Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1986-01-02 SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Clty Council Chambers 211 Elghth Street Seal Beach, Callfornla -r . The Seal Beach Planrung Comnuss~on meets ~n sess~on every f~rst and th~rd Wednesday of each month at 7.30 p.m. If you w~sh to address the Comm~ss~on on any part~cular publ~c hear~ng ~tem, the Cha~rman w~ll call for pubhc test~mony f~rst for those ~n favor of the proJect, and second, for those who are not ~n favor. When you see that the speaker's pos~t~on ~n the center of the room ~s unoccup~ed, step up to the IlUcrophone and when recogn~zed by the Cha~rman, speak d~rectly ~nto the IlUcrophone by f~rst stat~ng your name and address clearly and d~s~nctly for the records. State your bus~ness as clearly and succ~nctly as poss~ble and then wa~t a moment to see ~f the Comnuss~oners have any quest~ons ~n regard to your comments or quest~ons. If there are no other quest~ons or comments, return to your seat so that the next person may address the Comnuss~on. If you w~sh to address the Comnuss~on on matters other than publ~c hear~ngs, the agenda prov~des for that t~me when the Cha~rman asks for comments from the publ~c. Address the ComnusSJon ~n the same manner as stated for publ~c hear~ngs, always stat~ng your name and address f~rst January 2 1986 ~ext Resolution ~1409 1 f!!~K!_2!_A!!!K!!g~! 2 !2!L~!!! 3 !!~2I!_!I2~_~!~I!!!I! A Zoning Text Amendment 8-85 CUP for Entertainment Cafes IC1ty Attorney requests continuance to the meeting of January 15, 1986 I ,e 4 ~2!!!!!!L~!!!!!~!r A n!!!_!!!:!!!L!=U 148 7th Street IZember/Donnelsonl A request for structural improvements and enlargements to an exist1ng non- conforming property containing four units 5 f!h!!~_B!!I!!!g~ A ~2n!_~h!ng!_!=!! Resolut1on #1408 A request to Change the zoning designations of 139 66 acres of land commonly known as the Hellman Propert} located northeast of Pacific Coast H1gh- way and west of Seal Beach Boulevard from the General Commerc1al IC-21 Low Density Residential (R-1I and Oil Extract10n lO-EI Zones to the newly adopted Specific Plan Regulation IS P R 1 Zone Environmental Review Regative Declaration 1-88 has been prepared 1n lieu of an Environmental Impact Report Applicant City of Seal Beach Property Owner Hellman Estate . . Planning Commission Agenda January 2. 1985 Page 2 B Conditional Use Per.it 1-88 ------------------------iesolution #1406 A request to permit a planned sign program for the Seal Beach Center Applicant/Owner Seal Beach Center' Coast Property Management Environmental Review categorically exempt Review [California Section 15301] The proJect lS from Environmental Government Code Code Sections 28-1803 28-2503 6 !~h!~Y!!~_!!!!![! A Review of CUP 18-84 (Hennessey's) 7 ~2..!!!!2n_B!gy!!!! 8 Q[!!-~2..Yn!~!!!2n!_![2._!h!_AY~!!n~! 9 ~2..!!!!2n_~2..yn!~!!!2n! . 10 A~j2Y[n.!n! Agenda Forecast January 15 1986 -Zoning Text Amendment 8-85 CCP for Entertainment Cafes -Zoning Text Amendment 11-85 CCP for Temporary BUlldings I Trallers -Variance 1-86 Addltlon to Son-conforming Commercial BUlldings with less than the requlred parking 1500 Pacific Coast Hi~hwav -Conditional rse Permit 5-86 99 Marina Drive (Chevron CSA IDe Expanslon of Existing On-Shore Oil Filtration/Separation Facilltl . . . . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JA~UARY 2 1986 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in ~~gy!!~ session at 7.38 p.m. with Chairman Jessner calling the meeting to order. Commissioner Hunt led the Salute to the Flag RQ~~_QA~~ Present: Chairman Jessner Commissioners Covington. Hunt, Perrin, Ripperdan Absent None Also Present: John M. Baucke DIrector of Development Services RgeQRI_fRQM_~gQRgIAR! Mr. Baucke. Commission Secretary, indicated that there was one item to report ZTA 8-85. a CUP for EntertaInment Cafes. be moved to the January 15 1986 PlannIng Commission meetIng as per the City Attorney's request Mr. RIpperdan moved to contInue ZTA 8-85 to the January 15. 