Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1997-07-09 e e e .. CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA for JULY 9, 1997 7:30 P.M. · City Council Chambers 211 Eighth Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740. Next Resolution: 97-15 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE n. ROLL CALL ID. AGENDA APPROVAL By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to: (a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda; (b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda; and/or (c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or public to request an item is removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, provided that the Planning Commission may undertake no action or discussion unless otherwise authorized by law. V. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless prior to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission, staff or the public requests a specific item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of June 4, 1997 VI. SCHEDULED MA1TERS 2. Eection of Chairman and Vice Chairman The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend this meeting, please telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting; thank you. City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda. July 9,1997 3. Zoning Text Amendment 97-1 e Address: Applicant: Code Section: R.equest: Planning District 1 - Residential Low Density City of Seal Beach 28-401 Referral from City Council - Zone Text Amendment 97-1, to Amend the Permitted Intrusions into Rear Yard Setbacks in the Residential Low Density (RLD) zone of Planning District 1. Report back to the City Council. Recommendation: Vll. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Conditional Use Permit 96-1 e' Address: Business: Applicant: Representative: Property Owner: R.equest: 13960 Seal Beach Boulevard Seal Beach Market Pacific Food Services, Inc. Amir Reza Frank Ayres & Sons, Ltd. Partnership Approval of an indefinite extension for an alcohol- related land use entitlement. Approve, subject to any Conditions of Approval, through the adoption of Resolution No. 97-_. Recommendation: 5. Conditional Use Permit 97-1 Address: Business: Applicant: Representative: Property Owner: Request: 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard Yucatan Grill The Four Amigos Charles Robinson Rossmoor Business Center Requests amendments to CUP 97-1 and approval for construction of an additional outdoor patio to seat 4S persons, as' block wall, a 7' perimeter fence, an ADA handicapped-accessible restroom and a storage facility. Approval, through the adoption of Resolution No. 97-_, subject to Conditions of Approval. Recommendation: e 2 The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend this meeting, telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours in advance ofthe meeting; thank you. , City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda * July 9, 1997 e W. STAFF CONCERNS vm. COMMISSION CONCERNS IX. ADJOURNMENT e e 3 The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend this meeting, telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours in advance ofthe meeting; thank you. 1997 AGENDA FORECAST I DATE ACTION ADDRESS NOTES Not Scheduled Joint Study Session CC &. PC Main Street Specific Plan Design. JUL23 JUL 23 Safety Element Housing Element Revision 97-1 Revision 97-1 AUG 06 CUP 97-1 12147 Seal Beach Blvd. Yucatan Grill Review @ six months. AUG 20 VAR 93-1 212 Main St.lKlisanin In-Lieu fees [4-9-97] AUG 20 ZTA 97-1 Electric Vehicles SEP 03 CUP 97-7 TENTATIVE: 3900 Lampson A venue Marriott Senior Living Services facility. SEPt7 ZC 97-1 941 Pacific Coast Highway (Billiard Parlor) I OCT 08 OCT 22 NOV OS CUP 94-4 770 PCH . Burger King indefinite extension. NOV19 DEe 03 DEe 17 t 4 The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend this meeting, telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting; thank you. .. City of Seal Beach Planning Commission Agenda · July 9, 1997 1997 AGENDA FORECAST e DATE ACTION ADDRESS NOTES Not Scheduled Joint Study Session CC&PC Main Street Specific Plan Design. JUL 23 JUL 23 Safety Element Housing Element Revision 97-1 Revision 97-1 AUG 06 CUP 97-1 12147 Seal Beach Blvd. Yucatan Grill Review @ six months. AUG 20 VAR 93-1 212 Main St.lKlisanin In-Lieu fees [4-9-97] AUG 20 ZfA 97-1 Electric Vehicles SEP 03 CUP 97-7 TENTATIVE: 3900 Lampson A venue Marriott Senior Living Services facility. SEP17 ZC 97-1 941 Pacific Coast Highway (Billiard Parlor) e OCT 08 OCT 22 NOV OS CUP 94-4 770 PCH Burger King indefinite extension. NOV 19 DEe 03 DEe 17 e 4 The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. If you need assistance to attend this meeting, telephone the City Clerk's Office at (562) 431-2527 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting; thank you. . - e ~~ CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 9, 1997 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of July 9, 1997 was called to order by Chairman Brown at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Brown Commissioners Yost, Hood, Sharp, Law Also Present: Department of Development Services Lee Whittenberg, Director Craig Steele, Assistant City Attorney Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary Absent: Barry Curtis, Administrative Assistant AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Yost to approve the Agenda as presented. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood, Yost, Law, Sharp, Brown ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no oral communications from the audience. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Consent Calendar: 1. Planning Commission Minutes of June 4, 1997. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood, Yost, Law, Sharp, Brown SCHEDULED MATTERS 2. Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman MOTION by Hood; SECOND by Yost to nominate Brian Brown as Planning Commission Chairman. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Hood, Yost, Law, Sharp, Brown C:\My Documents\07-09-97 PC Minutes.doc\LW\07-10-97 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt July 9, 1997 . MOTION by Yost; SECOND by Brown to nominate David Hood as Planning Commission Vice- Chairman. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Yost, Brown, Sharp, Law, Hood Commissioner Sharp explained that this term as Planning Commission ended July 1, 1997. His appointing City Council member, George Brown, is currently interviewing new candidates. Commissioner Sharp will continue to serve until another person is appointed. 3. Zone Text Amendment 97-1 Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. He explained this matter was referred back to the Planing Commission by the City Council with instructions to consider further amendments to the City's municipal Code to implement the following: 1. Allow the requested roof and balcony encroachments into the rear yard setback areas as recommended by the Planning Commission; and 2. Develop a condition which would require any property wanting a roof or balcony overhang, but which already has a legally constructed balcony overhang greater than 5', to reduce that legal pre-existing balcony overhang to 5'. . Mr. Whittenberg explained that if the City Council is considering adopting alternative proposals which were not considered by the Planning Commission, those alternatives need to be referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration. Then, a report is needed from the Commission to the Council regarding their feelings on the suggestions. The Council is suggesting both limiting the roof balconies to 5' and requiring homeowners to cut back existing balconies to 5'. These would be existing, legally constructed balconies which extend out more than 5' and are not at the roof level. Staff has concerns about this type of proposal because the existing balconies are allowable under the current City codes. If the City wanted to make it a condition of new construction for roof overhang expansion you would have to provide an amortization period for the existing, legally constructed balconies. The homeowners built these balconies legally and have a substantial investment in them --- the City cannot summarily require them to be removed or cut back based on something else you may want to allow on the property. The staff report suggested a third alternative for the Planning Commission to consider which is over-and-above what the Commission had recommended or the Council had suggested. It was an issue staff didn't think of at the time but would have recommended it if they had. This is suggestion #3 on page 10 of the Staff Report. e The recommendation the Planning Commission forwarded to the City Council would have placed certain Gold Coast properties into a legal, non-conforming status if they already had a roof balcony which extended out past the 10' point. Staff is suggested the Commission keep their original recommendation (if they feel that's the most appropriate) but supplement that with the additional provision that would say, for the newly created legal, non-conforming properties, 07-09.97 PC Minutes.doc 2 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt July 9, J 997 that they would be allowed to keep the existing balcony and still construct the roof overhang --- e subject to a Minor Plan Review at the Planning Commission. Mr. Whittenberg directed the Commission's attention to page 10 of the staff report. He asked the Planning Commission to determine which of the following recommendations they felt was most appropriate to recommend to the Council as the Commission's recommendation: 1. Report back to the City Council concurrence with the original recommendation of the Planning Commission, determining to not recommend any provisions regarding legal, pre-existing balcony structures. 2. Recommend adoption of the ZT A with modifications based on testimony received and concerns of the City Council. This would require removal of a legal, pre- existing balcony structure in conjunction with the construction of a proposed roof overhang in accordance with the new provisions of the municipal Code. 3. Recommend adoption of the ZT A with modifications based on recommendations of staff. This alternative would allow any legal, pre-existing balconies that encroach beyond the newly proposed 5' permitted encroachment to remain as legal, non-conforming structures. Staff would recommend an additional provision be included within Section 28-2407.A.2, which would allow the construction of a new roof overhang structure to legal, non-confirming residences within Planning District 1 of the RLD zone. e Commission Comments on Staff Report Chairman Brown noted there's a situation where a second-story, 10' balcony which is permitted. But this ZT A is only addressing