The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Min 1970-04-15 e e . MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 15, 1970 The Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session on Wednesday, April 15, 1970, in the Council Chambers at the City Administration Building. The meeting was opened at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Barton and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Knapp. The Chairman welcomed those in the audience and briefly explained the agenda and procedures. Roll call: Present: Absent: Barton, Crowley, Knapp, Lanning Morris Mr. Morris' absence was excused because of illness. The minutes of April 1, 1970, were approved as presented with one typographical correction. 1. Plan Review - Adeline Fecther (Kay Hillman), PR-8-70 . Miss Hillman, 1102 Ocean, Seal Beach, as authorized representative of the property owner, presented plans for remodeling and reopening a food establishment at the northeasterly corner of Main St. and Ocean Ave. Because of the deteriorated condition, the County Health Department and the City Building Department have imposed certain improvements. Applicant expressed her willingness to comply with these requirements. ~~s Hillman stated that she had previously operated two other businesses within the City and had tried to upgrade the appearance of those buildings and plans to improve the appearance of this structure as well as installing some landscaping. Mr. Barton moved to approve the Plan Review as submitted with the conditions that the requirements of the County Health and City Building Departments be met. Seconded by Mr. Knapp and passed unanimously by the members present. Resolution No. 417. 2. Plan Review - Frank Ayres & Son (Rich Sign Co.), PR-9-70 Milo Artino of the Rich Sign Co. representing the property owners presented plans for an interior lighted, 6~' x 13~' directory wall sign to be installed at the new arcade building in the Leisure World Shopping Center. Lighting will not flash or rotate. Mrs. Lanning moved to approve. Mr. Barton seconded the motion and it passed unanimously by the members present. Resolution 418. 3. Plan Review - Jerry Moss & Co. (Gorman A. McQueen), PR-10-70 . Mr. McQueen, owner of the Seal Beach Car Wash in the Seal Beach Shopping Center, requested approval of three information sign at that location. The signs were existing when Mr. McQueen purchased the operation and he was unaware that they had been installed illegally. Mrs. Collier, 910 Coastline, stated she had no complaint about the location of the carwash, but the bridge sign was garish and in direct view of the residential area. Also the cleanliness was Db~ consistent. Drop curtains for screening and sound buffering were not used. Mr. McQueen stated he had tried to be consistent in using the curtain during noisy buffing and polishing operations. Dr. Collier said he felt the hand painted signs were not aesthetic and were used more to attract attention or advertising than for customer direction. Mrs. Schuck, 930 Coastline Dr., cited correspondence she had had through the years regarding the sign violations. She also read the portion of Resolution No. 28 relating to signs approved. She also presented photos of the signs as viewed from the residences and asked that Res. No. 28 be enforced. Mr. McQueen felt that the directional portion of the bridge sign could be handled through some other method but the removal of the advertising portion would effect his business. e . . Mr. Barton moved to defer action for 30 days to allow the applicant to submit a proposal of professional signing for this location and at the end of the thirty day period all signs in violation of previous approvals are to be removed. Seconded by Mr. Knapp and passed unanimously by the members present. Resolution No. 419. 4. Public Hearing - Rossmoor Park Apartments (Bob Hirsch), V-6-70 Mr. Hirsch requested approval to increase the number of units at a previously approved apartment complex by four. These four units to be approximately 350 square feet in size, all other units in the development are above the minimum requirement. No additional lot coverage involved because these are being planned in lieu of the second and thitd floor lobby areas of the two three-story buildings. Mr. Hirsch presented atrevised parking layout to the Commission at the meeting showing minimum required parking for the revised number of units. Two of these four units to be rented as efficiency apartments and the other two to be retained and used as guest facilities. Miss Do~r, 231 6th St., asked what the plans for the first floor lobby area were and was advised this would remain the same. She commented this was a logical request and felt the furnishing of guest facilities a good amenity. Miss Dorr asked about the number of parking spaces. The Secretary advised that an agreement was signed with the property owners at the time of annexation which included a maximum parking requirement of 1-1. Spaces furnished exceed this number. Mr. Barton stated that even though this was only a 1~ - 2% increase of the total number of units, the complex was large and imposing and four more units not in keeping with the spirit of the original proposal. He did not feet it is justified. Hearing closed. Mr. Barton moved to deny the variance. Mrs. Lanning seconded the motion. . Ayes: Noes: Absent: Barton, Crowley, Lanning Knapp Morris Motion carried. Resolution No. 420. 5. Public Hearing - Annabelle Luraschi, V-8-70 Mrs. Luraschi requested a variance to allow construction of 21 units in lieu of a maximum of 13 on property located at the southwesterly corner of Second Street and Central Avenue. In addition, request is made to permit the upper stories to encroach into the setback on the two alley sides. Required parking is furnished on-site. Miss Dorr expressed concern about effect of increased traffic in the area." Traffic would enter and depart from three different sides of the building to avoid congestion at one point. The size of all units exceeds minimum requirements. Mr. Crowley pointed out that the professional consultants for the General Plan had recommended establishing a method of allowing additional units to property owners who accumulate larger parcels of land on an escalating scale. He felt that while no method had been adopted, this proposal was in keeping with the theory. Hearing closed. Mr. Knapp moved to approve the variance and seconded by Mr. Crowley. Mr. Barton expressed his feelings that this was too high in density for the property from a planning standpoint. He agreed with the theory of allowing extra units for larger parcels but felt this was~excessive. Mr. Knapp concurred with Mr. Barton and rescinded his motion with the approval of the second. Mr. Crowley moved to grant the variance subject to final review of plans and landscaping. Seconded by Mrs. Lanning. Mr. Barton reiterated his position. Mr. Passero, architect for Mrs. Luraschi, pointed out this was a special lot bounded on all sides by streets or alleys. The vote: . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Crowley, Lanning Barton, Knapp Morris Motion defeated. Resolution No. 421. . e e 6. Oral Communications Mrs. Schuck, 930 Coastline, spoke about other grievances she and other neighbors have with the car wash operation. The noise was particularly bad esp~cia11y during buffing and polishing operations. The original approval of the car wash had set a decibel limit on noise emanating from the operation to protect neighboring properties. She did not feel this was being enforced. The Secretary explained that the City had had a sound laboratory run tests and their results showed traffic noises were higher than the allowed rating for the car wash making it impossible to test. Mrs. Schuck challenged the locations used for the tests and the time taken IGr them. She explained the buffer had a very shrill noise, disturbing to the neighbors to the point they are unable to use their back yards. In addition, landscaping was to be provided and there is none. There is no enclosure for trash bins as at other locations in the Center and this is very unsightly. Chairman Barton recommended that Mrs. Schuck present her grievances directly to the City Council as the most effective way to achieve results. The Planning Commission is not an enforcing body and could only make recommendations to the Council. 7. Written Communications A copy of the letter transmitted to the Orange County Planning Director was submitted as information. No further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M. until 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday, April 29, 1970. ._ ~ /J ~~U~ Lois Arnold Recording Secretary . )