1986 Planning Commission meetIng. Mr Covington seconds AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt None Jessner. Perrin, Ripperdan Motion Carried QQN~gNI_~A~gNQAR There was one Item on the consent calendar for the Commission's consideration: A) Plan Review 3-85 Mr. Baucke indicated that this item was a request for structural improvements and enlarg~ments to an existing non-conforming property containing 4 units. Mr. Baucke presented the facts of that contaIned in a memorandum dated 12/30/85. He then presented staff's recommenda- tIon outlIning 3 alternative actions to be considered by the CommIssion. Mr. Baucke made hImself avaIlable to the Commission for questIons. ChaIrman Jessner asked the applicant if he wished to speak. ~!!!__~l~Y~~!Q~. Zember Construction. spoke in reference to staff's alternative ~2 regarding the removal of the half bath. He stated that he and his client WIshed to have the half b~th remain in the proposed plans Mr. Jessner and Mr. Stevenson discussed the proposed additional parking of a 2 car carport and the curb cut requirements Mr. Jessner asked staff if In their opinIon this addItion would create hIgher densIty. Mr. Baucke . e e PlannIng CommisSIon MeetIng of January 2. 1986 Page 2 indicated that it would not. Mr Jessner felt that the overall plan would be an improvement. Mr. Ripperdan felt that approving this would extend the life of a non-conforming structure. Mr Covington and Mr RIpperdan discussed the modIfIcatIon of alternatIve #2 to allow the half bath to remain. Mr Ripperdan concurred with Mr. Covington's modifIcation. ~r. Jessner asked if any other members of the audIence wished to speak No other members spoke. Mr. Hunt felt that ZTA 2-84 needed further defInition. but did not agree that this applIcation should be held up for this reason alone. He approved of the plans as proposed by the applicant. ~r. Covington and Mr Hunt discussed various proposed changes in the square footage. Mr. Stevenson stated to the Commission that the plans were drawn to the best of his abilIty based on what staff had Instructed hIm he could or could not do. Mr. Covington requested clarification from staff on this matter R!n!_Qg~Qn. Administrative Aide Indicated that the applicant's agent had come to the City and dIscussed the tentatIve proposal. Mr. Ogdon advised that thIS request would have to be reviewed by Mr. Baucke and that the proposal should be clearly described by a set of plans Staff could not acurrately determine the applicant's request and possIble review problems until a set of plans were provided Mr. Covington moves to approve P R. 3-85 with the conditions that the applicant submit revised plans limiting the total additional lIvIng area to a maximum of 658.63 sq. ft and to direct staff to work In conjunction with the applicant to revise a plan that satIsfies both theIr needs with the half bath remaining. Mr Ripperdan seconds Chairman Jessner spoke in reference to the great amount of time spent by the Planning Commission. City Council and citizens of the communIty In putting together ZTA 2-84 to be able to do what could not be done in the past. He stated he would vote In favor of thIS item Mr PerrIn stated that due to his prior knowledge of this Item and his friendship wIth the applicant. he would abstaIn from voting. AYES: ~OES: ABSTENTION: Covington. Hunt, Jessner Ripperdan None Perrin MotIon CarrIed . Planning CommissIon Meeting of January 2 1986 Page 3 fY~&!Q_~g!~!~~_=_!Q~g_Q~!~~g_!=!~ Mr. Baucke presented the staff report for this Item, a request to change the zoning designation from C-2 (General Commercial), R-l (Low Density Residential) and O-E (011 Extraction) Zones to the newly adopted Speclfic Plan Regulatlon Zone. Mr Baucke presented facts related to the Hellman property and a previous history of this item for the benefit of the Commission and the audience. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution #1406 approving the change of zone and amendment of the zoning map for the Hellman property as noted In Exhibit "A" of the staff report Approval is recommended of such change of zone to the City Council. Mr. Baucke made himself available to the Commission for questions. Chairman Jessner declares the public hearIng open. e Qh~r!!!__!