Mr. Whittenberg reported that based on the discussion of the Planning Commission
at the August 9, 2000 meeting, the Commission had directed Staff to prepare a
revised resolution reflecting the modifications to the Conditions of Approval based
upon concerned expressed during the public hearing. He stated that Staff has
attempted to address all of these issues in Resolution 00-19 and are presenting it
tonight for the consideration of the Planning Commission. He noted that the
Commission could decide to adopt Resolution 00-19 as presented, or if they believe
that some of the items are not correctly represented based on the Commission's
understanding of the issues, the Commission may direct Staff to modify the
resolution to reflect those changes deemed necessary. The Commission could also
decide upon further reflection that it does not want to approve this project and direct
Staff to return at a future date with a resolution to deny this project.
Chairperson Hood stated that as he understood the options available, technically the
Planning Commission could not consider any of the issues presented during
tonight's public comments. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct as the
item had been appropriately noticed and the public had opportunity to speak at the
public hearing and the public hearing had been closed. He stated that should the
Planning Commission decide to re-open the public hearing on this issue to receive
additional public testimony, Staff would need to re-notice the newspaper and provide
a 10-day mail notice to all owners and occupants within 300 feet of the property.
Chairperson Hood confirmed that the public hearing tonight was not under question
as it was not noticed and it does not appear on the agenda as a public hearing item.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Cutuli stated that the wording of the resolution provides safeguards
against intensification of the site in going from a Burger King to a Starbucks. He
said that in particular it states that if there are any new traffic problems that arise as
a result of this business, the Starbucks drive-thru window can be closed at any time.
He stated that he believes that in fairness to Starbucks and to the community, it
would be a good idea to adopt this resolution as it is written, and if Starbucks was
lying to the community in saying that they would generate no more traffic than
5
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2000
Burger King, then they will basically be investing money into a drive-thru window that
will be shut down. Commissioner Cutuli stated that he believes free enterprise in a
community is very important, and he noted that Starbucks is not the only big chain
business within the City. He said that it was not right to restrict trade, and he will
vote to approve the resolution.
Commissioner Lyon said that he felt the City has enough control that if within the
4-month review period there were any problems, the business could be shut down
altogether. He noted that he believes the Planning Commission has done a fairly
decent job of attempting to come up with all of the answers, if traffic does increase.
Chairperson Hood stated that he was a bit disturbed by the "rather startling figures"
presented during oral communications, which cannot be taken into account. He
asked the Assistant City Attorney if it turns out that traffic is insupportable, and if the
Planning Commission were to eliminate the drive-thru window, is the City liable for
any damages or breach of promise. Mr. Boga stated that the City would not be
liable. He reported that when a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is granted, it is
approved subject to conditions, and the applicant always signs an acceptance of
those conditions. He noted that if the applicant take the benefits of a permit, they
are also subject to the burdens, so they cannot come back to the City claiming that
they did not agree to any of the conditions. Mr. Boga continued by stating that if the
Planning Commission approves this resolution tonight and Starbucks is unhappy
with any of the conditions of approval, their remedy is to appeal to the City Council
before the conditions go into effect. Chairperson Hood confirmed that once the
applicant signs the Acceptance of Conditions form, they have basically, waived their
right to legal recourse if the City enforces the conditions to which they have agreed.
Mr. Boga confirmed that this was correct.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brown to adopt Resolution 00-19 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 00-19 begins a 10-day
calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Conditional Use Permit 00-7
141 Main Street
ApplicanVOwner: Bob Griffith
6
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2000
Request:
To install a takeout only (no seating or tables) ice cream
stand in an existing retail and pharmacy building on Main
Street.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
00-26.
