Approved October 11, 2000
|
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 A regular noticed meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Laguna Beach, California, convened at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers on September 26, 2000. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairperson Bob Chapman, Chair Pro Tem Elizabeth Pearson, Commissioners Anne Johnson, Cheryl Kinsman and Don Pendergast. Staff Present: Kyle Butterwick, Director John Montgomery, Assistant Director Scott Drapkin, Assistant Planner Linda Kleppe, Administrative Secretary PUBLIC HEARINGS
John Montgomery summarized the staff report. Commissioner Pendergast received confirmation from staff that the proposed conditions for approval were consistent with the conditions that were required in the past. Motion AJ Second EP Action Approve Temporary Use Permit 00-03, subject to conditions. Motion carried 4-0. Vote: Chapman Y Pearson Y Johnson Y Kinsman Absent Pendergast Y
John Montgomery summarized the staff report. Questions of Staff: Commissioner Johnson received clarification from staff that a window sign that meets the size criteria would not need a permit and that the applicant currently has a sign in the window. Public Testimony in Support of the Project: Lance Polster, representing the applicant, stated that the window sign is temporary. He said the applicant has tried to keep the lettering in proportion to the size of the awning and that the coloring is in keeping with the architecture and signs in the area. He said the dimensions of the proposed awning are the same as what is there now. John Montgomery noted that the lettering on the awning in the picture is not to scale. Commissioner Pendergast expressed concern about the size of the lettering depicted in the drawings. He also received confirmation from Mr. Polster that a sign on the window near the door stating "visitor information – public welcome" would be included as part of the sign program. Commissioner Pearson received confirmation from Mr. Polster that the current awning width is 12.5 feet. In response to Commissioner Johnson, Mr. Polster thought that there would be some type of sign on the front of the building. Commissioners’ Comments: Commissioner Pearson noted that there had been a great deal of discussion about the signage for other locations in the downtown and that she is in favor of canopies and blade signs for the downtown. She could approve the awning but she wanted the size of the lettering scaled down. Commissioner Pendergast was also in favor of the awning but wanted the lettering smaller with more space at the ends of the canopy without lettering. He was in agreement with staff’s recommendation that the lettering be scaled down. He also wanted to be sure that the sign in the window stating "Visitor Information – Public Welcome" was included. Commissioner Johnson agreed that the smaller lettering would look better and suggested that a minimum of two feet at each end of the awning be without lettering. Mr. Polster agreed to reduce the lettering to a maximum of four inches in height, with a minimum of two feet at each end of the awning without lettering. He stated that the sign program would also include a window sign near the door stating "Visitor Information -Public Welcome". Motion AJ Second EP Action Approve Sign Program for Conditional Use Permit 00-17, subject to conditions outlined by the Commission. Motion carried 4-0. Vote: Chapman Y Pearson Y Johnson Y Kinsman Absent Pendergast Y
Scott Drapkin summarized the staff report. Public Testimony in Support of the Project: Eliseo (Al) Lopez, the architect for the project, was available to answer questions. Commissioners’ Comments: Commissioner Johnson stated that she had visited the site and didn’t see any problems with the proposed antenna. She noted that a letter had been received in opposition to the proposal. Commissioner Pendergast stated that he had driven by the site and was concerned that the antenna was protruding above the screen wall and that there was no screen wall where it was viewed by the neighbor. Commissioner Pearson noted that there is a maximum number of antennas allowed on the building. She was in favor of the application as long as the antenna was located behind the screened wall as conditioned. She noted that the conditions require testing within 3 months to insure compliance with the conditions. In response to Commissioner Johnson, Mr. Lopez stated that the antenna would be located behind the parapet so that it would not be visible. After discussion, the Commission agreed that the conditions should be amended to state that the height of the antenna could not protrude above the adjacent parapet. Motion EP Second DP Action Approve Conditional Use Permit 00-26, subject to amended conditions. Motion carried 4-0. Vote: Chapman Y Pearson Y Johnson Y Kinsman Absent Pendergast Y
Kyle Butterwick reported that the City has received a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance of the project to October 11, 2000, and not to December 13, 2000 as staff has recommended. Questions of Staff: Commissioner Johnson received clarification from staff that there was consensus at the last hearing for the project that a second residential unit would be appropriate in the C-3 zone. Motion EP Second DP Action Continue Conditional Use Permit 00-30 to October 11, 2000. Motion carried 4-0. Vote: Chapman Y Pearson Y Johnson Y Kinsman Absent Pendergast Y
