Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1972-07-19 e e . MINUTm OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 1972 The Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach met in regu~ar session in the Council Chambers at the City Administration Building. The meeting was opened at 7: 30 p.m. by Chairman Knapp and Vice Chairman Ripperdan led the Pledge to the Flag. Present: Dunn, Knapp, Lanning, O'Toole, Ripperdan Absent: None The minutes of July' 5, 1972, were approved as presented. 1. Public Hearings A. Gualbero N. Vergara, V-29-72 (cont'd) Acting Secretary Little reviewed the application and reported on the legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding a hydraulically operated pool cover. Hearing reopened. Mr. Vergara asked for a decision nOt-J' by the Commission rather than be del~ed waiting for resolution of the problem with S & S Construction Co. concerning lot coverage. Bo other comments were made. Hearins closed. Mrs. Lanning felt that no hardship had been shovn and it could set an undesirable precedent. She moved to de~ the application. Seconded by Mr. Dunn. Comments and advise to the applicant were made by Mr. Knapp and Mr. Ripperdan. Motion carried unanimously'. Resolution No. 654. . B. Bertran Smith (Guy Gagnon), V-30-72 Applicant proposed a duplex in the.R-2 zone with tandem parking for two of the four proposed spaces. Hearing open. Mrs. Klempner of 213 13th St. asked for clarification of the type of units and parkiDg. Mr. Gagnon advised that he agreed to comply' with staff recommended conditions. Hearing closed. Mr. R1pperdan moved to approve the variance subject to the conditions that the engineering conditions be met, land use agreement be executed nth regard to number of units, parking and annual inspection, and landscaping be approved by staff. Seconded by Mr. DWlD and passed unanimously'. Resolution No. 655. c. James A. and George C. Curlette, V-31-72 . Plans submitted proposing a new four unit building on a parcel with existing uni ts. Tandem parking is proposed for 16 of the required 18 spaces and two existing units are nonconforming due, to size. Hearing open. Mrs. Murr~, 1017 Seal W~, asked if arry recreation room vas proposed and if any balconies would face on the alley. Mr. Curlette explained the building would have an enclosed cantilever on the alley side, no recreation room, but a central patio. When questioned, Mr. Curlette explained it was impossible to bring the 2 substandard units up to code, but they were eliminating two other undersized units. Applicant could not agree to all proposed conditions without further consideration. Mr. Ripperdan made suggestions to assist applicant in possible solutions. Hearing closed. Mr. Dunn felt the site qualified as a hardship and that the applicant was upgrading as much as vas possible. He moved to approve the variance subject to the conditions that engineering conditions be met, land use agreement be executed with regard to number of units, parking and inspection, landscaping be approved by staff, building meet fire department requirements and Uniform Building Code. Seconded by Mr. Knapp and passed unanimously'. Resolution No. 656. . . e e D. :&nanuel Gyler (Stanley Goldin), UV-4-72 Mr. Little reviewed the application for R-3 use in a C-l zone and the requested variances. Hearing open. Mr. Dunn abstained from discussion and any action to avoid conflict of interest. Mr. Goldin disagreed with sane points made by staff regarding lot coverage, sideyard and rear yard. He feels no exterior sideyard is necessary since no front yard is required. He also stated that if the street were calculated into the total lot area as sane cities do, they would meet the lot coverage requirement. Because of the angle of the lot II the average rear setback would meed code. Offered to reduce the request from 10 units to 9. He wanted recommendations by the COIIIII1ission and then would prepare plans for submission. Mr. Leidemann, 14th Be Ocean. spoke in favor of the proposal. Mr. Knapp stated that the Planning Commission did not negotiate. They must have plans much better than the meager plans and picture presented to visualize the concept. Mr. Goldin asked for a continuance. Chair ordered the hearing continued to the meeting of August 2. E. Open Space/Recreation Element (cont'd) Acting Secretary reviewed the City Attorney's opinion regarding including private property. Hearing reopened. Mrs. Don spoke regarding the Bixby 7.8~ acres adjacent to the College Park East area with the indication that the-City Council had approved negotiation to purchase. Chairman explained that this area was being appraised for future consideration or purchase by the city. Tom Setum. 