Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1986-05-07 SEf' ~EACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Clty Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California / . !'he Seal Beach Planning Commission meets in session every first and third Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. If you wish to address the Commission on any particular public hearing item, the Chairman will call for public testimony first for those in favor of the project, and second, for those who are not in favor. When you see that the speaker's posi tion in the center of the room is unoccupied, step up to the microphone and when recognized by the Chairman, speak directly into the microphone by first stating your name and address clearly and distinctly for the records. State your business as clearly and succinctly as possible and then wait a moment to see if the Commissioners have any questions in regard to your comments or questions. If there are no other questions or comments, return to your seat so that the next person may address the Commission. If you wish to address the Commission on matters other than pUblic hearings, the agenda provides for that time when the Chairman asks for comments from the public. Address the Commission in the same manner as stated for public hearings, always stating your name and address first. ~a~. 7. 1986 XEXT RESOLrTIOX -1422 1. fl~gg~_~f_All~gi~ll~~ 2 . ~~lL~~ll 3. ~~2~r!_fr~~_~~~r~!~r~ 4. ~Qll!~ll!_~~l~llg~r A. f!~n_H!!!!!_l~=!! (ParquPI 1617 Seal Way . A request for the addition of a patio deck and replacement of an existing window with Sliding glass door to a non-conforming duplex. 5. f.!!.l1.!!LH!.ui!H~! A. Continued Items 1. ~~~!An~!_l=!! Resolution #1410 (Continued from April 16. 19861 A request to: 1. ~ake structural improvements and additions to a non-conforming building. 2. Provide less than the required parking. 3. Not provide a loading zone. 4. Allow the construction of a new addiiton to be located within a required sideyard setback. Code Sections: 28-1402. 28-2311. 28-1403. 28-2500 Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review [California Government Code Section 15301Iel). Applicant: Tom Schuveiller/Brian Kyle . .' . Planning Commission Agenda ~ay 7. 1986 Page 2 2. ~Q~R!I!Q~A~_~~~_f~~M!I_!=!!~_~=!! Resolution 1412 YAR!A~~g_2=U 909 Ocean Ave. I Senor Corky 's) (Continued from April 16. 19861 A request to permit a restaurant with a take-out counter with less than the required parking. and an entertainment cafe license for live jazz music. Code Sections: 28-1300(6)lbl.28-1304. 28-1300 (6)1 i). 28-2500. 28-2503 Environmental RevieK: .This project is categorically exempt from CEQA Review [California Government Code Section 15061Idl]. Applicant: Corky Gill (Corky Corps) Owner: Same 3. ~~~~!l!~~!!_~~~_f~t!!l_!!=!~ Y!t!!~~L!=!! 148 7th Street (Donnelson) (Continued from April 23. 1986) Resolution #1421 . A request for minor structural alterations and enlargement to a non-conforming four-plex Kithout providing the required parking and with less than the required inter10r. streets ide and rear setbacks. Code Section: 28-2407(A)(3). 28-801(21. 28-802121 Environmental Review: This project 1s categorically exempt from Environmental Review [California Government Code Section 15301(e)121]. Applicant: Dennis Donnelson/Zember Construction B. ~ew Items (~onel 6. ~~h~~Y!~~_M!ll~t~ A. Resolution #1414 Approving Variance 3-86 (Watson) 209 Ocean B. Resolution #1418 ApprOVing Variance 4-86 (~arsh) 209 14th Street C. Review of CUP 18-84 IHennesser's) 7. ~2mm!!~!2n_R~gy!~!! 8. Q!!1_~2mmYn!~!!!2n!_f!2m_!h~_~ygi!n~~ 9. f2mmi~!!2~_~2mmY~!~!!!2n! 10. Agj2Y!nm!n! Agenda Forecast: ~!LH~_!UL : -Plan Review 16-86 Rockwell International ~!LH~_!U! : -Plan RevieK 14-86 Huotari/225 10th . -Study Session on Alcohol Provisions -Variance 7-86 Cox/211 15th St. -Master Improvement Plan Seal Beach Blvd. . PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 7, 1986 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Jessner calling the meeting to order. Commissioner Hunt led the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Jessner Commission Members Covington, Hunt, Perrin, Ripperdan Absent: None Also present: Mr. Baucke, Director of Development Services Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk REPORT FROM SECRETARY The Director reported there were no items to report at this time. e CONSENT CALENDAR Plan Review 15-86, 1617 Seal Way (Parque). In response to the Commission, the Director clarified that this request is for a patio deck extension on the first floor level to the front of the property, a forty-two inch block wall, and replacement of existing windows with a sliding glass door, the improvement extending to the zero property line, the setback for Seal Way properties. Ripperdan moved, second by Hunt, to approve Plan Review 15-86, submitted by Mr. R. C. parque, 1617 Seal Way. AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt, Jessner, Perrin, Ripperdan None Motion carried - CONTINUED ITEM - VARIANCE 1-86 - 1500 .PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (SCHUVEILLER/KYLE) The Director of Development Services reported that consideration of