Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1986-07-16 SEAL BEACH'PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA City 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. fihen you see that the speaker's position in the . center of' the room is unoccupied; step up to the microphone and when recognized by the Cha.irm~n, speak directly. i'nto' 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' add~ess 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. July 16. 1986 XEXT RESOLUTIOX ~1433 1. f!~~g~_Qf_A!!~gl!n~~ 2 . SQ!Lf!!! 3. S~~Q~!_f~Qm_~~~~~!!r~ 4. fQn!~n!_f!!~n~!r '. 5. fY~!l~_H~~~lng! A. COXDITIOXAL USE PERMIT 12-86 Resolution 1423 Tcontinued-from-JuTY-2~-1986) A request: To allow a large family day care center at 1729 Bayou Way between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Environ~ental Review: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review [California Government Code Section 153031el] Code Sections: 28-400(gllcl Applicant: Charles and Barbara Wackerman Owner: Same B. YAHA~fL2=~~ CONDITIOXAL rSE PERMIT 17-86 Icontlnued-from-JulY-2~-1986J Resolution 1428 A request to remodel and expand an existing substandard single-family residence at 302 15th Street. including .the construction of a two-stall tandem style garage which would encroach into the rear yard setback. Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from EnVironmental Review [California Government Code Section 15061Idl]. Code Sections: 28-2500. 28-2503. 28-07011211 c I and (d I " Applicant: Keith J. and Marlis Mang Sneden Owner: Marlis Mang Sneden .- Planning Commission Agenda JUly 16. 1986 Page 2 C. ~Q~~!!!Qa~1_~~~_f~E~!!_!=!~ Resolution #1429 A request for on-sale alcoholic beverages (beer and wine onlYI. in conjunction with an existing fast food restaurant. with both sit-down and take-out service. at 321 Seal Beach Boulevard. Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt ftom Environmental Review [California Government Code Section 15308]. Code Sections: 28-1300161 I a I; 28-2503 Applicant: Ramzi ~ansousr Owner: Ellen Musso D. fQ~~!!!Q~~1_~~~_f~E~!!_1=!~ Resolution #1430 A request to upgrade an off-sale beer and wine license to an off-sale general liquor license within 1-- feet of a residential district. at the Sav-On Store located at III E. Pacific Coast Hwy. - Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review [California Government Code Section 1530]. Code Sections: 28-1300(61Ial: 28-2503 Appl i cant: Os co Drug. Inc. Owner: Seal Beach Center E. fQ~~!!!Q~~1_r~g_f~E~!!_lQ=!~ Resolution *1431 A request for an on-sale beer and wine license to be used in conjunction with an existing fast food restaurant. including both take-out and sit-down service. at 12161 Seal Beach Blvd. Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental review [California Government Code Section 15308] Code Sections: 28-2503: 28-1300 161lal Applicant: ~ark Albert Griffin Owner: Century t\ational Properties. Inc. F. ZQ~l~Q_!~~!_~M~a~~g~!_g=!~ Resolution *1432 A request to amend Section 28-243 of the ~unicipal Code to redefine "hotel". .e Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from Environmental Review [California Government Code Section 15308] Applicant: City of Seal Beach e' Planning Commission Agenda July 16. 1986 Page 3 6. ~fh~gYl~g_~!11~!! A. Resolution Xo. 1426 (Variance 12-85 - - Lucky Store) B. Resolution Xo. 1427 (Variance 10-86 ~ational Properties) - Century 7. ~Qmmi!!iQn_R~gY~!1! 8. Q!!1_~QmmYnif!1iQn!_f!Qm_1h~_~ygi~nf~ 9. ~Qmmi!!iQn_~QmmYnif!liQn! 10. ~gjQY!!!.m~!!.l Agenda Forecast: A!!g:!!!!.L~..._llH!.~ : -Cl:P 2-86 99 Marina Drive (Che\'ron I -Plan Review 17-86 312 14th Street (Miller) - . l} :. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 16, 1986 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, July 16, 1986 at 7:35 p.m. with Chairman Jessner calling the meeting to order. Commissioner Suggs led the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Jessner Commission Members Covington, Sharp, Suggs Commissioner Perrin Absent: Also Present: Mr. A1 Warot, Consultant serving in capacity of Director of Development Services. Mr. Gregory Stepanicich, City Attorney Mrs. Pam Walker, Administrative Aide Mrs. Bennington, Secretary to City Manager REPORT FROM SECRETARY Mrs. Walker stated the minutes from the July 2nd meeting would be available for the August 6th meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items on the consent calendar. e CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 12-86, RESOLUTION #1426 - CHARLES & BARBARA WAC KERMAN - 1729 BAYOU WAY - LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE CENTER EXPANSION Chairman Jessner withdrew from the hearing process due to potential for conflict of interest; Vice Chairman Covington presides. Mr. Warot reported this matter was continued form the July 2nd public hearing at which time the Planning Commission requested additional information. That information was presented to the Commission as follows: 1) No traffic-related accidents have occurred on Bayou Way. One collision incident occurred on Bayside Drive. 2) No traffic counts available on Bayou Way. City Engineer felt there was not adequate time in which to conduct traffic count at this time. 3) No prohibition to painted curbs or signs restricting parking/loading along property frontage. 