Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1970-04-01 . . . e e MINUTES OF THE'~LANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 1, 1970 The Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session on Wednesday, April 1, 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 None The tentative minutes of March 18, 1970 were discussed and several additions were made. The minutes were approved as corrected. 1. Continued Public Hearings A. Beverly Enterprises, V-4-70 Applicant submitted a letter requesting a postponement oft4ttibn untt1ra~future meeting and the Chairman so ordered. B. Rossmoor Park Apartments, V-6-70 Applicant submitted a request for postponement until the next regular meeting and the Chairman so ordered. 2. Point of C1arification"Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange, UV-1-70 The Building Department requested clarification of intent concerning plans for subject case. Easterly sideyard was widened from existing setback but still under minimum requirement. The consensus of the members was approval of the plans as submitted. 3. Referral of Appeal - Millie Becker, A-1-70 (V-3-70) The denial of an application for variance by the Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council by Mrs. Becker and referred back to the Planning Commission for additional study. Subject proposal was to add a bedroom to an existing One bedroom apartmeat in a four unit building with only three off-street parking spaces. Mr. Knapp stated that parking is one of the major problems of our City and it" wou.fd not be in the best interest to allow upgrading with continued substandard parking. Mr. Barton pointed out that there must be good and sufficient reason as stipulated by ordinance to approve a variance. Mr. Morris expressed concern over establishing' a precedent if additions to existing units were allowed with insufficient parking. Mrs. Lanning moved reaffirm the denial of the variance. Seconded by Mr. Crowley. AYES: NOES: Crowley, Knapp, Lanning, Morris Barton Motion carried. Resolution No. 413. 4. Public Hearing - W. R. Whidden, V-7-70 Mr. Whidden, 122 14th St., requested a variance to permit the elongation of an existing encroachment into the sideyard.for a distance of six feet. The purpose is to permit remodeling and modernization of the front of the building to blend with the architecture of a new portion at the rear. No protests or comments were received and the hearing was closed. Mr. Knapp moved to approve the variance as submitted. Seconded by Mrs. Lanning and passed unanimously. Resolution No. 414. . . . e e 5. Piam Review - Quigley's Department Store, PR-7-70 Quigley's submitted plans for fascia identification sign for their new store at 13930 Seal Beach Blvd. for review and approval. The sign would be backlighted only and have no flashing or revolving features. Mr. Crowley moved to approve. Seconded by Mrs. Lanning and passed unanimously. Resolution No. 415. 6. Oral Communications Miss Julie Dorr reserved to right to speak during Written Communications regarding the R & B project. Mr. Sven Lindstrom stated he felt Mrs. Becker's appeQt should have been granted. Paul Boisvert asked for clarification on the R & B matter. Secretary explained the referral and procedures to be followed. Mr. Barton pointed out that the Planning Commission is an advisory body only and specified some of their perogatives. Martha Scheib1auer asked about various variances approved along with the Precise Plan for R & B. Mr. Barton showed the documents that were considered and the depth of study involved prior to the decision in this case and explained that a Precise Plan must be considered as a total for the general benefit or detriment for the City. Tom Brady reserved the right to speak during Written Communications. Kris Lindstrom advised the Commission of Techmical Document Bulletin No. 1 from the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and available from the Superintendent of Documents as a usefiul guide. Mr. SiedsLtndst~am asked if the Commission had recommended approval of project that would be substandard to the building code. It was explained that no approval or recommendation for approval was given for any variation from the Building Code, variances approved were from zoning code requirements only. Mr. Lindstrom reiterated that he felt Mrs. Becker was being penalized and that the Commission was inconsistent if they would not let present property owners improve they buildings but give gariances to new developers. Mr. Barton stated that he resented the implications that there had been any underhandedness by the Commission members. If any p4rsonn felt this was true they should as responsible citizens report to their City Councilman and request the member be replaced for dereliction of duty. He went on to say that no preferential treatment had ever been gien a large developer over an individual. Each case must be studied and acted upon alone. Mrs. Lanning stated that nothing is done on a personal basis, all actions must be considered for the betterment of the entire City. Mr. Millstein commented that since the R & B project had been settled by law, the Planning Commission was takinggan inmrdinacec amount of time for discussion. The Chairman explained that he felt it necessary to hear the public as well as attempt to keep the public informed. 7. Written Communications A. A letter from Julie Dorr was received by the City Council referring to the R & B pcoject and was referred to the City Planning Commission for study. A report to the Commission was prepared by the Staff clarifying points in the letter, setting forth facts in the issue and presenting background. The Secretary read each point of the letter and the portion of the staff report directly relating to it. The report showed that no building code variances had been granted; the project was not considered unhealthy due to major recreational facilities provided; vehicular access was controlled and would not cross any other residential area; that gas tax funds would pay for the City portion of the development of First Street which has been included as part of our master plan for arterial streets for some time and not being developed for the benefit of R & B; and that there was no question about the ggIeements between the City and R & B being not only legal but ethical. Miss Dorr stated that comparison to other R & B developments was irrelevant and the community of Seal Beach was the only thing to consider. She felt that open parking was not aesthetically pleasing. More discussion followed concerning the size of the apartments and the misinformation that had circulated was clarified. e e . It was shown that if the large recreation building were averaged with the units as part of the living area, which in effect it is, the average size exceeds the minimum requirements. It was pointed out that large developments have to be considered as a total entity and Leisure World was cited as an example as well as considering a shopping center complex differently than a single store on Main Street. Mr. Crowley advised of the attempt by the Commission to develop a new ordinance to provide more flexibility for small property owners as well as large developers through amenities. Mr. Boisvert felt this was good but should be in addition to minimum requirements. Much concern was expressed about the uncovered p~~k1Dg~and the conditions stipulated by the Planning Commission and City Council concerning this point were read. There was additional discussion of security provisions, guest parking, unit sizes, etc. Mr. Barton moved to adv~se the City Council that the Commission had received the letter from Miss Dovr, reconsidered the R & B development, and reaffirmed their original action of approval and recommendation to the City Council. The staff report to be the basis of the new resolution. The staff also requested to make facts and final action by the Commission available to the news media. Motion seconded by Mr. Morris. Mr. C~ow1ey disqualified himself because of absence during the original public hearing. AYES: Knapp, Lanning, Morris, Barton NOES: None ABSTAIN: Crowley Motion carried. Resolution No. 416. 8. Other Business 4It A. Amenities The questionnaire used by Garden Grove was presented for study. Discussion of various methods to provide flexibility. This questionnaire is an instrument of policy only and not enforced through ordinance. Because of the complex nature of this proposal, a study session limited to amentties and apartment size was set for April 29, 1970. B. Staff reported on the coastal zone element, housing element, etc. required to be adopted. A design hearing for the on-ramp of the San Gabriel Freeway/San Diego Freeway at Seal Beach Blvd. will be held soon. Letter from A.I.P. received and will be included with sbudy for housing element. Staff advised of letter to Orange County Planning Director expressing willingness to cooperate on any studies for future use of the Los A1amitos Naval Air Station. Staff directed to advise the City Council of their desire to tale an active part. No further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M. ~ Lois Arnold Recording Secretary r~~ --- .