HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2009-05-11 #RAGEN®A STAFF REPORT
DATE: May 11, 2009
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU: David Carmany, City Manager
FROM: Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services
SUBJECT: RESTAURANT USES AND ALCOHOL LICENSES -
RESTRICTIONS AS TO NUMBER OF BUSINESS
LOCATIONS ON MAIN STREET
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
City Council to consider Staff report and provide direction to Staff regarding any
future desired actions by staff, the Planning Commission and City Council to
address concerns and issues as may be identified by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
APRIL 2009 CONSIDERATION BY PLANNING COMMISSION RE: CUP 09-3,
210 MAIN STREET:
In response to extensive discussion at the April 8 Planning Commission meeting
regarding Conditional Use Permit 09-3 to permit a new restaurant with an on-premise
beer and wine sales license staff has reviewed the City Council and Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes between December 2005 and now to determine what
considerations have occurred in that time period to develop a Zoning Code
amendment to place a numerical cap on the number of restaurants, or restaurants
with alcohol licenses, that could be located within the Main Street Specific Plan area.
The main concerns expressed during the Planning Commission public hearing were
related to:
^ Possible over-concentration of restaurant uses on Main Street;
^ Over-concentration of liquor licenses on Main Street;
^ Impacts on parking in residential areas due to parking for restaurant
customers and/or employees; and
^ Lack of additional parking spaces created by use of the in-lieu parking
program.
Agenda Item R
Page 2
The Planning Commission Minute except of April 8 regarding Conditional Use Permit
09-3 is provided as Attachment 1 for the information of the City Council.
CURRENT CITY CODE PROVISIONS REGARDING ALCOHOL LICENSES:
The City currently requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for any
business that wishes to engage in either the on-premise or off-premise sale of
alcoholic beverages. This process requires a public hearing before the Planning
Commission, with a mailed notice to all property owners and residential or
commercial occupants within 300 feet of the subject property. The Planning
Commission has the discretion to either approve the request or deny the request,
based on the public testimony, and the ability to make the required findings of the
City Municipal Code. A decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to
the City Council within 10 days of the decision of the Planning Commission.
There are two sets of "findings" that must be made by the Planning Commission in
determining to approve a conditional use permit. The first set of findings applies to
projects that require a CUP approval city-wide and are:
^ The use is consistent with the provisions of the City's General Plan, and is
also consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan, as
the policies of those elements are consistent with, and reflected in, the
Land Use Element.
^ The use is compatible with surrounding uses and the community in
general, and is not detrimental to the neighborhood.
^ The subject property is adequate in size, shape, topography and location
to meet the needs of the use of the property.
^ Required adherence to applicable building and fire codes ensures there
will be adequate water supply and utilities for the use.
The second set of findings applies to all properties within the Main Street Specific
Plan area that require approval of a CUP. These additional findings are:
^ The proposed use is consistent with the intent and purpose and vision
established for the Main Street Specific Plan.
^ The proposed use does not conflict with the Specific Plan's goal to
establish and maintain a balanced mix of uses that serve the needs of
both local and non-local populations.
^ The use will contribute to the unique character of Main Street and the
qualities that provide Main Street a sense of identity.
^ The proposed use complies with all applicable City Council Policies, such
as the policies the Council has adopted concerning alcohol uses.
Page 3
CITY OF BERKELEY ZONING CODE PROVISIONS RE: "NUMERICAL
LIMITATIONS":
Staff recently reviewed the City of Berkeley Zoning Code, and it still contains
provisions regarding "Numerical Limitations," as was considered by the City in the
formulation of the Main Street Specific Plan revision in the mid-1990s. Staff has also
requested information from the Berkeley Planning Department as to what process
and the types of analysis was undertaken to formulate the "numerical limitations"
provisions of their Zoning Code. The City of Berkeley has responded and indicated
that to the best of their recollection there was no detailed analysis prepared. The
"numerical limitations" were based on the number of the particular type of business
operation that were in business at the time the applicable ordinance provisions were
adopted to ensure that the number of the particular business did not become any
greater.' Included as Attachment 2 is language from one of the four different
commercial zoning districts in Berkeley which contains such a "numerical limitation"
provision.
DECEMBER 2005 CONSIDERATION OF ALCOHOL LICENSES WITHIN THE
MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE:
Provided below is a summary of various considerations and actions by the City
Council regarding the issue of the City establishing a numerical cap on the number of
Conditional Use Permits for alcohol sales within the Main Street Specific Plan area in
December of 2005:
Date Considering Body~and Summaryof Actions
12-12-05 City Council Meeting Minutes:
City Council Actions after discussion:
"With no objection from the Council:
• The Mayor requested a change in the ordinances that
would give the Planning Commission the authority to make
the determination whether in-lieu parking should be
granted through an application process.
• The Mayor requested that the staff take a more neutral
position in the Planning Commission Staff Reports with
regards to granting alcohol licenses - present the
information as to the current number of licenses in that
area and the impact - do not give a staff recommendation.
Yost moved, second by Levitt to receive and file the staff
report."
(Detailed Meeting Minutes are on file and available in City Hall)
E-Mail response from Wendy Cosin, Deputy Planning Director, City of Berkeley, April 17, 2009
Page 4
DECEMBER 2005 CONSIDERATION OF ALCOHOL LICENSES WITHIN THE
MAIN STREET SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE: (Continued)
Date .. Considering Bodyand.Summary~of~Actions~~ ~ ~~
12-12-05 City Council Staff Report:
1) Overview of Public Concerns re: Alcohol Licenses:
• Why Consider Additional Alcohol Sales Establishments on Main
Street?
• Why Doesn't the City Prohibit Such Applications?
2) Information from Planning Commission Staff Reports re: CUP 05-14
November 9.2005:
• Overconcentration of Alcoholic Beverage Licenses; and
• Approving Alcohol Licenses in Overconcentrated Areas.
3) Current In-Lieu Parking Provisions -Main Street Specific Plan Zone.
(Full Staff Report is on file and available in City Hall)
CITY CONSIDERATIONS DURING ADOPTION OF MAIN STREET SPECIFIC
PLAN:
Staff has also completed a review of all City
Commission Minutes during the time period of th
Main Street Specific Plan Revision 1996, during the
Provided below is a summary of those deliberatio
Commission and City Council
Council Minutes and Planning
e consideration and adoption of
1995 through 1996 time period.
ns and actions of the Planning
Date ~ Considering ;Body and Summary ~of~Actions~~ ' :.
07-22-96 City Council Minutes:
Consent Calendar - Adoption of implementing Resolutions and
Ordinances re: Main Street Specific Plan.
