Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1970-09-02 . . . e e MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 2,1970 The P1ann1ng Comm~ssion of the City of Seal Beach met in regular seSS10n on Wednesday, September 2, 1970, in the Council Chambers at the City Admin~strat~on Bui1d1ng. The meet1ng was opened at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Knapp and Vice Chairman Morris led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Present: Absent: Dorr, Knapp, Lann1ng, Morr1s None The minutes of the meet1ng of August 19, 1970 were approved as presented. 1. Public Hear1ng - Charles L. Sickler, V-18-70 3r. S1ck1er of 1030 Driftwood Ave., Seal Beach, requested a var1ance to perm1t construct1on of an add1t10n to an eX1sting res1dence encroach1ng 4~ feet 1nto the rear yard setback. Th1s addition would encroach 6 inches into the ut1l1ty easement across the rear of the property and Mr. Sickler adv1sed that the Ed1son Company had expressed the1r wi111ngness to cooperate. Mr. S1ckler also advised that ample sideyard eX1sted for playground for h~s ch~ldren. The present roof 11ne would be extended and the addition would match the existing building. No protests were made. Hearing closed. Mrs. Lanning moved to approve the var1ance subject to approval by Southern Californ1a Edison Co. for encroachment into the easement. Seconded by Mr. Morris and passed unanimously. Resolution No. 481. 2. Wr1tten Commun~cat1ons A letter was received from six serV1ce stat~on operators in the C1ty, Herman M11ler, A. L. Holl, R. E. Benze, James V. Hartwell, Benny Rapp, and Jack Peterson, dated August 19, 1970, request1ng a moratorium on the present serv1ce stat10n s1gn ordinance until a study has been conducted. Staff pointed out that letters had been sent to Mr. M1l1er regard~ng v~olations of the ord1nance and cop1es were presented. Miss Dorr stated that she had spoken with Mr. M11ler to ascerta1n h1s V1ews and and felt a reV1ew of the ord~nance was in order with serV1ce stat10n owners part1cipat1ng. Mrs. Lanning pointed out that two years of study had gone '~nto this ord1nance w1th stat10n operators and representat1ves of the 0~1 industry taking part. The secretary, Mr. Stratford, stated that most of the operators 1n the tity were cooperat1ng w1th the requirements of the ord1nance but d1d agree that some details of the ord1nance needed c1ar1fY1ng. He also stated that th1s ord1nance was patterned after the County ord1nance and in 11ne with the trend of all c~t1es. He recommended a study of all signs for development of an overall s1gn ord1nance along w1th c1ar1ficat1on of the ord1nance dealing with serV1ce stat10n performance and standards. Mr. Stratford d1d recommend aga1nst any moratorium dur1ng the study per10d. The Chairman w1th unan1mous agreement of the Commiss1on instructed the staff in1tiate a study of the serV1ce station standard~ and a s1gn ordinance. Staff was also ~nstructed to advise Mr. Miller of this act10n. A letter was rece1ved from Kr~s L1ndstrom, 215 14th St., Seal Beach express1ng concern about a pos~1b1e conf11ct of interest 1n regard to Mr. Morr1s. membership of the Planning Comm1ss10n and h1s position as pres1dent of the Surfs1de Colony, Ltd. He specifically referred to Mr. Morr1s' act10ns 1n vot1ng on Plan Rev1ews PR-41-70 and PR-42-70 for new s~ngle fam1ly res1dences in Surfs~de, since the board of directors of the Colony reV1ews and approves plans prior to subm~ss10n to the C1ty. . . e . Mr. Morris stated that as president he does not vote unless there is a t~e and in fact the m1nutes of the board meeting would reflect h1s abstent~on ~n these cases. lie p01nted out that Mr. Stratford had advised him at a previous meet1ng that 1t was in order for him to vote on a matter concerning the Old Ranch Tenn1s Club where he is also a member of the board of directors. He felt there was an over1app1ng 1nterest, but not one of conflict. Mr. Morris d1d abstain from voting on the Plan Rev1ew for Un1ted Ca11fornia Bank since he is employed by them. Mr. Knapp p01nted out that there was no direct or ~ndirect financial gain involved in the cases in quest10n and that disclosure of any 1nterest or association would have~bear~ng on any possib111ty of conf11ct of 1nterest. He also stated that i~ would be d1fficu1t in such a small C1ty for members not to have some interest 1n some cases presented. The Cha1rman w1th the concurrance of the other members of the Comm1ssion directed the staff to send a letter of explanation to Mr. Lindstrom. 3. Unf1nished Business Appeal A-4-70, John C. Morrow (V-12-70) A report was presented by the staff or a study regard~ng the fence requested by Mr. Morrow and den1ed by the Comm1ss10n by Reso1ut~on No. 440. Staff also had reviewed present ord1nances controlling fences and reported the1r adequacy. The fences Mr. Morrow had cited proved to be in most cases side yard fences which are subject to different requ1rements. Others were non-conforming and had been in existance prior to the adopt10n of the present ord1nance. Mr. Knapp reiterated h1s opin10n that bhis type of fence could estab11sh a precedent and a s1tuation could result that would be undesirable. M1ss Dorr stated fences d1d not come under the f1re safety provis1ons and were des1rab1e by a res1dent to improve pr~vacy and help soundproof1ng. She d1d agree that the ord1nance must prevent any obstruct10n to traff~c vis10n or safety, but otherwise should allow the property owner discretion 1n fenc~ng. Mrs. Lanning felt that all property owners in all cit1es are or should be aware that there are restr~ctions on the use of property and the app11cant's fa~lure to obta~n a permit for construct10n or to check on regulations 1S not good cause to allow the fence to remain. Mrs. Howard McGee, 252 17th St., stated the fenced patio was lovely for the apartment, but with the only access through the apartment, 1t eliminated yard area for ch11dren to play with the ch11dren then using neighbors yards. Addit10na1 general d~scuss~on was held regard1ng problems with fenc1ng, and th1s h1gh1y congested area spec1fica11y. Miss Dorr asked that a survey be made of other illegal fences and appropriate act~on be taken. Mr. Knapp moved to reaff1rm the denial of V-12-Z0 and to 1ndicate the Comm1ss10n's op1nion that the existing fence ord1nance is adequate as ~s. Seconded by Mrs. Lann1ng and Passed unanimously. Res. No. 482. 4. New Business Chairman Knapp spoke apprec1ation for all C~ty and community. Mr. Stratford. regarding Mr. Stratford's resignat10n, expressing h~s of h1s ass1stance and commend1ng him for his serV1ce to the The Cha1r d~rected the staff to prepare a resolut10n honoring No further business, the meet1ng was adjourned at 8:40 P.M. ~ {L"'<4-.( . Lois Arnold Record1ng Secretary