4) Speed bumps are illegal on public streets. - 5) Noise levels measured form 42-56 dB(A) and represent ambient noise levels in the area. The 56 dB(A) resulted from vehicular traffic, lawn mowers, and other background noise. - No children were present when levels were measured. The 56 dB(A) exceeds the noise level requirement of 55 d(B)A. 6) 7) Standard street lighting provides adequate illumination. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted specific standards to regulate the establishment of large family day care centers. It was on that basis Huntington Beach denied the application, as indicated by the minutes presented to Planning Commission at the July 2nd meeting. e Mr. Gregory Stepanicich, City Attorney, provided his opinion as to the legal authority of Seal Beach versus the State regulations. In his view, the regulations within the staff report do apply to the City of Seal Beach as the State legislature intended to preempt charter and general law cities. Cities are required to treat large family day care centers in the same manner with regard to zoning as single family residential dwellings. There are some additional requirements that may be imposed, however, those should be imposed pursuant to local ordinances limited to spacing, concentration of such facilities, parking and noise. The City Attorney stated that as the City has not adopted standards for large family day care centers, it was for that reason staff recommended the conditional use permit be approved since the proposed use did comply with the City's existing regulations. The city does not have the wide digression in this matter as it normally does when hearing a conditional use permit application as to compatibility or detriment to the . health, safety and welfare of the community. In this case, he pointed out, the staff recommendation does include conditions that are supportable and appropriate for this type of permit. The City Attorney also indicated that to the extent of nuisance abatement, the City has the power to enforce that provision (as it may for any residential dwelling). The only limitation is that day care centers cannot be singled out. e Commissioner Covington reopened the public hearing. Barbara Wackerman, 1729 Bayou Way, explained she was applying for a conditional use permit to expand her small day care center. She had no further information to provide the Commissioners, but did mention that the petition submitted at the July 2nd hearing contained some falsifications. In response to Commissioner Covington's questions, Mrs. Wackerman indicated she is currently licensed to ca~e for 6 children (one of which is her own 9 yr. old son). Of those children she must have 3 under age 2 and 3 over the age of two. For an expanded day care facility of 12 children, she would include her son and a friend, and would be able to care for the children of her two current expectant mothers. Under this license, four children must be under the age of 2 and the rest over the age of 2. Mrs. Wackerman indicated she plans to have full-time day care, the play area is in the back patio, side yard is proposed to house sand box, and the 2 children will only enter the proposed fenced front patio when in her presence. e As no others spoke in favor nor in opposition to this matter, the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Suggs explained his position; i.e., the play area and recreation area was not sufficient to accommodate 12 children. He was also concerned for the safety of the children as most of the back yard was taken up by the pool and the dog. Mr. Suggs felt this had an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Sharp also felt the play area was inadequate to support 12 children. Commissioner Covington felt he must deny this application on the basis that the Commission is enforced with protecting the safety and welfare of all people. Covington did not feel comfortable with expanding the facility in an environment that is not conducive to the safety of the children; i.e. the pool. Covington also indicated that as the ambient noise level exceeded the noise threshold for sound in that area, any intensification of use cannot be justified. Although no children were present when the levels were measured, it was not reasonable to assume that children will not play outside. Mr. Covington also felt that the smaller lot size was a factor in this denial. Commissioner Covington moved to deny Conditional Use Permit 12- 86, Sharp seconds. e AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Covington, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Chairman Jessner had withdrawn from the process. Motion Carried Chairman Jessner returns to preside over meeting. Covington moved, second by Sharp, to request City Council to declare a moratorium for a large family day care center for the purpose of directing Planning Commission and staff to prepare for a public hearing concerning testimony to establish an ordinance relating to such a facility. The City Attorney indicated it was appropriate to make this recommendation to City Council; the City Attorney would research the validity of declaring the moratorium. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE 9-86; 17-86 - 302 15TH STREET - SNEDEN Mr. Warot presented staff report wherein was continued from the July 2nd meeting. Planning Commission, staff has discussed CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT he indicated this item At the request of the alternative designs with e 3 e e . the applicant. Mr. Warot noted that differences had not been resolved. It was also indicated that staff has researched case files but no similar requests had been found. Mr. Warot reviewed the two alternatives which could provide the required two standard off-street parking spaces. One would be to completely redo the ground floor to provide a standard two stall garage facing 15th Street. This alternative, however, would result in the loss of both bedrooms on the ground floor and force the applicant to live off-site while remodeling takes place. The other solution according to Warot, was the construction of a carport at the northeast corner adjacent to the kitchen area. This solution was presented at the July 2nd meeting. The carport would encroach on the rear setback but is justifiable due to limited depth of the lot and would retain most of applicant's proposed improvements. Mr. Warot fully explained details of this alternative. He did indicate that aside from the rear encroachment, the proposed 2nd floor deck would also encroach into the front yard, for which there are no justif~cations based on physical constraints. The Commissioners discussed denying the application without prejudice to allow applicant to reexamine the matter and return with revised plans. Mr. Stepanicich indicated that to deny without prejudice would allow the applicant to reapply, otherwise the applicant would have to wait for one year to reapply. He indicated there is no provision to waive the CUP fee. The applicant could modify their request to include the design as proposed by staff; that would be the one way to avoid paying another fee. Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing reopened. Keith & Marliss Sneden, 302 15th Street, presented background on their issue. Their desire is to upgrade their 745 s.f. substandard-sized home. The last 6 months they have been working with a designer to come up with ideas to expand utilizing the existing structure as much as possible. The Snedens feel their proposal is the more viable alternative. The covered carport, it was felt, would not be used for parking but more likely used as a patio area. Mrs. Sneden questioned the wisdom of constructing a carport they do not desire and having only one parking space that will actually function as a parking space. The Snedens felt that variance was justifiable as the lot size was unique as compared to other parcels. The Commissioners and the Snedens discussed fully the alternative proposed by staff. Commissioner Covington explained that the plan proposed by staff was an example. Covington wondered if staff had researched for a modest intrusion for parking purposes only, not living purposes, into the front yard setback. It has always been the intent of the City to prevent intrusion of living quarters into the front setback, but that may not apply for parking purposes. The Snedens indicated they would be willing to continue the public hearing to 4 e investigate this approach, fully realizing this approach mayor may not be possible. No other persons wished to speak in favor nor in opposition to this matter. Commissioner Covington moved to continue this public hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting so that staff has the opportunity to explore with the applicant the feasibility of a new approach; Suggs seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried e PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 4-86 - BEER & WINE LICENSE - DAILY SUB - RAMZI MANSOUR Mr. Warot presented staff report, indicating this is a request for issuance of a beer and wine license in conjunction with the re-establishment of a walk-in take-out deli/restaurant located in the Shore Shop center. Mr. Mansour had previously operated at the same location in 1979 -1984 and did allow on sale beer and wine. The Chief of Police has reviewed the existing record and has no reservation regarding approval of this permit. This permit is also categorically exempt from environmental review. Staff recommended approval with the 7 conditions noted in the staff report. Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing open on CUP 4-86. Ramzi Mansour, 4548 Ironwood, indicated he was familiar with the conditions imposed by staff. Condition 6 relating to alcoholic signs was questioned. It was noted this condition is placed on all beer & wine license approvals. As no others spoke in favor nor in opposition to the matter, the public hearing was closed. After some discussion, condition 2 was clarified to ad'd "within the premises" to the end of the sentence. Commissioner Covington moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 4-86 with the conditions suggested by staff and modified; Sharp seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried e PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7-86 - GENERAL ALCOHOL OFF-SALE LICENSE - OS CO DRUG, INC. - SEAL BEACH CENTER Mr. Warot presented staff report indicating this is a request for an upgrading of an off-sale beer and wine license to an off-sale general liquor license within 100 feet of a residential district. It was noted this application is categorically exempt from 5 e e e environmental review. It was pointed out that three on-sale licenses and one off-sale license for alcoholic beverages are in effect in the Seal Beach Center, i.e., Safeway, Monsoon