Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1993-01-06 r .' .' . ".. CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA of JANUARY 6, 1993 7:30 P.M. * City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ll. ROLL CALL ID. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of November 18, 1992 ~." '<:'~"~OlSP.ilr::;""" . ~.f"liftebtatr'61i;J "~PtOv.ea'::: W-.~~!t"'%...,:,:,,,,'.,.J<.~. .>>pm. ::::: ..w'..w..':' " d. "':{~:...lP>>. ,::.., :.: '''::. NOWamJ..er... :18::, .199%1: ::--........ ~~~"":"%"'~":t:..:-::....-:.':-..:ox: 2. Minutes of December 9, 1992 1M It ...,....~~.....>>:'t1)'.,.:::. <<- b"" ..v/23 ~~t99%""x,,::, .:::-'ax: ":"'D.e.CJJ It''9. '::" .>>:.,........:.&i(9:/...,.~~~er.:~~...v....,,~: ;;~~$..:<.!w~..:,.......:.. . IV. SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. Height Variation #92-48 Address: 2151215% Tenth Street Applicants: Jim and Gladys Funk Property Owners: Jim and Gladys Funk Request: Review and approval for a CRAS in conjunction with the remodel of a single story front dwelling. Resolution: #92-74 v. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Variance #92-2 Conditional Use Permit #92-12 Negative Declaration #92-5 Location: Orange County Assossor's Parcel #178-502-46 [Lot adjacent to Water Towerl Anderson Street] Applicant: Jeff Overeem Property Owner: Jeff Overeem Request: To construct a quick lube/carwash on subject property. Resolutions: #92-64/Carwash #92-65/Drive Aisle . . . PBge Z . PIanDiDg Commission Agenda for J8Duary 6, 1993 s. Conditional Use Pennit #92-20 (I~ntlii1i~d~61~y:>>;ql~1~:g2]' '-""'~""u.rnmf~, ':i'::: ....... ...............-.............-....~................. Operation: John's Food King Address: 148 Main Street Applicants: Donald & Sharon Davis Property Owner: Dorothy M. Nescher Request: After-the-fact approval for ABC license. Resolution: #92-62 6. Conditional Use Pennit #92-10 rCoii~lcJ":f~it1..11;Js.::92..:;&'if2;';~1 ~. . .~~-:-.....-:...:.:-:-:l'~:-.~. ..~~:;o. . :.;::~. ..-:....-.: . ....::::.:......~ Operation: Irisher Address: 121 Main Street Applicants: Robert & Wilma Campregher Property Owner: Mark R. Johnson Request: After-the-fact CUP for ABC license to sell beer, wine and distiled spirits. Resolution: #92-66 7. Conditional Use Pennit #92-22 Operation: Nip 'n Stuff Liquor Store Address: 322 Main Street Applicant: John Baker Property Owner: Lucille E. Jones Request: After-the-fact CUP for an off-sale general liquor license to sell beer, wine and distilled spirits at 322 Main Street. Resolution: #93-1 8. Conditional Use Pennit #92-24 Operation: Glider Inn Address: 1400 Pacific Coast Highway Applicant: Karla A. Benzl Property Owner: Don Watts Request: After-the-fact CUP for an on-sale general liquor license to sell beer, wine and distilled spirits at 1400 Pacific Coast Highway. Resolution: #93-2 . . . Page 3 . PIaJmiog Commission Agenda for J8Duary Ii. 1993 9. Conditional Use Permit #92-25 Operation: Glider Inn Address: 1400 Pacific Coast Highway Applicant: Karla A. Benzl Property Owner: Don Watts Request: Entertainment at Glider Inn. Resolution: #93-3 10. Conditional Use Permit #92-15 Operation: Brunswick Rossmoor Bowl Address: 12121 Seal Beach Boulevard Applicant: Leiserv, Inc. Request: After-the-fact CUP for an on-sale general liquor license to sell beer, wine and distilled spirits at 12121 Seal Beach Blvd. Resolution: #93-4 ORALCO~TCATIONS STAFF CONCERNS COMMISSION CONCERNS ADJOURNMENT . . . Page 4 - PIanDlIII COIIIJIIissjOD Ageuda for Jauuary 6. 1993 1993 AGENDA FORECAST: STAFF REPORTS PENDING: NOT AGENDIZED * Review of CUP's for Businesses Open 2-6 A.M. 1. 2. 3. Not rec'd Not rec'd Not rec'd Seal Beach Chevron Union 76 Taco Bell Scheduled: Scheduled: Scheduled: * Review of 12 establishments selline liquor w/o City CUP. 1. Not rec'd Leisure Mkt. Scheduled: 2. Not rec'd Dolphin Mkt. Scheduled: * ZTA #92-2 Entertainment Cafes (Pending City Manager's work on one day permits) * CUP #92-7 Unocal/99 Marina/ReactivateOil Dehydration Facility) [Environmental work being done] * CUP #14-91 Spaehettini's/Entertainment/One year review. [ABC going to review their position first]. * ZTA #_ Old Ranch Country Club/Entertainment/ZTA before CUP * HV # CRAS (Thompson @ 1305 Sandpiper) * ZT A # --- Crestview/Patio Setbacks * CUP #92-23 209 Main St./BJ's Pizza [CUP for beer & wine + seismic retrofit] * V AR #92-3 209 Main St./BJ's Pizza [V AR for on-site parking]. , Pace S . I'IaIlllinc Colllllllsslon Agenda for January 6, I \l93 . 1993 JAN 20 FEB 03 FEB 17 MAR 03 MAR 17 APR 07 APR 21 MAY 05 ~ MAY 19 JUN 09 JUN 23 JUL 07 JUL 21 AUG 04 AUG 18 SEP 08 SEP 22 OCT 06 OCT 20 . CUP #92-26/Tortilla Beach Restaurant @ 3001 Old Ranch Parkway (new restaurant wants ABC #47). V AR #92-4/254 Sixth St./new Ericksen house. CUP #92-1/Tootsie's indefinite extension. CUP #92-2/SeaSide Grill's indefinite extension. CUP #92-19/Clancy's for 12 mos. extension. CUP #92-171Main St. Deli/indefinite extension. Puce' - I'IaImlDc Collllllissioa Agenda for Jaauuy 6, 1993 . NOV 03 NOV 17 DEe 08 DEC 22 . . . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of JANUARY 6, 1993 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of January 6, 1993 was called to order by Chairman Fife at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Law led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners, Law, Sharp, Dahlman Staff Present: Department of Development Services: Michael Colantuono, Assistant City Attorney Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Absent: Commissioner Orsini MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to excuse Commissioner Orsini's absence. MOTION CARRIES: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Dahlman, Law, Fife Orsini CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of November 18, 1992 The Planning Commission consented to continuing the approval of the November 18, 1992 Minutes to the January 20, 1993, to allowed Commissioner Orsini to be present. 