~12!, 316 10th St. recommended 2 changes to the proposed Resolution In reference to this proposal being in conformance wIth the Hellman Specific Plan. Mr. Jessner explained to Mr. Antos that the intent here was not to make this conform with the Hellman Specific Plan. Mr. Antos stated that he was In oPPosltion to this request if it was not to be in conformance wIth the Hellman Specific Plan Mr. Baucke clarified for members of the audlence the intent of this zone change He explaIned that owners of the Hellman property were only selling 139 of the 180 acres. The Hellman property has a Specific Plan which governs the development of a 180 acre site. If any portion of the Hellman property is sold in a piecemeal fashlon. then the Specific Plan is functionally invalid. The Hellman owners are currently attempting to sell a portion of the Hellman property WhICh is prevIously governed by this Specific Plan. As such. a new Speclfic Plan would have to be adopted by the City for this new smaller area when proposed for development. In an attempt to allow the City and its cltlzens a larger Influence on any new SpecifIc Plan to be developed In conjunction with the site, the new Speclfic Plan Regulations and Specific Plan Regulatlon Zone were developed. ~r Jessner spoke in reference to the new Specific Plan provision and zone change placing the CIty in the leadership role of determinlng what wlll be built on this property. Mr. Baucke read varIOUS portions of code sections pertaining to this matter for the audlence RYlh__~~g!!~, Crestview Ave., requested that ~r. Baucke explain the minimum area he had discussed in the staff report. ~r Baucke explalned that this SPR Zone pertained to properties larger than 2.5 acres. ~!~2~_~~g!1~~ 901 Catalina, requested clarification of what exactly an SPR Zone is. e e Planning CommissIon MeetIng of January 2. 1986 Page 4 e He wanted his property to be Included in this zone change. Mr. Perrin stated that SPR Zone. In this Instance. allows the City to determine what the development of the Hellman property will be He explained to Mr Bagstad that his property was not larger than 2.5 acres and is already developed. therefore it could not be re- zoned to SPR Mr Jessner discussed with Mr Bagstad that this issue was not new to Seal Beach. but many public hearIngs had been held on this matter Staff gave him a copy of the text approved by the City Council to Mr. Bagstad to provIde him with a better explanation of an SPR Zone. ~~rg~r!l__l!~!!!r. 1709 CrestvIew. requested an explanation of low-densIty and discussed liquefaction with the Commission Mr. Perrin and Mr. Covington told Mrs. Jeweler that Seal Beach citizens will have the oppor- tunity to speak at all publIC hearings and address any concerns when plans are proposed l!!_~!!k!r!~~. 1011 Electric. spoke in reference to the various zones mentioned tonight and their relationship to the General Plan. Q~!~~_~~~~k. 1685 Crestview. stated that he did not feel the notIce of public hearIng received by the surrounding property owners adequately explained the SPR Zone Mr. Swank suggested that the notices be made more clear to advIse property owners of what was being proposed He felt that the 139 acres should not be segregated for zoning. but that the entIre Hellman property be re-zoned Qh~r!!!_A~l~!. spoke in opposition to the SPR Zone as proposed and suggested that the City expand the proposed plan and put it into conformance wIth the Hellman Specific Plan. He felt that the Hellman owners could enter into a development agreement with the City Mr. Antos felt the City had no control with only 75% of the property re-zoned. Mr. Baucke indicated that he did not feel there was a problem wIth control since any development could be condItioned to address any area of concern. but staff had no problem with the inclusion of the entire 180 acres. g!~~~_~~g!l~~ felt that most of the concerns voiced here tonight were in regard to Sections 28-2951 - 28-2955 of the proposed ordinance. l!!_~l~__Qr!I. 641 Island VIew Dr . spoke in reference to leveling off this property In terms of development. Mr Covington explained that the City would be giving greater guidance by the adoption of this zone change. ~r St. Orey felt it would be in the City's best interest if the Commission voted to approve the entIre Hellman property be re-zoned to SPR. Mr. Hunt requested staff to clarify why certain portions of the Hellman property were excluded from this zone change. Mr. Baucke explained that the reason behind staff proposing the SPR Zone for a portion of the property was due to the fact that this portion was being sold by the Hellman Estate and was ready for development. Mr. CovIngton felt that the flood control property should be Included in the proposed zone change Q~!