Mike's, Al Capone's Pizza, and Coach's. Warot also indicated the Chief of Police has no reservations regarding the approval of this permit by the Planning Commission even though this district 7 has an undue concentration of crime and arrests. Staff recommends approval of cup 7-86 with conditions 1-6 as noted in the staff report. Chairman Jessner declared public hearing open on CUP 7-86. Applicant was not present at the hearing. Warren Gay, 220 5th Street, opposed the issuance of alcoholic licenses in general as the off-sale liquor would adversely impact the community. As no others spoke in favor nor in opposition to the matter, Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing closed. Covington indicated that the moratorium on alcohol licenses was lifted so that these applications could be addressed. The City Attorney indicated that the matter was referred back to the City Manager for preparation of the new guidelines to following Planning Commission guidelines that were approved by the City Council. He noted that the Planning Commission still could impose any conditions it felt was necessary to this particular application and it could be in line with the Planning Commission guidelines. Covington felt that a number of the conditions placed on this CUP apply to the Planning Commission guidelines. Mr. Stepanicich pointed out that a number of the guidelines pertained to making the cup requirement apply City-wide. There were also certain administrative procedures for handling one-day permits. It would seem that most of those guidelines pertained to areas that the City was not regulating. In this instance, the application is under the permit-review requirement. Commissioner Covington moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 7- 86 with the additional conditions as imposed by staff, Sharp seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10-86 - ON-SALE BEER & WINE - CHAMPS - ROSSMOOR BUSINESS CENTER Mr. Warot presented staff report for this request for an on-sale beer and wine license to be used in conjunction with an existing fast food restaurant, including both sit-down and take-out service. It was noted this application is categorically exempt from environmental review. Staff recommended approval of CUP 10- 86 with 7 conditions as noted in the staff report. 6 . e Chairman Jessner declares the public hearing open. Mark Griffin, 3301 Yellowtail, owner of Champs, indicated he was agreeable to the conditions as outlined by staff. Covington noted this applicat~on was made on April 1, 1986, and came before the Commission after the moratorium was lifted. It was noted that the application was not signed by the owner of the Rossmoor Business Center. The City Attorney pointed out it is standard practice to obtain the consent of the property owner, however, the permit can be acted upon and the owner's signature obtained and verified before the resolution is brought back to the Planning Commission. As no others spoke in favor nor in opposition to this matter, Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing closed. Robert Cook, 441 Central Avenue, inquired if this was the proper time to ask the Commission to instruct the Planning Department to take the definition presented to you for ZTA 2-86 and include it in a study session to be scheduled at some later date. Chairman Jessner indicated that CUP 10-86 will be acted upon first. Commissioner Covington moved to approve Conditional Use Permit 10-86 with the conditions noted by staff, adding to condition 2 "within the premises" and making the approval of the permit contingent upon the applicant presenting to staff proof of the consent of the owner for cup application; Sharp seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 2-86 - RESOLUTION 1432 - DEFINITION OF "HOTEL" Pursuant to Mr. Cook's request, Mr. Stepanicich stated that normally the hearing is held, however, the Commission was not required to take action and could continue to a workshop session if it so desired. The City Attorney indicated the Council had requested staff to explore various alternative regulations dealing with bed and breakfast type establishments, specifically as it applies to the Seal Beach Inn. The preliminary review was made by the Planning Department; it was decided the simplest approach was to redefine "hotel." Greg indicated the proposed definition deletes the prohibition of cooking facilities in hotel guest rooms and broadly applies to a building or group of buildings offering transient lodging facilities to the general public and any incidental services that are customarily provided by hotels; i.e., banquets, receptions and meeting rooms. The definition includes a very significant limitation. Whenever a hotel is located in a zone that requires a CUP, such as the RHD zone, the permitted incidental services are restricted only to those tit services specifically permitted by the applicable CUP. This will 7 . e - ensure that any hotel located in a RHD zone will be compatible with the surrounding area. If no incidental services would be compatible, the hotel could be limited to simply providing guest accommodations. This would give the Commission the power to review each application on its own merits to decide the scope of services that could be provided in the hotel. This definition by itself does not authorize any particular hotels in any particular location. A new