Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1993-03-03 CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA of MARCH 3, 1993 7:30 P.M. * City Council Chambers 277 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA Next Resolution: #93-70 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR 7. Minutes of February 77, 7993 IV. SCHEDULED MA TTERS 2. Adoption of Resolution #93-9 Variance #92-4, Negative Declaration #93-7 254 Sixth Street "'--' 3. Adoption of Resolution #93-70 Minor Plan Review #97-79 7707 Pacific Coast Highway 4. Zoning Classification Determination: Grotemat Property 76 Marina (Assessor's Parcel #043-772-07J 5. Zoning Ordinance Determination re fj28-2407(aJ(4J V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Conditional Use Permit #93-2 Address: 907 Ocean A venue Applicants: R. David Duran, Kathryn L. Duran and Jack R. Duran Property Owner: Richard H. Wells TR Request: To transfer ownership of a restaurant (Kinda LahainaJ with an approved land use entitlement tor on-premise general alcohol sales at 907 Ocean A venue. '--' , , , Page 2 of 2 Planning Commission Agenda March 3, 7993 7. Minor Plan Review #93-2 Address: 225 74th St. Applicants: Mark, Rhonda and Gloria Hjelm Property Owners: Mark, Rhonda and Gloria Hjelm Request: To construct an additional garage and tandem parking space to meet parking requirements. 8. Conditional Use Permit #93-7 Address: 225 74th St. Applicants: Mark, Rhonda and Gloria Hjelm Property Owners: Mark, Rhonda and Gloria Hjelm Request: A major remodel and addition (of approximately 7087 square feet) to an existing nonconforming duplex at 225 74th Street. 9. Conditional Use Permit #93-3 Address: 73969 Seal Beach Boulevard Applicant: Boon Soon (Shaun) Lee Property Owner: Frank H. Ayres & Son, L.P. Request: After-the-fact approval for continued off-sale general liquor sales at Leisure Market, 73969 Seal Beach Boulevard. VI. ORAL COMMUNICA TIONS VII. STAFF CONCERNS VIII. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT , , , 7993 AGENDA FORECAST: STAFF REPORTS PENDING: NOT AGENDIZED ~ These items received a letter from City Attorney's Office dated January 25, 7993, advising them to contact the City in a last effort to resolve the various matters: . :raco Siill/640 PCH/CUP tor being open 2-6 AM . ....:-....0)........... . Not rec'd . f1.0Q!i ';"P(.;HJ:(ed'j::~!S,i ",iJi$/Needs CUP tor video game ................ ............ ......~........ machines. Owner has not replied. CUP #93-_ . ZTA #92-2 ~,:,~ertaln,f!I~nt ~'!.fe$ Pending City Manager's work on one day permits. . CUP #74-97 Spag1i'ettini"$jE,;teri;;iiimebtl(jne..~y'eW:''''eiriCJi,V:: .......-::-.. .... "';','>" ..... . y".-:.:..... . :.:-......:..-:-:-:.. .......::......... ...> ......:...::-.. Notes: ABC going to review their position first. JF requested update from ABC 7/79/93. . ZTA# O/d."Riihch ',Cbiin :.......vClub/Enterljjlniiiiiht . .:.::.......>>..>......:.......... .~:......... ...X::'::',. .:.......::v.:.: ZTA must allow entertainment in the Recreational Goff Zone. BC working on this; should be ready in March. . ZTA # ---- Ciestvliiw/Pilfio seiJJiicks .. .... ....... .... .......... ......... 7993 MAR 77 CUP #93-41927 PCH/Carwash's new sign/Krull CUP #93-5/111 Main/Clancy's pool tables & video games CUP #93-6/12311 SBB/Rossmoor Bowl's video games CUP #92-15/12311 SBB/Rossmoor Bowl/ABC CUP #93-7/350 Main/Chevron Open 2AM-6AM CUP #92-7/99 Marina Dr./Unocal/Reopen Oil Separation Facility CUP #93-7/1430 Ocean/Oolphin Market/ABC HV #93-7/1305 Sandpiper Or/Thompson's CRAS CUP #92-23/209 Main St./BJ's Pizza/ABC VAR #92-3/209 Main St./BJ's Pizza/parking. . . , APR 07 APR 27 MAY 05 MAY 79 ZTA #92-6, Item #2 VAR #93-71272 Main/Masonic Lodge tor 28 grandfathered spaces. CUP #92-7flootsie's indefinite extension. CUP #92-2/SeaSide Grill's indefinite extension. JUN 09 CUP #92-7 7/Main St. Deli/indefinite extension. CUP #92-73/Papillon's @4mos./entertainment CUP #92-79/Clancy's tor 72 mos. extension. JUN 23 JUL 07 JUL 27 AUG 04 AUG 78 , SEP 08 SEP 22 OCT 06 OCT 20 NOV 03 NOV 77 DEC 08 DEC 22 , CUP #92-73/Papillon's @ 8 mos./entertainment CUP #92-20/748 Main St./John's Food King/ABC [Review CUP #92-73 & CUP #92-20 at same meeting). , , I . . 7994 JAN 05 JAN 79 FEB 09 FEB 23 MAR 09 MAR 23 APR 06 APR 20 MAY 04 MAY 78 JUN 08 JUN 22 JUL 06 JUL 20 AUG 03 AUG 77 SEP 07 SEP 27 OCT 05 OCT 79 NOV 09 NOV 23 DEC 07 DEC 27 CUP 1192-22/322 Main/Nip'n Stuff/72 mos. review/ABC CUP 1192-24/7400 PCH/Glider Inn/72 mos/ABC CUP 1192-26/3007 Old Ranch Pkwyflonilla Beach/72 mos/ABC CUP 1192-73/Papillon's @ 72 mos./entenainment (Schedule indefinite extension) . . . , ". CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 3, 1993 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of March 3, 1993 was called to order by Chairman Fife at 7:30 p.m. in City Council chambers. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Law. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Dahlman, Law, Sharp, Soukup Staff Present: Department of Develooment Services: Michael Colantuono, Assistant City Attorney Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of February 17, 1993 Mr. Colantuono corrected the Minutes at page 7, paragraph 9, to add "... substantially all ..." to read "... to comply with the usual rules without losing suhstantiallv all property value... ". MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of February 17, 1993 with one correction as noted. