Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1985-01-02 S BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGE Clty Council Chambers 211 Elghth Street Seal Beach, Callfornla .. !lhe Seal Beach Planrung COllllll.lss~on meets ~n sess~on every f~rst and th~rd liednesday of each IIlOntb at 7.30 p.m. If you "ish to address the Comm~ss~on on any part~eular pubhc hear~ng "~~"" _ l,~. Bal, ...111 eal1. for pub1.~e test~mony f~rst for those ~n favor of trJe proJect, ana second, for those who I!re not 1n favor. lihen gou see that the speaker's pos~t~on ~n the center of the room ~s unoccup~ed, step up to the 11/J.crophone and when recogn~ zed bg the cha~iman, speak d~rectlg into the microphone by f~rst stat~ng gour name and address clearlg and d~st~nctly for the records. State your bus~ness as elearlg and succ~nctlg as poss~ble J a~d thelJ' wa4t..a IIlOment to see ~f the CODJUss~oners have any quest~ons ~n regard to gour .' QOlIIIIIehts or'.quest~ons. If there are DO. other quest~ons or comments, return to gour seat sp that the neX't person mag address the COIIIIIUss~on If gou "'J.sh to address the Comm:tss~on on matters other than pubhe hear~ngs, the agenda ~d.S<for that t~m& when the Cha~rman asks for comments from the publ~e Address the sslon.J.n the Bame manner as stated for publ~c hear~ngs, alwags stat~ng gour name and atfcfre'is fust. January 2, 1985 Next Resolutlon # ~ 1. Pledge of Alleglance 2 . Roll Ca 11 3. Approval of Mlnutes of December 19, 1984 4. PubllC Hearlngs: Contlnued Items' A. Admlnlstratlve Ap~eal 1-84. (Cont. from Dec. ,1984) 408 Marble Cove Way An appeal of the Department of Development Servlces' determlnatlon that constructlon of a planter wall across a drlVeway does not con for!.! to the Mun 1 c 1 pa 1 Code. ~esolutlon #1353 . EnVlronmental Revlew: Thls proJect lS categorlcally exempt from Envlron- mental Revlew, Callfornla Publlc Resources Code 15301 Class 1(E). Appllcant. Len & Debby Danlello Owner: Same . B. Condltlonal Use Permlt 20-84 Resolutlon #1354 N. Andrews & J Thompson 113t Maln Street A request to sell beer In conJunctlon wlth an eXlstlng restaurant (\leeme Works) Envlronmental Revlew: ThlS proJect lS categorlcally exempt from Envlronmental Revlew. Sectlon: 28-1300(6) App" cant: Nanette Sas 10\/ Andrews/Jam s Jane Thompson Owner: Jackle Stockon/E1s1e Lescher 5. Study Sesslon: In-Lleu Parklnc Program 6. Commlsslon Requests 7. Oral Communlcatlons 8. Commlsslon Communlcatlons 9. Report from Secretary 10 AdJournment . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 2, 1985 The Seal Beach Plann~ng Comm~ss~on met ~n regular sess~on at 7:35 p.m. w~th Cha~rman Jessner call~ng the meet~ng to order. Comm~ss~oner Hunt lead the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Cha~rman Jessner Comm~ss~oners Cov~ngton, Hunt, Perr~n, R~pperdan None Absent: Also Present: John Baucke, D~rector of Development Serv~ces Dana Ogdon, Adm~n~strat~ve A~de Ed Hurst, Bu~ld~ng Inspector Chuck Feenstra, Bu~ld~ng Inspector APPROVAL OF MINUTES Comm~ss~oner Cov~ngton ~nqu~red of staff whether a partnersh~p agreement w~th Br~an Kyle and h~s partners had been rece~ved, to wh~ch staff repl~ed ~n the aff~rmat~ve. Comm~ss~oner R~pperdan moved, second by Comm~ss~oner Cov~ngton, to approve the m~nutes of the December 19, 1984 regular meet~ng as presented. AYES: NOES: Cov~ngton, Hunt, Jessner, Perr~n, R~pperdan None Mot~on Carr~ed PUBLIC HEARING - ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL 1-84 - 408 MARBLE COVE WAY - RESOLUTION #1353 Th~s appeal of the Department of Development Serv~ces' determ~nat~on that construct~on of a planter wall across a dr~veway does not conform to the Seal Beach Mun~c~pal Code, was cont~nued from the December 5, 1984 Plann~ng Comm~ss~on meet~ng. Mr. Baucke, the Comm~ss~on Secretary, ~nd~cated the publ~c hear~ng was cont~nued to allow statements by the C~ty's bu~ld~ng ~nspectors to be ~ncluded for the Comm~ss~on's cons~derat~on of th~s matter. Baucke noted that one add~t~onal ~tem, not ~ncluded ~n the November 30, 1984 staff report was added; ~.e., on August 9, 1984, Mr. Baucke met w~th Mrs. Dan~ello to expla~n an appeal would have to be f~led ~f the planter wall could be constructed, subject to Comm~ss~on approval. Recommendat~on by staff was for den~al for reasons outl~ned ~n the staff report. Staff also recommended Comm~ss~on set a date certa~n for a publ~c hear~ng to determ~ne cond~t~ons for abatement of the nonconform~ng garage convers~on or that Comm~ss~on d~rect staff to beg~n code enforcement procedures for the ~llegal garage convers~on. Staff noted that a survey of the local ne~ghborhood found s~x ~llegal garage convers~ons. Cha~rman Jessner declared the publ~c hear~ng open to cons~der Adm~n~strat~ve Appeal 1-84. . Plann1ng Comm1ss10n M1nutes January 2, 1985 Page 2 . Len Dan1ello, 408, Marble Cove Way, the app11cant, felt the staff report overlooked some matters; 1.e.: 1) a verbal aff1rmat10n Mr. Dan1ello stated he rece1ved from Mr. Baucke regard1ng use of notar1zed letter to state that should the property be sold, the planter wall would be demo11shed; and 2) the fact that the bU1ld1ng 1nspector for the C1ty d1d not 1ssue a stop not1ce when he saw the planter wall under construct10n on August 2, 1984. Dan1ello stated he told the bU1ld1ng 1nspector (Ed Hurst) that the construct10n he not1ced was g01ng to be a planter wall and that an agreement had been reached w1th Mr. Baucke re prOV1S10n for a notar1zed letter. Dan1ello further stated the planter was f1n1shed before he was told to stop work. He further ment10ned he would work w1th staff to come up w1th a solut10n. Dan1ello then presented an on-s1te park1ng plan for the property. Th1s mod1f1ed plan would keep a port10n of the planter wall and st1ll accooonodate two veh1cles. Comm1ss10ners 1nqu1red of staff 1f the plan was acceptable; staff 1nd1cated the plan st1ll v10lated back- up space. In answer to Comm1ss10n's quest10ns, Dan1ello stated he thought the planter wall could be constructed because the he1ght was less than 42" and therefore would not need a perm1t. Dan1ello stated that the room 1n quest10n had never been used as a garage - that 1t was used as a decorat1ng off1ce for the or1g1nal model homes, and that there had never been a garage door, only s11d1ng glass doors. Comm1ss10ner R1pperdan felt grant1ng the request would be sett1ng a precedent and would be unfa1r to other Seal Beach res1dents. Comm1ss10ner Cov1ngton asked why the 3 month delay 1n f1l1ng an appeal, to wh1ch Dan1ello rep11ed that he was busy and felt he was gett1ng a raw deal from the C1ty. R1pperdan asked that Sect10n 28-42 of the Code be read so as everyone could fully understand the requ1rements for two covered park1ng spaces per un1t. Mr. Ed Hurst, C1ty'S bU1ld1ng 1nspector, was sworn 1n by the Record1ng Secretary. Hurst 1nd1cated he was present when Mr. Dan1ello f1rst