2. Minutes of December 9, 1992 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 1992 with the following corrections: . . . Page 2 - Planning Conunission Minule8 of January 6, 1993 Page 1: Add" by a maiority of the entire membership...". Page 4: Replace "signing" with "consideration". Page 14: Add "to revoke a CUP" after"... a defensible basis" Page 14: Change"... there isn't a basis to transfer the existing CUP" to "there may not be a basis to refuse to transfer the existine CUP". Page 15: Change "is" to" ... businesses are having a hard time may be because " MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: [Emphasis Added] 3-1-1 Dahlman, Law, Sharp Fife Orsini SCHEDULED MATTERS 3. Height Variation #92-48 215/215lh Tenth Street Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicants, James and Gladys Funk, are requesting the approval of a Height Variation for construction of a covered roof access structure (CRAS) in conjunction with a major remodel/addition to the front unit of a duplex at 2151h Tenth Street. Staff recommended approval, subject to three conditions of approval, via Resolution No. 93-1. Commission Comments Commissioner Dahlman asked why the CRAS had to be over the height limit and what the dimension of the CRAS is above the height limit? Mr. Curtis said the CRAS is 60 square feet at the height limit. Since this property meets parking requirements through the use of tandem parking, the Planning Commission previously approved the Funk's planned expansion of a non-conforming property allowing more than a 10% addition. Mr. Whittenberg explained the property does not meet parking requirements, but because it has tandem parking it does provide more than the required number of parking spaces on the property. There are two units on the site with six parking spaces on-site. It therefore provides three off-street parking spaces per unit in a tandem configuration. When the Code was revised for the expansion, tandem parking was allowed for single . . . Page 3 - PIaDniDg Cammissioa Minule8 of J8IllI8l')' 6, 1993 family and duplex structures. The site is non-conforming because of the tandem parking and the location of two of the tandem open parking spaces along the side yard. Chairman Fife indicated the plans should be revised, showing the glass block areas shaped to follow the hypotenuse of the roof. The revised plans should show the same glass block arrangement on both sides of the CRAS. Mr. Curtis said staff was recommending this. Public Hearing Mr. Curtis said this should have been agendized as a Public Hearing, rather than a Scheduled Matter. The applicants were not present and no one in the audience wished to speak for or against this matter. The Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments Commissioner Dahlman asked why this CRAS was designed to be over the size limit? Mr. Curtis said to provide head clearance for the stairs. The alternative would have the CRAS designed straight up and then a larger portion of the CRAS would be 41f2' over the height limit. This CRAS is larger due to the landing's size at the turn and the stairway configuration not being as steep as it could be. Mr. Curtis said 6" - 8" could be cut off the landing and still have a legal size landing. Commissioner Sharp stated he felt this CRAS is acceptable to him. Discussion Before the Vote Commissioner Dahlman said that if an exception is made to a rule then that becomes the new standard to which everybody adheres. Exceptions follow which further extends the original policy. He urged the Commission to exercise discipline, stick with the policy or change the policy. Commissioner Law said the applicants probably designed the CRAS over the height limit because of structural reasons. The applicants would have to redesign all their plans. Commissioner Dahlman indicated the CRAS is centered in the middle of the roof deck. He did not agree with Mr. Curtis' reasoning that because part of the CRAS is below the height limit and it slopes up that the total number of cubic feet above the height limit is probably the same as what the maximum CRAS sizes allowed for. The square footage at the height limit must be considered. Mr. Curtis said the cubic feet is approximately one-half of what could be allowed. Mr. Curtis said the applicants could cut the CRAS down by 4 or 6 additional square feet by shortening the top landing. Commissioner Dahlman asked Commissioner Sharp if he would be willing to amend his motion to include a condition that the applicants shorten the landing by one or two feet? Commissioner Sharp said he would be willing to amend his condition to request the . . . Page 4 - Planning ConuuissiOll Minutes of J MUDI}' 6, 1993 applicant work with the Planning Department to achieve this but not to demand it. Commissioner Dahlman said that would be fine. Commissioner Law said if it is structural, a demand could get the applicant into trouble. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Height Variation #92-48 subject to the three conditions of approval in the staff report and with the following condition added: 4. Staff is authorized and directed to work with the applicants and in staff's discretion to reduce the total square footage above the height limit as much as is practical and feasible without excess expense to the applicant. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Fife, Dahlman Orsini PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Fife indicated there are agendized items that have been continued. 5. Conditional Use Permit #92-20 [Continued from 11-18-92] 148 Main Street * John's Food King The applicant has to be out of town and cannot be present at this meeting and he asked for the matter to be continued to January 20, 1993. Chairman Fife polled the audience and there were no persons present who could not be present on January 20th. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to continue the Public Hearing on CUP #92-20 to January 20, 1993. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Fife, Dahlman, Law, Sharp Orsini 6. Conditional Use Permit #92-10 [Continued from 11-18-92 & 12-9-92] 121 Main Street * Irisher . . . Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes of JnnWlI}' 6, 1993 10. Conditional Use Permit #92-25 12121 Seal Beach Blvd. * Brunswick Rossmoor Bowl MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Fife to table CUP #92-10 for the Irisher at 121 Main Street and CUP #92-15 for Brunswick Rossmoor Bowl at 12121 Seal Beach Staff is instructed to readvertise and Notice for a Public Hearing at a later date. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Fife, Dahlman, Law Orsini 4. Variance #92-2 Conditional Use Permit #92-12 Negative Declaration #92-5 5 Anderson Street Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Jeff Overeem, requests approval to construct a quick lube/carwash at 5 Anderson Street, a currently vacant lot. The staff report presented eleven conditions of approval if the project is approved by the Commission. On December 9, 1992, the Planning Commission directed staff to meet with the applicant to consider alterations to the proposed project which would reduce expected impacts. The following alterations were agreed to: 1. The second story office and deck will be removed from consideration. 2. The site's traffic flow will be reversed. All traffic entering the site from Anderson Street and exiting onto Pacific Coast Highway. 3. The first floor office and waiting area will be relocated to the east side of the property. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp said he was surprised the staff report indicated that staff believes residential to be the best use of the property, particularly when the previous residential project was fought by the residents in the area. Mr. Curtis explained the majority of the opposition to the residential proposal was due to the 35' height that was proposed and the architectural design conflicted with the Water Tower. Staff feels if the residential proposal were altered to be more compatible with the surrounding uses, as well as lowering the structure to two stories, the residential would be the best use of the Page 6 - Planuing Commission Minutes of January 6. 1993 . property. Commissioner Sharp said a small amount of housing probably would not be economically feasible on that site. Mr. Curtis said in Seal Beach residential property is more valuable than commercial property. He added the Coastal Commission favors visitor-serving commercial uses on major commercial streets. The Coastal Commission did look at this site when the applicant proposed the residential uses and felt a residential use would be appropriate. Mr. Colantuono said the question before the Commission is not whether residential or commercial uses are preferable. There are two questions before the Commission: (1) regarding the CUP, can the Commission make the findings under the municipal Code to approve the use the applicant proposes? The findings are consistency with the General Plan and compatibility with his neighbors. If some aspect of the proposed use would make it a noxious neighbor, the Planning Commission could deny it. Denial can be made only if the findings cannot be made to grant it; and (2) can Variance findings be made? Is a Negative Declaration appropriate? The test is not whether residential uses are preferable but whether this proposed use can sustain the findings the Code requires the Commission to make. If the application is rejected and staff continues to believe rezoning is appropriate, staff can, with the assistance of the Planning Commission, institute proceedings to rezone the site. . Commissioner Dahlman said the City Council received testimony that the City's Circulation Element is not up to standard. He asked if the Circulation Element addresses traffic impacts, such as the 144 trips each way per day? Mr. Whittenberg explained the Circulation Element does not deal with how trip generation factors are derived. The City has a Growth Management Element which discusses roadway improvements as part of the Measure M process. That Element indicates there are criteria, when a certain level of service (LOS) is exceeded, which require mitigation. This proposed project does not reach those levels or generate enough traffic to require mitigation. Measure M would require a 3 % impact on traffic and this project is about one-half of 1 % of the current traffic level. The Circulation Element describes a city's roadway, transit and bicycle path systems and how those inter-relate to provide sufficient capacity for vehicular traffic utilizing those roadways. In Seal Beach, Pacific Coast Highway is heavily impacted due to through traffic. Commissioner Dahlman referenced incremental approvals, such as approving six of this type projects one at a time. Mr. Whittenberg said the Commission could approve projects on a basis where staff is not aware of any other projects coming in along PCH that would cumulatively add to that impact. At this time there are no other proposed projects along PCH to review. Chairman Fife asked are there really 288 net new vehicle trips? Or is it 288 differently configured trips which, if not coming to this car wash because of its availability, would be going on to other places in the City? Mr. Curtis said it is probably a combination of both. Mr. Whittenberg said there is no way to know how those trips are configured. Staff's estimates are based on traffic studies done at similar type sites nation-wide and . . . . Page 7 - Planning ConIDlission Minutes of January 6, 1993 show that those trips would come to this location as trips that have never come here before. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Colantuono if the Planning Commission was really dealing with a Variance or, rather, a Code interpretation? If it is a Variance, what findings have to be made? Mr. Colantuono says the City's municipal Code flatly requires a 24' drive aisle for all commercial uses. So a Variance would be needed to vary from that standard. The Code is silent on whether it must be bi-directional. Commissioner Dahlman noted that if it were not for the topography, there could have been 12' bi- directional drive aisles constituting the required 24'. Mr. Colantuono said the findings for a Variance are some uniqueness to the property and the absence of a special privilege that would result from the grant of a Variance. For this proposal, the findings would turn on the odd shape of the property and the narrow width of the panhandle to the East. Commissioner Law asked about a signage problem. Mr. Curtis explained the Code does not allow off-site signage. Staff needs to research if signage would be allowed in an easement considered to be part of the property. Chairman Fife suggested a requirement for appropriate signage to direct passing motorists to the fact the entrance is off Anderson Street. That would preclude drivers from attempting to enter the property via an exit. Public Hearing Jeff Overeem * rNo Address Given] Mr. Overeem said he thought this property should remain commercially zoned, along with the other properties in the vicinity. Two-story condominiums would not have been financially feasible on that site. This proposal will not block the view of the Water Tower. This proposal has been reduced to comply with what the Building Department wants. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Overeem about the disposal of used oil and lube products. Mr. Overeem stated the oil is stored above ground and it's picked up by a recycling company. Mr. Overeem stated that 288 vehicle trips per day is excessive, the business will not generate that much traffic. The Commission discussed the 288 vehicle trips and felt there would not really be this many and that they are probably local residents re-routing from where they previously got their car washed to this business. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Curtis how did he arrive at five parking spaces since there is no set policy regarding parking for this use? Mr. Curtis said he compared this proposal with requirements for an automobile service station. That required one parking space for each bay --- in this case, four parking spaces. Staff included two parking spaces for employees plus three additional parking spaces because it was felt the cars Page 8 - Planning ConunissiOl1 Minnles of January 6, 1993 . would be stacked on the property or driving through and done, not people leaving their cars to have them washed. Mr. Curtis said both car wash bays are coin operated. Commissioner Dahlman asked about the noise level of 65 decibels. Mr. Curtis said staff anticipates no problems and added this would be checked on the property. The 65 decibels is measured from where the noise moves across onto residential property. The noise limits don't effect commercially zoned properties in the same manner as residential properties. . Bob Odell * 1 Anderson Street. Seal Beach Dr. Odell spoke in opposition to this proposal. He said this proposal would not preserve the historical integrity of the Water Tower adding "I would absolutely be in favor of a rezone if it were only two stories". He felt a jiffy lube would degrade the Water Tower and ruin the aesthetics for nearby residences. He stated Mr. Armstrong, who couldn't be here tonight, has had second thoughts and has been talking with Dr. Odell and other people about selling his property to Dr. Odell. Dr. Odell felt the traffic problems will not be solved by reversing the flow. He noted that if a car drove in, saw too much traffic, and wanted to exit, the car could hit the block wall and that could subsequently damage the Water Tower. He asked if the Commissioners were aware of Virginia Strains' letter; the Commission indicated they were. He asked the Commission to consider the setting of the Water Tower and Noel's restaurant, noting Mr. Overeem's lot is odd-shaped and should be integrated into the Water Tower's lot. He felt a car museum would be a better commercial use. He noted citizen acceptance of this proposal was exceeding low. He had understood staff was going to recommend against this proposal and therefore minimized the number of persons attending this hearing. He appealed to the Planning Commission to preserve the historical integrity of the Water Tower. Bill Padi11a * rNo Address Given]. Surfside Mr. Padilla spoke in opposition to this proposal. He said the consideration should be the impact this proposal will have on the intersection of Anderson Street and PCH, noting Anderson Street is a designated public beach access turnoff. By reversing the traffic flow from the car wash, that would put cars exiting onto PCH right where the turnoff for Anderson Street starts. There are hoards of bicyclists at this intersection and during the summer Anderson Street is used heavily for beach access. Patrons who enter the jiffy lube/car wash and change their minds will have no place to go --- they will be shunted back out onto PCH through a narrow drive aisle. Most coin operated coin washes have an area to pull forward to dry your car, vacuuming etc. Will these patrons just wash their car and drive right out? . Regarding oil storage, Mr. Padilla said there will be hazardous waste trucks entering and exiting to pump new oil and the remove the waste oil and oil filters. What time of the day or evening will this take place? These will be two different trucks and two different