Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1970-05-06 e e MINUTES OF THE PLANNING ~OMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 6, 1970 . The P1ann1ng Commission of the C1ty of Seal Beach met in regular session on Wednesday, May 6, 1970, 1n the Council Chambers at the City Administration BU11d1ng. The meeting was opened at 1:30 P.M. by Chairman Barton and Vice Chairman Knapp~ led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Present: Absent: Barton, Crowley, Knapp, Lanning Morris The m1nutes of the meet1ng of April 29, 1970 were approved as presented. 1. Pub11c Hear1ng - Beverly Enterprises, V-4-70 Beverly Enterprises, 80 S. Lake Ave., Pasadena, represented by S1mpson & Gerber, Arch1tects, requested a variance to perm1t an add1t10n to the convalescent hosp1ta1 with fewer on-site parking spaces than required by code. The hospital 1S located at 3000 Beverly Manor Road. There are 150 spaces proposed in lieu of the requ1red 163 for the total development. This location has very limited traffic. Street park1ng should be cons1dered w1th the app11cant provid1ng the public 1mprovements necessary. Applicant made a count of veh1c1es using the parking area dur1ng the months of February and March and stated the h1ghest total was 61. The City's survey showed a h1gh of 90 1nc1uding street parking associated with the hosp1ta1. Mr. Barton moved to approve the var1ance with the condition that the drain d1tch and street improvements be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Phase 3 of the development subJect to future review. Seconded by Mrs. Lanning and passed unanimously by the members present. Resolution No. 422. . Mr. Morr1s arrived at 8:15 P.M. 2. Public Heanng - Richard and Dorothy Grossgo1d, V-9-70 Mr. and Mrs. Grossgold, 6304 E. Vista, Long Beach, requested a variance to permit remodel and convert an existing church recreation building 1nto a 3 bedroom home without covered parking. On-site park1ng w111 be provided. The location 1S 244 17th St., Seal Beach. The lot is 1rregu1ar in shape because of the P.E. right-of- way angling across. Applicant feels that construct10n of a carport on the front of the property would be unattractive. This conversion to residential use in the eX1sting bU11ding is for an inter1m per10d until the righe-of-way is released a110w~ng development of the area. Presently they are unable to control ne1ghbors from park1ng allover the lot or keep the "hipP1es" from breaking in and camping. The entire lot is paved w1th asphalt and should have some kind of landscape. Mr. McGee, 257 17th, commented on the two drives enter1ng the property and felt the street was too narrow for good access or egress. Mr. Grossgo1d would have uncovered parking in the rear. Mr. Urquhart liked the plans but felt some fencing needed to control speeders who cut across the lot. Jean Johnson, 1045 Dr1ftwood concerned about a variance on a var1ance. Secretary exp1a1ned the previous variance allowed other than residential use, th1s request would revert to the allowable use cancelling the previous variance. Miss Dorr, 231 6th, felt an attractive carport could be bui1f on the front. Hear1ng closed. . Mr. Crowley moved to approve the var1ance w1th the cond1tion that the landscaping is subject to plan review and also subject to renewal in one year. Seconded by Mr. Morr1s and passed unanimously. Resolution No. 423. e e . 3. Public Hear1ng - Charles Sherman III, V-10-70 Mr. Sherman of 233 W. 7th St., Long Beach, represented by Dw1ght E. Bennett, Architect, requested a var1ance to permit an encroachment on a port~on of the sideyards and upper story encroachment 1nto the rear yard at 1615 E1ectr~c Ave., Seal Beach. Mr. Sherman stated he had lived 1n Seal Beach previously and des1red to return, consequently commissioned th1s firm to des1gn a bU11d1ng to i1t 1nto the atmosphere of Seal Beach. S~mi1ar var1ances had been granted 1n the past and th1s developer has furnished requ1red park1ng on-site. Mr. Tom Brady, 1607 Electric, sa1d he had previously been impressed with the type of buildings constructed by Mr. Sherman and commented he was 100% 1n favor of th1s proposal. Hear1ng closed. Mr. Barton moved to approve the variance as submitted. Mr. Morris seconded the motion.~ Short discuss10n followed regarding the effect on the environment and pub11c uti1i~1es in the area. The mot~on passed unanimously. Resolut10n No. 424. 