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSTAIN: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Fife, Soukup Dahlman SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. Adoption of Resolution #93-9 Negative Declaration #93-1, Variance #92-4 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Planning Commission Resolution #93-9, approving Negative Declaration #93-1 and Variance #92-4, permitting less than the required side yard setback in conjunction with the construction of n new single family dwelling on an irregularly shaped lot located at 254 Sixth Street, Seal Beach. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSTAIN: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Fife, Soukup Dahlmnn , . . . Page 2 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1993 3. Adoption of Resolution #93-8 Minor Plan Review #91-19 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Soukup to approve Planning Commission Resolution #93-8, approving an amendment to the Conditions of Approval for Minor Plan Review #91-19, allowing the replacement of three reverse recycling machines at 1101 Pacific Coast Highway, Seal Beach (Pavilion Place) with a manned small collection recycling facility. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: ABSTAIN: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Fife, Soukup Dahlman 4. Zoning Classification Determination: Grotemat Property 16 Marina Drive, Seal Beach Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The City received a request from an appraiser regarding the property's zoning. Staff review of City files showed inconsistencies in the City's zoning ordinance and Soecific Plan for the DWP property. In 1982 the City adopted the DWP Soecific Plan and there was a provision that the 70% open space requirement would apply to the DWP site. The City Council specifically excluded this property from the Specific Plan's provisions. However, the implementing zoning ordinance requires the 70% open space provision to apply to all properties within the Commercial Park zone. When adopting the zoning ordinance it appears the City Council forgot this one parcel was not part of the DWP property and was not subject to the 70% open space requirement. Staff is seeking Planning Commission clarification on whether the Commission feels the 70 % open space requirement applies to this property or not. Staff then can provide correct information can be provided to interested individuals. If the Planning Commission concurs with stafrs determination that would go to the City Council for review and possible acceptance. Staff would process a Zoning Text Amendment to clarify that the 70% open space requirement does not apply to 16 Marina Drive. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp said it is his long time understanding that 16 Marina Drive is not included in the DWP properties' requirement for 70% open space. Chairman Fife asked what would 16 Marina Drive be zoned? Mr. Whittenberg said it would remain Commercial Park (C-P) but staff would recommend a zoning change to Service Commercial zone (C-l), the lightest intensity commercial zone. Staff would recommend the C-P zone only apply to the DWP parcel. The C-l zone has no parks requirement. Mr. Whittenberg indicated there currently is a business on the subject property and he believed there is a residence there also which is 'grandfathered' (before the zoning went to C-l). Commissioner Dahlman said the subject property has a considerable amount of open space now and felt whatever is done now should take into account the open space requirements, should have development standards. Mr. Whittenberg said the property has a large setback from Marina Drive and it is privately owned property. He indicated C-l zoning has very specific development standards in the Code. Commissioner Soukup asked if nothing was done at this time, would a developer have to comply with the 70% open space? Mr. Whittenberg said yes, in a technical sense. However, the City Council Minutes would aid in making a good case that the subject property was excluded from the 70 % requirement. . . . " Page 3 - Planning COOlmission Minutes of March 3, 1993 Chairman Fife asked if the Planning Commission was being asked to (1) conclude the 70% open space requirement applicable to the DWP property Specific Plan was not intended to apply to this parcel and (2) this parcel should be rezoned C-l? Mr. Colantuono said the Planning Commission is being asked to commence the process to rezone the property from C-P to C-l, as reaching this decision incorporates the first conclusion. Mr. Whittenberg said another option would be to leave the property in the C-P zone and formulate a clarifying statement indicating the 70% open space requirement referenced in the zoning code section does not apply to this parcel. Staff feels it is more appropriate to change the zoning and not differentiate between one parcel and another in the zone itself as to what applies to one parcel and what does not apply. It's cleaner to leave the C-P zone with the 70% open space requirement and that applies to the larger parcel which the Specific Plan was developed for. Then place the other parcel in C-l, a comparable commercial zone classification. A rezoning decision will have to be a Public Hearing. At this time staff wants Commission clarification on whether to proceed or not. Commissioner Sharp asked if this would go to the City Council before returning to the Planning Commission? Mr. Whittenberg said yes. The Public Hearing process before the Planning Commission would not begin until the Council has indicated they agree with the Commission's approach to clarify to existing ambiguity on the zoning. