Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1987-05-20 _~"'L BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGf.....l\ City Council Chambers - 211 Eighth Street Seal Beach, California e 7'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. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA May 20, 1987 Next Resolution '1463 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Consent Calendar A. Mlnutes of May 6, 1987 B. Plan Review 7-87 1009-1009 1/2 Seal Way 4. Public Hearings A. Condltlonal Use Permit 5-87 143 Maln Street A request to permit the transfer of an on-sale and off-sale beer and wine license to the new owner of an existing restaurant/deli. Resolution #1461 e Code Sections: 28-1300; 28-2503; 28-2504 Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA review (California Administrative Code Section 15301) Applicant: Connie M. Schuman B. Zoning Text Amendment 3-87 Resolution #1462 Procedures and Requirements for the Consideration of Development Agreements A request to amend Chapter 28 of the Municipal Code to establish procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements. Code Sections: 28-2600; 28-2601 Environmental Review: A Negative Declaration has been prepared in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report. Applicant: City of Seal Beach 5. Scheduled Matters A. Plan Review 6-87 2600 Westminster - B. Appeal of Staff Determination on CUP 3-87, TPM 87-132 222 7th Street .- Planning Commission Agenda May 20. 1987 Page 2 6. Oral Communications from the Audience At thlS tlme. members of the public may address the Commission regarding any item within the subject matter of the Commission provided that no action may be taken on off- agenda items unless authorized by law. 7. Staff Concerns 8. Commission Concerns 9. Adjournment Agenda Forecast: June 3, 1987 -Var lance 5-87 340 Ocean June 17. 1987 -CUP 6-87 A-1l2 Surfs ide . " :=:- - -- - - --- e Seal Beach Planning Commission Meeting of May 20, 1987 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, May 20, 1987 at 7:36 p.m. Chairman Jessner lead the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Jessner Commissioners Rullo, Sharp, Suggs Commissioner Covington (arrived 7:40 p.m.) Also Present: Edward Knight, Director of Development Services CONSENT CALENDAR Those items included in the consent calendar were A) Minutes of May 6, 1987 Planning Commission meeting and B) Plan Review 7-87 for 1009-1009 1/2 Seal Way. Commissioner Sharp moves to approve consent calendar as presented; Rullo seconds. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Covington Motion Carried e PUBLIC HEARING - A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 5-87, 143 MAIN STREET - OLD TOWN WINE & GOURMET - CONNIE SCHUMAN Mr. Knight reported this matter was a request to permit the transfer of on-sale and off-sale beer and wine license to the new owner of an existing restuarant/deli - the Old Town Wine & Gourment Deli. Background on this property reveals t~at the Commission approved in January, 1985 the on-sale and off-sale of beer and wine subject to 8 conditions reflected in the staff report of May 20, 1987. Also approved on that date was Variance 15-84 with 6 conditions and Conditional Use Permit 22-84 with 5 conditions (also detailed in the 5/20/87 staff report). These permits allowed the property to deviate from the required parking. Staff recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit 5- 87 based on the recommendation of the Chief of Police and on the history of beer and wine services at this site. That recommendation included 10 conditions so noted in the May 20th report, one of which listed the hours of operation requested by the application as 10 a.m. to midnight, Monday through Friday and 11:00 a.m. to midnight on Saturday and Sunday. It was also noted by the Director that Commission cannot set hours of operation for an ABC license, however, the applicant can voluntarily accept certain conditions. e Chairman Jessner declared Schuman, 143 Corona, Long all conditions as noted. operation requested would cafe. She explained that the public hearing open. Connie Beach and the applicant consented to Ms. Schuman indicated the hours of allow her to serve late dinners at the previously the deli was only serving e e lunches while her ambition was to compete with Walt's Wharf, Hennesseys and other downtown restaurants. Ms. Schuman also reported that at some future date she may apply for an entertainment permit for one classical guitarist or harpist or violinist. It was also relayed to Ms. Schuman that should she wish to enlarge her operation in any way, she must reapply for the necessary permits. Commissioner Covington expressed concern regarding adjacent Grace Brethren Church. Knight responded that notices had been sent to all properties within 300 feet and no reply had been received from the Church. Neil Ward, Orange, California, former owner of Old Town Wine & Gourmet, spoke in favor of the application. He indicated that the Food King parking lot was available to cafe customers and that parking had never been a problem. Joyce Ross, 1107 1/2 Seal Way, spoke in favor of the application as John's Food King parking lot was available for the patrons of the cafe during the hours of operation. As no others spoke in favor nor in opposition to the application, Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing closed. The Commissioners discussed the hours of operation for this property and for other Main Street restaurants. Ms. Schuman concurred with changing the operating hours by modifying condition 1110 to read as follows: "10) With the applicant's consent, the range of operating hours shall be from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, Monday through Saturday and 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Sundays." Commissioner Covington moved to approve Resolution #1461, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 5-87, A REQUEST TO TRANSFER AN ON-SALE AND OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE TO THE NEW OWNER OF AN EXISTING RESTAURANT DELI (143 MAIN STREET) with condition #10 as previously modified; Commissioner Rullo seconds the motion. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried SCHEDULED MATTERS - ITEM B. APPEAL OF STAFF DETERMINATION ON CUP 3-87, TPM 87-132, 222 7TH STREET With the consent of the Commission, item 5B of Scheduled Matters was heard at this time. Commission Covington moved to continue this item to the June 3rd meeting as requested by the applicant; Jessner seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried e PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 3-87 - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS Mr. Knight stated this zoning text amendment was initiated by the Commission in February of 1987 at the request of staff. He explained the Mola Development Company has expressed an interest in entering into a Development Agreement on their proposed 2 e amendment to the Hellman Specific Plan. California law authorizes the adoption of development agreements as a method of ensuring the vesting of a project folowing its approval and prior to actual construction. Thse agreements provide certainty to property owners that projects extending over a long period of time can be completed as initially approved. At the same time, cities know that improvements, dedication, etc. included in the development agreements will be completed. Staff prepared a draft ordinance establishing procedures for development agreements and requestd Commisison's approval for forwarding to the City Council. Chairman Jessner declared the public hearing open. As no persons spoke in favor nor in opposition to ZTA 3-87; Chariman Jessner closed the public hearing. The following points were discussed: 1) The development agreement can apply to any project for subdivision; it is not specific to a Specific Plan project. 