4. Oral Commun1cations Kris Lindstrom, 215 14th St., d~sp1ayed a brochure "Open Space in Orange County" and presented a copy of a letter he had rece1ved from the Santa Ana Reg10nal Water Qua11ty Control Board. Mr. Grossgo1d asked for c1arif1cat10n regard1ng the plan review for landscaping. Mr. & Mrs. Harry Schuck, Mrs. J~m Robey and Mr. Victor Sass all reserved the r1ght to speakl-on Agenda Item 7. . 5. Written Communicat~ons A letter from Security Pacific National Bank was rece1ved requesting a delay on their play reV1ew for s1gns unt11 the~r 1andscap1ng plans could be submitted at the same time. The Cha1rman so ordered. 6. Unf1n1shed BUS1ness Jerry Moss & Co., owners of the property 1n the Seal Beach Center, and Gorman McQueen, lessee of the property for the car wash operat10n, presented plans (PR-10-70) for commercially designed s1gns as required by Resolution No. 419. Proposed signs were reduced in size from existing non-conforming s1gns and were color coordinated w1th the design of the bu~ld1ng. One s~gn to be elevated and the others were low level direct10na1 type. Letters on the southerly side of the building to remain and be repainted in coordinating colors. Mr. Schuck stated h1S concern was about appearance and that no add1tional s~gns other than or1gina1 ones author1zed needed. Mrs. Schuck asked about 10cat~on of signs, would ~xtra s1gn attached to the entrance s1gn be removed, and how long was entrance s1gn i11um1nated. She also presented letters of protest from Mrs. Matt Wall and s1gned by 12 other res1dents (Exh1bit A) and from Dr. and Mrs. Collier (Exhibit B). Mr. and Mrs.Sc huck felt a better 10cat10n for the 'br1dge' s1gn would be at the end of the gable on the bU11ding. However, it was p01nted out that one siqe of th1s s1gn ~s direct10na1. Mr. Barton felt the reduction 1n size and color scheme showed good fa1th and 1t had been an honest and 1eg1timate effort to 1mprove the signing by the operator of the car wash. Mr. Crowley moved to approve the signs as subm~tted. Seconded by Mrs. Lann1ng and passed unan1mous1y. Resolution No. 425. . e e . 7. New Business A. Plan Review - Great Western Savings & Loan, PR-11-70 Great Western Sav~ngs & Loan Assoc~ation presented plans for their proposed signing at their new fac~lity,~2999 Westminster Ave. Frank Bridges was present represent~ng the Federal Sign & Signal Corp. Proposal includes fascia signs on all four faces of the parapet/roof l~ne and a free standing sign 56 feet to the top. Free-stand~ng s~gn located at edge of sidewalk. Others in the Center are get back some distance from the property l~ne, and th~s could change the subdued s~gn~ng in the Center by others wanting the same pr~vi1ege. It was po~nted out that this proposal had more that twice the area of that used by thE' combination of signing of the other two faftancia1'institut~ons. Members expressed their feeling that the pro1iferat~on of signs spoiled the very attractive architectural design of the bui1d1ng. Mr. Knapp moved to deny approval of the plans. Seconded by Mrs. Lann1ng and passed unan1mous1y. Resolution No. 426. B. John Repecko - Plan Rev1ew , PR-15-70 Mr. Repecko, 605 Island V~ew, had prev10us1y rece1ved approval of a varance subJect to plan review for deta11ed plans. The detailed plans substantially followed the plan sketches previously submitted with the except10n that they were mistakenly reversed. Mr. Knapp moved to approve the plans subject to the c1ar1f1cat10n that the bottom 1and1ng of the stairs be or1ented to the rear. Seconded by Mr. Crowley and passed unanimously. Reso1ut10n No. 427. . C. Plan ReV1ew - Grant Hornbeak, PR-16-70 Mr. BOTnbeak, 468 Schooner, Seal Beach, presented plans enclosing one of the patios at his home. Concefn was expressed about setting precedent. Original approval of Precise Plan emphasized that there would be no addit10ns. App11cant pointed out that one home had made this change, but 1t had been done without Commiss10n knowledge or approval. Mrs. Lanning moved to deny approval of the plans because 1t could set an undesirable precedent and that the Precise Plan assured no changes. Seconded by Mr. Crowley and after add1tiona1 discussion was passed unanimously. Resolution No. 428. D. Plan Rev1ew - Union Oil Co., PR-12-70 and