Variance 1-86, a request for major remodel and second floor addition at 1500 Pacific Coast Highway, had been continued from the April 2nd meeting pending a response from the City Attorney to a question posed as to whether public rights could have been established on the property proposed for parking. The report from the City Attorney setting forth the circumstances under which an implied-in-law dedication would be determined, gaining access to 1) private uses on the adjacent parcel owned by the same party, 2) private uses on neighboring properties which are commonly owned, and 3) the beach. The City Attorney . e - Page Two - Planning Commission Minutes - May 7, 1986 stated that it is understood that the subject property had been periodically used for parking by adjacent and surrounding property owners, that it is further understood that the property was not posted, and there is no evidence to show that the property was used for access to the beach, therefore based upon those facts, it is concluded that there has not been an implied-in- law dedication on the property. The City Attorney stated it should be noted that given the location of the property and the fact that it has not been regularly improved or maintained, a finding could not be made that the property was maintained for public use. As a point of clarification, the Director reported that the public hearing on this item was closed on April 2nd, the item continued from April 16th pending receipt of the City Attorney's response and at the request of the property owner, and verified that the applicant has made no modification to the original request. In response to Commission discussion, the City Attorney advised that no further testimony should be taken on this item unless the public hearing is reopened. The Director clarified that from the staff's investigation of available records, there does not appear to be grandfathered parking rights, that the matter to be considered is a straight parking variance. He noted that records reflect that Dave's Other Place had applied to the Commission to locate in its present location on three separate occasions in the late 1960's, each of those applications having been denied, that the subject property had been a part of those applications, and that subsequent to 1969, the request was approved at Council level. He pointed' out that even though the titles to the properties may have been held separately at some point in time, the property is, and has for more than a year, been held under one ownership. Mitzi Morton, 13th Street, requested to present for clarification, title and plot plan documents showing a variance granted to the properties, tying the four lots together. The City Attorney advised that past ownership of the property would not appear to be relevant to the issue of granting the subject parking variance. The Commission discussed the significance of such information to the development options available to the property owners. Staff clarified that based upon the information available, the second option, to retain the existing structure as is and build 4,200 square feet of commercial space within Municipal Code requirements on the adjacent two parcels, would not be considered viable unless the subject property were held under separate ownership and not tied to the other properties. Discussion continued. Chairman Jessner reopened the public hearing to receive additional testimony. Mitzi Morton, 153 - 13th Street, stated that County Recorder records of 1970 show all four lots deeded and gifted to the Olsen children, in 1983 deeded to the present owners by quitclaim which added Mr. Kyle. Mrs. Morton stated that e e e Page Three - P1anni~g Commission Minutes - May 7, 1986 in 1967, when the beer and wine license was first applied for, the plot plan tied the parking lot and buildings together, the parking being a controversy as it could not be provided in accordance with Code. She stated that the Commission denial was overturned by the Council in 1969 with a stipulation as to hours of operation and construction of a concrete wall, and stated her belief that a parking variance was granted. Mr. Brian Kyle responded that he has a blanket trust deed on the property, as well as tax roll statements, and stated there are no deed restrictions or covenants on the subject property. Mr. Don Mabe, 15th Street, reported the presence of a delivery truck on this date blocking access to the alley adjacent to this property, therefore requiring vehicles to back onto Pacific Coast Highway, and expressed his opposition to this item. There being no other testimony, Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing closed. Discussion continued. Staff expressed their opinion that .the property, the four parcels, have been held in common interest over a period of time and considered as a whole due to the application of the parking variance in 1969, therefore option two, as previously stated, would not be a consideration for the developer. The City Attorney advised that the only consideration for the Commission at this time is the variance. The Director noted that an alternative does exist, disintensification of the existing use of the