(Detailed Meeting Minutes are on file and available in City Hall)
07-08-96 City Council Minutes:
Discussion primarily related to In-Lieu parking Program and use of funds.
(Detailed Meeting Minutes are on file and available in City Hall)
06-24-96 City Council Minutes:
Public Hearing -Main Street Specific Plan:
1) Review by Director of Development Services of Planning
Commission recommendations (Page 3 of Attachment 5); and
2) Comments by Dr. Rosenman (page 4 of Attachment 5).
(Detailed Meeting Minutes are on file and available in City Hall)
Page 5
CITY CONSIDERATIONS DURING ADOPTION OF MAIN STREET SPECIFIC
PLAN (Continued):
Date Considering~Body and.Summary~of.Actions
06-24-96 City Council Staff Report re: Public Hearing, Main Street
(Continued) Specific Plan:
1) Attachment 1: Summary of Planning Commission Recommendations
and Findings re: Main Street Specific Plan:
Page 22 -Bullet Points 6 through 8; and
Page 23 -first bullet point.
(Full Staff Report is on file and available in City Hall)
04-17-96 Planning Commission Minutes:
Consideration of Resolutions regarding Main Street Specific Plan
Revision 96-1: Commission determines to approve all Planning
Commission resolutions recommending approval of all actions to the City
Council. No discussion regarding alcohol sales matters.
(Detailed Meeting Minutes are on file and available in City Hall)
04-17-96 Planning Commission Staff Report -Supplemental # 5 re:
Main Street Specific Plan Revision:
1) Page 2: See discussion re: Regulation ofAlcohol-Related Businesses
- Standard Hours of Operation;
2) Page 15: See Items "d" and "e" re: Main Street Specific Plan Revision
96-1; and
3) Page 19: See Items "4" and "5" re: Zone Ordinance Text Amendment
96-3.
(Full Staff Report is on file and available in City Hall)
04-03-96 Planning Commission Minutes:
Extensive discussion regarding limitations as to hours and setting
numerical caps for on-premise and off-premise alcohol sales.
(Detailed Meeting Minutes are on file and available in City Hall)
Page 6
CITY CONSIDERATIONS DURING ADOPTION OF MAIN STREET SPECIFIC
PLAN (Continued):
Date ~ .Considering Body and;~Summary~of Actions:.,' ~~ ~ .
04-03-96 Planning Commission Staff Report -Supplemental # 4 re:
Main Street Specific Plan Revision:
1) Page 2: See discussion re: Regulation of Alcohol-Related Businesses
- Standard Hours of Operation;
2) Page 6: re: Main Street Specific Plan Revisions Determined by
Planning Commission to be Appropriate to Recommend to City
Council -Supplemental Revisions
• See Item "1 .a" -maximum of 1 liquor store permitted by CUP;
and
• See Item "i.b" -restaurants subject to CUP with established
operating hours.
(Full Staff Report is on file and available in City Hall)
Planning Commission Staff Report -Supplemental # 3 re•
Main Street Specific Plan Revision:
1) Page 2: See discussion re: Regulation ofAlcohol-Related Businesses
- Standard Hours of Operation;
2) Page 13 and page 65: re: Main Street Specific Plan Revisions
Determined by Planning Commission to be Appropriate to
Recommend to City Council
• See Item "1.d" -maximum of 3 liquor establishments, if part of a
grocery store, permitted by CUP with established operating
hours.
3) Page 16 and 78: re: Zone Ordinance Text Amendment 96-3,
Additional Revisions:
• See Item "4" -maximum of 3 liquor establishments, if part of a
grocery store, permitted by CUP with established operating
hours.
(Full Staff Report is on file and available in City Hall)
03-20-96 Planning Commission Minutes:
3) Staff review, public comments, Commission discussion and
Commission direction (pages 12 and 13) regarding issues related to
setting a cap on the number of licensed alcohol sales premises and
standard hours of operation.
4) Applicable discussion occurs on pages 7, 9, 11, 12, and 13.
(Detailed Meeting Minutes are on file and available in City Hall)
Page 7
CITY CONSIDERATIONS DURING ADOPTION OF MAIN STREET SPECIFIC
PLAN (Continued):
Date ~ Considering Body~and Summary of Actions~~. ~ . ~ •
03-20-96 Planning Commission Staff Report -Supplemental # 2 re:
Main Street Specific Plan Revision:
1) Pages 1 and 2: See discussion re: Regulation of Alcohol-Related
Businesses -Standard Hours of Operation;
2) Page 6: re: Main Street Specific Plan Revisions Determined by
Planning Commission to be Appropriate to Recommend to City
Council -Supplemental Revisions
• See Item "1.a" -maximum of 1 liquor store permitted by CUP;
and
• See Item "1 .b" -restaurants subject to CUP with established
operating hours.
(Full Staff Report is on file and available in City Hall)
03-06-96 Planning Commission Minutes:
3) Staff review, public comments, and Commission discussion regarding
issues related to setting a cap on the number of licensed alcohol
sales premises and standard hours of operation.
4) Applicable discussion occurs on pages 14, 15, 17, 24, and 25.
(Detailed Meeting Minutes are on file and available in City Hall)
Planning Commission Staff Report -Supplemental re: Main
Street Specific Plan Revision:
1) Pages 1 and 2: See discussion re: Regulation of Alcohol-serving
Businesses;
(Full Staff Report is on file and available in City Hall)
02-21-96 Planning Commission Minutes:
1) Staff review, public comments, and Commission discussion regarding
issues related to alcohol sales premises.
2) Applicable discussion occurs on pages 13, 15, 16, and 22.
(Detailed Meeting Minutes are on file and available in City Hall)
Planning Commission Staff Report -Public Hearing re: Main
Street Specific Plan Revision:
1) Pages 3 - 5: See bracketed discussion re: Alcohol-serving
Businesses,
2) Attachment 13 -Joint CC/PC Workshop, 08-09-95:
• Applicable discussion occurs on pages 3, 5, and 7.
3) Attachment 14 -Joint CC/PC Workshop, 02-08-95:
• No applicable discussion occurs at this meeting.
(Full Staff Report is on file and available in City Hall)
Page 8
CITY CONSIDERATIONS DURING ADOPTION AND REPEALING OF
MORATORIUM ON ISSUING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR LIQUOR
ESTABLISHMENTS IN 1986:
Staff has also completed a review of all City Council Minutes and Planning
Commission Minutes during the time period of the consideration and of the issue of
conditional use permits for liquor establishments in the 1986 time period. Provided
below is a summary of those deliberations and actions of the Planning Commission
and City Council
. Date Considering Body and. Summary of Actions .