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
stated presented photographs of the property. He explained that the current use is
for a retail store and pharmacy, and the applicant is proposing operating hours of
8:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m., 7 days a week. Mr. Cummins noted that Staff is
recommending that the hours be amended to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sunday
through Thursday per the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP), and 8:00 a.m. to 11 :00
p.m. on the weekend. He stated that Staff completed an analysis of the parking and
has no concerns regarding this issue, as the take-out restaurant with no seating will
not generate trips to purchase just ice cream. He indicated that this was more of a
"passers by" use. He described the surrounding land uses as follows:
SOUTH & NORTH:
Retail and commercial businesses within the Main Street
Specific Plan (MSSP) Zone.
Housing in a Residential High Density (RHO) Zone.
WEST:
EAST:
Retail and commercial businesses along with housing in a
Residential High Density (RHO) Zone.
Mr. Cummins then displayed photographs of the inside of the store and described
the proposed location for the take out ice cream stand. He explained that there
would be no tables or chairs for customers anywhere on the property. He stated that
in January of 2000, the Planning Commission had heard a case presented by Staff
to make a determination as to whether take out restaurants should be considered
appropriate along Main Street. He said that from that time to the present take out
restaurants are within the C-1 Zone, which was the underlying zoning before the
MSSP was adopted. He stated that because the zoning for take out restaurants was
not adopted at that time, Staff brought the issue before the Planning Commission for
a determination as to the whether this was an appropriate use. The Planning
Commission at that time voted to approve this as an appropriate use. Mr. Cummins
stated that this application falls within the scope of this determination and that is why
this CUP is being presented tonight. He also cited the approval by the Planning
Commission in 1993 of a walk-up/take-out bakery at 123 Main Street. Staff
recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 00-7, subject to conditions, as it is
consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Mr. Cummins noted that
7
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2000
parking will not be an issue, and the building and property are adequate in shape,
size, and topography to meet the needs of the proposed use.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Brown asked how many parking spaces the pharmacy has now. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that he believed there were 6 or 8 spaces at the back of the
building. He remarked that the applicant was present and could also respond to
questions by the Commission. Commissioner Brown asked what the parking
requirement for a pharmacy was. Mr. Whittenberg responded that it was 1 parking
space for every 500 square feet of building area. Commissioner Brown asked if
Staff knew the parking requirement for this building. The Director of Development
Services responded that Staff did not have that information. Commissioner Brown
asked if this was not information that is usually included in the Staff Report. Mr.
Whittenberg explained that when parking is an issue as far as intensification of the
use of a building, Staff will include information on parking. He stated that the
Planning Commission had previously gone on record indicating that this is a use that
did not impact parking. He said that since the building already exists and has
parking and no additional floor area is being added, Staff did not look at parking as
an issue. Commissioner Brown countered that what was happening is that retail
space was being taken away, and he questioned whether the parking requirement
was being changed. He said that he recalled approving take out establishments, but
he did not recall what the determination was regarding parking. Mr. Whittenberg
reported that the determination of the Planning Commission had been that there was
no parking requirement for a take out establishment, other than the standard retail
use, which is also 1 space per 500 square feet. Commissioner Brown asked what
the parking requirement is for a restaurant. Mr. Whittenberg responded that for a
restaurant the requirement is 1 space per 100 square feet. Commissioner Brown
inquired about the parking requirement for a coffee shop. Mr. Whittenberg asked if
this was for take out only or sit down. Commissioner Brown stated that he would like
to know what both of these requirements are. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he would
proceed to research this question to acquire the information.
Commissioner Sharp questioned some of the text in the Staff Report which refers to
a "proposed parking lot" and to Condition No.7 of Resolution 00-29, which states,
"the terms of this permit shall be 12 months beginning the first day of operation of
the private parking lot." Mr. Cummins apologized for the errors and reported that
this text was meant for another project and should state "the first day of operation of
the ice cream take out stand."
Chairperson Hood asked if Mr. Whittenberg had found the information that he was
looking for. Mr. Whittenberg reported that the parking standard for coffeehouses
and dessert shops is also 1 space per 500 square feet of building area.
8
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2000
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood explained the procedure for public hearings and opened the
public hearing.