companies. Will these trucks block of a portion off this 12' area? I'IIgc 9 - Planning ConIDlissiOll Minu\c8 of J anual)' 6, 1993 . Regarding parking, Mr. Padilla said two or three employee parking spaces is not sufficient. Surfside residents enter and exit their community via the Anderson Street/PCR intersection and this proposal would create a huge problem. Regarding the 8' block wall, Mr. Padilla said this would block some sound, but the residents will be able to hear cars coming into the business from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Regarding the easement, the staff report calls for the applicant to enter into a permanent, non-revokable easement and asked if that could be changed upon sale? Mr. Padilla reiterated this proposal would greatly impact the Anderson Street/PCR intersection and a quick lube 30' from Surfside residences would be objectionable. Rebuttal . Jeff Overeem said Dr. Odell continues to reference the many persons who support his views, but at the actual hearings there is only Dr. Odell and Mr. Padilla. Re stated he offered to sell this property to Dr. Odell but Dr. Odell did not return his two calls. Regarding traffic, if a patron wanted service but saw there were too many other patrons, "it would be like backing out of any other driveway". The car wash will be equipped with deionized water which dries while you're driving away and leaves the car spotless. Regarding pickup and delivery of oil, any problems can be resolved by placing time limits on this. Regarding parking, employees can always use the street. . Chairman Fife asked what is the size of the trucks reclaiming the oil? Mr. Overeem said these are ten-wheel dump trucks with a tank in the back. Chairman Fife asked if there is room for that size vehicle to readily turn off Anderson Street, thread through the 12' drive aisle and get into where it needs to? Mr. Overeem said "I feel there is". Chairman Fife asked if Anderson Street allowed parking on the side, between PCR and the entrance to his lot? Mr. Overeem said "Cars do park there now, yes". Chairman Fife said if cars were parked on both sides of Anderson Street, as they would likely be in the summer, what is left for total traffic lanes side-to-side on Anderson Street? What is the swing angle? Mr. Overeem said "It's a two lane road ... you would have ... 30' or 35' for a two lane road. I'm not really sure, I'm not an expert on the roads ... the other option they could do, we could make arrangements with them, so they could pull in on a slack time and get it from the front ... pull into the exit ...". Chairman Fife asked Mr. Overeem if he owned the land now and if he had analyzed the economics of the various projects that could be done with the land and in his mind is this the best project he can do? Mr. Overeem replied he was in real estate in Santa Barbara and now that the real estate market has died, he thought this would be a good opportunity for him to move down here and start up a business and start a new occupation. Chairman Fife asked what the finished architecture of his structure would look like and if, without undue expense, there were any facades to make it blend more aesthetically with the Water Tower? Mr. Overeem said when the original plans had the two-story building on . . . Page 10 - Planning COllwlission Minutes of Jallual)' 6, 1993 top, he had designed it with TIll siding on the building which ties in with the lower portion of the Water Tower. He added "That is not a problem.. there is no problem there, we can do thatll. Dr. Odell added that Mr. Overeem did telephone him and that he referred Mr. Overeem to his realtor. His realtor was skiing and couldn't call him back; that was 2 or 3 business days ago. However, he contacted Mr. Overeem in April and the conversation didn't go in a nice way and he decided to approach him via a third person and that's why he didn't return his call. Commissioner Dahlman said that their business dealings are something that is none of the Planning Commission's consideration, even though a Commission decision may have some effect on their dealings. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments Mr. Colantuono said if the Commission wishes to take a final action tonight, there are two final actions that might be taken: (1) adopt the Negative Declaration and instruct staff to come back with resolutions making findings to approve the CUP and the Variance or (2) direct staff to come back with resolutions denying the CUP and the Variance and taking no action on the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Dahlman said there are no plans for this proposal as proposed to be modified. Mr. Whittenberg said the applicant will need to revise the plans if the proposal is approved. Chairman Fife asked if the Negative Declaration showed the entry from PCH, exit onto Anderson Street? Staff said yes. Chairman Fife asked staff if the Negative Declaration would need to be re-reviewed? Mr. Whittenberg said no, because the impacts of entering from Anderson Street, exiting onto PCH would not be significantly different than what has been identified and the Negative Declaration would not have to be revised. Commissioner Sharp said he was pleased with the way the applicant has worked with staff and the Commission. He didn't feel the increased traffic would create a problem. He felt that if the applicant tries to sell his property he would take a loss. Therefore, Commissioner Sharp was in favor of this proposal as presented. Commissioner Dahlman said the staff report refers to residential versus commercial and he commented that the time to think about that is not when you have an application in front of you. The only fair thing to do at this time is to look at that site as a commercial site. . . . Page 11 - Planning Conullission Minutes of Janumy 6, 1993 Chairman Fife said that