06-09-86 City Council:
1) Adoption of Ordinance No. 1224 -repealing the moratorium on
conditional use permits for liquor establishments and declaring the
urgency thereof.
(Ordinance No. 1224 is on file and available in City Hall)
2) City Council Minutes -see discussion on page 2 regarding numerical
limitations.
(Detailed Meeting Minutes are on file and available in City Hall)
05-22-86 Planning Commission Memorandum to City Council:
1) Provides overview of City Council and Planning Commission actions
between February 10 and May 21, 1986.
• May 21, 1986 -Planning Commission reviews draft of
Memorandum re: Alcohol Provisions and adopts with
modifications. Report forwarded to City Council.
Recommendations included:
• CUP be required for all alcohol licenses;
• Alcohol sales only allowed in C-1, C-2, Specific Plan Zone,
and Public Land Use zones;
• Provisions re: temporary ABC licenses for special event
activities; and
• Other provisions.
• May 14, 1986 -Planning Commission holds continued study
session and voted on possible changes to City policies and
zoning provisions on alcohol.
o April 23, 1986 -Planning Commission holds study session and
continues to May 14. Presenting reports and responding to
questions were:
• Richard Cottingham, Department of Alcohol Beverage
Control;
• Captain Garret, Seal Beach Police Department; and
• City Attorney.
Page 9
CITY CONSIDERATIONS DURING ADOPTION AND REPEALING OF
MORATORIUM ON ISSUING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR LIQUOR
ESTABLISHMENTS IN 1986 (Continued)
Date ~ Considering Body and Summary'of Actions. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~,~
05-22-86 Planning Commission Memorandum to City Council:
(Continued) (Continued)
• April 14, 1986 -City Council holds public hearing to consider
extension of moratorium. After receiving public testimony the City
Council determines to extend the moratorium for 120 days
(Ordinance Number 1222) and directs the Planning Commission
to submit their findings and report to the City Council within 45
days.
• April 1, 1986 -City Council presented report on actions taken by
the Planning Commission in studying existing provisions
regarding alcohol sales based on concerns identified above.
• March 19, 1986 -Planning Commission holds study session on
the issuance of Conditional Use Permits for on-site and off-site
alcohol sales.
• February 10, 1986 -City Council adopts Ordinance No. 1214 -
establishing a moratorium on the granting of conditional use
permits for on-site and off-site liquor establishments and declaring
the urgency thereof.
• Includes the following attachments:
• April 21, 1986 Memorandum to Planning Commission re:
Study Session on Alcohol Provisions, (for April 23, 1986
Planning Commission Study Session), includes the following;
• Focus of study session was how ABC implements Rule
61.3 regarding undue concentration of licenses in a crime
reporting district with reported crimes greater than 20% of
the average number of crimes reported on a city-wide
basis.
• Memorandum included an April 17, 1986 Memorandum
from the Chief of Police to City Council and Planning
Commission re: Alcohol Dispensing Establishments,
Their Impact on Crime and Our License Protest Options,
dated April 17, which provided detailed population, ratio of
ABC licenses, and criminal offenses information for Seal
Beach and several similar sized cities in Orange County.
• City Council Minute Excerpt of April 14, 1986 re: Public
Hearing Extending Moratorium on Conditional Use Permits -
Liquor Sales
Page 10
CITY CONSIDERATIONS DURING ADOPTION AND REPEALING OF
MORATORIUM ON ISSUING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR LI(~UOR
ESTABLISHMENTS 1N 1986 (Continued)
Date ~ ~ Considering Body and Summary of,Actions ` ~ ~ .
05-22-86 Planning Commission Memorandum to City Council:
(Continued) (Continued)
• Ordinance Number 1222, An Ordinance of the City of Seal
Beach Extending the Moratorium on the Granting of
Conditional use permits for On-Site and Off-Site Liquor
Establishments and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, adopted
April 14, 1986
• Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Rule 61.3, Undue
Concentration (1984)
• Memorandum to Mayor and City Council re: Extension of
Ordinance Number 1214, a Moratorium on the Granting of
Conditional Use Permits for On-Site and Off-Site Liquor
Sales, dated April 8, 1986, which reviewed issues of concern
to the Planning Commission to support the extension of the
moratorium, including:
• No city review of temporary, one-day ABC permits;
• Liquor sales occurring in residential areas;
• Required legal findings for the denial of a CUP
application; and
• Present moratorium does not address the issuance of
one-day permits or off-sale licenses outside of 100 feet of
schools, churches, or residential areas.
• Memorandum to Mayor and City Council re: Ordinance
Number 1214, Moratorium on the Granting of Conditional Use
Permits for On-Site and Off-Site Liquor Establishments, dated
March 28, 1986, provided an overview of the timeline of
events up to that point in time and set forth the concerns
identified in the above item.
• Planning Commission Minute Excerpt re: Scheduled
Matter -procedures for processing alcohol requests, March
19, 1986
• Letter from Police Chief to Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
re: Rule 61.3, dated March 19, 1986
• Memorandum to Planning Commission re: Alcohol
approval processes, dated March 13, 1986, including:
• Overview of 13 other cities processes in reviewing
requests for alcohol licenses.
Page 11
CITY CONSIDERATIONS DURING ADOPTION AND REPEALING OF
MORATORIUM ON ISSUING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR LIQUOR
ESTABLISHMENTS IN 1986 (Continued)
Date Considering Body~and Summary of Actions
05-22-86 Planning Commission Memorandum to City Council:
(Continued) (Continued)
• City Council Minute Excerpt re: Ordinance 1214 -
Establishing Moratorium -Liquor Licenses, February 10,
1986
• Ordinance No. 1214, An Ordinance of the City of Seal
Beach Establishing a Moratorium on the granting of
Conditional Use Permits for On-Site and Off-Site Liquor
Establishments and Declaring the Urgency Thereof, adopted
February 10, 1986
• Citywide Liquor Licenses (as of 4/19/86) - a listing of the
types of alcohol licenses by area of the City -Old Town, The
Hill Area, Surfside Area, Leisure World Area, and Rossmoor
Area.
• Executive Summary - Uses of Planning and Zoning
Ordinances to Regulate Alcohol Outlets in California Cities,
Prevention Research Institute, pacific Institute for Research
and Evaluation, updated June 1, 1985
(Planning Commission Memorandum and all associated reports, Ordinances,
and meeting minutes are on file and available in City Hall)
05-21-86 Planning Commission Minutes:
Report -Alcohol Provisions:
1) Planning Commission review of final recommendations to be
forwarded to the City Council based on discussion at May 14, 1986
Planning Commission Study Session (pages 10-11 of Attachment
23).