property. He reported the present tenants are on a month-to-month lease basis, pointing out also that continuation of the existing use is at the discretion of the property owner. The Director stated that should the eating/drinking establishment be removed and the use converted to general commercial, the parking requirement for that location would be four spaces as compared to twelve, a reduction of eight required spaces. The Commission recalled that the applicant had stated he would rather not disintensify, however if that condition were imposed, he would comply. Commissioner Hunt moved to approve Variance 1-86, amending the conditions of approval to require disintensification of the project through the removal of the eating and drinking establishment. Commissioner Covington seconded the motion with an additional condition that the existing structure be examined prior to remodeling for termite infestation and that any corrective action of such condition be performed to the satisfaction of City staff. At the request of the Commission, the Director reviewed the variances of the specific application: 1) that based upon the motion for disintensification, variance approval would be for ten parking spaces, fourteen being provided; 2) variance from the standard size loading zone designed to accommodate large delivery trucks, staff proposing the use of a parking space for delivery purposes, within a specified time period, given the office/low intensity retail use proposed for the property; e e' e Page Four - Planning Commission Minutes - May 7, 1986 3) the side setbacks, the applicant proposing to remove a portion of the structure on 15th Street alley for greater visibility, and the street setback requirement being deviated from in accordance with past Commission approvals for commercial building setbacks when it has been found the structure would not intrude upon the adjacent residential property. With regard to a suggested time frame for disintensification, the Director pointed out that a specific condition would not be necessary since the tenants would be vacated from the premises during construction, and additionally no occupancy would be allowed that would violate the action of the Commission. The Commission noted the need to develop regulations governing additions or modifications of non-conforming commercial properties, as well as an in-lieu parking program. The Director confirmed that the merger of the subject properties must be filed with the County and will be a requirement prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the building, a process taking approximately ninety days. Vote on the motion to approve Variance 1-86 as previously stated: AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt, Perrin, Ripperdan Jessner Motion carried The Director stated a Resolution would be prepared reflecting the Commission's action. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE 5-86 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 8-86 and 9-86 - 909 OCEAN AVENUE - SENOR CORKY'S The Director of Development Services presented the staff report relating to the applicant's request to reestablish a restaurant with a take-out counter with less than the required parking, and an entertainment cafe license for live jazz music, the public hearing on this matter continued from the Commission meeting of April 16th to allow the City Attorney to respond to questions posed at that meeting. The Director stated the staff recommends approval of Variance 5-86 and Conditional Use Permit 8-86, and that the Commission discuss and determine whether entertainment is appropriate for the subject location, requested by Conditional Use Permit 9-86. The City Attorney explained that when this Conditional Use Permit was granted it was granted for the property, a land use permit, therefore the change of applicants would not affect the validity of the CUP, and similarly the closing of the business for a number of months would not result in the automatic termination of the CUP. He explained that the Code provides that if the use has been closed for a period of one year, the Planning Commission has the option of revoking the CUP, an option not available in this particular case. He noted that over two years ago a change in practice occurred where the staff can attach, as a matter of routine, a condition to Conditional Use Permits for liquor establishments that the use is only for that particular business and therefore not transferrable to another business. e e . Page Five - Planning Commission Minutes - May 7, 1986 Chairman Jessner declared the continued public hearing open. Mr. Bruce Stark, 204 Ocean, asked if the Planning Commission has the authority to deny the requested use of the property if it were shown there was prior misuse of approvals given to that business. Mr. Stark referred to testimony as to loud noise and service to minors. The City Attorney advised that if the permitted use was exercised contrary to the terms and conditions imposed on such use, the Commission could consider revocation of that use. Norma Stromeyer, 209 Seal Beach Boulevard, spoke to the objective testimony that had been presented to the Commission regarding