Scott Drapkin summarized the staff report and clarified that the applicant is the property owner. Mr. Montgomery stated that staff had visited the site but was unable to obtain pictures of the proposed antennas. He passed around a picture of a home with antennas that were similar to what was proposed at the end of the block. He clarified for Commissioner Pendergast that several antennas in the area are grandfathered. Public Testimony in Support of the Project: Sherry Self, the applicant, stated that her husband is disabled and that amateur radio is central to his life. She said the ham radio system would be a valuable resource for emergency support communications; the immediate neighbors were in support of the proposal; the height of the address is above the others on the street and placement of the antennas would be inconspicuous and would not be visible to most of the neighbors. She said they are members of the auxiliary unit that supports the Police Department in emergency situations. She said the antenna system would provide national and international support in the event of a catastrophic disaster. Commissioner Pearson received clarification from the applicant that the complaints that had been received were for eight single band antennas. The proposed antennas have not been installed yet and would have the capability to receive on additional bands. James Dunphy, resident of Mission Viejo and member of the amateur radio service that supports the City of Mission Viejo, stated that he is part of the link to other areas, such as Laguna Beach, for emergency communication. He said that the Federal government has viewed their hobby as a national resource. In response to Commissioner Chapman’s question regarding the necessity to locate the antennas on the roof, Mr. Dunphy stated that the antennas need to be line-of-sight at high elevations to allow the antennas to "see" other radio operators. He said that metal and adjacent buildings have an impact on the absorption of the frequencies. He said that vertical antennas have the smallest profile and operate at lower frequencies so that height is not as important. Laurie Shell, resident at 955 Tia Juana, expressed her appreciation for the service that ham radio operators perform because she received calls when her husband was in Vietnam. She was concerned that each additional antenna that is approved would incrementally block her view. She said her view is currently obstructed by trees, but if the trees were cut down she would have to look at the antennas. She wanted to know if the wide antenna (butterfly antenna) could be motorized so that it could be moved up and down and would only be visible when it is in use. Rebuttal: Sherry Self stated that they would consider eliminating the butterfly antenna if the application would otherwise be approved. They could have just one vertical antenna on the deck. Commissioners’ Comments: Commissioner Pendergast noted the positive service provided by ham radio operators, but stated that there was an overriding issue of the preservation of public and private views. He expressed concern about an incremental increase of antennas. However, he said he could support the application without the butterfly antenna. Commissioner Johnson had concerns about the butterfly antenna but could support the vertical antenna. She wanted to know if the antenna could be removed if the applicants were no longer residing at the location. She received clarification from Mr. Butterwick that approval of a Conditional Use Permit normally runs with the property. He noted that the Commission could require a special condition, with the applicant’s consent, that the approval could be for the applicant’s use only. Commissioner Johnson could approve the application if that condition were agreed upon by the applicants. Commissioner Pearson agreed with the proposal to include a condition to limit the approval to the applicants only and stated that she did not like the proposed 33-foot high antenna. Commissioner Chapman received confirmation from staff that they would have recommended approval, if there were only one whip antenna. After further discussion and consultation with the applicants, the Commission was in favor of the application with the conditions that only one whip antenna would be allowed and the permit would only be valid as long as the applicants reside at the location. Staff will draft the approval resolution for Commissioner Chapman’s signature. Motion EP Second DP Action Approve Conditional Use Permit 00-43, subject to the conditions outlined by the Commission and the appropriate standard telecommunications Conditional Use Permit conditions. Motion carried 4-0. Vote: Chapman Y Pearson Y Johnson Y Kinsman Absent Pendergast Y
John Montgomery summarized the staff report. He noted that there were six required findings needed to approve a Conditional Use Permit in the Downtown Specific Plan and it is staff’s belief that only two findings can be made. Public Testimony in Support of the Project: Fritz Duda, Jr., managing agent for the property owner for the site, gave a brief history of the building, noting that it was built in the 1930’s. He stated that the building contains 15,000 square feet of floor space and 1,500 square feet of mezzanine area. They are not requesting an increase in the intensity of use, but would like to be able to use the building as it was in the 1960’s. He said that Long’s Company is controlled by a family run business and fits within the Specific Plan guidelines as a resident/visitor serving use. Richard Yee, architect for Long’s Drug Store, stated that family members hold over 50% of the company stock and the current chairman is Bob Long. He said they would provide a variety of products in the same amount of space that the Sprouse Reitz store had. He said the store manager has local control over products and would be able to personalize products for Laguna Beach. Long’s would be able to provide store hours beyond the normal business day, which would allow residents to shop in the evening and weekends. According to local recent surveys regarding the downtown, 60% of the residents want a variety store in the downtown and the top three uses desired were a 24-hour pharmacy, stationary and variety store. Long’s