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Soukup to accept staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission detennine the property at 16 Marina Drive is located in the C-P zone and that the 70% open space provision is only applicable to the DWP property, in accordance with the adopted DWP Soecitic Plan. Additionally, staff is instructed to prepare a zone text amendment to clarify the language of Section 28-900 to conform with the determination of the Planning Commission. This determination is to be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. Commissioner Dahlman asked who is requesting this determination, the property owner? Mr. Whittenberg said the inquiry came from an appraiser. Staff feels they need to be able to give property owners or potential future property owners a reasonahle answer as to what they can expect to do with the property. Commissioner Dahlman expressed his concern that the process could possible be in conflict with the owner's best interest; if the property owner doesn't want it rezoned then perhaps the City should not rezone it. Mr. Whittenberg said the City Council Minutes indicate the resident of the subject premises is the future inheritor of the property saying they did not want to be subject to the terms of the SDecific Plan. Staff feels the C-l zoning ordinance development standards are most closely like development standards to what would be potential development prqjects on the DWP site. The DWP site has been planned for a hotel development on the northerly 30%. The C-l zone allows for light retail uses as accessory uses and staff feels those would be compatible with (the hopeful) future development of that site for a hotel in the future. Also, the second paragraph of the staff recommendation was to clarify the language as to how the zoning pertains to this property. At that point staff was thinking of revising the language of the C-P zone and at this time staff is modifying that recommendation to propose a zone change on the parcel after review of the matter with the City Attorney's Office. Commissioner Dahlman said he was in favor of communicating to the City Council that the Commission would concur with the stafrs recommendation to rezone the property and exempt it from the Specific Plan. MOTION CARRmD: A YES: 5-0-0 Fife, Dahlman, Shurp, Law, Soukup . . . , ' 5. Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1993 Zoning Ordinance Detennination re Municipal Code U8-2407(A)(4)(c) Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Section 28- 2407(A)(4) permits major expansion and remodel to nonconforming structures which are nonconforming due to density and approved tandem parking. A prohibition on the addition of bedrooms seems unreasonable to staff, since a conforming residence which meets parking requirements has no limit on the number of bedrooms. Staff reconunends the Commission reconunend to the City Council that Section 28- 2407(A)(4)(c) be deleted from the Code and Section 28-2407(A)(4)(d) be renumbered accordingly. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Whittenberg if he were certain on this because that was not his understanding. Mr. Whittenberg called attention to (4)(c) and its wording. Commissioner Sharp said this must have been a slip-up in the printing. Mr. Whittenberg said that for a proposed expansion of greater than the 10% it would require a Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing, Notice to property owners within 300' of that Public Hearing. If the proposal meets parking requirements it could include the provision for additional bedrooms. It would not change the process, it would change the type of remodel or expansion proposal. The parking requirements are two spaces per living unit. Commissioner Dahlman said he read this as having different standards for those persons who conform versus persons who do not conform due to density. Mr. Whittenberg said that if you are nonconforming due to density and parking you should not be able to add bedrooms. If you are nonconforming du~ to density but you provide parking, even if some of it is provided by tandem parking, you should be able to add bedrooms to the structure. The idea was that adding bedrooms may, at some point, generate additional vehicles to the property which does not have the capability to provide minimal off-street parking under its current situation. The major expansions and minor expansions have different Noticing requirements and processes. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Whittenberg for his thought on the claimed inability to provide conventional off- street parking spaces was due to the fact that the place to put such parking was taken by the addition of a bedroom? Does the addition of a bedroom justify the conclusion that you can only provide tandem spaces? Mr. Whittenberg replied that it does not in that case. Usually tandem parking is usually proposed where there's a garage, with a unit above, at the back of the property. Chairman Fife indicated approval would remove the absolute bar to a major remodel if it includes the proposal to add bedrooms, as long as the required parking is provided. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to recommend to the City Council that Section 28- 2407(A)(4)(c) be deleted from the Code and Section 28-2407(A)(4)(d) be renumbered accordingly. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Law, Fife, Dahlman, Soukup . . . Pug~ S - Planning Conunission Minutes of March 3, 1993 PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Conditional Use Permit #93-2 901 Ocean A venue * Kinda Lahaina Restnurant Staff Reoort Ms. Fillmann presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicants, David, Kathryn and Jack Duran, request Planning Commission review and approval for on-premise alcohol sales in conjunction with the transfer of ownership of an existing restaurant at 901 Ocean Avenue. Commission Comments Chairman Fife, referring the need for two bathrooms, asked why didn't the current non-permitted work trigger that requirement? Ms. Fillmann said the non-permitted work was done prior to this staff report. It is actuaIly building alterations that would trigger this requirement, not obtaining permits after-the-fact. Chairman Fife said the work would need to be more than minor repairs. Ms. FilImann said no specific monetary amount is set as a trigger point. Commissioner Sharp said it would be actual changing of the construction of the building or an addition to the huilding. Mr. Whittenberg said Attachment 6 from Title 24 refers to is the area of remodel must comply. When you're talking about handicapped bathrooms or facilities, the interpretation is that if they are proposing a remodel to the restroom area itself, at that time, it must comply with Title 24 requirements. He did not think compliance with Title 24 requirements could be mandated for a changeout to cooking facilities etc. There is not a link between a permit for upgrading kitchen facilities as to requiring the handicapped bathroom facilities. Commissioner Sharp said one City restaurant wanted to add a glass additions on and it was one of his requirements that he was going to have to remodel the bathroom to meet handicapped requirements when he wasn't bothering the bathroom at all. Mr. Whittenberg said these Title 24 requirements just took effect January 1, 1993. Commissioner Dahlman asked if the gas heater is portable and why must it be removed? Mr. Whittenberg said it must be removed because Mr. Maris didn't get the permits to instaIl it. He has to remove it or get the prope.r permits. Commissioner Dahlman asked if the Christmas lights are being used? Ms. Fillmann said they were up for decoration only. The Building Inspectors informed staff the lights should be removed because their concern was the type of lights and the way they are hooked up with extension cords. Public Hearine: Robert D. Duran * 3758 Rose Ave.. Lone: Beach. CA Mr. Duran introduced himself as one of the three new owners of Kinda Lahaina Restaurant. He said the patio heater was gas fueled but it has now been removed. The gas connection has been capped off. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Duran if he foresees any possibility of being able to add a handicapped, unisex bathroom? Mr. Duran said they have no intentions of remodeling the restaurant. If, in the future, the business does very welI and they could expand the seating then a second bathroom would be instaIled. Commissioner Law asked Mr. Duran how he plans to accommodate handicapped persons? Mr. Duran said he was not aware of past or present difficulties encountered in this area. Mr. Maris, the previous owner, has owned Kinda Lahaina for four and a half years and one bathroom has sufficed. Mr. Duran said he understood the human aspect, that he might have to inform a handicapped patron his bathroom would not accommodate a wheelchair. He continued that it would be physicaIly difficult to accommodate a second bathroom and would be quite costly; seating area would be lost. . . . Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1993 Commissioner Dahlman said a handicapped person could use the small bathroom, it would require assistance. Chairman Fife suggested Mr. Duran post a sign notifying customers the bathroom is not wheelchair accessible. Commissioner Sharp said businesses who do have handicapped facilities advertise this fact well. If there is no such sign you can be pretty certain it does not exist. Commissioner Soukup indicated there is litigation pending due to lack of handicapped bathroom facilities but did not indicate where this is taking place. Chairman Fife suggested this might be a good topic for Mr. Duran to discuss with his liability insurer. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Duran ifhe had read the Conditions of Approval and did he agree with them? Mr. Duran said he would like his hours of operation to be the same as those approved for Mr. Maris: 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday - Thursday and 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. Chairman Fife suggested the wording be n ... to 12:00 a.m. on Fridays, Saturdays and legal holidays"; Mr. Duran agreed. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Duran if he would be serving food until 11:30 p.m., thirty minutes before closing? Mr. Duran said yes. Commissioner Soukup asked the difference between the transfer of an ABC license and a new ABC license. Mr. Colantuono explained the transfer of a license is a license already issued by ABC with the name of the licensee on it. When the business is sold, the license is transferred to the person they sell the business to and it is necessary to put the license in the name of the new owner. Because the seller has a property interest in the license, the test for transferring the license is more generous to the applicant than the test for the issuance of a new license because there is no investment in a new license. In general, the Planning Commission has greater discretion re Conditions of Approval on a new license than on a transfer. On a transfer application the Commission can still make changes to the Conditions of Approval which the evidence suggests are necessary to make the applicant consistent and compatible with its neighbors. No one wished to speak for or against this application any further and the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Soukup to approve Conditional Use Permit #93-2, through Resolution #93-10, subject to the correction of' Condition #4: 4. The hours of operation shall be from 6:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday and from 6:00 A.M. to 12:00 A.M. Fridays, Saturdays and legal holidays. MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Soukup, Fife, Dahlman, Law The Planning Director indicated a final resolution will he presented for consideration on Marcy 17, 1993. Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1993 . 7. 8. Minor Plan Review #93-2 Conditional Use Pennit #93-1 225 14th Street Staff ReDort Mr. Curtis presented a combined staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. Minor Plan Review #93-2 requests construction of an additional garage and tandem parking space to meet parking requirements. Conditional Use Permit #93-1 requests a major remodel and addition to an existing nonconforming duplex at 225 and 2251h Fourteenth Street. The applicants, Mark, Rhonda and G]oria Hje]m, are requesting to add approximately ] ,087 square feet to the front unit of the duplex. Mr. Curtis said the applicants are proposing a carport instead of a garage to allow light and ventilation into the family room. Staff expressed concerned about the tandem carport, stating there is the possibility it may not be used for the parking of an automobile due to the ability to sea] off that space from the alley with the new garage space's interior garage door. Based on this concern, staff asked the Commission consider the addition of a tandem garage space instead of the proposed carport. This would leave the tandem space open for parking purposes. Staff recommended approval subject to the Conditions of Approva] outlined in the staff report with a change to Condition #5 to add at the end II ... or addition permitted under Section 28-2407(A)(4) and until the ordinance approving said text amendment takes effect. Commission Comments Commissioner Law asked if the tandem garage would accommodate a car? Mr. Curtis said yes, it meets the 9'x 20' parking dimensions for a garage space. The space itself is 12' x 20'. Commissioner Sharp indicated 50 % of garages are not used. . Public Hearin!!: Mark and Rhonda Hie]m * 225 ]4th Street. Seal Beach Mrs. Hje]m said they have been trying to get their remodel approved by the City for more than one year. They have tried to work with City staff during the entire design. She thought l'h parking spaces per unit were required but with Code requirements it's four spaces. In January 1993 they went over this with City staff. Originally the design was for a two-length carport but if she wanted to keep a window open in the family room for light and ventilation she would be looking onto the alley, A house at 215 14th Street with the same design (as presented tonight) and it works well for them. She was upset that staff telephoned her last Friday and told her the zoning text was a problem because the section regarding the bedrooms had not been corrected. She was told this would take a couple of weeks to process but her understanding from tonight's testimony is that this will take over two months. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the process which will take place will allow staff to come back to the Planning Commission at the April 7th meeting for the Public Hearing on the text amendment. It would then go to the City Council. Assuming they take an action at their first meeting in April, it would then be fmally through the process in May 1993. Mrs. Hjelm stated they wanted to start their remodel in May 1992 and they've been pushed to May 1993; she asked if it would be delayed longer? Mr. Whittenberg said he could not answer totally because it is not known how the City Council will react. If the Council concurs with the Commission's decision, the Planning Commission will have the Public Hearing at the Planning Commission at the Apri] 7th meeting. It will go to Council on April 12th. Waiting for the Ordinance to be adopted and issuing the permit would take another thirty days. . Mrs. Hejlm said she was very concerned with staffs recommendation to change the parking plan. The parking plan was discussed with staff and they were told their plans were legal. To change it to an enclosed garage would increase their budgeted costs. . . . Page 8 - Planning Commission Minulcs of March 3. 1993 Commissioner Sharp said he sympathized with the applicants but there is no way to short-cut this process. Sol John * 330 12th Street. Seal Beach Mr. John said many houses on Electric Avenue need to be remodeled. No one wished to speak further for or against this application and the Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Sharp to approve Conditional Use Pennit and Minor Plan Review #93-2 as submitted by the applicant. This will be done through the adoption of Resolutions #93-11 and #93-12. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Fife, Sharp, Law, Dnhlmun, Soukup Mr. Colantuono made the following technical corrections to Resolution #93-11: Section S(d); The proposed use will be compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general, because the style, height and bulk of the proposed structure, as remodeled, is consistent with surrounding residential uses. At Resolution #93-12, the following corrections were made: Section 5(e): The proposed use will be compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general, because the style, height and bulk of the proposed structure, as remodeled, is consistent with surrounding residential uses. Section 6: 5. ... under Section 28-2407(A)(4), and the implementing ordinance takes effect. He explained that to make a finding that this use is consistent with the City's zoning ordinance the zoning amendment must take effect before this permit does. MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Shurp to approve Conditionul Use Pennit and Minor Plan Review #93-2 as submitted by the applicant. This will be done through the adoption of Resolutions #93-11 and #93-12 with the inclusion of the comments made by Counsel. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Fife, Shurp, Luw, Dahlman, Soukup . . . Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1993 6. Conditional Use Permit #93-3 13969 Seal Beach Boulevard * Leisure World Market Staff Report Mr. Curtis presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Bong Soon Lee, requests a permit for the sale of beer and wine for off-premise consumption in conjunction with an existing food market at 13960 Seal Beach Boulevard. This application was filed in response to City Ordinance 1348. Commission Comments Commissioner Dahlman if Mr. Curtis had informed the applicant he could have applied for longer hours'? Mr. Curtis said he spoke with two applicants. The first applicant was subsequently hospitalized. He did not remember if had discussed this with the second applicant. Commissioner Sharp said there is no demand for longer hours. Market hours are controlled by supply and demand. Public Hearim! The applicant was not present and no one wished to speak in favor of or opposition to this application. The Public Hearing was closed. Commission Comments MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Conditional Use Permit, through the adoption of Resolution #93-13 with the correction to Condition #4 to read "Monday through Saturday". MOTION CARRIED: A YES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Dahlman, Law, Fife, Soukup ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications. STAFF CONCERNS Wall on Seal Beach Boulevard - Mr. Whittenberg reported along Seal Beach Boulevard, adjacent to the Rossmoor area, has been discussed with the City's liability attorney. He has reviewed the situation and the City is preparing letters to the involved property owners. These letters will go out at the end of this week. Ae:enda/Suoer Saver Meeting - This meeting is scheduled for March 17th. The agenda was provided to the Planning Commission to inform them of what types of actions are going on. COMMISSION CONCERNS Mola Lawsuit - Commissioner Sharp asked Mr. Colantuono for a status report. Mr. Colantuono explained Mola Development Corporation sued the City of Seal Beach in two actions: (1) a petition for court order compelling the City to reverse it's decision and approve their project and (2) a complaint for damages. Last year, on the eve of the trial re the petition to overturn its decision, Mola withdrew its petition. After the statute of limitations on that portion of the action ran, the City brought a petition to dismiss the complaint on the ground that you can't seek damages without first seeking a writ. Since Mola had given up their right to seek a writ they should not be entitled . . . Page 10 - P1anning ConunissiOll Minutes of MArch 3. 