Mr. Bob Griffith stated that he has owned and operated Bob's Rexall at 141 Main
Street since 1972. He said that his proposal to add the take out ice cream sales is
an attempt to keep business sales viable. He stated that he always felt that retail,
pharmacy, greeting cards, and ice cream go together and during the last several
years ice cream sales have been removed from pharmacies. He reported that
. originally there had been an ice cream and soda fountain at this location. He
commented that every 20 or 30 years things change, and he is looking forward to
adding the ice cream take out to his pharmacy.
Ms. Shirley Barisch Varin stated that she does not understand why the City needs
another ice cream place. She said that when she goes to the other two ice cream
parlors that are on the same block most of the time they are empty; in fact, one of
them is always empty. She stated that there were so many other uses that could be
put into this location that might be better. She again stated that she did not
understand why another ice cream store was needed on the same block, especially
when they are not doing that much business.
Mr. Eldon Alexander stated that he has known the applicant for many years and he
knows that Mr. Griffith has attempted 'to create businesses at various locations in
Seal Beach to hire people and to allow them to have businesses in town. He said
that Mr. Griffith is great about supporting teenagers and giving them with their first
jobs. Mr. Alexander noted that this is a great opportunity to do this, along with the
other ice cream parlors in Seal Beach.
Mr. Wes Jacobson stated that he frequently visits the ice cream parlors on Main
Street and he doesn't see why having another one would hurt. He said that he and
his wife had counted 10 establishments along Main Street from Central Avenue to
Ocean Avenue that sell alcohol, and there is also an overabundance of hair and nail
salons. He commented that he does not see the problem with having three ice
cream parlors within the area from Pacific Coast Highway to Ocean Avenue. He
recommended approval of CUP 00-7.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Sharp stated that this sounded like a wonderful idea.
Commissioner Brown stated that because the parking requirements for the uses are
similar, he does not believe there is a problem with this application. He said he
wondered why representatives from the other ice cream parlors were not present to
9
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2000
complain about intensification abuse with traffic studies, but because it is not a
Starbucks ice cream parlor, it must be all right. He commented that he wished to
disagree with Staff regarding what the previous determinations were. Commissioner
Brown reported that as he recalled the Commission stated that if a restaurant were
adding a take-out, this did not change the parking requirement. He said that he did
not recall discussing parking when the MSSP was modified to include walk-up/take-
out establishments. He stated that if a hot dog stand applied for a business
operation on Main Street, the Commission would not simply state that there were no
parking requirements, as there would be at least one employee running the
business. He noted that in this case, the situation involved parking per square
footage and approval of this request would not affect parking by making it worse.
Commissioner Lyon stated that he was also surprised that representatives from the
other ice cream parlors had not come tonight to complain, which would lead the
Commission to assume that they are not worried about the competition.
Commissioner Cutuli stated that he was not opposed to another ice cream stand, but
he was very disappointed that the plans provided were so poorly drawn making it
difficult to tell where the service window is or what the building will look like. He said
it was difficult to discern much of anything from these plans and he recommended
that Staff require that plans submitted be clearly drawn to include all changes,
additions, etc. He recommended adding the condition that the applicant monitor the
walkway outside the pharmacy to make sure that no spilled ice cream or discarded
cones remain on the sidewalk for extended periods. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this
condition could be added, but the City does have a crew that normally cleans those
areas. He mentioned another issue that has come up with some of the other ice
cream and coffee shops along Main Street are coffee cups being discarded along
the sidewalks and tree areas. He noted that the City has placed additional trash
containers close to these businesses to help minimize this problem. He indicated
that many times the ice cream falling off the cone does not occur until the customer
is 20 feet down the street, so having this condition included might not address this
issue. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he was not sure how to handle the situation.
Commissioner Cutuli requested that the condition to require that the proprietor be
responsible for cleaning the sidewalk area in front of his business at the end of each
day. Mr. Whittenberg stated that this condition could be added to specify sweeping
and washing the area. Commissioner Brown stated that this should be a standard
condition for all business. He said that even though the City does clean, he has still
observed business owners sweeping and hosing down the sidewalks in front of their
businesses. He stated that the applicant should have no objection to this condition.