~~__~~~~k was concerned that if the zoning designation was split. the City would loose the abilIty to coordinate the property ~!~_f!l!r!~~. 935 Catalina. asked staff if the adoption of this zone change throws out the Hellman e e Planning Commission Meeting of January 2, 1986 Page 5 Specific Plan and if there was a time limit on this process. Mr Baucke indicated that the Hellman SpecIfic Plan would still be the effective Specific Plan under the SPR Zone unless the City Council revokes it, and there is no time limit for the City to develop a new Specific Plan Mr. Peterson did not feel confident that the City would not loose control He discussed there being no buffer zone and felt that the lIquefactIon issue was basically excluded from the prior project Mr Covington spoke In favor of the zone change stating that it will reverse the entire process of what the City had previously. As no other members opposition to this hearing of the item, audience spoke In favor of nor In Chairman Jessner closed the public Mr. Covington moved to continue Zone Change 1-86 to give staff the opportunity to expand the boundaries of the proposed SPR Zone and include the entire Hellman property and Orange County Retention Basin, and staff is to re-notice the surrounding property owners with the modified boundaries. Mr Ripperdan seconds. e AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt. Jessner, Perrin, Ripperdan None Motion CarrIed ~Y~~!Q_H!AR!~g_=_QQ~Q!I!Q~A~_y~g_e!RM!I_!=!~_=_~~r~!~~_Q~~l~t Mr Baucke presented the staff report for this item, a request to approve a Planned Sign Program wIth a 47% height deviation from the sign code for a center identification sign Mr Baucke out- lined the facts relating to the subject property giving a history of this item for the benefit of the CommIssion. Mr. Baucke specifically noted that a court date of January 10, 1986 was scheduled for the prosecution of Coast Property Management, applicant. Staff recommended denIal of CUP 1-86 for reasons #1-9 as noted In the staff report. The Commission and staff discussed the varIOUS proposals discussed wIth the applicant. Mr. Jessner made reference to the fact that merchants of the Seal Beach Center have presented a petItion dated November 4, 1985 against the removal of the readerboard Chairman Jessner declares the public hearing open. A~1h2~!__e!Y~~2, 1642 Ocean representative of Coast Property application with the Commission modify the center sign. He felt had done a substantial amount of Terrace, Rancho Palos Verdes, Management, discussed the and the submittal of a plan to that Coast Property Management work to aesthetically improve e e Planning Commission Meeting of January 2. 1986 Page 6 the sign. Mr. Baucke stated to the applicant that what they have proposed is not a Planned Sign Program. Coast Property Management was only modifYIng 1 sign. Mr. Covington concurred wIth staff in that it was a step In the right direction. but not a Planned Sign Program. Mr. Baucke Indicated that the City is asking for a design concept as a whole. Currently. the submIttal contains too many colors and the rear portion of the building IS not addressed. Chairman Jessner explained to the applicant that the CIty is requesting a comprehensIve program of the entire center Mr. Plusso stated that it was his understandIng that the main sign In front was the only one that needed to be corrected and requested clarification of what needed to be done. Mr Covington and Mr. Jessner discussed with the applIcant possible alternatives for a Planned Sign Program. Mr. Baucke noted that an architect should be selected to determine limItatIons on color. SIze and style to incorporate all these elements into a Planned Sign Program e Mr Hunt asked if the approval of the center sign as presented would take the Center and the CIty out of litigation. Mr. Baucke indIcated that it would. Mr. Perrin stated that the City has been requesting for the past 2 years to have a Planned Sign Program brought before the Commission. and the applicant has faIled to do so He also noted that he would vote against any approval untIl a complete Planned Sign Program was presented. The Commission and staff discussed the approval of the center sign as proposed without being a part of the Planned SIgn Program in that it would be a separate item for a variance. and could not be approved tonight and would need to go before the Commission at a later date for consideratIon What had been requested is approval of a Planned Sign Program WhICh had not been presented tonIght. Chairman Jessner asked if any members of the audience wished to speak. N!