hotel would have to apply for a CUP. Chairman Jessner opened the public hearing. Mr. George Kimball, 225 6th Street, attorney for Seal Beach Inn, indicated support for the amendment to the zoning ordinance as proposed. His clients were concerned with the delay as proposed by Mr. Cook. They received a cease and desist order from the City in February questioning some incidental uses of their property. They are abiding by that order. It is now the height of the tourist season and it is felt it would be appropriate to proceed with the amendment and deal with specifics to the Seal Beach Inn when the time came to apply for a permit, rather then send to a workshop for further discussion at this time. Mr. Robert Cook, 441 Central Avenue, requested the Planning Department to reschedule this item as a workshop session for several reasons: at the Planning Commission of April 2, 1986, there was a scheduled cup request by the owners of the motel that was ruled invalid by the City Attorney. He ruled also that a mass of people who were here that night, many of whom had come from outside the City, could not testify. Mr. Covington raised the question as to whether they could give testimony, and were told they could not. During the discussion that followed it was stated that what was going to come about from that cancelled cup hearing was a study session that would deal with possible changes in definitions to hotel and motel and any other ordinance changes that might be proposed. All of these people were concerned because a study session is not a public hearing and no notices would be sent. Since 35% of the property owners within normal range of notice for a public hearing live outside the City, they would not know of a hearing if it were only published in the Journal. The Commissioners agreed to noticing people by a 4-0 vote. Chairman Jessner indicated the City Council gave overriding direction to the staff and to the City Attorney. The City Attorney indicated his understanding of the direction was to prepare regulations that would be submitted to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Mr. Cook indicated that the Council meeting which provided direction to the City Attorney met prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Marilyn Zom, 220 5th Street, asked for clarification regarding cooking facilities. The City Attorney indicated that some hotels such as the Embassy Suites do provide cooking facilities. Maureen Ramer, 223 5th Street, indicated she had attended the Planning Commission meeting wherein the Commissioner stated a workshop would be held and notices mailed to all owners within a certain amount of feet of the property that was in question. She asked for delay until that order has 8 e e e been followed. Warren Gay, 220 5th Street, reaffirmed Mr. Cook's statement that notices would be mailed for a workshop session. Chairman Jessner noted that this hearing was for zoning text amendment 2-86. Mr. Jessner asked if persons had any objection to ZTA 2-86. Mr. Gay stated he is objecting to the process but not objecting to the definition. Marilyn Zom, 220 5th questioned whether a definition would be available for bed and breakfast inns. Mr. Sharp indicated he was not involved at the previous meeting and Mr. Suggs indicated he felt the same way and both would be abstaining from voting. After much discussion between the Commissioners, Mr. Covington moved that the public hearing be continued until August 13th for a public hearing with direction to staff to provide appropriate notices to all property owners and petition signers (including those property owners near State Lands parcel and DWP parcel) and bring back alternative approaches and surveys of other cities, including information provided at the April 2nd meeting; Sharp seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Covington, Jessner, Sharp, Suggs None Perrin Motion Carried The City Attorney indicated the hearing will allow for complete discussion as to whether to adopt bed and breakfast regulations or redefine hotel or motel or to combine everything. SCHEDULED MATTERS Resolution #1426 - After some discussion between the Commissioners, it was decided to bring this resolution back to the Commission, so the Commissioners who have not heard the matter, will listen to the tape or read the minutes. The City Attorney indicated the Commission should not take any action until those Commissioners had reviewed the matter. The Code states there has to be three members to approve variances or cups. Staff indicated they would come back with a study regarding the parking formula used in the Lucky market expansion. Resolution #1427 - Century National Properties - Commissioner Sharp moves to adopt the resolution, Suggs seconds. Covington indicated he voted against as the Lucky precedent was not valid, and the number of spaces used for the Lucky application was 1884 and the number of parking spaces used for Century was 2002 which would not enable the Center to catch up to shortfall. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jessner, Sharp, Suggs Covington Perrin Motion Carried COMMISSION REQUESTS 9 -- e - There were no Commission requests. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS There were no Commission communications. It was so ordered by the Chairman of the Planning Commission to adjourn the meeting of July 16, 1986 at 11:05 p.m. , 54..A'.')23~~j