roof decks. The extension is only into the rear yard setbacks. How would it be possible for somebody to have both a roof deck and an eave both intruding into the same space? Mr. Whittenberg explained it could be if the balcony didn't go across the entire width of the building on the back side. That's the case the Commission needs to be considering here --- whether or not there are any homes out there in this situation. Chairman Brown asked if there were any roof decks which extend 10'? Mr. Whittenberg said he couldn't answer that question although there are a couple which are quite close. To be certain of this, staff would have to go out there and measure physically. In some cases there are balconies but the actual house may not be at the setback line, it may be set back further which may make the balcony look like it's wider than what the Code would allow. Chairman Brown said his reading of the Council minutes demonstrates there was some confusion between the issue of the balconies and a roof deck. There was reference to the property that started all this, where they're talking about having a 10' balcony. But they don't have a 10' roof e deck. 07-09-97 PC Minutes.doc 3 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt July 9, 1997 e Mr. Whittenberg agreed, saying the City Council was looking a balconies period. Not particularly roof-level balconies. They were saying that if the City was going to make everything 5' wide that's where they wanted everything to be, regardless of whether it was at the rooflevel or at the second floor level. This would impact a number of Gold Coast properties. Commissioner Yost said the Commission was not terribly concerned about balconies sticking out 10'. Most of the things were occurring at the roof level. Was this staff's understanding? Mr. Whittenberg said the proposal as initially presented to the Planning Commission, noted that the current municipal code allows a balcony at the roof level to project 10'. That's what the Commission's concern was --- was to pull back at the roof level. The Commission did not deal with the issue of what happens to the balcony at the second floor level. Commissioner Yost asked how did the issue of the balconies at the second floor level come into this? e Mr. Whittenberg replied the issue of second floor level balconies came into this ZT A due to public testimony before the City Council. Individuals who were not in accord with the provisions as recommended by the Planning Commission gave this testimony. A couple of City Council members seemed to think there was merit to that discussion, so they forwarded the matter back to the Planning Commission to review this question --- do you want to make all balconies, regardless of what level they are at, move back to 5' if you allow the roof overhang to go out to 5'? These are the provisions in Surfside. But when these provisions were set for Surfside they didn't impact any existing properties because their lots are small, the largest being 26' x 52'. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Yost to allow public comments. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Yost, Law, Brown, Hood Brent Sears * Architect * Long Beach Mr. Sears introduced himself as the architect for 206 Ocean Avenue. Mr. Sears said this issue appears to have gotten muddled along the way to the City Council. He showed the Commission a drawing with two or three overlays which demonstrated what was going on. He commented on what he felt would look best aesthetically. The original proposal would be choice #1. He said he didn't understand the Council's recommendation to have existing balconies cut back because somebody wanted to extend their roof to shade their windows. He asked for clarification on the design review process, noting he preferred less government than more. e Randy Johnson * 206 Ocean. Seal Beach Mr. Johnson said he was unable to attend the City Council meeting and in reading the minutes there seems to be confusion. Initially the issue was roof overhangs at the third/top level. Now, we're talking about balconies on the street and second levels. He said the houses along the Gold Coast have lots 195' deep with setbacks of 92'. The houses on either side of him have 10' 07-09-97 PC Minutes.doc 4 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt July 9, 1997 balconies. He thought the Council got confused between balconies and roof decks and hoped tit this could be clarified for them. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Sharp said he did not think the City had any right whatsoever to tell people they have to cut back legally existing balconies. His choice would be #3 of the options. Commissioner Hood said he agreed with Commissioner Sharp. Commissioner Yost said his main concern is what occurred at the roof level. He was not terribly concerned with what happened at the lower levels. He didn't understand how the issue got muddled to including cutting back balconies to 5'. He has not heard a good reason to cut them back and would welcome more discussion on this. Again, his main concern is not having roof balconies sticking out, such that they would be out of character for the existing houses. It did seem to make sense to extend the eve out to 5' to achieve energy savings, architectural style and aesthetics, non-fading of carpeting and furniture and a better quality of life. Commissioner Law said she thought you could