~~~_~!!~~m!~ 513 Riviera Dr.. tenant of the Seal Beach Center presented a letter dated July '83 from Coast Property Management indicating that the Center did have a Planned Sign Program approved by the City She felt that the readerboard was essential and made reference to the traffic speed past the Center and that of Main Street which was much slower Mr. Baucke discussed with Mrs. Blackman the volunteer sign program WhICh the Center had previously. Mr. Perrin explained to Mrs. Blackman that he was not against the readerboard. but he did not want to approve Coast Property Management's modIfIcation to the center - e Planning Commission Meeting of January 2. 1986 Page 7 sIgn as a Planned Sign Program when it was not a sign program. I~~~__Q~LY~!, 4781 Ironwood. tenant of the Seal Beach Center. discussed with staff and the Commission what the Intent actually was of a Planned SIgn Program and was concerned wIth the amount of money that the merchants of the Center would have to spend in correcting this problem. M!~!!_H!r~~!l~. 1136 Kibbons. Stanton, was concerned with removal of the readerboard. Mr. Covington suggested that the merchants of the Center notify Mr Moss and prompt him to start the process of development of a Planned Sign Program with the use of an architect or design professional to determIne an overall concept of the design of a Planned Sign Program. I!!!__I!!~!!!~. 513 Riviera. spoke in reference to future enforcement of Seal Beach Center tenants in a Planned Sign Program As no other members of the audience spoke neither in favor of nor in opposition to this item, ChaIrman Jessner closed the public hearing e Mr. Covington moves to continue CUP 1-86 on the grounds that the information that has been developed and the new response from the management representative and the tenants give ample expectancy of a true Planned Sign Program that wIll be developed and the issue be solved Mr. Baucke indicated that this would be a problem due to the January 10. 1986 court date and a fInal determination was needed. Mr. Jessner suggested amending Resolution #1406 as follows: #2 to read "The sign program as presented includes a number of individual signs that do not promote a good design for the Center as a whole. ". #8. 2nd sentence after the word "to". delete end of sentence and add "submit a Planned Sign Program for the entIre Center Including all the correctIons described above.". Mr Baucke noted 2 additions. in Resolution title, after CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1- 86 add "WITHOUT PREJUDICE", and in the paragraph beginning wIth "NOW. THEREFORE.". add after 1-86 "without prejudice". Mr CovIngton moved to adopt Resolution THE PLANSING COMMISSIO~ OF THE CITY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1-86. A REQUEST TO PROGRAM FOR THE SEAL BEACH CENTER (921 with the corrections noted by staff and Perrin seconds #1406. A RESOLUTION OF OF SEAL BEACH DENYING APPROVE A PLANNED SIGN Pacific Coast Highway). the Commission. Mr. AYES' NOES: Covington. Hunt. Jessner. None Perrin. Ripperdan Motion Carried e . . . PlannIng CommIssion MeetIng of January 2 1986 Page 8 Mr Jessner explained that Included in the ResolutIon so Planned SIgn Program back consIderatIon the term "wIthout preJudIce" was to enable the applicant to brIng a before the CommissIon for theIr ~~HgQ~~gQ_MA!!gR~ There was one scheduled matter Item' A) RevIew of CUP 18-84 (Hennessey's) Mr Baucke presented that contained in a memorandum dated December 30. 