whatever the Commission does tonight is not ultimately final because decisions are appealable to the City Council. This allows ample time for Dr. Odell and Mr. Overeem to talk if they want to, for one to buy the other out. He was in favor of this proposal with an additional condition that the Commission requires the appropriate signage to indicate that the entrance is off Anderson Street and authorize and direct staff to work with the applicant with a view toward achieving architectural facades, roofing etc. to make this structure blend with the architecture of the Water Tower. Commissioner Law said there is nothing in the staff report indicating his project is illegal in any way. She would vote in favor of this proposal. MOTION by Fife, SECOND by Dahlman to approve Variance #92-2, Conditional Use Permit #92-12, Negative Declaration #92-5 by making the required findings with respect to the Val"iance application that the topography of this property is sufficiently unique as to create a hardship by a strict enforcement of the current Code language requh-ing a 24', two-way driveway and that the approval of the Variance is not inconsistent with the General Plan and will not create a special privilege not enjoyed by other's similarly situated and that the Commission approves CUP #92-12 subject to the ten (10) conditions of approval set forth in the staff report and with the addition of the following conditions of approval: 11. The block wall between the ."esidences and the Water Tower. 12. Requil"ing the installation of appropriate signage directing passing motorists to the fact the enh"ance into the property is via the Anderson Street intersection. 13. That the applicant arrange and file with the Planning Director an appropriate schedule for pick-up of waste products that minimizes both interference with traffic during nOl"mal operating hours and minimizes noise to nearby residences. 14. That staff be authorized and directed to work with the applicant to explore, and if feasible, implement architectural treatments and facades that can optimize the aesthetic blending of the structure with the architecture of the Water Tower to p."eserve as much as possible a balance between the historical aspects of the Water Tower and the applicant's right to develop his property in a feasible manner. MOTION CARRIES: AYES: ABSENT: 4 - 0 -1 Fife, Dahlman, Law, Sharp Orsini . . . 7. Page 12 - Planning Conul1ission Minules of January 6, 1993 Chairman Fife reminded all persons of the right to appeal Planning Commission decisions to the City Council. There is a ten day appeal period which begins to run when the Planning Commission adopts a resolution. The resolution will be brought back to the Commission at their January 20th meeting. Commissioner Dahlman said he wants to see what Condition #2 turns out to be, he does not like to grant pre-approval for somebody else to write conditions for the Planning Commission. Mr. Whittenberg said those comments will be included in the resolution. Commissioner Dahlman said he wants to see the plans for what is to be built. Mr. Colantuono said the legally determinative action of the Commission happens when the resolution is approved. Conditional Use Permit #92-22 322 Main Street * Nip 'n Stuff Liquor Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, John Baker, requests approval for an after-the-fact, off-sale general liquor license in conjunction with an existing liquor store located at 322 Main Street. Commission Comments Chairman Fife said if the applicant owns the lighted neon signs it might be reasonable an grant an amortization period equal to his remaining depreciation life on the signs. If he does not own the signs, and there would be no financial hardship to the applicant, the Commission might consider immediate removal of the signs. Public Hearing John Baker * 322 Main Street. Seal Beach Mr. Baker said he does not own the neon alcoholic beverage signs, they are given to him by the beverage distributors. He stated he has a problem with removing the lighted neon alcoholic beverage signs from his store windows. He has operated his business for fourteen years and feels he should be allowed to continue running his business as he has from now and until he sells his business. His store has windows on two sides, so any interior sign would be visible from the exterior. Additionally, he keeps the store lighted at night via these neon beverage signs. Mr. Baker questioned the policy of removing alcoholic beverage signs from store windows. Chairman Fife explained the Commission is focusing on regulated alcoholic beverages. Mr. Baker asked if he could put any lighted neon sign in his window provided it was not a licensed alcoholic beverage? Chairman Fife said that's the way he would regard condition #6. Mr. Baker said he worked on the City sign ordinance committee and is aware of the regulations. Page 13 - Planning Couullission Minutes of January 6, 1993 . Mr. Baker said he feels he should be allowed to operate as he has been, he is not getting any special privilege, he is not a new business owner. Commissioner Dahlman questioned how long something should be "grandfathered", adding this should not be allowed forever. Mr. Baker said he didn't think allowing him to continue was special or fair. He said the Planning Commission has determined that "fair" does not work in this City. There are exceptions for every liquor license in this City. The change should come when a business is sold. He said no one has been asked to take the lighted signs out of their windows where the business has not changed ownership. He is asking to maintain the signs until the business license is transferred. . Chairman Fife asked if any business has been asked to remove their signs when there was not a change of ownership? Mr. Curtis said he was not certain. Commissioner Dahlman said there were instances where these signs were required to be taken down because they were in violation of a CUP. Mr. Whittenberg said the City Council required everybody who did not have a discretionary permit to obtain one (a CUP). Commissioner Dahlman said he supported the non-payment of CUP application fees since this was the City Council's idea, not the businessmen's. This applies to everyone. He said he would not extend that reasoning to giving a different type of CUP to this applicant compared to the previous applicants based on the fact Mr. Baker was here first. Commissioner Dahlman said he saw his choice as either letting all of the liquor store operators eventually have those signs or having none of the liquor store operators have those signs. A position holding Mr. Baker different for as long as he chooses to stay here is not equitable. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Baker if he understood why the City doesn't want the lighted neon liquor signs in windows? Mr. Baker said he did not know why. Commissioner Dahlman said "It's really just not us. The people in town want a tidy, neat, attractive, cultural community without windows littered with Budweiser and whatever". Mr. Baker replied that the underlying statement is " ... we realize as businessmen, that there's been a lot of negatives against us ... you talk to some of the other businesses, and you know they're going out of business because this town would like to gate off Main Street ... there's a very negative attitude in this town. It's unfortunate that the residents that would like to support us ... and they're sitting at home probably watching this tonight. Usually, we get the ones that we don't have their support that they're down here in a group. They are very well organized. And they work very hard to make things very difficult for us ...". Commissioner Dahlman said the question is, is John Baker to be an exception to what the Commission has required of everyone else? Mr. Baker said the requirements have only applied to new business owners, not to long time business owners. When asked how long he felt was a reasonable time to allow the signs to remain, Mr. Baker said "I want it to go as the life time of my business". Commissioner Dahlman referenced condition #3, asking the applicant to send the City a copy of his ABC license. . . . . Page 14 - Planning Conullission Minutes of January 6, 1993 Commissioner Dahlman asked staff how many parking spaces was Mr. Baker deficient? Mr. Curtis said the subject property has seven (7) on-site parking spaces. The applicant needs five (5) parking spaces. The City has no plans on file for the entire building. There are several different types of uses in the building which have different parking requirements. The property itself is deficient about 15 to 20 parking spaces and the applicant is deficient about 3 or 4 parking spaces. At least one of the seven would be credited to the applicant. Because the City does not have plans for the building and no fees are being imposed at this time, staff did not recalculate the square footage of all the different uses and their parking requirements. It has been the Planning Department's recommendation to not charge parking mitigation fees of the businesses who have had to comply because of Ordinance No. 1348. Commissioner Law said she felt that as each application comes to the Commission the sign ordinance should be applied individually. She felt removal of the signs by Mr. Baker would not hurt his business financially. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the discussion regarding alcoholic beverage signs in the windows is not an ordinance requirement, it is a standard policy requirement of the Planning Commission. Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp said he favored an amortization period for the window signs, suggesting part of the signs be removed in a month with the remainder removed within three months. There is a real problem trying to control interior signs, but the Commission should have control of signs in windows facing the street. Mr. Baker asked what Commissioner Sharp meant about signs that face the street? Commission discussion ensued, noting Mr. Baker has window area that faces a private courtyard and window area that faces Main Street. It was determined that this applies to window areas that face a public street, either directly or across a parking lot that serves the business. Mr. Baker asked what can be placed in windows? The Commission said a business owner could not advertise brand names of alcohol (lighted or unlighted), but could have "wine", "beer", "spirits", "cocktails". No lighted neon signs are allowed in store windows, even if the sign said "wine". These words can be painted, frosted or etched on the window. Mr. Whittenberg said the name of the business could be a lighted neon sign placed in the window, subject to size restrictions of the City. . . . Pace 15 - Planning Cmrunission Minutes of January 6, 1993 MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Sharp to approve Conditional Use Permit #92-22, subject to the nineteen (19) conditions of approval set forth in the staff report, and with the following changes: 3. The applicant shall furnish the City a copy of his current ABC license and a copy of the conditions placed on the license by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. This shall he done as soan as tile lieense is Feeei..'ed hy the applieant fFam the State of California Department of Aleahalie Beverage Control. 6. No new lighted signs advertising alcoholic beverages shall be placed in the window areas, nor shall any other signs advertising specific brands of alcoholic beverages be permitted in the window areas. Interior displays of alcoholic beverage siens which are clearly visible to the exterior fmm the street shall constitute a violation of this condition. Existing window signs advertising alcoholic beverages shall be removed by Dccembe.' 