does not have a 24-hour pharmacy, but would have extended pharmacy hours. He thought that the Long’s store would allow other businesses in the area to benefit with additional customer traffic. He shared the City’s concerns about maintaining the downtown village atmosphere and said they would change the signage to Long’s Drugs of Laguna Beach. Long’s Drugs would encourage civic involvement and community event participation. He said that Long’s could initially have an impact on other businesses, but he thought that they could coexist and share a cooperative spirit with other businesses. Mark Chiles, representing the architectural firm for Long’s, described the architectural plans for the building, which would include bringing back the brick on the outside of the building along with coordinating the front and back elevations. He said that efforts were made to have the building consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan guidelines. Lance Polster, representing the applicant, thought they had made a major makeover of the look of the building since the concept review hearing. He said they had tried to address the issues brought out at that meeting and had changed the name of the store. He thought that the products to be sold would not be the same as the smaller stores in town, such as the makeup items that are sold in Ropage. He said that Long’s was non-predatory and that he had polled local residents, the majority of which were in favor of having a Long’s in the downtown. He said the average buyer wants to be able to go to one store to get a variety of items, and they would be drawn to other stores in town for products and services that Long’s does not provide. In response to Commissioner Kinsman’s question, Mr. Yee stated that the sale of pharmaceuticals and photos was a very important part of the Long’s stores and they could not operate without those items because the customers expect that level of service from their stores. Philip Smoker, resident, said that the City needs more variety and stores such as Long’s. He said they are a local type store and that a lot of the items mentioned cannot be found in Laguna. He said that when customers are forced to leave town to shop it takes customers away from the other businesses in downtown. Steve Kent, resident, said that he enjoys shopping in South Laguna and in the downtown and he likes living in Laguna with its village atmosphere, but he has also shopped at the Long’s in Costa Mesa. He would like to see Long’s in Laguna because it would provide merchandise that residents can’t get elsewhere in town. Ben Blount, resident on Myrtle in North Laguna, was concerned about the local merchants. He said that he would only purchase three items that were on the list of items that Long’s would sell and the rest he would continue to purchase from the local merchants downtown. However, he said that he drives to Long’s to purchase items that can’t be found in the downtown. He said that Long’s is not like WalMart in that it has the feel of a small store and would fit in with Laguna. He would like to see a vibrant store come to the area proposed because it is the first area visible when one walks downtown from North Laguna. He said that the area formerly occupied by the Sprouse Reitz store is a "dead" area that needs to be revitalized. Public Testimony in Opposition to the Project: Belinda Blacketer, resident, was concerned that the site is actually two separate buildings that were being treated as one. She said that the parking has to go with one building and that Smart & Final should never have been approved. She said that Accord’s supported the community, while Wild Oats has not. She thought that the proposed design did not look like Laguna Beach. Jack Wood, resident, agreed with the staff report and said that they cannot make the necessary findings to locate a Long’s in the downtown. He said that local merchants have expanded their product to make up for the loss of the Sprouse Reitz. He thought that a business such as Long’s would drive away local businesses and that the demographics in Laguna would not support the customer base needed. He thought that the parking lot is hidden and there would be a traffic impact. He would like a skateboard park or senior citizen center at the proposed site. Paul Puma, resident of Laguna for 15 years, said that the proposal is not distinctive and would not be unique to the downtown. He said the City didn’t need another chain and that parking would be a problem. A resident named Jeff didn’t think that the items would be unique or distinctive. Alijo Alshiri, from the Beach Street Photo Store, said that Long’s photo business is not customized and they have just a one-hour photo service. He didn’t think that Long’s would provide individualized service that is expected in the downtown. Susan McCalla, with McCalla’s Pharmacy, said that her store could supply anything that the residents would want, if she was given a day to get the products. She thinks that Long’s is a good company but not appropriate for the downtown. In response to Commissioner Kinsman’s question, Ms. McCalla confirmed that she was approached by Long’s Drugs to sell her store. Tony Deltorio, co-owner of Bushard’s Pharmacy, stated that the presence of a large corporation such as Long’s Drug Store would not be good for his business in town. In response to Commissioner Kinsman’s question, Mr. Deltorio confirmed that his store had been approached by Long’s Drugs to sell the store. Sheila Bushard, co-owner of Bushard’s, said that they have been in the downtown for 52 years and that they do carry the items that were mentioned. She tries to carry whatever the residents want. She thinks they are more community oriented than a chain such as Long’s would be. She said all of the small independent stores would be affected if Long’s were allowed to come