came 1n for a bU1ld1ng perm1t. He stated Mr. Baucke fully expla1ned to Dan1ello that the dr1veway could not be blocked, that two park1ng spaces must be prov1ded, and that a notar1zed letter could not overr1de the zon1ng law. At the t1me of the foundat10n 1nspect1on,Hurst stated he d1d not not1ce the planter wall construct10n. He stated that dur1ng the pre grout 1nspect10n, the planter across the dr1veway was completely f1n1shed, therefore he d1d not s1gn off the grout as the planter was not supposed to be constructed. Dana Ogdon and Hurst remeasured at a later t1me and found that two cars could not be parked on the s1te. Chuck Feenstra, C1ty'S bU1ld1ng 1nspector, was sworn 1n by the record1ng secretary. He expla1ned that he was present 1n the BU1ld1ng Department when the d1scuss10n on the planter wall took place. He stated that Baucke made 1t very clear what could and could not be bU1lt on the s1te. . Reva Turch1n, 1605 Seal Way, stated that as a realtor 1n the 60's, 1t was assumed that the C1ty approved of the garage used as a off1ce S1nce the C1ty perm1tted the development. Staff rep11ed that there were no perm1ts but that what can be surm1sed from the commun1ty 1S that the garage was used as a sales off1ce and never converted back to a garage. . Plann~ng Comm~ss~on M~nutes January 2, 1985 Page 3 Debb~e Dan~ello, 408 Marble Cove, appl~cant, stated that she was present when Ed Hurst ~nspected the foundat~on. She stated that he stepped over the foundat~on for the planter wall and asked her what ~t was. She expla~ned the planter wall, whereupon Hurst told her the planter wall could not be bu~lt. She then stated that Baucke had agreed to the construct~on as long as a notar~zed letter would be prov~ded. N~ck Barbour, 404 Marble Cove, a ne~ghbor who saw the d~scuss~on between Ed Hurst and Mrs. Dan~ello on August 2, 1984, he stated that Mr. Hurst was stand~ng on top of the planter wall foundat~on. Comm~ss~oners d~scussed alternat~ves to allow park~ng. Mr. Perr~n ~nd~cated that problems occur when res~dents do not use l~censed contractors. Comm~ss~oner Hunt felt that w~th more d~scuss~on between staff and the appl~cant, a comprom~se could be reached. Cha~rman Jessner felt Comm~ss~on should deal w~th current s~tuat~on. Jay Cov~ngton moved that staff recommendat~on be upheld, that Res. #1353 deny~ng appeal of Adm~n~strat~ve Act~on be passed. He further stated that both staff and the~r test~mony and the appl~cant ~n the~rs, are stat~ng obJect~vely what they recollect. He d~d feel that the appl~cants d~d not follow the prudent rule, wh~ch ~n th~s case ~s, the notar~zed letter should have been prov~ded between the t~me of ~nspect~on and the t~me that the wall was bu~lt. Hunt seconds. . AYES: NOES: Cov~ngton, Hunt, Jessner, Perr~n, R~pperdan None Mot~on Carr~ed Mr. Cov~ngton stated that he hoped that some reasonable comprom~se would be addressed and completed ~n the future that would not requ~re a var~ance. . PUBLIC HEARING - CUP 20-84 - RESOLUTION #1354 - NAN ANDREWS & JANIS THOMPSON - l13t MAIN STREET Mr. Baucke presented the staff report wh~ch ~nd~cated a request for on- sale beer ~n conJunct~on w~th an ex~st~ng restaurant (The Ween~e Works) located at l13t Ma~n Street. He ment~oned the beer would be consumed on the prem~ses only. It was noted that the ABC cond~t~oned the l~cense so that the s~te would operate as a publ~c eat~ng place. Staff recommends approval of the CUP w~th f~ve