4596 Fir, asked if Bixby parcel was included. Chairman explained in detail of all properties included whether existing as open space/recreation areas at the present time or not. others asked about the Hellman lands behind Marina Hill. Mr. :&nerson. representative of Bixby Ranch Co. pointed out that all other properties vere shown on the General Plan map as proposed open space/ recreation areas while the Bixby property had alw~s been zoned and shown on the map as multi-residential property. He also mentioned that a conflicting element on this point could mean :that the city would be condemning by refusal to issue a building perm.i t. Mr. Emerson suggested that this particular area be excluded from the proposed element on the basis that if purchase by the city, it would become a park area and be amended into the element, if not purchased it would be developable- as a residential area. General discussion followed. The attorney II Mr. Mullin, for Bixby also spoke regarding this point. Other discussion followed regarding the P.E. r/w. CODllllission discussed various alternatives. Bearing c~osed. Chairman Knapp spoke regarding the time the staff and commission had spent stUdying areas of the city, the state requirements and preparation of a sui table plan. Mr. Dunn moved to recOlllll1end to the City Council the adoption of the proposed Open Space Element with the deletion of the 7.8+ acres owned by Bixby Ranch Co. Seconded by Mrs. Lanning. - Ayes: Noes: Duzm, Knapp, Lanning, Ripperdan O'Toole Motion carried. REsolution No. 657 2. Oral COIIIII1unication Mr. Lamonico from the Seal Beach Trailer Park asked about zoning for mobile home parks. After being advised that they were not presently permitted under any . zone in the city, he requested that a zone be determined. It was a.+BO asked when the Housing Element would be under consideration and the Chairman advised it vould be legally posted. . . . e e 3 . Written CoJlllllications Mr. Gilkerson, lOll Electric, requested that the COJIIIIlission investigate the use of on-site parking by Stan Miller's tennants. He felt that the city was urging residents to make full use of on-site parking and not enforcing the required commercial use. Chair ordered statf to investigate. 4. Unfinished Business There was no unfinished business. 5. New Businesz A. David Collier (Joseph Collins), PR-11-72 Plans vere presented for a remodel of an existing structure in the C-2 zone. Mr. Peters was present as the legal representative of the owner and Mr. Collins was also present. Af'ter discussion, it was felt that a low block wall vould provide more saf'ety than a landscaped strip. Mr. Knapp moved to approve the plans vi th the condition that a block wall be constructed in the front. Seconded by Mrs. Lanning and passed unanimously. Resolution No. 658. B. Request for Determination of "Dinner House Restaurant" A request vas received from McDonald Systems, Inc. and Southrich Company for the definition of a Dinner House Restaurant. The location adjacent to the ARCO Service Station at 5th and P.C.H. is covered b,y Precise Plan PP-1-66 which requires a Dinner House Restaurant. McDonald's feel their new type of operation wi th inside seating, but without table service by vai ters or waitresses, should meet this title and asked for a determination by the COJIIIIlission. Applicant and members of the COJlllllission felt that on-should not be required as an integral part of this type of restaurant operation. Renderings of the proposed operation were shown and general discussion followed. Owner of property feels the site is too small for a dinner house. It was pointed out that any varia.tion :from the concept under ~he Precise Plan should should have a public hearing. The COJIIIIlission determined that the proposed restaurant concept vould not fall under the definition of a Dinner House Restaurant. Mr. O'Toole moved to determine the definition of a Dinner House Restaurant to be a retail food service establishment in which food is ordered from a menu, served by vaiters or vaitresses for consumption only on the premises.. Seconded by Mrs. LanniDg and passed unanimously. Resolution No. 659. There was no further business. and the meeting vas adjourned at 10:10 p.m. ~)~ Lois Arnold - Recording Secretary