Corky's. Mr. Steve Ostrow, attorney and minority share holder, stated they are attempting to work with the community and with those persons expressing concern about Corky's reopening. Mr. Ostrow requested that the application for entertainment be amended, to allow entertainment in compliance with guidelines proposed by staff on six specific days per year to coincide with community events, the sand castle contest, the Christmas parade, the Easter parade, the volleyball tournament, Cinco de Mayo, and April 7th, Corky's birthday. Mr. Ostrow emphasized that they are opening as a restaurant, featuring a middle priced menu, and continued service of beer and wine in conjunction with that use. Mr. Corky Gill, co-applicant, spoke to accusations made through public testimony, reported his attempt in 1984 to correct the noise disturbance to the adjacent property by roofing the patio area, acknowledged that there had been previous management problems of the restaurant, and stated he had never knowingly sold alcohol to a mirior, noting that the Police Department had been on the premises on various occasions with regard to noise and had never questioned the age of a patron. Mr. Gill referred to complaints expressed regarding trash, and noted the large apartment complex behind Corky's, the occupants of which deposit trash in the restaurant trash receptacle. Christopher Marra, Seal Way, spoke regarding trash, noise and alcohol sales, and asked what would guarantee these nuisances will not occur in the future. Richard Elvidge, Seal Way, referred to the amended request for entertainment, and suggested the Christmas and Easter parades be deleted from the requested dates. Mike Haley, 128 - 6th Street, ex-manager of Senor Corky's, stated his opinion that the dates requested for entertainment are the days when the most problems occur in the City, recommended that no entertainment be allowed, spoke to prior mismanagement of Corky's, and inquired where restaurant storage would be located since the garage structure would be torn down to accommodate parking. Mr. Doug McGarvey, adjacent resident, reported numerous calls to the Police Department regarding violations of entertainment regulations at Corky's, stating he did not feel the nuisances would be corrected in the future if entertainment is allowed, suggesting the City may have a liability for nonenforcement of City regulations. Mr. Ostrow requested that the Commission take action on the Variance and CUP 8-86, and that a continuance of CUP 9-86 to a future meeting would be acceptable. Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing closed. Page Six - P1anni~g Commission Minutes - May 7, 1986 ~ Commission discussion continued with regard to testimony received relating to trash, noise, entertainment, management of the business, alleged undesirable patrons, the proximity of Corky's to residential properties, and the architecture of the establishment. It was pointed out that although compliants had been made' to the Police Department, the actual number of of complaints were unable to be documented by the Department, no complaint having been formalized. In response to the Commission, the staff indicated it would be possible to mitigate noise from entertainment at the location, however very expensive. Covington moved, second by Perrin, to adopt Resolution Number 1412, "APPROVING VARIANCE 5-86, A REQUEST FOR THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF A RESTAURANT WITH LESS THAN THE REQUIRED PARKING (909 OCEAN)" with the conditions set forth therein. Commissioner Ripperdan stated he would abstain from voting on this item as he was previously involved with the architecture of the restaurant. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Hunt, Perrin Jessner Ripperdan Motion carried e Covington moved, second by Perrin, to adopt Resolution Number 1413, "APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8-86, A REQUEST TO PERMIT A RESTAURANT WITH A TAKE-OUT COUNTER (909 OCEAN AVENUE, SENOR CORKY'S)" with the conditions set forth therein, and deleting reference to CUP 9-86. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Hunt, Perrin Jessner Ripperdan Motion carried Covington moved, second by Perrin, to direct that a Resolution be prepared for Commission action disapproving CUP 9-86 without prejudice. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Covington, Hunt, Jessner, Perrin None Ripperdan Motion carried e ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11-86 - VARIANCE 6-86 - 148 - 7th STREET _ DONELSON The Director of Development Services presented the staff report and reviewed actions taken by the Commission on April 23rd. The Director reported that the City Attorney had been requested to prepare findings in support of the two separate motions made at that meeting. He noted that the report from the City Attorney had been provided, that report however, specifically noting that the findings pursuant to the motion to approve the request as proposed by the applicant are questionable as to whether a court would uphold the variance as requested. e . . Page Seven - Planning Commission Minutes - Page Seven The City Attorney added that although it is unlikely