cond~t~ons as outl~ned ~n the staff report. Mr. Jessner declared the publ~c hear~ng opened. Nan Andrews & Jan~s Thompson, the appl~cants, were ava~lable for quest~ons. Comm~ss~oner Cov~ngton asked ~f the appl~cants had any obJect~on to the hours as cond~t~oned by the ABC. Nan Andrews, 40 G~ralda Walk, Long Beach, stated that s~nce the p~er was not open, they d~d go along w~th the hours. Should they dec~de to change the~r hours ~n one year, they would have to go back to the ABC. The Comm~ss~on fully d~scussed the appl~cants' hours of operat~on. Staff ~nd~cated that on mod~f~cat~ons of cond~t~ons by the ABC, the C~ty would not be not~f~ed; therefore, ~f the hours of operat~on were changed by the ABC, the C~ty would not be aware of ~t. Nan Andrews stated that they are a fast food serv~ce, that ~t does not take longer than a half hour to buy someth~ng and consume beer. The Comm~ss~oners fully d~scussed whether hours of operat~on should be placed ~n the resolut~on approv~ng . a . Plann1ng Comm1ss10n M1nutes January 2, 1985 Page 4 " the Cond1t10nal Use Perm1t. Ment10n was made of the cond1t10ns placed on Tom's Corner Cafe, T1ny Naylor's, and Hennessey's proposed restaurant. Nan Andrews felt that 1t was her respons1b1l1ty for see1ng that c11ents are complY1ng w1th the ABC l1cense. Jan1s Thompson, 267A Term1no, Long Beach, felt that the restaurant dec1ded to stay open later, they should be able to do so. Mr. Cov1ngton stated that the r1ght to use property 1S guaranteed, but the hours to use that property 1S a pr1v1lege. That 1S why he feels the Comm1ss10n and staff should address that 1ssue. Mr. Jessner stated the Comm1ss10n 1S trY1ng to keep a control on the Ma1n Street area as to hours of operat10n. If any bus1ness feels the hours st1pulated 1n the Comm1ss10n's cond1t10ns, the operator can return to the Comm1ss10n for recons1derat10n. Cov1ngton stated a commerc1al enterpr1se does not operate 1n a vacuum and there 1S a greater relat10nsh1p between bus1ness and customers and the act1v1ty 1t generates and the res1dent1al commun1ty surround1ng the commerc1al enterpr1se. Nan Andrews stated that 1f she had known there would have been a food restr1ct10n operat1ng hour placed on the1r bus1ness, she would not have app11ed for a beer l1cense. Mr. Cov1ngton 1nqu1red as to add1t10nal landscap1ng 1n the front of the fac1l1ty. Jan1s Thompson ment10ned uS1ng flower boxes but were adv1sed that preV10US flower boxes became trash receptacles. Nan Andrews agreed w1th the boxes, 1f trash would not become a problem. Scott Andrews, 40 G1ralda Walk, partner 1n the Ween1e Works, was opposed to the grant1ng of hours of operat10n restaurant by restaurant. He felt that maX1mum hours of operat10n should be placed on all bus1nesses, for example, pass a law wh1ch states no food or beverage could be served after JD1dn1ght on Ma1n Street. Cov1ngton stated that 1f the Comm1ss10n were to estab11sh an arb1trary t1me, 1t would be unfa1r because each estab11shment should be treated on 1tS own mer1ts. Perr1n asked 1f the app11cants would ab1de by the 10 p.m. alcoho11c serv1ng t1me and 11 p.m. food serv1ng t1me. App11cants rep11ed 1n the aff1rmat1ve. Mr. Jessner declared the pub11c hear1ng be closed. Mr. Hunt moved that resolut10n #1354 be approved, R1pperdan seconds. Mr. Perr1n requested Mr. Hunt to recons1der amend1ng the mot10n. Mr. Hunt asked that a vote be taken. Mr. Cov1ngton stated that he would vote aga1nst the