Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1972-10-18 e . . MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 1972 The Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach met in regul&r se80ion 1n the Council Chambers at the City Administration Building. The me~ting was opanod at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Ripperdan. The Pledge of A11egianc~ ~as led by Vice Chairman Dunn. Present: Absent: Dunn, Hammond, Knapp, Lanning, Ripperdan None The minutes of October 4, 1972 were approved as presented. Mr. Moody, representative of Mr. Palmer'\), asked for a continuance of Item 5D, public hearing for Variance Application No. V-51-72, until November 1, 1972. The Chair so ordered. Secr~tarydllepZ'Uchll:eported on the Environmental Impact Statements. He explained the background of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and also explained the problems throu8h~llack"ofl explariaUouiv....definition and direction. He discussed the procedure the staff had pursued and presented the evaluation report and fowm prepared by staff.to be used to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement would be required. He suggested that the Planning Commission could require this form to be completed along with each application and asked they consider this along with actions taken at this meeting. General discussion followed regarding ~ho prepares the study, effect of length of time on processing an application, etc. . The Secretary reviewed the procedure for giving testimony during public hearings. 1. Public Hearings A. Jane Gaylor, V-48-72 (continued) Request is for the addU:!Lon,'of a room to a nonconforming building due to garage size at 612 Balboa St. Hearing open. Charles Van Fleet was present representing the applicant. He stated the applicant agreed to proposed conditions 2, 3 and 4, but still requested bathing facilities because of physical disabilities. No other comments were received. Hearing closed. Mr. Knapp moved to approve the request subject to the deletion of the 220 volt outlet and separate outside entrance. In addition, applicant.1required to execute a land use agreement stipulating a maximum of one unit, parking spaces to remain open for vehicular parking and the right to enter upon and inspect the premises annually. Seconded by Mrs. Lanning and passed unanimously. Resolution No. 690. B. Steve Manley, V-49-72 Applicant proposes construction of a duplex with tandem parking and a 5'6" rear yard in lieu of the required 9' rear yard. Hearing open. Applicant not present. Chair orders hearing continued to later in the agenda. C. Emanuel Gy1er, V-SO-72 4It Applicant requested approval of two substandard sized parking spaces of those provided for a nine unit proposal. This is a reapplication of a previous proposal under appeal and due to the change in number of required parking. Hearing open. Mr. Dunn abstained from discussion and action due to conflict of interest. Mr. Golden, representing the applicant, reviewed the unique circumstances because . . . e . of the change of ordinance. He stated he had made a conscientious effort to revise plans to meet all parking requirements. He advised of his investigation as to the ratio of imported cars to standard sized cars and stated that other cities recognize this and allow a percentage of the required parking for small cars. He felt this concept had as much validity as tandem parking. No other comments and the hearing was closed. Mrs. Lanning moved to approve conditioned on the approval of Appeal A-5-72 and the submission of an Environmental Impact Evaluation Form. Seconded by Mrs. Hammond. Discussion followed. AYES: Hammond, Lanning, Ripperdan NQlS: Knapp ABSTAIN: Dunn Motion carried. Resolution No. 691. Applicant advised that this is the final action unless appealed. D. John Palmer, V-51-72 Hearing continued until November 1. 1972. E. E. R. Strother, V-52-72 Applicant proposes to add a fourth unit to an existing building with no additional parking provided. Secretary explained the history of the property. Hearing open. Mr. Strother. 232 5th St., spoke regarding the original construction was planned for this future addition, but had no room for additional parking and it would be an economical hardship if he were not allowed to make the addition. He also said it would improve the appearance of the building and the neighborhood. Paula Thomas, daughter of the applicant. felt it would not set a precedent since there were only two similar situations. No other comments, the hearing was closed. Mr. Dunn stated that no hardship other than economical was shown and moved to.. deny the request. Seconded by Mrs. Lanning. Discussion followed regarding the number of similar situations. Motion passed unanimously. Resolution No. 692. Applicant.-.advised of his right of appeal. 2. Oral Communications There were no oral communications. 3. Written Communtcations "Taxpayers Alert" regarding Proposition 14 was presented'to the Commissioners for their information. 4. Unfinished Business A. Emanuel Gyler, A-5-72 The City Council referred A-5-72 back to the Planning Commission to consider the shape of the lot, importance of parking over sideyard and number of units comparable with the area. Secretary explained the options open to the Commission. Mr. Dunn declared his abstention in this action. Mr. Stan Goldin. representing the applicant, addressed the Commission stressing his points that a corner lot should have special consideration, an R-3 use in a C-l zone should be given more flexibility, and if an allowance 'a.the center of the street were made, all of the proposal would be legal. He stated the proposal met good planning objectives. Mr. Espinoza, 4601 Elder, felt anything concerning density should be looked at carefully. ~. . . e . Mr. Knapp felt that the City Council report gave nothing new that had not been considered previously and that alternatives suggested by the Commission had been refused by the applicant. Mr. Knapp moved to return the appeal to the City Council reaffirming the denial by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Mr. Ripperdan. Resolution No. 693. AYES: NOES; ABSTAIN: Hammond 0 Knapp 0 Lanning 0 Ripperdan None Dunn Motion carried. Resolution No. 693. B. Lot Coverage - Discussion of Alternatives The Secretary advised of the City Attorney's tentative opimion that any action should be uniform to all ~~sidences of a determined area. He also read the proposed definition of a covered patio. Discussion of wo~ding and area followed. This option would increase lot coverage to 45% and eliminate additional open space. Mr. Knapp suggested that variances be granted on specific lots vhere the ovner is not at fault and not allow blanket additional coverage. Discussion of effect on various areas. Mr. Dunn requested that City Attorney be present for advice before any final decision is reached. Consideration held over to November 150 19720 and request the City Attorney to be present. C. 1.85 Acre Bixby Parcel - Higbest and Best Use Secretary reported that possible financing not yet available. He will have a detailed report at the next meeting. He also briefly explained the alternatives under reviev. D. Subdivision Ordinance - Discussion and Report by Staff Mro Little reported on the need to revise the existing ordinance and the present deficiencies. He explained the material and data used in developing the proposed ordinance and specific changes. In additiono some changes would necessitate an amendment to the Open Space/Recreation Element. Chair orders a public hearing set for November 10 1912 to amend the Open Space/Recreation Element. Mr. Dunn asked that copies of the San Clemente memorandum regarding park dedication or in-lieu fees be made available to the Commissioners. Discussion continued until the public hearing. 5. Public Hearing B. Steve Manleyo V-49-12 Public hearing open. Secretary revieved application. Applicant not present. No other comments received. Hearing closed. Mr. Knapp moved to deny the request. Seconded by Mr. Ripperdan. AYES: NOES: Hammond, Knapp 0 Lanning, Ripperdan Dunn Motion carried. Resolution No. 694. 6. New Business A. Proposition 20 Secretary explained the effect of Proposition 20 upon this city and advised that the City Council had expressed their opposition by Resolution 2145. Discussion followed. Mr. Knapp moved that the Planning Commission support the City Council . . . e . Resolution opposing Proposition 20. Seconded by Mro Dunll and passed unanimously. Resolution No. 695. 7. Other Business Mrs. Lanning invited all to attend a meeting of debate and discussion regarding Propositions 14, 19 and 20 at the Leisure Werld Community Church on November 1 at 10 A.M. Secretary advised of plans to hold a joint meeting with the Surfside Board of Directors on October 250 No further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. until October 25 at 7:30 p.m. ~/J ,- ~~..--e-1) Lois Arnold Recording Secretary