PR-17-70 (concurrent discussion) Union 011 Co. through Commercial Lamp Supply requested approval to change the identifications signs to the standard globe type at their stations at Westminster and Seal Beach and Bradbury and Seal Beach. Existing canopy s1gns will be removed reducing total s1gn area at each site. Mr. Crowley moved to approve PR-12-70 with the condit10n that the exist1ng s1gn be removed and that the globes do not rotate. Seconded by Mrs. Lanning and passed unanimously. Resolution No. 429. Mr. Knapp moved to approve PR-17-70 w1th the cond1t10n that the eX1sting s1gn be removed and that the globes do not rotate. Seconded by Mrs. Lanning and passed unan1mous1y. Resolution No. 430. 8. Report from Secretary . League of California C1ties is ho1d1ng an Inst1tute for P1ann1ng Commiss10ners on June 3 - 5 at the Disneyland Hotel and City will pay cost for any Commiss10ners who can attend. . . . Discussion of theJResidentia1 Design Questionnaire. Mr. Crowley moved to establish the use of the quest10nnaire as a policy for a six months trial period. Seconded by Mr. Barton and passed unanimously. Resolution No. 431 An inv1tition to the Commiss10ners was announced for the F1re Dept. open house at Station 3 on Saturday, May 9. W1th no further business, the meeting was adJourned at 10:55 P.M. until 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday, May 13, 1970. ~~-J Recording Secretary . . e e Q) . May 6, 1970 Planning Commiss10n C1ty of Seal Beach Gentlemen: The purpose of th1s letter 1S to obJect to the numerous, unnecessary, and 1llegal signs that have been posted to advert1se the car-wash establishment in the shopp1ng center. S1nce th1s 1S a week to try to beautify our C1ty, why not ask the owner or manager of th1s bus1ness to remove those)'w1{1ch a re not 1n keepl.ng w1th the orig1nal perml.t g1ven to th1s bus1ness? . There are so many.s1gns around that say "car wash" that an outs1der or V1s1tor to our c1ty m1ght possibly thin~ that that is the name of our town. Please act to rect1fy thl.s Sl.tua tl.on. Thank you, ~~/t~ 815 Coast11ne Dr1ve . /. ~ 9~~~ p~ ,) · -;';~?J~ R~ itYI cS~l,~ I s.J~ J 71z,ta- '7Ju'l< L W.L(d W 0 c.... ~' ;. t. t~~ )~~.~ ~~e~~~~ ~~, -: Jt. ., ;ci~-c. '- '~L'-<~ /~)-~ &~_~e:t...-~ /~ (u...-/\ (.j, I' -...J I V ,,-1 1,1 .., ~'J r-' /// h l..c t4- "'VI'.......... /(,'/ /) l_ C c:- J. ;f~,...., //l,+-v~l <-c.AJ'/.Je.<--<1.... /, "', t 1 C, ~...c:.--<.. '/ ~ """'2 -::r) -'l 1-11 '~ r..~ /i~'v2~,,}.. .--(.___.. ,- /; _ /~... __I-_.~ It... 1 ( rz:.;>.--t~'-"'-' .~~ /.-J....-A,_ r' / I ,I . j:J.. " 7 . ,f- .........- I ~~J v1/ JL!fI1_I-?~e-/ )~J ,Y(h'l-eLLeL ur-1t:U.>> Q~ iJ Q~ /{)OlO (~JJ4 ~ &.!? ~/" \ C~C/lA-'~ ,,0' r_; ~ I CJ.3 d C It (}- ~~f!~<... , ...., / (' \. J- <.!r~L-l-.(.. ..J-.:--t' ~~ / C .)..(/ Lt~a..,dL~'l.<- l V .~J ,&.u~ . . . . ~ . 910 Coastl~ne Dr., Seal Beach, Ca.s 90740, May 6, 1970. The Plann~ng COm1nlSSlOn, Seal 3each, Cal~IornJ.a. Dear I1embers \'>Te are sorry .1I'e cannot make the meE't~Ilb tonlght. Please allow th~s letter to express our sent~ents concern~ng the car lffiSh ~n Seal ~each. . We understand a new s~bn 111'lll oe ~n5talled lvhere the present, gar~sh, amateunsh, brldge Solen nO'T ~s. Tlns s~gn cannot help but be an ~provement, but, st~ll, ~t "\111.11 be an adve,.tls~ng slgn. How many s~gns does one enterpr~se need? The wholE' lssue comes down to th~s, as expressed ably by f-I1r. 'Rarton at one of of your meet~ngs liAs a soclety we are becoffilng envlronmentally concerned.1I Have the operators of thls car wash done everyth~ng reasonable and feas~ble to make thelr free enterprlse concern, not only a funcbonal ent~ ty, bu t an enV1ronmental entlty? Has the nOlse factor been controlled as far as humanly poss~ble; has the ugl~ness of the operat~on been dlsgulsed as far as landscape and des~6n cnglneers can produce the des~red effect; are the operato~s fully cognlzant of the fact that they have a respons~b1.ll ty to the entlre ecology of the commnnlty In whlch they run the~r bus~ness? If tl1e answ~r to any of these questlons lS negatlve, then the plannlng COmmlSSlOn should lnslst that the enV1ronmental facLors be met before a contlnuance pE'~lt to any bUSlness lS granted. llJe ask that these factors gulde your declslon tonleht and any declslol1s ,you wlll make In the future. Slncerely, ~ P17 ~ R~ .