(Detailed Meeting Minutes are on file and available in City Hall)
05-14-86 Planning Commission Minutes:
Study Session -Alcohol Provisions:
2) Comments by the public, Planning Commissioners and City Attorney
regarding ability of a city to impose a numerical limit on the number of
licenses (pages 3-6 of Attachment 24).
3) Planning Commission determination to not recommend denial of a
license if the ratio of on and off-sale in a given reporting district or
Census Tract exceeds the County ratio, based on comments of the
City Attorney (page 8 of Attachment 24).
(Detailed Meeting Minutes are on file and available in City Hall)
Page 12
CITY CONSIDERATIONS DURING ADOPTION AND REPEALING OF
MORATORIUM ON ISSUING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR LIQUOR
ESTABLISHMENTS IN 1986 (Continued)
Date . ~ ~ Considering. Body and Summary. of Actions ~~ ~ ~ .
04-23-86 Planning Commission Minutes:
Study Session -Alcoholic Beverage Provisions:
4) Extensive discussion regarding the role of ABC and the ability of
cities to regulate alcohol sales establishments; and
5) Comments by City Attorney regarding ability of a city to impose a
numerical limit on the number of licenses (pages 15 and 16 of
Attachment 25).
(Detailed Meeting Minutes are on file and available in City Hall)
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Unknown until Staff receives direction from City Council regarding any future
desired actions by staff, the Planning Commission and City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council to consider Staff report and provide direction to Staff regarding any
future desired actions by staff, the Planning Commission and City Council to
address concerns and issues as may be identified by the City Council.
SUBMITTED BY:
NOTED AND APPROVED:
~,
ee Wh enberg David Carmany
Director of Development S rvices City Manager
Attachments: (2)
Attachment 1: Planning Commission Minute Except of April 8, 2009 regarding
Conditional Use Permit 09-3
Attachment 2: Section 23E.44.030, Special Provisions -Numerical Limitations, C-E
Elmwood Commercial District, City of Berkeley Zoning Code
ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCEPT
OF APRIL 8, 2009 REGARDING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 09-3
(Chairman Deaton requested minutes be verbatim)
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of April B, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
AYES: Deaton, Bello,
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
SCHEDULED MATTERS
Eagar, Larson, and Massa-Lavitt
42
43
44
45
46
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Conditional Use Permit 09-3
210 Main Street (Waki Sushi)
Applicant/Owner: Yong & Jane Park /Gary Putnam & Yvette Jacobson
Request: Establish a new restaurant use with a Type 41 (Beer & Wine
- Eating Place) ABC license within the Main Street Specific
Plan (MSSP) Zone.
Recommendation: Approval, subject to conditions, and adoption of Resolution
09-16.
Staff Report
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report as follows: (Staff Report is on file for inspection
in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item
noting that the facility proposed for this restaurant use is in the 200 block of Main Street
and was the previous location for "Sweet Berry Bliss," a frozen yogurt shop and for
many years before that was "Grandma's Cookies," and is located just north of the Bank
of America on Main Street. The previous uses of the building are classified a dessert
shop/coffee house under the standards of the Main Street Specific Plan (MSSP) and
that type of use has a different parking requirement than a restaurant use as indicated
in the Staff Report discussion on the requirements for "in-lieu parking" based on that
difference in parking standards. On the rear of the property there is a two-story
structure, which is a single-car garage with a living unit above it, and the front building
for the proposed restaurant use itself is single-story. Both the buildings are old enough
that Staff could no find building permit records for the initial construction of either of
these structures. The general position of Staff is that these uses are nonconforming
and when new applications come before the Planning Commission (PC) they must be
made as conforming as possible. Within the MSSP there are a number of findings that
must be made in order to approve requests for Conditional Use Permits (CUP), as
shown on Page 3 of the Staff Report:
^ The use is consistent with the provisions of the City's General Plan, and is also
consistent with the remaining elements of the City's General Plan.
2of16
City of Sea! Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2009
1 ^ The use is compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general, and
2 not detrimental to the neighborhood.
3 ^ The subject property is adequate in size, shape, topography, and location to meet
4 the needs of the use of the property.
5 ^ The use is consistent with the intent and purpose and vision established for the
6 MSSP.
7 ^ The use does not conflict with the Specific Plan's goal to establish and maintain a
8 balanced mix of uses that serve the needs of both local and non-local populations.
9 ^ The use will contribute to the unique character of Main Street and the qualities that
10 provide Main Street a sense of identity.
11
12 Those -are findings that the Commission would need to make to approve both the
13 conversion to a restaurant use and to approve the requested alcohol use on this
14 particular property.
15
16 Also in-lieu parking issues arise in this type of use because of the change in parking
17 requirements. For a dessert shop/coffee house use the parking standard is 1 parking
18 space per 500 sq. ft. of building area; for a restaurant it is 1 parking space per 100 sq.
19 ft. In this particular case 11 spaces total are required, with 3 spaces grandfathered
20 based on the size of the current building as a dessert shop use, leaving a net deficiency
21 of 8 spaces. The City's in-lieu parking fee is $3,500 per space, so the total required fee
22 to allow the conversion to a restaurant is $28,000. The Commission has given Staff
23 some direction on a fairly recent application on Main Street to spread that payment
24 schedule out as far as realistically possible with a 7-year time period the longest time
25 allowed for the payment of fees, but the actual terms and conditions are something that
26 would be negotiated between the business operator and City Staff.
27
28 The discussion on the proposed alcohol use as opposed to the restaurant use itself is
29 found in the Staff Report starts on Page 5. Alcohol uses on Main Street have always
30 been a concern to the community and in 1996 there was a major revision to the MSSP
31 that set in place the in-lieu fee of $3,500, the requirement for a CUP, and when the
32 MSSP was going through the revision process, there was extensive discussion about
33 the City trying to establish a numerical cap on alcohol licenses allowed on Main Street.
34 That discussion between PC, City Council (CC), and the public went on for
35 approximately a year and one-half. The end result was that the City determined not to
36 impose any numerical caps on the number of alcohol licenses permitted on Main Street,
37 and would leave this to the discretion of the City through the CUP process. Information
38 from the Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) as to how many licenses
39 could occur within the Main Street/Old Town area appears on Page 5 of the Staff
40 Report. Those numbers are determined by ABC on what is called a census tract basis.
41 There are two census tracts that comprise Old Town, with the tract numbers of 995.11
42 and 995.12. They basically split Old Town down Central Avenue; one tract is Centra(
43 Avenue to the ocean and the other tract is Central Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway
44 (PCH). ABC has a ratio that is determined on a statewide basis for what puts a
45 particular census tract into an over concentrated situation, and this number is
46 determined on a yearly basis by state ABC based upon population estimates given by
3of16
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes ofApril 8, 2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
the state. Based upon the current population in those areas, the total on-sale licenses
would be 7 in both census tracts in order to not have an over concentrated of licenses.