31. 1993. [Emphasis added to reflect changes] MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Fife, Law, Sharp, Dahhnan Orsini Chairman Fife advised the applicant of the appeal process. 8. Conditional Use Permit #92-24 and #92-25 1400 Pacific Coast Highway Glider Inn Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Via CUP #92-24, the applicant, Karla Benzl, is requesting approval for an after-the-fact CUP for an on-sale general liquor license. Via CUP #92-25 the applicant is seeking approval to continue entertainment at an existing restaurant. Commission Comments Chairman Fife recommended the following changes to the conditions for CUP #92-24: 3. The applicant shall furnish the City a copy of his current ABC license and a copy of the conditions placed on the license by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. This shall he done as soan as the lieense is .."eeeived hy the applieaBt from the State of Califamia DepRI1nleBt of Aleahalie Be"t'eFRge CaBtFal. . . . Page 16 - Pl:mning COlIUllission Minules of January 6, 1993 6. No new lighted signs advertising alcoholic beverages shall be placed in the window areas, nor shall any other signs advertising specific brands of alcoholic beverages be permitted in the window areas. Interior displays of alcoholic beverage signs which are clearly visible te the cxtel'ioF from the street shall constitute a violation of this condition. Chairman Fife recommended the following changes to the conditions for CUP #92-25: 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke entertainment privileges at any time pursuant to a noticed public hearing for violation of these conditions or of the Code of the City of Seal Beach. or in the absence of a violation of these conditions, if the Commission deems the exe.'cise of such privileges to be incompatible with the neighbfwhood with neiehborine uses. 15. The term of this permit shall be six (6) months. At the end of the six- month term of this permit, the Applicant may apply for a twelve- month extension of CUP #92-25 after which time the Apnlicant may apply for an indefinite extension of CUP #92-25. The Commission may grant such a twelve-month extension provided all conditions of approval ...11. Public Hearing The applicant was not present. There were no people in the Chambers and the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments Commissioner Dahlman said his problem with approving the CUP for entertainment was it was going to cost somebody $200 to appeal it again and the City Council is going to have to review it. It would be best to defer this until the City has a set policy. Chairman Fife said that if the Commission doesn't take an action, the applicant is providing entertainment without any license. Commissioner Sharp said the Commission doesn't have the right to assume this is going to be appealed or that the City Council is going to do one thing or another. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Conditional Use Pennit #92-24, through the adoption of Resolution #93-4, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff rep0l1 and changes discussed at this meeting. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSENT: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Fife, Dahlman Orsini . . . Page 17 - Planning Conunissioll Minutes of JaDllllry 6, 1993 MOTION by Sha.op; SECOND by Law to approve Conditional Use Permit #92-25, through the adoption of Resolution #93-5, subject to conditions of approval set forth in the staff report and changes discussed at this meeting. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: NOES: ABSENT: 3-1-1 Sharp, Law, Fife Dahlman Orsini ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS Lethal Brick Wall At Seal Beach Boulevard Chairman Fife asked staff to inquire and report back to the Commission regarding the leaning 8' wall which is leaning toward the "City's" sidewalk. The wall seems to be leaning more. The Rossmoor Improvement District and the Rossmoor Homeowners Association have been discussing who's responsibility it is to do something about the wall. What is the outcome of their discussions? It has the potential for a catastrophe. Circulation Element Commissioner Dahlman said he would like feedback on whether the City needs a new Element? Mr. Whittenberg said the issue was raised last Monday night at the City Council and he spent time today discussing this with the City Attorney. There will be a response to the City Council on January 11, 1993. No Opinions Before The Vote Commissioner Sharp indicated explicit instructions have been given warning each of the Commissioners that they should not make any decisions until a Public Hearing is closed. Then, when a City Council person files an Appeal against a Planning Commission decision how is that not a statement they are against it and how can they turn around and vote on it? Mr. Colantuono said that it is the City Attorney Office's view that if a City Council member does not say that the basis of their appeal is that they disagree with the Commission's action or otherwise make public statements indicating they disagree with your action, that it is appropriate the bare facts of an Appeal as expressing nothing more than the belief that the application is of such City-wide importance that it is properly reviewed at the City Council level. '. :. . Page 18 - P1l11Uling COIlUuission Minutes of January 6, 1993 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 10: 17 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~~. Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary NOTE: APPROV AL: These Minutes are tentative until approved. The Planning Commission Minutes of January 6, 1993 were approved on January _,1993._