into town. Jim Orlando, owner of Sunset Drugs, said that he does carry the items that the speaker couldn’t find in town. In addition, he provides personal service, such as carrying the items to the cars for elderly people. He even allows patrons to return later to pay for items, if needed. Commissioner Chapman stated that the purpose of the Planning Commission’s review is to determine whether the application meets the required findings in the Downtown Specific Plan. He said that the aspect of putting other stores out of business is not one of the criteria for making such a determination. Rebuttal: Lance Polster stated that the store would be resident serving. He didn’t think it would upset the balance of uses. He didn’t feel it would be appropriate to prohibit one business from selling an item just because it is sold in another store. He doesn’t want to see any existing store go out of business, but residents have to leave town to obtain items that they can’t find downtown. He thinks Long’s would be an anchor that would bring customers to other local stores, and their pharmacy would provide MediCal and Medicare, which the local pharmacies don’t provide. He said the local photo store would be more customized than Long’s and residents would still go there to get specialized photo needs. He noted that Long’s approached the other pharmacies to buy their stores because Long’s was told it would improve their chances of being approved. Commissioner Chapman noted that the applicant’s presentation did not include details about the interior, such as types of shelving or presentation of products. Mr. Polster stated that he would be happy to provide more details, if the Planning Commission was inclined to approve the application, but he didn’t want to spend the time and expense if it was not going to be approved. Commissioners’ Comments: Commissioner Pendergast could not make all of the required six findings. He was concerned that the one-stop shopping would take away 55 paid parking spaces. He liked the proposed architecture and was concerned about the long vacancy of the building, but he didn’t think that Long’s would contribute to the unique character of Laguna. He said the design of the building would fit, but the products would not be unique. Commissioner Kinsman said that the Downtown Specific Plan envisions small local stores to make up a whole, unique downtown, and it discourages mass market presentation of merchandise such as Long’s Stores. She said she would like to shop at Long’s, but she was opposed to its location in the downtown because it would not be in conformance with the Downtown Specific Plan. Commissioner Johnson was in agreement with the other Commissioners. She could not make the required findings and thought that it would be in conflict with the intent of the Downtown Specific Plan to have a balance and mix of uses. Commissioner Pearson agreed that the local surveys showed that the residents would like a variety store and that the entryway to the City is blighted with vacant buildings. She thought that a lot of effort had been expended to create a design for the building. Although the City cannot disallow chain stores, it can regulate the look and feel of a store. She could not make all of the required findings in that the proposal would not contribute to the unique character of the City and would produce an incremental effect of similar uses in the downtown. She thought that she could possibly make the finding regarding incremental effect, if Long’s did not sell drugs or photo processing services. She thinks that a variety store is needed but she can’t support the application as proposed. Commissioner Chapman agreed that the store would be good in Laguna Beach and that it is needed in town, but he couldn’t make the required findings for the proposed downtown location. He didn’t think that Long’s, as a mass merchandiser, could customize the store to fit the needs and required look and feel of the downtown. He thought that they could make a commitment to become different for Laguna, but not in the proposed location. He liked the proposed exterior, but didn’t think the design outweighed the proposed use. He was not in favor of the application as proposed. Commissioner Kinsman thought the language regarding the discussion in the staff report should be incorporated into the resolution of denial. Commissioner Chapman will approve and sign the resolution after staff incorporates the staff report discussion into the findings. The Commission also wanted the language amended to denote "much" of the merchandise does not contribute to the unique character in Laguna Beach. Motion EP Second DP Action Deny Conditional Use Permit 00-46 pursuant to amended findings. Motion carried 5-0. Vote: Chapman Y Pearson Y Johnson Y Kinsman Y Pendergast Y
John Montgomery summarized the staff report. Public Testimony in Support of the Project: Bill Bennett, representing the applicant, stated that they already have a lease and that the new shop is not dramatically different from the shop that is already there. He said they would be selling accessories similar to the Conditional Use Permit already issued for that space. They will provide products and services to the tourist trade and local residents. He thinks it would be an asset and attract customers to other stores as well. In response to Commissioner Pearson’s questions, Jason Shipe, the applicant, stated that they had no other retail locations. They have a wholesale warehouse in Huntington Beach and manufacture 90% of the merchandise, which is designed by Diane Duncan. The items contain only faux fur. Commissioners’ Comments: Commissioner Kinsman was in favor of the project. The other Commissioners were also in favor of the project. Motion CK Second EP Action Approve Conditional Use Permit 00-47, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Vote: Chapman Y Pearson Y Johnson Y Kinsman Y Pendergast Y