Those two census tracts include the south side of PCH and whatever restaurant uses
might be along PCH in addition to Main Street. Currently the City has 29 licensed
locations in these two census tracts, and on Pages 5 and 6 of the Staff Report a
detailed listing of each of those licensed locations is shown with the name of the
business, the address, and the census tract it is in. In 1995, as a result of consideration
of an application for a proposed restaurant in the 300 block of Main Street, the PC
determination was to approve the restaurant use, deny the alcohol sales, and when the
matter eventually went before CC they asked for some overview of these issues. In
December 2005, CC gave specific direction to Staff to not make recommendations on
an alcohol license application in the Main Street area, so tonight's Staff Report does not
make a recommendation on the alcohol sales, but presents the information that is
consistently provided on all application in the Main Street area. Staff is recommending
approval of the restaurant use, but does not make a recommendation for the alcohol
sales. The standard conditions for an alcohol license are included in the Staff Report,
should the PC determine to approve this. Staff has also provided the information on
Page 12 showing which conditions would need to be removed, should the PC consider
approving the matter without alcohol sales. For the record Staff received a letter from
the Seal Beach Chamber of Commerce in support of CUP 09-3 and also a letter from
Warren and Mitzi Morton indicating their opposition to approval CUP 09-3 and
requesting that the matter be denied.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Larson asked if Condition No. 4 on Page 9 should read "...indicating
the availability of beer and wine ..." Mr. Whittenberg indicated that that would be
corrected.
Commissioner Eager asked if the proposed restaurant is to be located in Census Tract
995.12. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. Commissioner Eager noted
that this census tract has 14 alcohol licenses. Mr. Whittenberg stated that there are 14;
however, 3 would be the number indicated by ABC to not be over concentrated. He
noted that Staff has combined both tracts, as Staff has always looked at Main Street as
a whole, but due to population growth, since the 2000 census Main Street was split into
two census tracts. Chairperson Deaton indicated that the number of licenses along all
of Main Street, which is 19, is the number that would be relevant.
Public Hearing
Chairperson Deaton opened the public hearing.
The applicant, Yong Park, stated that before closing escrow he was not aware of all the
licensing requirements, and although he understands about the over concentration of
alcohol licenses, he believes that the sale of alcohol would be an essential part of
operating a Japanese restaurant. He questioned the prospect of the restaurant
4of16
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of Apri18, 2009
1 succeeding without the ability to offer beer, sake, or wine to its customers. He stated
2 that he hopes to open the restaurant as soon as possible, and cannot wait 6-12 months
3 to receive approval for an alcohol license as restaurant sales would not be strong
4 enough for it to succeed. He requested approval of CUP 09-3.
5
Seth Eaker spoke in favor of CUP 09-3 citing diversity of uses along Main Street and
noting that restaurants represent the engine that drives destination travel on evenings
and weekends. He noted that there has been a recent increase in ethnic dining choices
creating a positive and diverse dining experience for residents and visitors. With regard
to alcohol licenses he suggested imposing a 6-month review period to see if this
restaurant would be a good fit for the community, noting that Pho Basil Leaf was
approved without alcohol sales and has been doing well. He then thanked the PC for its
direction in allowing Staff to disburse the payment of in-lieu parking fees over a period
of time. He recommended approval of CUP 09-3.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Deaton closed the public
hearing.
19 Commissioner Comments
20
21 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF DISCUSSION.
22
23 Chairperson Deaton:
24
25 There were a number of people who talked to me about this and, frankly, I expected
26 there to be a large concern with the alcohol permits. I did not expect there to be a large
27 concern with the restaurant itself. The feedback that people gave me was the "diversity
28 of use has to do with the diversity of parking demand," and in some ways I have never
29 thought of that. The reason that we want to have restaurants is so that we have foot
30 traffic for our other businesses, but also, the other businesses need places for their
31 patrons to park, and if the restaurants are going to take up all of the parking because of
32 their higher parking demand, then there is no place for the people to park and go to the
33 other businesses, which are the ones that, frankly, are having more trouble in town right
34 now than anyone else. We have already seen a number of businesses go out. I know I
35 just saw Main Street Financial, The Travel Center, the clothing store, although we did
36 get another clothing store in there, which is really nice. We had the T-shirt store that
37 went out, but then again we got a children's' shop in there. I think the biggest concern
38 to the residents that talked to me is parking, parking, parking, and after that was alcohol,
39 which, frankly, surprised me. I thought the biggest concern would have been alcohol. I
40 had a woman who called me today who said I love sushi and I would love to have a
41 sushi restaurant, but I can't walk down Main Street and I can't find a parking spot. She
42 said that it was absolutely not appropriate to add yet another restaurant. I would like
43 to propose something and see what my fellow Commissioners think. I would like to
44 continue this and send it to CC and ask them, since they are the elected and they are
45 really the ones that need to grapple with this, "What to you want to do on this?" I mean
46 we have the in-lieu parking, which is great, the City makes money off of it, I guess, but it
Sof16
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2009
1 doesn't mitigate anything. It doesn't give us any parking spaces. What we need are
2 parking spaces before we can put in another intensive use for parking. So I would really
3 like to continue it and ask that the CC tell us: "What do you want to do about more
4 restaurants on Main Street?" "What do you want to do about more alcohol permits?"
5 "How do you want to handle this?" because once we give an alcohol permit, we may
6 give an alcohol permit for sushi and two years later the sushi restaurant is gone and that
7 alcohol permit is still there. One of the big problems that we are hearing about now is
8 that the sidewalks are not clean enough because of the different alcohol-related
9 establishments, and so forth. I don't feel confident to make this decision on behalf of
10 the elected.
11
12 Commissioner Massa-Lavitt:
13
I agree with you that CC needs to make a decision what they are going to do about the
parking issue. They can't keep collecting money and not provide any parking spaces.