1985 Mr Baucke Indicated that after reVIew of the conditIons establIshed for the approval of CUP 18-84 and VarIance 14-84. staff has found 2 Items (noted In staff report) which the applicant has not complIed with. Staff recommends continuance of the applIcant's probationary perIod for 3 additIonal months pursuant to their compliance of all condItIons Mr. PerrIn and Mr Baucke discussed the possIbIlity of a shorter time perIod for complIance ~~i~~_K~l~, 242 6th St . spoke in reference to conditIon #10 regarding the removal of the garage doors Mr Kyle Indicated there was a problem wIth vagrants. and he wanted to leave the doors on. ~!mill~_~h~Q~Y~~. representatIve of Hennessey's, spoke In reference to the satellite dISh locatIon He explained to the CommIssIon that Hennessey's had gone to some expense enclosing the satellite dISh and relocating it at this tIme would be considerably expen- sive Mr Shecourt explaIned to the CommIssion the problems they had had wIth the orIgInal contractors who Installed the dISh l!m_gil~~~!~~, 1011 Electric, spoke in reference to the removal of the garage doors He felt the doors should be left open at all tImes Mr GIlkerson also spoke In reference to the 6 parkIng spaces desIgnated as employee parking and felt that the sIgn should be changed to allow for public parkIng Mr. GIlkerson asked staff for clarIfIcation on provisIons for banners ~h~~l~!_A~~~!, 316 10th St., spoke in reference to the 6 parking spaces being designated as public parkIng, and Mr. Antos felt that the closing of the garage doors at 2 00 a m would be nOIsy Mr Perrin moves to contInue CUP 18-84 and Variance 14-84 for a perIod of 3 months at which time the following will be addressed 1) CondItion #10 regardIng the garage doors, 2) SatellIte dISh brought into complIance, 3) The employee parking signage wIll be changed to allow for publIC parkIng, and 4) DiscontInuance of the banner sIgns. Mr Ripperdan seconds. ~r Hunt discussed wIth staff and the CommIssion the employee parkIng and felt it should not be changed untIl more thought was put Into the matter Mr Baucke dIscussed wIth Mr CovIngton the legal aspects of the banner signage. Mr. Baucke felt employees would still be utilIzIng the parking whether or not It was specifically desIgnated, and that this matter would be one that the CIty Attorney might lIke to address - Planning Commission MeetIng of January 2, 1986 Page 9 AYES: NOES: Covington. Hunt. Jessner. Perrin. Ripperdan None Motion Carried Mr. Baucke requested that one addItional scheduled matter item be added to the agenda: B) The determination by the Planning Commission under "SimIlar Retail or Service Uses CaterIng General to Consumers" When interpreted by the Planning Commission as meaning the "General Intent of the Service CommercIal Uses and the General Plan" Mr Baucke indIcated that he had an applIca- tion for a yogurt shop ~n Main Street and felt that the particular code sections dealing with restaurants did not apply. He read a portion of the Municipal Code pertaining to restaurants for the Commission. Mr Baucke found that this particular appli- cation needed a determinatIon by the PlannIng CommIssion as it was not specifIcally addressed under the Municipal Code as to what it would be consIdered. Staff and the Commission discussed the operation of this proposed yogurt shop and found a number of dIstinctions between this type of business and a restaurant. It was the Commission's determination that this particular busIness would not be considered to be a restaurant under the Seal Beach MunIcipal Code a ~QMM!~~!QN_R~2~~~I~ There were no Commission Requests. QRA~_QQMM~N!QAI!QN~ ~h~~!!~__Anl~~ 316 10th St.. requested staff to ask the City Attorney for clarificatIon and to provide the code sections approving the taking of parkIng spaces from one property to give to another property. specifically noting the Hennessey application. ~QMM!~~!QN_QQMM~N!QAI!QN~ Mr. Covington discussed with staff payment to the Planning CommIssioners for their attendance at the PlannIng Commission meetIngs over the past several months. Mr. Baucke indicated there had been a delay, but warrant requests were being issued and would be before the City CouncIl for approval thIS month. ARlQYR~M~NI It was the concensus of the CommISSIon and so directed by Chair to adjourn the regularly scheduled meeting of the PlannIng CommissIon at 12:31 a.m e -~~--------------------- Recording Secretary