John Montgomery summarized the staff report. Public Testimony in Support of the Project: Susie Willhoit, the applicant, was available to answer questions. She clarified the proposed hours of operation for Commissioner Johnson. She said they needed approval because they have been operating for longer hours than what was approved. Commissioners’ Comments: After discussion regarding the designated parking spaces, the Commission was in agreement that the conditions of approval should be amended to require signage that designates which spaces are to be used by the applicant. Motion EP Second AJ Action Approve Conditional Use Permit 00-49, subject to amended conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Vote: Chapman Y Pearson Y Johnson Y Kinsman Y Pendergast Y
John Montgomery summarized the staff report. Questions of Staff: Commissioner Kinsman clarified that the current uses for the building include a henna tattoo shop, photo shop and art gallery. Mr. Montgomery stated that this application would replace the henna tattoo shop. He noted that parking was not an issue for this building. Public Testimony in Support of the Project: Randy Bell, the applicant, thought that the Commissioner was talking about the building next door to the proposed application. He said the real estate consulting firm would be replacing the henna tattoo business. In response to Commissioner Johnson’s question, Mr. Bell stated he would be using the Lumberyard lot for parking. Motion CK Second EP Action Approve Conditional Use Permit 00-50, subject to conditions. Motion carried 5-0. Vote: Chapman Y Pearson Y Johnson Y Kinsman Y Pendergast Y
Note: This item was heard out of order. Scott Drapkin summarized the staff report. Questions of Staff: Commissioner Pearson congratulated staff on the preparation of the amendment, noting that it was something the Commission had wanted for some time. Public Testimony Regarding the Project: Wayne Baglin, Chairman of the Open Space Committee expressed appreciation to staff, and in particular to Mr. Drapkin, for their work on the amendment. He would like Policy #7 on Page 6 of the Policies section to be deleted. He thought that it would suggest that Laguna Canyon Creek should be used, which is controlled by the County with private property abutting the Channel. He didn’t feel it would be practical to suggest usage in that area. He would like the word "the" replaced with the word "opportunistic" in Policy #3 of the Implementation Program on Page 7. He also requested that some changes be made on the maps to show some of the areas that there is encroachment. He thought that when the trails maps are published there would be an impact to neighborhoods. He said that publication of the brochure would invite an intensity change from casual use by residents to a broader public use level. In response to Commissioner Pearson’s question regarding trails that cross private property, staff noted that the map inventory reflects what exists today and is not intended as set policy for the City. Commissioner Pendergast clarified that the purpose of the document is to make the public and the residents aware of what trail resources are available. Mr. Baglin noted that the finished map brochures would not include any trails that are not on public property. In response to Commissioner Johnson’s question, Mr. Baglin thought that it was important to have signage designating where the trails begin and end. He said that they had found public trails that wind around and connect for five miles in areas that they had not previously known about. He noted, in response to the Commission’s questions, that signage would also state the requirement for dogs to be on leash at all times. He recommended that the City be more aggressive in providing trash receptacles along the trails. He noted that dogs may be prohibited on County trails and that county trails connecting with local trails would need signage designating that dogs are prohibited. Commissioner Pendergast expressed concern that possibly not all City trails are acceptable for dogs, such as areas that are too fragile. Mr. Baglin stated that Dr. Kay Kiermyer had prepared the first brochure with a key designating which trails would allow dogs, hiking, etc. Commissioner Johnson received clarification regarding the time line for the process. Mr. Baglin stated that the brochures would be published with one for the canyons, one for North Laguna and one for the area above Albertson’s and south. There would be trails brochure for each of those areas. Dr. Kay Kiermyer noted the lists of open space acquisition priorities that the Committee had proposed. She recommended working with Laguna Greenbelt to come up with criteria for procedures for the future purchase of properties, e.g. environmentally sensitive areas, properties that dovetail into other trails, etc. She said the list of priorities would be separate from the other issues regarding the publication of brochures. Commissioner Pearson thanked the committee for its input and was in support of the project. She agreed that it was important to make the information available to the public regarding the City’s open space resources. She thought that there should be an external document for the public that didn’t include private property trails and an internal document that would show the private property trails in the event of opportunistic land acquisitions. She was in favor of a promotional "launching" when the brochures are ready for distribution. Motion DP Second EP Action Recommend approval to City Council of General Plan and Local Coastal Program Amendment 00-03 to revise Topic 6 (Trails) of the Open Space/Conservation Element, subject to the Commission’s modifications. Motion carried 4-0. Vote: Chapman Y Pearson Y Johnson Y Kinsman Absent Pendergast Y
|