this matter would go before a court of law, their opinion is based upon whether or not the variance as requested would be sustained by a court, given the fact that there is no case law specific to this situation and that no specific and unusual circumstances can be applied to the property, he again cautioned that it is questionable whether the findings for the variance as requested by the applicant would meet legal requirements for granting same. Commission discussion continued regarding possible added cost to the applicant pursuant to the staff's proposal, the ceiling level of the carport, Code preference for covered parking spaces, carport dimensions and the location of the stairway to the upstairs units. At the request of Mr. Donelson, the public hearing was reopened to obtain additional information. Mr. Donelson, 148 - 7th street, expressed his concern that additional Building Code requirements would be imposed should the staff alternative be approved. Mr. Donelson also proposed the use of the sideyard for parking, which would provide a total of seven spaces and not require widening of the existing curb cut, and expressed concern with the proposed location of the stairway. Bruce Stark, 204 Ocean, spoke regarding the parking requirement, suggested Mr. Donelson be allowed the use of restricted zone street parking or the 8th Street lot. Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing closed. Covington moved, second by Ripperdan, to disapprove Resolution Number 1421, Option A, on the basis that the City Attorney indicated the findings would be difficult to legally sustain in a court of law, and given the alternatives available to the applicant. Discussion followed with the Commissioners expressing their views regarding this matter. AYES: NOES: Covington, Ripperdan Hunt, Jessner, Perrin Motion failed Perrin moved, second by Hunt, to approve Resolution Number 1421, Option A, "APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 11-86, VARIANCE 6-86, A REQUEST TO PERMIT MAJOR STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS AND ENLARGEMENTS TO A NON-CONFORMING FOUR-PLEX PROPERTY WITHOUT PROVIDING THE REQUIRED INTERIOR SIDE, STREETS IDE AND REAR SETBACKS (148 - 7th STREET)" as presented. AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt, Jessner, Perrin, Ripperdan None Motion carried Page Eight - Planning Commission Minutes - May 7, 1986 tit SCHEDULED MATTERS RESOLUTION NUMBER 1414 - VARIANCE 3-86 (WATSON) The Director reported Planning Commission approval of Variance 3-86 on April 2, 1986, Resolution Number 1414 confirming said approval. Covington moved, second by Hunt, to adopt Resolution Number 1414, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING VARIANCE 3-86, A REQUEST TO ALLOW THE ADDITION AND ENLARGEMENT TO AN EXISTING BUILDING TO INTRUDE INTO THE REQUIRED SIDEYARD SETBACK LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE 4th STREET STUB (350 OCEAN)", subject to the findings and conditions set forth in said Resolution. AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt, Jessner, Perrin, Ripperdan None Motion carried e RESOLUTION NUMBER 1418 - VARIANCE 4-86 (MARSH) The Director reported Planning Commission approval of Variance 4-86 on April 16, 1986, Resolution Number 1418 confirming said approval. Perrin moved, second by Ripperdan, to adopt Resolution Number 1418, "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING VARIANCE 4-86, A REQUEST TO ALLOW A TANDEM TWO CAR GARAGE AND A UNIFORM THREE FOOT SETBACK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY (209 FOURTEENTH STREET)", subject to the condition set forth in said Resolution. AYES: NOES: Covington, Hunt, Jessner, Perrin, Ripperdan None Motion carried REVIEW - CUP 18-84 - HENNESSEY'S The Director reported this item is the review and extension of Conditional Use Permit 18-84, Hennessey's, and as a condition of approval, staff was required to review the facility at the end of one year of operation. Mr. Baucke reported staff requested a report from the Police Chief to note any problems regarding this operation during the year, the report stating no formal documented complaints or criminal accusations had been made against Hennessey's. The Chief's report also noted an informal complaint made to the press and Council towards all of the bars on Main Street, including Hennessey's, regarding alcoholic beverages during the Christmas parade, and an informal complaint recently received regarding removal of the window screens, however not involving alcohol distribution. The Director recommended that Conditional Use Permit 18-84 be extended indefinitely based upon the applicant's compliance with the conditions placed on the CUP, the indefinite extension being the customary procedure after the one year period. Commission members noted that some complaints have been voiced recently although not deemed to be significant in nature, also that at the time of approving the CUP, members of the Commission . . e - Page Nine - Planning Commission Minutes - May 7, 1986 had requested that documentation be provided at the time of . the one year review showing the percentage of food versus alcohol sales. The City Attorney advised