HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1972-10-04
e
.
.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 1972
The Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach met in regular
session in the Council Chambers at the City Administration Building.
The meeting was opened at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Ripperdan. The Pledge
of Allegiance was led by Mr. Dunn.
Present:
Absent:
Dunn, Hammond, Knapp, Lanning, Ripperdan
None
The minutes of September 20, 1972 were approved as presented except for
correction on Page 2, Alternate No.7. Mr. Dunn asked that the following
be deleted: (Most members of the Commission were in favor of the
alternative.) This was moved by Mrs. Lanning and seconded by Mr. Ripperdan.
Minutes approved as corrected.
Mr. Neprud gave the proper procedure for presentations before the
Planning Commission during public hearings.
. 1. Public Hearings
A. Shaddox, V-47-72
The applicant is proposing a two-unit addition and an addition to a non-
conforming building in the R-3 zone. Hearing opened. There were no
additional comments. Hearing closed. Mrs. Lanning wished to know why
the owner was sanding and painting since structure was to be torn down.
Mr. Shaddox stated that he wished to obtain a new loan and thought if
this were done, he could obtain a better loan. Mr. Knapp asked if ~
existing structure was to come down. Applicant assured him that structure
would come down. There was a general discussion of tandem parking in front
of building. For clarification, Mr. Ripperdan read the engineering
conditions. The Secretary stated that the Planning Department would be
against the extension of tandem parking to the front of property and that
the Planning Commission had not accepted this in the past. He, also, stated
that it has been possible to make improvements on property such as a room
addition without meeting current parking requirements. Mr. Shadddox
stated that all he had really wanted was an addition to the house but
had been informed he would need a variance to bring property up to code.
Mr. Knapp suggested that homes be brought up to code whenever possible.
Mrs. Lanning explained that a variance was only good for a year. After
. further discussion by the Commision it was moved by Mr. Dunn to pass
e
.
.
Variance 47-72 subject to engineering conditions, land-use-agreement and
landscaping plans to the satisfaction of staff. Mrs. Lanning seconded
motion. Motion passed unanimously. Resolution 689
B. Jane Gaylor, V-48-72
Since there was no representative for the above applicant, it was moved
by Mr. Dunn and seconded by Mrs. Lanning for continuation until the next
meeting. This motion was passed unanimously.
2. Oral Communications
There were no oral communications.
3. Written Communications
There were no written communications
4. Unfinished Business
.
A. Lot Coverage - Discussion of Alternatives
The Secretary reviewed Alternatives 1, 2, 7 and 8. A patio was defined
and there was general discussion of lot coverage in College Park East.
Mr. Espinosa of 4601 Elder made the observation that most of the
covered patios were on the sunny side of the street and few on the shady
side. Mr. Knapp spoke against Item 3 and 4 of Alternative 1. Mr. Deburr
of 4308 Ironwood, Plan 15, wished information regarding resale of house
since his patio had been built before the City discovered the over 40%
lot coverage. Mr. Dunn reviewed Plan 15 and 19 regarding patios. The
Secretary explained that having checked with the V. A. and F. H. A., it
was his opinion that they would allow resale of homes if over the lot
coverage as this was primarily a zoning rather than a building and safety
problem. There was a general discussion of alternatives for and against
by the Planning Commission. Mr. Carl Irwin, 636 Island View, discussed
patios and lot coverage on the Hill and pointed out that the reason most
of the people wanted patios was for protection from the sun. He, also,
made the suggestion that he would like the Planning Commission to check
on two story homes as a density factor as well as one story. Mr. Jay
Covington of 4557 Candleberry stated that it was his opinion the City
should acknowledge and accept all houses already built even though they
4It were non-conforming. Mr.Dienstag of 4209 Candleberry asked if it would
.
.
.
e
.
be possible for the City to set the requirements for a patio to a
certain number of square feet. There was a general discussion by
members of the Planning Commission as to which alternative they
favored. Since the majority of the members favored Alternative #7,
Chairman Ripperdan suggested that it be studied and prepared in
revised form.
B. 7.85 Acre Bixby Parcel - Highest and Best Use
The Secretary reviewed land uses and stated that there would be further
clarification at the October 18 meeting. There was a general discussion
of noise level and its effect on the Bix~ Parcel. Mr. Jay Covington
noted that according to the Army Impact Statement there would be a
greater noise facto~ than there-'was some years before and that there
would be intense noise level along Lampson Avenue. Mr. Neprud suggested
that it might be wise to wait until a more thorough study could be
made of the noise level and thought it advisable to have someone from
the Navy to give their viewpoint in this matter. The Secretary, also,
suggested that more information was needed on means of financing.
Mrs. Hammond was of the opinion that some representative from the
Environmental Board should appear before the Planning Commission
members. Mr. Jay Covington suggested that copies of an article be
obtained that appeared in the Press Telegram which summerized air
crashes in the last 20 years, especially those in Leisure World and
Rossmoor. Chairman Ripperdan advised that a study of the problem
be continued.
5. New Business
A. Emanuel Gyler A-5-72
The Secretary stated that the applicant had filed for a variance for
less than the required parking requirements and that a new variance
application was to be submitted for the Planning Commission meeting
of October 18.
B. Subdivision Ordinance
Mr. Neprud wished to know the feelings of the Commission on the
Subdivision Ordinance. He stated that Mr. Bill Little would be
attending the meeting of Occober 18 with more information on this
ordinance. There was a general discussion of the requirements and
whether there should be a new computation or fee rate on park and
recreation land and, also, cost to the home owner. The Secretary
suggested that a check be made with other cities and clarification
as to the effect of small or larger units as to cost and population
density. There was a discussion of green belt and whether this land
e
.
.
should be dedicated. The Secretary stated that under the Precise
Plan, private open space would be maintained by the owners. He
suggested study of the recreational standards of other cities and
the requirements of the City Code. Mr. Jay Covington questioned
whether developer would have to pay in lieu of land dedication.
Mr. Ripperdan explained that under new ordinance of the City, it was
up to subdivider whether to dedicate land or pay fee. Mr. Covington
spoke against this and requested information on what steps other
cities had taken in this respect. Mr. Knapp explained that clarifi-
cation and final decision was up to City. The Secretary further
explained that final determination was made by the City Council.
Mrs. Lanning complimented the Planning Department and members of the
Planning Commission for the work and research done. Mr. Bill Little
was, also, praised for his efforts in this matter.
6. Report from Secretary
The Secretary suggested a study be made of the trivial vs. non-trivial
impact of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and what projects
4It would require an impact statement.
The Chairman reported that he had received a request from three members
of Surfside Colony, Ltd for a meeting with members of the Planning
Commission. The Secretary recommended meeting on October 11, and 25
with the Surfside members for a study session. He stated he would
contact them and try to arrange a meeting for these dates.
No further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Dorothy Woodson
Recording Secretary
.