not build any deck out more than 5' because it went over an easement. e Mr. Whittenberg said no, at the second floor you can have a balcony that can encroach 10' into the setback area, The code now allows a 10' deck at the third level. The Commission only considered the roof-level balcony. Commissioner Law said she preferred choice #3. Chairman Brown said he preferred choice #1. The whole discussion was, on the roof-level decks, was bringing them back. From an aesthetic point, we'd probably all like to see them cut back to 0'. The 5' eave, for that area, was solely for sun protection and that seemed like a reasonable request. He agreed with Commissioner Sharp's comment that to start talking about removing legal decks is way out of line. To say future construction should only have 5' balconies, that's a limited balcony. To have a lounge chair you have to have at least 6'. Dr. Johnson made a good point; they have a 92' setback from their property line. This is unusual. He didn't think the property owners should be penalized. This is a sewer easement, not a road easement. He questioned the reasoning to put people through a Minor Plan Process nothing it was more government intrusion. - Mr. Whittenberg said staff's initial proposal, to allow a 5' roof overhang, did include a Minor Plan Review process. Secondly, you're talking about a house which currently has a 10' roof balcony over a portion of the back of the property (it may not go across the full width). Based on this new code proposal, if you change it to allow a 5' overhang, at that point that property becomes legal, non-conforming. Staff is suggesting that if there are properties along the Gold Coast in that situation that you allow them to do the roof overhang through the Minor Plan Review process and make it very clear that even though they're non-conforming they can still do this. Item #3 would accomplish this. He said he did not know for certain if many of these 07-09-97 PC Minutes.doc 5 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt July 9, 1997 properties have a third floor balcony which goes all the way across. If these exist we should e address the situation at this time. Chairman Brown said we're addressing the possibility on something we don't know exists. That's not good government. He said he was in favor of less government. Commissioner Yost asked about the Gold Coast's Architectural Review Committee. Mr. Whittenberg said the Gold Coast has a set of CC&Rs which established a committee requiring that they review and approve plans prior to their being submitted to the City for approval. The City's requirement on balconies is not addressed under the CC&R standards. Commissioner Yost asked to review the text for choice #3. He asked if this choice had anything to do with balconies on any other levels? Mr. Whittenberg said no, this proposal has nothing to do with anything other than roof structures, balconies or overhangs. It does not address existing standards for a second floor balcony. e Brent Sears questioned the Consent Calendar Plan Review process, asking if it was a public hearing? Mr. Whittenberg said no. Mr. Sears commented that it could be removed for separate consideration. Mr. Whittenberg said that was correct, anyone could request an item be agendized separately. The process is a report to the Planning Commission saying this is what's proposed, staff has reviewed it and feels it meets all our standards. If there's a question, the item is removed from the Consent Calendar, discussion follows and the Commission makes a recommendation. Mr. Whittenberg explained the types of issues on the Consent Calendar and any noticing requirements. Mr. Sears said there are no real standards here for him to go by. What triggers this? What are the issues and how are they dealt with? He's guessing. It should be black and white. Chairman Brown said there's a saying in the medical field that if you're not going to do anything based on the results of a test then don't take the test. This is the same thing. We're proposing something when we really don't know what the criteria are for a design review. We're leaving it up in the air as to what we're going to allow and not allow. He would be much happier if we knew this was a real issue we're dealing with. "And frankly, if staff had done their homework and said there are three properties here, there are two properties, or there are no properties where this is an issue --- on the other hand, I'm not real big on sending this back to staff and having them go out and do a lot more work and bring it back and wasting any more time and money on this issue. I'm beginning to see this more as a paperwork exercise to save further paperwork". He said he'd go along with item #3. e Commissioner Hood characterized the choices, item #2 is the "dog in the manger" motion. Item #1 is laissez faire --- trust to the good will of everyone. Item #3 codifies it as much as possible and seems to be a balance between being overly prescriptive and overly restrictive but halfway in between. He could not go along with item #2. He'd like to go along with #1 because he'd like to think everyone's sensible, reasonable. But that is not always the case. Therefore, he'd go along with 3. 07-09-97 PC Minutes.doc 6 e e e Planning Commission Minute Excerpt July 9, J 997 Chairman Brown said he couldn't agree, feeling that item #3 is closing a loophole we don't even know exists. He called for a vote. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Hood to recommend item #3 to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Hood, Brown, Yost, Law Mr. Whittenberg said that this report will go to the City Council and will be on their Monda)', July 14, 1997. * * * Public Hearings 4. Conditional Use Permit 96-1 13960 Seal Beach Boulevard Seal Beach Market Staff Report Ms. Fillmann presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for reference]. The applicant, Seal Beach Market, requests indefinite extension of their CUP for on- sale alcohol. Commission Ouestions to Staff Commissioner Sharp asked Ms. Fillmann if she talked to the management or did they come in with the application? Ms. Fillmann said she did not talk to them, they simply came in with the application. Commissioner Sharp said he talked to them and discovered they have been unable to secure an ABC license to sell liquor. They are in the process of finding a license and have not served alcohol. He felt the Commission should see them operating with alcohol before granting them an indefinite extension. He was all for their having this license but felt they should be operating for a few months prior to hearing it. Public Hearing The applicant was not present. No one in the audience wished to speak in favor of or against this application. The Chair closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Comments Commissioner Hood said he agreed with Commissioner Sharp's comments and asked for further suggestions. Commissioner Sharp recommended another 12 months extension. 07-09-97 PC Minutes.doc 7 e e e Planning Commission Minute Excerpt July 9,1997 Mr. Whittenberg said this is a situation where the City has approved them the right to sell distilled spirits. They have been unable to acquire a license. to transfer to that location. This may take more than a year to accomplish. He suggested that if the Commission were to approve the resolution tonight, the Commission is saying the Seal Beach Market continues to have the right. Under Condition of Approval #16, the Commission has the right to bring the application back for review if the property experiences problems in the future --- whatever the problem may be. If and when the market gets their license and if and when any problems crop up, the Commission has the authority to bring them back for review. Each time the applicant has to go through a City review there is a cost to the applicant; the initial deposit is $250. Chairman Brown said he would rather be proactive versus reactive. He said if we wanted to do that we should have given them a CUP without any restrictions. Mr. Whittenberg said he understood those comments. However, if this was a situation the operators could easily control he would agree. But an on-premise, distilled spirit license is very difficult to find or to transfer. The State has restricted those licenses, primarily because of the problems occurring in Los Angeles in 1992. This could be continued for 5 years. Chairman Brown said the Commission could terminate the license and revisit it in five years. They could then apply for a CUP. Mr. Whittenberg explained they already have a CUP. Commissioner Sharp said he agreed with Director Whittenberg because the Commission could call the applicant back at any time. He explained the problems a small grocery store experienced. They have to work on a small margin and $250 to $500 would be quite a burden on them. The Commission should grant them the indefinite extension. If there are problem we could bring them back. Chairman Brown said that if they have problems getting a license, they don't need to reapply and they could let it lapse. In that way they wouldn't have to spend any money. It doesn't make sense to say "You didn't do it. We don't see any problems. So we're going to go ahead and grant you an indefinite extension". Commissioner Yost asked ifthere is a way to track when they begin to sell distilled spirits? And then grant them a one-year probation from that time? Mr. Steele said the applicant is required to provide the City a copy of their State ABC license. We do have a trigger date for sales. Commissioner Yost said he agreed with both Chairman Brown and Commissioner Sharp. We should not charge them $500 per year when they're not doing anything. But he would like to see a year's probation from the date they begin selling distilled spirits. Mr. Steele suggested we add a condition to the resolution which requires staff to bring an item to the Commission one year after the ABC license is issued. Not necessarily a Public Hearing item, 07.09.97 PC Minutes.doc 8 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt July 9, 1997 e not necessarily something where they have to come in a reapply. But it would require staff to bring you a report on the use within one year after we've received the ABC license. The Commission could revoke the CUP for cause at any time. The Commission could receive the staff report and decide whether or not grounds existed to do anything further. Commissioner Sharp explained that this is a unique market. It closes its doors at 8:00 p.m. There is nobody in the parking lot. There is nothing there to draw young people. There should be no problems there. But he wanted a review at 12 months after they have been selling distilled spirits. Chairman Brown said he too did not anticipate any problems. But the reason we gave them a