Your thoughts are "right on" there. I don't want to keep this business; however, from
being able to move forward pending an action of the CC. I think that would be a true
hardship on this business. So I would want to move ahead with these guys and have
them go in and have their beer and wine license. The point is well taken that a sushi
restaurant generally does not foment the kind of rowdy behavior that maybe a Clancy's
or Hennessey's or that an O'Malley's does at certain times of the year or on the
weekends, but because of that I do not want to see them not be able to move ahead. I
would like to continue on with your thought, Chair Deaton, to recommend to the CC that
they come up with solutions to the problems down here. Maybe we need a parking
structure. I don't know where they are going to put it, but it's been done. It would take a
good deal of thought and work, but those kinds of things can happen in a dense
downtown, and maybe it's time for them to "bite the bullet" and come up with a solution.
Chairperson Deaton:
I cannot in conscience go forward with it. With 19 alcohol permits on there, knowing
how the constituents down here feel about it, and living a half block off of it and ending
up no parking in the neighborhood. So, it gives me a real problem to do that. I also
know that there are other establishments in town that the minute we give this one, they
will all be back and say, "Hey, we've already been here, so now it's our turn to get an
alcohol permit." I don't know how we would justify, for instance, a restaurant we just
approved coming in and saying, "Wait a minute. I want mine now."
Commissioner Massa-Lavitt:
Is it possible to do an ABC moratorium just on Main Street?
43 Quinn Barrow:
44
45 It may be possible. The only prohibition would be if we have done that before in the
46 City. You should only do a moratorium once. Lee and I were actually talking about this
6of16
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2009
1 in the past and we don't know if there has been a moratorium on the issuance of CUPs
2 on Main Street in the past, but we would have to consider that, number one. Number
3 two, as you know, the CC is the only body that has that power, so you could
4 recommend it to the CC. With respect to considering these different suggestions of the
5 Commission, there is a way to accomplish what the Chair wants; however, to continue
6 this matter and send it up to the CC wouldn't work, because they are the appellate body
7 of this body, and so if they provided input while this is still within your jurisdiction then
8 basically they would be "tainted" from the process and would not be able to hear any
9 appeals. So there are other ways to accomplish what you would want, but I just want to
10 point that out.
11
12 Chairperson Deaton:
13
14 Would the appropriate way to do it maybe be to deny it and then if it gets appealed, then
15 the CC could address it at that point?
Quinn Barrow:
That's one of the ways, but there are really 3 different ways:
21 1. You could deny without prejudice. Essentially that means that for them to reapply
22 they would not have wait a year.
23 2. There is also the issue of there could be a suggestion to waive the fee to appeal.
24 3. Another way is the CC always has the power to call things up for review and that
25 way it is not an appeal, but in essence they would still have the same type of hearing
26 de novo before the CC, but that is also a way that they would not have to pay the
27 appeal fee.
28
29 C_ hairperson Deaton:
30
31 Well then, I think what I would like to do is recommend that we deny it without prejudice
32 and waive the appeal fee.
33
34 Quinn Barrow:
35
36 You would make that recommendation, because only the CC can waive that, but your
37 motion would be to deny without prejudice and recommend to the CC that they can
38 appeal without paying the fee.
39
40 Commissioner Larson:
41
42 I know what your problem is and I guess we all share it. My understanding of the
43 applicant's statement was that he wasn't aware before he closed escrow, everybody
44 has that problem I guess, that there are licensing problems and zoning problems, and a
45 lot of other problems, but we are not having a meeting for a month.
46
7of16
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2009
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chairperson Deaton:
But the Council will so if we go ahead and deny it then it can go on to CC.
Commissioner Larson:
That's right.
Commissioner Eat:
When is the Council meeting?
Lee Whittenber~:
First off the Commission needs to make your decision on what you think is the best
decision because you may deny in anticipation that an appeal may be filed, but if and
appeal is not filed, after 10 days your decision is the final decision.
Chairperson Deaton:
Which is fine too, but the whole is we have a problem here, and it is not limited to just
one application and we are going to get ourselves in serious trouble by "piecemealing
this decision." I think we really need to get direction from CC and I like Quinn's
suggestion that we do it that way so that we are not "muddying the water."
Lee Whittenber~:
Keep in mind that assuming the Commission goes down the road of denying the
application and recommending to Council that the appeal fee be waived if an appeal is
filed, there is a 10-day period to file the appeal, depending upon when that gets
submitted to the City, when one is applied for. If it is fairly quickly we might be able to
get it on a May meeting, it depends on publication dates for newspapers and a number
of other things, so it just depends on when those things fall into place, as to how quickly
something may get to CC, and I can't give you definite answers on that.
Commissioner Larson:
There was another one on the 300 block that go to Council, where the Commission had
said O.K. to food, but no liquor.
Lee Whittenber~.•
That business eventually decided not to activate this CUP and it was later reapproved
for a wine tasting business as opposed to a restaurant.
8of16
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of Apri18, 2009
Chairperson Deaton:
That is my suggestion, especially without Commissioner Bello here tonight, who also
shares this district. I feel the responsibility is beyond us.
Commissioner Larson:
agree with that. I share your concern. I think I know what it is. You remember that
some time ago we went back with what to do with a property that backs up to Gum
Grove Nature Park on their setbacks. Well we sent it up to the Council and they sent it
back and we sent it back up to the Council and they sent it back.
Chairperson Deaton:
In this case we have an application though, and I think it has to be dealt with within a
certain period of time.
Commissioner Larson:
You've convinced me and I'm not sure that people won't say we've been unfair, but we
have to face that, that some of the deals we make we think we're being fair and we are
trying to do what is best for the City and if the Council says give as many alcohol
permits as you want, then its fine. If they say we want to stop, then that's fine too.
Chairperson Deaton:
The bottom line is that they are the elected and they are the ones who are going to be
held accountable for the decision that we make.
Commissioner Larson:
Yeah, that's right. I'll second your motion, if it hasn't been seconded.
Commissioner Eagan:
1 am kind of torn here, because I am always in favor of business, and I would like to see
them start their business, but then, we're "saturated" with alcohol permits here and
that's not including our end of Seal Beach.
Lee Whittenber~:
The other option that the Commission has this evening you can approve the Conditional
Use Permit for the restaurant use without the alcohol.
9of16
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of Apri18, 2009
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chairperson Deaton:
I don't feel that that's the right way to go because I've had so many complaints about
the parking issue, and if we get more restaurants, I mean, how do we, when do we
stop? At what point do we stop giving restaurants, so I would personally like the Council
to direct us. If they say, "You know, we're just going to bite the bullet," you know,
maybe eventually people will go down and use the beach lot and blah, blah, blah, I
would just like the Council to make that decision because people are really unhappy
about the parking intensification that is coming about with the restaurant use.