matter because he felt to approve such a mot10n would estab11sh a new precedent wh1ch would be negat1ve to the commun1ty. Mr. Perr1n also 1nd1cated he would vote aga1nst the mot10n because he felt the app11cant could l1ve w1th the hours of operat10n as noted. Mr. Jessner also 1nd1cated he would vote aga1nst the mot10n as he felt there should be a l1m1tat10n on the food sales 1n order to be cons1stent w1th the other CUP's granted. Mr. Hunt asked to amend h1s mot10n - after d1scuss10n by the Comm1ss10ners - to 1nclude a 12 m1dn1ght clos1ng t1me for the serV1ce of food 1n the summert1me (Apr1l 1 to October 31) and for an 11 p.m. clos1ng t1me dur1ng w1nter t1me (November 1 to March 31. Th1s Cond1t10nal Use Perm1t 20-84 to be for a one year term. Mr. R1pperdan second the amended mot10n. For the sake of cons1stency, Mr. Baucke asked that the reV1ew per10d be 1n ~1X months. Comm1ss10ners d1scussed and agreed to add1ng phrase to concht10n #3 that "any change 1n the hours of operat10n by the ABC the app11cant 1S requ1red to come before the Plann1ng Comm1ss10n w1th an amendment to th1s app11cat10n w1thout fee." . Plann1ng Comm1ss1on M1nutes January 2, 1985 Page 5 AYES: NOES: Cov1ngton, Hunt, Jessner, Perr1n, R1pperdan None Mot1on Carr1ed Cha1rman Jessner declared a recess at 10:40 p.m. Meet1ng was reconvened at 10:55 p.m. by the Cha1rman. STUDY SESSION - IN LIEU PARKING PROGRAM Mr. Baucke presented the staff report. He 1nd1cated th1s was a study the department d1d on 1n-11eu park1ng wh1ch was one of the recommendat1ons that the Downtown Task Force. The study looked at the recommendat1ons of the Task Forces, problems, etc., pre11m1nary cost and fee programs and those types of th1ngs needed to 1mplement such a program. Baucke stated 1t does not address all the 1ssues and all the methodolog1es, and does not spec1f1cally take 1n a shared park1ng concept, but bas1cally deals w1th a space tradeoff. . Mr. R1pperdan ment10ned the format1on of a park1ng d1str1ct as a supplement to the program. Staff 1nd1cated a d1str1ct could be set up through leg1slat1on, poss1bly through a Bus1ness Improvement D1str1ct (BID). Mr. Baucke stated a survey had been made of c1t1es w1th park1ng programs: Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Wh1tt1er and Santa Mon1ca. There were no cons1stenc1es found among the programs - from $150 per space to $15,000. They var1ed s1gn1f1cantly based on po11t1cal ram1f1cat1ons of the park1ng s1tuat1on. Reva Turch1n, 1625 Seal Way, asked how many 1n l1eu have been sold. Baucke stated approx1mately 20 spaces were sold. The spaces would be a recorded legally b1nd1ng document on the property owner. The property owner does not know the l1ab1l1ty at th1s t1me. Mrs. Turch1n felt 1t was 1rregular for anyone to t1e themselves down l1ke th1s unt1l they know the full cost. She asked what happens when the Ma1n Street park1ng lot 1S f1lled and wondered why plans were be1ng made to encourage bus1nesses wh1ch would need many park1ng spaces. Baucke stated that the traff1c consultant and the C1ty have yet to determ1ne exactly how many spaces would be feas1ble. . Charles Antos, 316 10th Street, expla1ned the h1story of the Ma1n Street Park1ng D1str1ct that resulted 1n the lot that goes from Ma1n Street to 10th Street 1n the 100 block. He 1nd1cated an assessment d1str1ct was formed that took 1nto the commerc1al propert1es along Ocean Avenue and the 100 block of Ma1n Street. The purpose