Mr. Whittenberg suggested that the language of the condition could read that "the
sidewalks in front of the business establishment shall be maintained in a neat and
clean manner by the proprietor."
Commissioner Lyon asked if this had been a problem with the other ice cream
parlors. Mr. Whittenberg responded that he had not heard of any complaints about
10
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2000
ice cream spilled on the sidewalks. He said that a few times when he has visited the
ice cream parlor on the corner of Ocean Avenue and Main Street, there have been
large groups of children eating ice cream and there are sometimes a couple of
scoops of ice cream along the sidewalk area, but they are usually cleaned up fairly
quickly.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to approve Conditional Use Permit 00-7 and
adopt Resolution 00-26 as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 00-26 begins a 10-day
calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
3. Height Variation 00-3
1608 Ocean Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Michael Levin
To construct a non-habitable covered roof access structure
(CRAS) to extend by approximately 3 feet above the height
limit within the zone in which the subject property is
located.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
00-29.
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
described the surrounding land uses as follows:
NORTH, EAST
& WEST:
Housing in a Residential High Density (RHO) Zone.
SOUTH:
The Pacific Ocean located in a Public Land Use/Recreation
(PLU/R) Zone.
Mr. Cummins stated that the property is a rectangular lot with an area of
approximately 2,500 square feet. He reported that this application very closely
11
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2000
resembles many other Height Variation (HV) applications presented and approved
by the Commission. He noted that this application falls with Section 28-2317 of the
City Code, which sets forth the conditions for approval of height variations. He
described the criteria for approval as follows:
Cl Whether not the variation will be appropriate for the architectural style of
the building. He stated that this application was substantially in keeping
with the architectural style of the building.
Cl Whether the proposed additional HV will significantly impact the primary
view of anyone within 300 feet. He stated that in 1991 the City had
adopted specific guidelines for Covered Roof Access Structures (CRAS).
He explained that this structure will have an up and back stairwell, and the
maximum horizontal square footage that the guidelines will allow is 62.25
square feet. He reported that the applicant was proposing to have
approximately 70 square feet in horizontal area, and Staff is
recommending that this be reduced to 62.25 square feet. He indicated
that the plans also reflect a barbecue area, and per City Code no
habitable or usable storage space is allowed as a part of the structure, so
Staff is recommending that this area be eliminated.
Mr. Cummins stated that Staff recommends approval of HV 00-3 because it is
consistent with the provisions of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, no
habitable space will be included within the CRAS as conditioned in Resolution
00-29, and the proposed CRAS is appropriate to the character, topography, and
character of the surrounding neighborhood.
Commissioner Questions
Mr. Whittenberg noted for the record that a letter from June Harsha in opposition to
the request was received and distributed to the Commission.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Michael Levin stated that he has been a resident of Seal Beach for eleven years
and he and his wife are attempting to begin a family and currently reside in a 900
square foot home. He reported that he has spoken with his contractor and there
should be no problem with reducing the . size of the CRAS to bring it into
conformance with City Code.
Mr. Snyder expressed his opposition to this request as he lives across the street at
1605 Ocean Avenue and he believes that this CRAS will obstruct his view of the
ocean. He noted a correction to Mr. Cummins statements, by stating that to the
12
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2000
South there is not only the Pacific Ocean but also another large unfinished structure
right on the sand behind the vacant lot, and it also obstructs his view.
Ms. Lisa Moreno stated that she lives next door to the applicant. She said that she
believed there has been an error and reported that 2 houses down at 1602 Ocean
Avenue is a vacant lot, and these are the residents who are constructing "a huge
house right on the ocean." Mr. Snyder began to rebut and when Ms. Moreno
attempted to respond, the Director of Development Services directed Ms. Moreno to
address her comments to the Commission and not to the public. Ms. Moreno stated
that the Levin's really want to have children and so that the children as they grow
older can go up on the deck, they must have a covered inside area.