Commissioner Larson:
Former Mayor Antos will then bring up his lifelong goal to build parking under
Eisenhower Park.
Commissioner Massa-Lavitt.•
Is there a way that we can tie; well, what we have is a motion to deny; and that would
be deny the restaurant and the ABC license. Would we then, under a separate
recommendation from the PC ask the CC to either direct the PC or take it upon
themselves to come up with solutions for the parking issues on Main Street?
Chairperson Deaton:
think there are a number of things that we need to ask, and one of them is:
1. What about more restaurant use. Does this bother you or not?
2. What about the alcohol use. Does this bother you or not?
3. How are we rather than just accepting money when people don't have parking
spaces, how do we mitigate the parking issue?
Like Mr. Larson says, there has been a plan floated out there for a long time, and that is
to roll back Eisenhower Park, put parking under it, and roll Eisenhower Park back over
the top, but then you're asking people to, I mean they could park down at the beach
now and they don't want to walk down there. This is a big issue. This isn't an easily
solved issue, and I do believe that this is a Council issue and not a Planning
Commission issue.
Commissioner Eagar:
How many parking spaces does this restaurant get?
10 of 16
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of April B, 2009
Chairperson Deaton:
They need to pay for 8 spaces and they are grandfathered in for 3. But these are
"virtual spaces," they're not real.
Commissioner Massa-Lavitt:
And there is no place to put them.
Commissioner Ea ar:
I can see your point now.
Chairperson Deaton:
Go on the computer and you play these virtual shopping trips and you're paying money
for all of this stuff, but it's virtual, it's not real.
Commissioner Larson:
But when you open up parking you open up Sunday parking and the permits to the
church, take away parking permit from a swim school that wasn't allowed to. It's
probably the most difficult thing that can happen to Seal Beach. There is just not
parking. We've got a couple of lots that the City of Long Beach manages; the church
brings people in from shuttle buses.
Chairperson Deaton:
I know that Staff has been working on this with various members of the community on
new ideas on how to handle the parking, different ideas have come up, and, of course,
it's just like bringing up parking meters again. Everybody has a different opinion and a
different idea, but the fact is that we're at the place "where the rubber meets the road."
With the economy the way it is about the only thing being really successful are
restaurants that are serving alcohol. What we are looking at is turning Main Street into
a very undiverse use of restaurants with alcohol permits.
Commissioner Massa-Lavitt:
don't think that's going to happen. In every built community, downtown 2"d Street
Belmont Shore, they have the same issue.
Chairperson Deaton:
Oh, they do. I can't tell you how many people tell me, "I don't want to be Belmont
Shore."
11 of 16
City of Seal eeact- Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2009
Commissioner Massa-Lavitt:
We are Belmont Shore, only on a smaller scale. There's no place else to put parking,
and it means cutting off a whole use potential on the street. That means we will have
no more new restaurants on Main Street until this issue is settled.
Chairperson Deaton:
Unless some go out of business. The problem is we have not faced, until now with Pho
Basil Leaf, which just happened, and now this; non-restaurant use buildings that are
being turned into restaurant use. Oh no, and the Wine Ceflar. Those three are brand
new uses. Those are the only three in the six years I have been on the PC and they
have all happened recently, since we've entered this problem area. So I just feel that
the CC needs to grapple with this because, otherwise, we are making decisions that
they have to face their constituents for.
Commissioner Larson:
Well I recommended once that we take the theater and the gas station that was there
and turn that into a parking lot.
Commissioner Massa-Lavitt:
Shopping in front and, you know little stores in front and a structure above and behind.
Why don't we call for the question? I'll call for the question.
Lee Whittenber~:
If I might just restate the motion, it is to deny the application.
Chairperson Deaton:
It is to deny the application without prejudice and to recommend to the CC to hear an
appeal with no appeal fee.
Commissioner Larson:
We don't have an understanding if the applicant would be happy with operating without
a liquor license. I gather he wants the liquor license.
Commissioner Massa-Lavitt:
I think we should still give him the opportunity, though.
12 of 16
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2009
Chairperson Deaton:
But we still have the issue of the restaurant and the parking.
Commissioner Massa-Lavitt:
Oh, that's right.
Commissioner Ea~ar:
At this point in time before we vote, should the applicant .. .
Chairperson Deaton:
The question has been called for.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Larson to deny Conditional Use Permit 09-3 without
prejudice and recommend to City Council that the appeal fee be waived.
MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 -1
AYES: Deaton, Eagar, Larson, and Massa-Lavitt
NOES: None
ABSENT: Bello
O.K. that's four zero to deny the application without prejudice and to allow you time to
go to an appeal process to the CC without paying a fee.
Lee Whittenber~:
We don't have a resolution before you at this point in time, but what we will do is take
the discussion and fold it into a resolution that we'll have completed by tomorrow to
present to the applicant for him to use as part of that appeal, and we will provide it to .the
Commission at that same time.
Chairperson Deaton:
So now we're at the end of the agenda, right?
Quinn Barrow:
Yes.
Chairperson Deaton:
What I would like to do now is I would like to make a motion, and if it works for you
guys, what I would like to do is ask the CC to direct us, specifically, on what they want
13 of 16
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of Apri18, 2009
1 to do about Main Street restaurants, liquor permits, etc. It's one thing to address this as
2 one thing, but now we need some direction on how they want us to handle Main Street,
3 with the understanding that there are 19 "liquor licenses just on that one street there with
4 the understanding that we have a parking issue. Where they eventually park is in the
5 neighborhoods, and so people coming home at night are competing with~the people that
6 are eating on Main Street to park. It's a knotty issue that I would like directions on this.
7
8 Commissioner Larson:
9
10 Is that going to open up the Specific Plan?
11
12 Chairperson Deaton:
13
14 It may not open up the Specific Plan. It may just be an interpretation of the Main Street
15 Specific Plan.
16
17 Lee Whittenber~:
18
19 I think those are some issues that if the Commission approves the suggested motion
20 that is before them, we'll have to huddle with Staff and see how that process would work
21 out and present something to CC and they will probably end up giving us direction as to
22 how far they want us to go with this.