was to purchase the lots that we have today and to 1mprove them. Those propert1es owners comm1tted themselves to pay for them 1f the park1ng meters were not suff1c1ent to pay for them. As 1t was the park1ng revenues were suff1c1ent to pay for the lots. Mr. Antos 1nd1cated that Laguna Beach used shuttle buses to transport from remote park1ng areas. Mr. Antos ment10ned a res1dent1al and commerc1al park1ng study he had f1n1shed wh1le 1n employ w1th the C1ty. That study 1nd1cated alternat1ves to park1ng. One of the alternat1ves explored was to part1ally excavate the P.E. r1ght of way for park1ng and plac1ng the park back on the top of 1t. That was reJected for f1nanc1al .. P1ann~ng Comm~ss~on M~nutes January 2, 1985 Page 6 reasons. Another suggest~on was to cut back E~senhower Park to Ocean Avenue and put park~ng there, rep1ac~ng the park back on top - also reJected for f~nanc~a1 reasons. Another suggest~on was to make use of aer~a1 photos of the downtown area and f~nd out ava~lable park~ng on back of commerc~a1 propert~es. Antos ment~oned the Ma~n Street Spec~f~c Plan wh~ch had a prov~s~on to explore shared park~ng. He recommended more ~ntenslve use of ex~st~ng park~ng. M~tz~ Morton, 153 13th Street, expressed concern about the res~dents. Felt the ma~n problem was whether the Ma~n Street landlord would approve such a system of better ut~l~z~ng the back of the~r property for park~ng. The landlords have not cooperated ~n the past. Regard~ng the 8th Street park~ng lot, ~t was suggested the C~ty charge $5 or $10 per month per space. The merchants sa~d ~f they ~ncreased the park~ng, the merchants could not afford ~t and would not pay for ~t. There are problems ~n park~ng on the slde streets now and w~ll be compounded when Hennessey's opens, because she feels c1~ents w~11 use s~de streets rather than use the C~ty lot for park~ng. Mrs. Morton felt that the park~ng problem should be dealt w~th as qu~ck1y as poss~ble before summer arr~ves. . Mr. Baucke stated that at the end of the month a consultant w~ll be deta~l~ng park~ng ava~lab~l~ty throughout the C~ty us~ng aer~a1 photos. Mr. Cov~ngton suggested that staff make local newspapers aware that th~s top~c ~s be~ng cont~nued. COMMISSION REQUESTS There were no Comm~ss~on requests. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral commun~cat~ons. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS There were no Comm~ss~on commun~cat~ons. REPORT FROM SECRETARY Mr. Baucked ~nd~cated the Hennessey appeal would be heard on the 14th of January, along w~th the Szczcerban appeal. RESOLUTION NO. 1351 The C~ty Attorney has rev~ewed the reso1ut~on approv~ng Hennessey's restaurant, ~ndlcat~ng some changes. Those changes were deta~led by Mr. Baucke. Mr. Cov~ngton moved to approve Reso1ut~on #1351, R~pperdan seconds. AYES: NOES: Cov~ngton, Hunt, Jessner, Perr~n, R~pperdan None Mot~on Carr~ed ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Cha~r, w~th the consent of the Comm~ss~on, to adJourn the January 2, 1985 regular meet~ng at 12:21 a.m. . ~..,t ~/~~- Record~ng Secretary o -.. . o January 2, 1985 City of Seal Beach Director of Plannlng 211 8th Street Seal Beach, CA 90740 Re: 320 Main Street To John Baucke: This is a letter of intention proposing an ice cream shop selling frozen yogurt, cookies, ice cream, milk, soft drinks and coffee to be located on the property at 320 Main Street. Respectfully submitted, . -r~~ Thomas Schuveiller TS:ml .