1993 to damages. The court granted the City's motion and dismissed certain portions of the lawsuit. The City moved the court to dismiss the rest, saying the guts of the matter had been decided. That motion is now pending. Mola has opposed that motion and is now seeking to reinstate the writ action. Those competing motions are under submission at this time. There are two possihle outcomes: (1) the judge could grant the City's motion or (2) the judge could order the City to take the matter to trial. Commissioner Sharp asked what parts of the lawsuit the judge dismissed? Mr. Colantuono said this is a matter of public record. He believed the complaints against the individual Council members were dismissed but he would have to review the file to be certain. Judge Brickner is presiding. Water Tower Area - Commissioner Dahlman said the City Council voted 5-0, saying the property adjacent to the Water Tower should not be built according to Planning Commission approval. What is the City Council suggesting the Planning Commission do at this time? Mr. Whittenberg said there has not been any discussion as to what happens next. The property owner can come back to the City with a different application which would be reviewed through the normal process. Or, the City could review the underlying zoning and development standards for that area. If the Commission feels that would be a productive avenue to explore it could be agendized for the April 7th meeting. The Commission expressed concern for the property owner and the residential and commercial applications he has submitted. Mr. Whittenberg clarified that the Planning Commission did not turn down the applicant's application for a residential development, the Commission asked the applicant to redesign the project to lower the height. The applicant decided not to pursue that. Commissioner Sharp said he would like an indication from the City Council as to what could be developed on that site which would not impact traffic. Mr. Colantuono said he did not want the puhlic Record to suggest that the City itself thinks it has been arbitrary. The City Attorney's Office sees there was an application to impose residential zoning; this was withdrawn. The City's original commercial zoning has been in place throughout. The Planning Commission was of the view that this use was compatible with the neighborhood. The Council was of the view that given the uniquely automobile- dependent nature of this business and the amount of traffic that it would necessarily draw, that it was an inappropriate use of that site and would not be compatihle with the community or its neighbors. The City still appears to believes that commercial uses of that property are appropriate but that those uses which are automobile- related and highly vehicle intensive are probably not. Mr. Colantuono felt the applicant has two options: (1) find another commercial use that's consistent with the zoning that is not uniquely automobile dependent or (2) the applicant can renew his original request for rezoning of the property. Walter Miller's Proiect - Chairman Fife asked for a status report on Walt Miller's proposal on Seal Beach Boulevard. Mr. Whittenberg said this mixed use project was presented as commercial on the first and second floors and residential on the third floor. The project was approved by the Planning Commission. It was also approved by the Coastal Commission with the condition that the third story living units could only be rented to artists. Mr. Miller challenged this stipulation. There are still on-going reviews of this matter. Flv-over of Los Alamitos Airfield - Chairman Fife said he had dinner with Lt. Col Ghormley and discussed the potential fly-over of the airfield for the City Council members and Planning Commissioners; the helicopter accommodates 8 people. The Commission discussed avoidance of Brown Act violations. The schedule can be arranged to mix Council and Commission members in the helicopter. Mr. Whittenberg said a public meeting cannot be held at which the public cannot attend. Lt. Col. Ghormley would prefer multiple presentations with repeat the briefings to avoid Brown Act violations. Staff will discuss the issue further with Lt. Col. Ghormley and come back to the Commission with dates and times that would work for their schedule. Perhaps then the Commissioners can work with those times. . . . Page 11 - Planning CoaunissiOll Minutes of March 3, 1993 Fence Move at Pacific Coast Hil!hwav & Seal Beach Boulevard - Chairman Fife talked with Lt. Co!. Ghormley about conferring with the Navy CO on the possibility of moving the fence on the curved portion of Seal Beach Boulevard and PCH toward the berm to create additional space for possible off-street parking and the possibility of an easement. Lt. Co!. Ghormley said he thought the Navy would be receptive and he is prepared to set up a meeting for Chairman Fife to meet with the Navy to explore these possibilities. He asked the Commissioner if they had any objection to his continuing this matter? The Commissioners said no and urged Chairman Fife to continue. Beverly Casares - Commissioner Soukup said he was surprised to learn of Beverly Casares' death last week. The Commissioned expressed its condolences to the Casares family. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, $)o~ Joan Fillmann Recording Secretary APPROVAL: afI..J_ , The Planning Commission Minutes of March 3, 1993 were approved on March 17, 1993.