23
24 Quinn Barrow:
25
26 If I could interrupt, I just want to make it clear to the applicant that the PC has denied
27 your application without prejudice, you have 10 days to file an appeal with the City
28 Clerk, and the PC is recommending to the CC that they consider your appeal without
29 any appeal fee. Number two; technically this is not on the agenda, so I would suggest
30 that you direct Staff to make a verbatim transcript of this discussion and present it to the
31 Council at the next available CC meeting and then the Council can give us direction.
32
33 Chairperson Deaton:
34
35 Can I go forward with my motion?
36
37 Quinn Barrow:
38
39 ~ Not with a motion, but I if there is no objection, we are going to send this transcript to
40 the Council and you can direct Staff to make it clear exactly the points that you want the
41 Council to consider.
42
43 Commissioner Ea~ar:
44
45 What are we directing Staff? I want to make sure .. .
46
14 of 16
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2009
Chairperson Deaton:
I think there are three items: the parking issue, the restaurant issue, and the alcohol
permit issue.
Lee Whittenber~:
What we'll do is prepare a verbatim transcript of the discussion that's gone on; that will
get submitted to Council. The next available Council meeting it will be able to be on
would be the April 27tH Council meeting, because their agenda is done for the April 13tH
meeting,
Commissioner Ea~ar:
So we're directing Staff to make sure that these points are brought up to Council and
they will then come back and direct you?
Lee Whittenberg:
They may; they may not. We don't know right now.
Commissioner Eagar:
I want something to be concrete coming out of this; I want something to be established.
I know this has been "a sore subject for eons."
Lee 1Yhittenber~:
The best we can do and the best Commission can do is forward information to Council
and then it is up to Council to determine how they wish to respond to that request.
Chairperson Deaton:
But his comments will be taken down verbatim, right? That he would like something
concrete coming out of this.
Lee WhittenberF:
That is correct.
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg reported that the City has been working very closely with the Leisure
World (LW) in response to the recent fire. He stated that City Staff is meeting on a bi-
weekly basis to ensure that reconstruction efforts are coordinated, and as an outgrowth
of this, CC will be considering adoption at a future Council meeting of a formal policy
15 of 16
ATTACHMENT 2
SECTION 23E.44.030, SPECIAL PROVISIONS
-NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS, C-E
ELMWOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, CITY
OF BERKELEY ZONING CODE
Chapter 23E.44: C-E Elmwood Commercial
Table 23E.44.030
Use and Re wired Permi ts
Use Classification S ecial Re uirements if an
Cafeteria, Em to ee or Residential UP PH
Cemeteries, Crematories, Mausoleums Prohibited
Circus or Carnival UP PH
Commercial Excavation UP(PH) Including earth, gravel, minerals, or
other building materials including drilling
for, or removal of, oil or natural as
D Cleanin and Laund Plants Prohibited
Kennels or Pet Boardin Prohibited
Laboratories, Testin Prohibited
Mortuaries Prohibited
Public Utili Substations, Tanks UP PH
Radio, Television or Audio/Sound Recording UP(PH)
and/or Broadcast Studios
Warehouses or Storage including Mini- Prohibited
stora a Warehouses
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities AUP Subject to the requirements of Section
when located on site with existing facilities 23C.17.100
Prohibited
When located on a site without existing Waiver may be granted if ZAB approves
facilities finding of necessity as required by
Section 23C.17.100.D
Le end•
ZC -Zoning Certificate "Change of Use of floor area between 2,000 and
3,000 sq. ft. shall require an AUP; over 3,000 sq. ft.
AUP -Administrative Use Permit shall require a UP(PH)
UP(PH) -Use Permit, public hearing required ~ *"Change of Use of floor area over 3,000 sq. ft. shall
require a UP(PH)
Prohibited -Use not permitted
B. Any Use not listed that is compatible with the purposes of the C-E District shall be pemtitted subject to
securing a Use Permit. Any Use that is not compatible with the purposes of the C-E District shall be
prohibited.
C. The initial establishment, or change, of use of floor area of an existing non-residential building, or portion
of building, shall be subject to the following permit requirements as listed in the legend of Table
23E.44.030. (Ord. 6671-NS § 7, 2002: Ord. 6669-NS § 1, 2001: Ord. 6644-NS § 2, 2001: Ord. 6478-NS §
4 (part), 1999)
Section 23E.44.040 Special Provisions -Numerical Limitations
A. Uses subject to numerical limitations, as set forth in Table 23E.44.040 shall also be subject to the
requirements of Section 23E.44.030. No such limitation may be exceeded unless the Board issues a Use
Permit and makes the findings under Section 23E.44.090.C. (Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999)
Title 23
Page 247
Chapter 23E.44: C-E Elmwood Commercial
Table 23E.44.040
Numerical Limitations
Use Number limit Sizes . ft. T e of Permit
Art/Craft Shops, Gift/Novelty Shops, 12 * 1,500 Zoning Certificate
Jewel /Watch Sho s
Barber/Beauty Shops, including Manicure and 7 None Zoning Certificate
other Personal Care
Bookstores, Periodical Stands 4 2,000 Zonin Certificate
Clothing Stores, including Hats, Shoes and 10 None Zoning Certificate
Accessories
Financial Services, Retail ** 2 None Use Permit
Food Service Establishments:
Carry Out Food Service 3 1,000 Use Permit
Quick Service Restaurants 7 1,000 Use Permit
Full Service Restaurants 7 None Use Permit
Photocopy Stores, Printing, Fax, Magnetic Disk 2 1,000 Zoning Certificate
Re roduction Services
*Total
`*Shall have no more than 2 Automatic Teller Machines
turn. o4iu-rva ~ 4 tpart), ~ayy)
Section 23E.44.050 Construction of New Floor Area, Conversions of Existing Buildings -
Requirements for Use Permits
~~
ii
A. No new gross floor area shall be created unless a Use Permit is obtained. Creation of new floor area
includes construction of new buildings or Accessory Buildings; additions to existing buildings; or the
installation of new floor or Mezzanine levels within or onto existing buildings.
B. Existing buildings used for commercial activities shall not be converted, unless an Administrative Use
Permit is obtained. (Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999)
Section 23E.44.060 Use Limitations*
A. No Commercial Use shall operate except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., unless a Use
Permit is obtained and is in accordance with Section 23E.16.010.
B. Any Use which is incidental to the primary use of a building or property shall be subject to the permit
requirements identified in the Uses Incidental to a Permitted Use heading, in Table 23E.44.030, except as
below:
1. Any food service use shall subject to the limitations in Table 23E.44.040 and shall not be considered
as an Incidental Use for this District.
C. Any activity or Use which occurs outside of a building shall be subject to the permit requirements
identified in the Parking, Outdoor and Exterior Window Uses heading in Table 23E.44.030.
D. Adult-oriented Businesses and Amusement Device Arcades are not permitted. Alcoholic Beverage Sales
or Service Uses and Live/Work Uses shall be subject to the requirements of Chapters 23E.16 and
23E.20, in addition to the requirements of this District and below:
Title 23
Page 248