2) A development agreement is a negotiated agreement, therefore public improvements and their timing can be required. A development agreement has a negotiated life and a vesting map has a longer time span than a regular tentative map as it may be extended for an indefinite period of time. e 3) A developer cannot be required to construct a facility, i.e. hotel within a certain time frame, however, this may be stated in a development agreement. 4) An applicant has the right to apply for a vesting tract map whether the City has an ordinance or not. An applicant can request the City to provide a development agreement and the City would be compelled under state law to establish those procedures. 5) A development agreement as adopted by the State of California has all rights imposed upon it. Whether the fact that it abrogates the authority of a future city council is unconstitutional has not been determined. 6) A development agreement itself is subject to referendum and initiative upon its adoption. 7) A final tract map is not approved until all conditions are met while a development agreement expires after its negotiated termination date. Knight explained that in April of this year there was a lawsuit regarding a developer who had a vesting tract map and was denied his building permits due to zoning changes within the City of Pleasanton. The developer won the suit in Superior Court of e 3 e Contra County with the finding that the vesting tract map was not subject to the initiative process. Chairman Jessner discussed the following clarifications of the draft ordinance: 1) That the duration of the agreement would be for a certain period of time 2) That the permitted uses of the Hellman property were set in the specific plan as is the density, maximum height and size of buildings and provisions for dedication of public lands. 3) The fiscal impact statement would show the cost revenue analsyis for the project, i.e. fiscal impact on the City of Seal Beach. 4) That the phasing and project completion date may be different than the duration of time for the development agreement. 5) That the development agreement proposed by the applicant refers to the specific verbage that is the result of negotiations between the City and the applicant - a format that is somewhat standard. e As the development agreement applies to Mola Development Company, it was explained that a more general completion date would apply, however phasing dates would be more precise. It was also noted that the City Council took action to hire a consultant to provide the specific plan and to perform an EIR regardless of the developer. Mr. Knight when asked to point out advantages or disadvantages to the development agreement stated the DA provides another opportunity for a developer to approach the City and gain some assurances that his project can be built, while the vesting tract map process is not as viable. However, the vesting tract map process may be more favorable to the developer due to recent court cases. Knight felt the development agreement had more advantages for the City than the vesting tract map. Commissioner Covington moves to approve ZTA 3-87 as presented with the amendments suggested by City Attorney; Sharp seconds. AYES: NOES: Covington, Jessner, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Motion Carried e 4 e SCHEDULED MATTERS - A. PLAN REVIEW 6-87 - 2600 WESTMINSTER - ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL As Chairman Jessner is currently employed by Rockwell, he excused himself from this scheduled matter, turning the chair over to Vice-Chairman Covington. Mr. Knight explained the background on this request for an extension for modular units on the Rockwell site. Knight reported that the Commission approved Plan Review 20-86 in September of 1986 which was a request by the Satellite Systems Division (SSD) of Rockwell to permit the installation of 37 temporary modular office trailers for 18 months. A condition of that approval required a plan review to permit extension of the temporary facility. Plan Review 6-87 is therefore a request to extend temporary facility T-7 in compliance with that condition. In his report, Knight explained that Rockwell has reduced the number of temporary facilities and will begin construction on a permanent facility this year. Based upon Rockwell's progress toward establishing permanent office space and their awaiting award of a government contract which would justify building a permanent facility in lieu of T-7, staff recommended approval of this plan review. Commissioner Covington suggested the owner's affidavit be signed for the record, to which staff concurred. Mr. George Taylor, Supervisor of Facilities, Project Engineering for Rockwell, Satellite Systems Division, indicated that the current plan is to start construction of the new corporate building in June. He did state that Rockwell is awaiting a government contract, however, that building under construction is a separate coprorate building - not a part of SSD. Mr. Taylor explained that Rockwell may return for another extension for T-7 facility. Covington suggested continuing this matter to the next Commisison meeting in June to allow staff to clear up the relationship between the permanent facility and the temporary facility and to arrange a scheduled for the ultimate removal of the temporary units. Covington explained that the general policy of the City has been to not allow temporary structures on a long-term basis and since staff's finding of extenuating circumstances did not actually apply to this matter, the plan review should be reviewed again. Sharp moves to continue Plan Review 6-87 to June 3rd Planning Commission meeting, Suggs seconds. e AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ~ovington, Rullo, Sharp, Suggs None Jessner Motion Carried ORAL COMMUNCATIONS There were no oral communications from the audience at this time. STAFF CONCERNS There were none at this time. e 5 e COMMISSION CONCERNS Knight, in response to Commissioner Covington, stated the grading at the DWP site was consistent with the specific plan for the property. Responding to Chairman Jessner, Mr. Knight explained the draft EIR for Hellman site is nearly complete and ready for staff review with the next step in the process to bring the report to the EQCB for hearing. Covington suggested special meetings to address all elements. It was also reported to Commissioner Covington that no construction documents have been filed for the Union Federal Building at Rossmoor Center. ADJOURNMENT It was the consensus chair to adjourn the at 9:07 p.m. of the Commission and so ordered by the Planning Commission meeting of May 20, 1987 THESE MINUTES COMMISSION. SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING e e 6