that since no condition was specifically imposed on the permit requiring a certain percentage of food versus alcohol sales, it would be questionable whether or not that information could be required to be disclosed. Mr. Stepanicich explained that the review process is to determine whether or not there have been violations of the use or of the conditions imposed on the CUP, noting that additional conditions could be imposed if it were determined that problems did in fact exist. Mr. Paul Hennessey stated he had originally estimated that the food versus alcohol sales would be an approximate fifty/fifty percentage, reporting however that this particular establishment is doing about sixty percent food to forty percent alcohol sales, with approximately seven thousand meals served per month. Mr. Hennessey reported his advertising policies for different food items and specials, and acknowledged a recent complaint with regard to window screens, noting that the screens are removed periodically for cleaning purposes. staff clarified that the window screens were a requirement of the Health Department. The Commission discussed their concerns with regard to the open windows and doors, noting in particular the noise factor on specific occasions. Mr. Hennessey explained that the open window and door practice is part of the atmosphere of his restaurants, noting that other similar establishments leave their doors open and also have outdoor patios. Mr. Bruce Stark, Ocean Avenue, spoke regarding verification of food sales, the use of banners at this location, parking requirements, and asked who is charged with the enforcement of CUP conditions. Michelle Brendel spoke regarding Hennessey's advertising practices, and the use of banners. Mitzi Morton suggested that the City require submittal of Hennessey's sales tax report for verification of food versus beverage sales, also asked if minors could be restricted from the premises without being accompanied by an adult. Staff responded that authorization had been given for Hennessey's anniversary banner, also that the establishment is considered to be a bonafide eating establishment by the State, therefore minors are not restricted. Mrs. Morton added that the City should have the authority to revise the hours of operation, restrict minors from the premises, and expressed her objection to granting the permanent CUP. Perrin moved, second by Hunt, to extend Conditional Use Permit 18-84 indefinitely. Discussion continued regarding the time period for extension of the CUP, some members citing their concern with complaints expressed, others noting that historically CUp's are granted indefinitely after one year review, that an action to the contrary would single out this business without substantial cause. Mr. Hennessey stated his understanding - e -e Page Ten - Planning Commission Minutes - May 7, 1986 that the CUP would be granted permanently upon this review, suggesting that if customary procedures are changed it should apply to all su~h operations in the City. vote on the motion to approve CUP 18-84 as stated: AYES: NOES: Hunt, Perrin, Ripperdan Covington, Jessner Motion carried COMMISSION REQUESTS There were no requests of the Commission. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Jessner declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Stark inquired about Variance 3-86. The Directdr reported Variance 3-86, a request to allow a room addition to intrude into a required sideyard setback at 305 Ocean, was approved by the Planning Commission on April 2nd, and that Resolution 1414 sets forth the findings and conditions of approval, and formalizes that action. With regard to Variance 3-86, Mr. Stark recalled reference to the Gold Coast Building Committee, expressing his feeling that that body consists of three self-appointed individuals who claim to represent all of the Gold Coast properties with regard to the CC & R's. Reva Olsen expressed her concern with decreased value and tenancy of properties in the vicinity of Main Street resulting from parking and noise problems. The City Attorney stated he could not foresee any liability on the part of the City, and likewise, with regard to down zoning, under existing law a property owner would not have a right to monetary damages unless it could be substantially shown that a property had no value due to an action of the City. Michelle Brendel, 204 Ocean, expressed objection to the indefinite extension of CUP 18-84, the unverified food versus liquor sale figures, and the problems that some persons feel Hennessey's has been responsible for, also asked that a policy be developed to retain tape recordings of meetings. Christopher Marra, Seal Way, also spoke regarding CUP 18-84, and complained of nuisances he felt were related to Hennessey's. Staff again noted the bonafide eating establishment designation of Hennessey's under State provisions, based upon the number of meals served, which does not prohibit minors from the premises. There were no other Oral Communications; Chairman Jessner declared Oral Communications closed. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent of the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:23 p.m.