Mr. Michael Levin rebutted by stated that there appeared to be a misunderstanding
on whose lot was being discussed. He reported that a lot has recently been leveled
with no notice sent to surrounding residents, so he is not sure if there is a height
variation requirement for the proposed new structure. He stated that directly behind
this lot is the large "monstrosity" that Ms. Harsha and Mr. Snyder had referred to.
He requested a copy of Ms. Harsha's letter.
Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown questioned why the Commission needed to know about
"the fertility status of the applicants." He stated that the whole issue of the CRAS or
"doghouses," as they are sometimes called, was a citywide issue that after extensive
discussions was decided by City Council some years ago. He said that as long as
the applicant's fall within the guidelines, the purpose of the Commission is simply to
"rubber stamp" the request. If the request is not within the guidelines, the
Commission will deny the request and direct the applicant to bring it under
compliance with the guidelines. He said that until the City Council changes it mind,
as long as the CRAS are within the guidelines, they will be allowed.
Commissioner Sharp stated that when he was formerly on the Planning
Commission, several applications for CRAS were presented at each meeting. He
said that the City Council had spent many hours creating the guidelines and he
agreed with Commissioner Brown that if the application falls within the guidelines, it
should be "rubber stamped" and not have to come before the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Lyon read from the City Code regarding CRAS and confirmed that
the applicant was well within the guidelines with this request.
Commissioner Sharp asked which condition required that the square footage of the
CRAS be reduced. Mr. Cummins reported that this appeared in Condition No.2 of
Resolution 00-29.
13
I. ~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2000
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Sharp to approve Height Variation 00-3 and adopt
Resolution 00-29 as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Lyon, and Sharp
None
None
Mr. Whittenberg advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 00-29 begins a 10-day
calendar appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final
and the appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
4. Site Plan Review 00-3 and Conditional Use Permit 00-8
Islands Restaurant, Seal Beach Boulevard & Lampson Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Urban Solutions, Inc. / Bixby Ranch Company
To allow construction of a 5,133 square foot single story
building with a 443 square foot patio to be operated as a
Islands Restaurant on a 1.346 acre lease area. The
operational hours for the restaurant and bar are 11 :00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, including Sunday
and 11 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays.
Recommendation: That this item be continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of September 6, 2000.
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg reported that Item NO.4 will be re-noticed in the newspaper and by
mail as it has been continued twice.
The Director of Development Services also made the Commission aware of the copy
of a memorandum distributed to the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the
Environmental Quality Control Board providing the most recent update on soil and
groundwater contamination at Pacific Coast Highway and Seal Beach Boulevard.
He also noted that the Commissioners had been provided with the agenda and
registration forms for the Planning Officials Forum to be held in Brea, California on
Thursday, October 12, 2000. He encouraged their attendance and advised that if
the Commissioners wished to attend, they should contact the Department of
Development Services so that reservations for registration could be made.
Mr. Whittenberg reported on the August 17, 2000 field trip to the Centex Homes
Development. He stated that a copy of the materials distributed to the
14
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
-,32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of August 23, 2000
Commissioners during the field trip had been provided for Commissioners Brown
and Cutuli who had not been in attendance. He mentioned that copies of photos
taken during the tour were also included. He reminded the Commission that this
issue would be coming up for review in the near future.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Brown stated that one of the speakers during oral communications
mentioned the issue of Burger King being in the MSSP Zone. He said that as he
recalled, it was not in this zone. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this is correct.
Commissioner Brown asked if there were any question at all about this. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that there was no question. Commissioner Brown asked if Staff
would include this in their report to City Council. Mr. Whittenberg reported that a
copy of the Planning Commission minutes, including public comments, is distributed
to the members of the City Council. Commissioner Brown inquired as to what the
procedure is if a question were to be raised regarding this issue. Mr. Whittenberg
responded that if the issue were appealed to the City Council, the application would
be addressed at that point. Commissioner Brown stated that he assumed there
would be an appeal.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secreta
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on September 6, 2000 approved the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of Wednesday, August 23,2000. ~ .
-
15