one-year probationary period is because of the precedent it might set. He didn't want to treat one business any different than any other. Commissioner Hood stated the Commission does not want the market to have to pay additional fees nor go through the paperwork/application again. He asked if there was a way to grant a continuance to a time certain which is 12 months from the date they acquired the license to sell distilled spirits? If possible, he would make a motion to that effect. e Mr. Steele explained there are two problems here. First, the original CUP, CUP 96-1, was granted one year ago and had a one-year term which expires in July. He suggested extending the term rather than continuing the item. The second problem with a continuance is the Permit Streamlining Act, which says a final action must be taken within a certain time period --- one year. Continuing the matter would violate this Act. Commissioner Hood asked that if the Commission extends the permit do they have to reapply? Mr. Steele explained that if the City indefinitely extends the permit, the applicant doesn't have to reapply. Ifwe extend it for a specified term, however, they do have to reapply. Commissioner Hood said this is a flexible term based upon the ABC's action and the market's acquisition of the license. Mr. Steele said his only concern is that by putting an end date on the permit, a date that they have to come back before you for a Public Hearing under the code, they would have to make an application for a public hearing and pay the fee. He suggested the Commission direct staff to bring a report to the Commission one year after they obtain their ABC license, the permit would be extended.. At that time the Commission can review the report, decide if it wants to cut it back, revoke the permit, have them come in for a public hearing. There is no application fee. The permit is indefinitely extended. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to direct staff to bring a report to the Planning Commission one year after the Seal Beach Market gets their ABC license and consider CUP 96- 1 extended until that point. e 07.09.97 PC Minutes.doc 9 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt July 9, 1997 e MOTION CARRIED AYES: NOES: 4-0-1 Sharp, Law, Hood, Yost Brown Mr. Whittenberg said staff will come back at the next meeting with a resolution so the Commission may see the wording of that condition. 5. Conditional Use Permit 97-1 12147 Seal Beach Boulevard Yucatan Grill Staff Report Ms. Fillmann presented the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department for reference]. The applicant requests to amend the Conditions of Approval for CUP 97-1 in order to add a 680 square foot patio to seat 45 people at the side of an existing restaurant, to add a 7' wooden fence, a stucco wall to match at the front, a handicapped-accessible restroom and a storage locker. This request would double the amount of seating. Commission Ouestions to Staff There were no questions for staff. Public Hearing e Charles Robinson * Applicant Mr. Robinson introduced himself as the applicant. Commissioner Law asked Mr. Robinson if Orange County Health's okay was necessary for him to build the storage area? Mr. Robinson said yes. There being no other comments, the Chair closed the Public Hearing. Commission Comments Commissioner Hood had no comments. Commissioner Sharp felt the application looked good. Commissioner Yost said he had visited the Yucatan Grill and found it to be more of an eating establishment than a drinking place. He had a concern that this application requests an intensification of the alcohol-related land use prior to the six-months review. He said he was in favor of the 7' fence as it protects the restroom area. Commission Law said she liked the idea of combining the review period and had no other concerns. e Chairman Brown said he shared COI:nmissioner Yost's concern about doubling the capacity of 07-09-97 PC Minutes.doc 10 Planning Commission Minute Excerpt July 9. 1997 e the restaurant and thereby doubling the propensity for trouble. But he felt Rossmoor Center needs the help and this restaurant will help. The fact that the expansion is an outdoor patio will tend to limit any problems. At night you won't see a couple of hundred people congregating out there. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Law to approve Resolution No. 97-15, thus approving the amendments to Conditional Use Permit 97-1. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5-0-0 Sharp, Law, Yost, Brown, Hood Staff explained there is a ten calendar-day appeal period which begins tomorrow. STAFF CONCERNS There were no staff concerns. COMMISSION CONCERNS Chairman Brown presented a flier regarding a cruise of Sunset harbor the proceeds of which would benefit the Seal Beach Commuity Service Center. Commissioner Sharp explained his term as a Planning Commission has expired. His Council Person, George Brown, is interviewing for someone to take his position. He will continue to serve the City until such time as a new person is on board. tt ADJOU~NT The Chair, with the agreement of the Commission, adjourned the meeting at 8:53 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, C4o~c..-.~ Joan Fillmann Executive Secretary Planning Department The Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 1997 were approved by the Commission on July 23, 1997. ~ e 07-09-97 PC Minutes.doc 11