Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1989-08-16 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 1989 The regularly scheduled meet1ng of the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on was called to order 1n C1ty Counc1l Chambers by Cha1rman Sharp at 7:32 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Alleg1ance was led by Comm1ss1oner F1fe. ROLL CALL Present: Cha1rman Sharp Comm1ss1oners F1fe, Suggs, Jessner Staff Present: Lee Wh1ttenberg, D1rector, Dev. Srvcs. Dept. Barry Curt1s, Adm1n. A1de, Dev. Srvcs. Dept. John Fraser, Intern, Dev. Srvcs. Dept. Absent: Comm1ss1oner Rullo (absent due to 1llness). CONSENT CALENDAR MINUTES OF AUGUST 2. 1989 MOTION by Suggs; SECOND by Flfe to approve the Plannlng Commasslon Mlnutes of August 2, 1989 as presented. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 ABSENT: Mr. Rullo PUBLIC HEARINGS VARIANCE 6-89 * 320 COASTLINE Staff Report John Fraser presented the staff report on Var1ance 6-89. Th1S 1S a request by Thomas Dutton, homeowner and appl1cant, to allow an eX1st1ng two-s1ded spa cover that encroaches on the requ1red slde and rear yard setbacks. Comm1ss1on Comments Mr. Jessner sa1d he went over to 320 Coastl1ne today to 1nspect the spa h1mself. The spa and the spa equ1pment are w1th1n the setbacks but the cover 1S bU1lt 1nto the setbacks. Mr. F1fe asked staff about setbacks for spas. Mr. Fraser clar1f1ed that spas (portable or stat1onary) requ1re the same setbacks as a sW1mm1ng pool... 4' from slde and rear property llnes. The spa cover 1S not moveable and cannot therefore be moved out of the setback. . Page 2 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of August 16, 1989 Mr. Flfe asked staff lf they could expand further on the stop Work Order lssued by Inspector Feenstra. Mr. Fraser sald on 8/8/88 Mr. Feenstra was lnspectlng Domlno' s Plzza, a buslness across the street from Mr. Dutton's property. Whlle on the roof of that bUlldlng Mr. Feenstra could see lnto the rear yard of 320 Coastllne Drlve and noted the spa coverlng belng constructed Wl thout permits and into the requlred setbacks. Mr. Feenstra lssued the stop Work Order. Mr. Flfe asked lf the bUlldlng lnspector, In the normal course of hlS dutles, would have advlsed the property owner of hlS optlon to seek a varlance at that tlme? Mr. Fraser sald he dld not belleve Mr. Feenstra so advlsed. Mr. Suggs sald there were 52 feet In the rear yard. Why dld the appllcant put the spa cover In the setback? Staff sald the appllcant could answer. PubllC Hearlng Opened Thomas Dutton * 320 Coastllne Drlve. Seal Beach Mr. Dutton handed the Commlssloners photos he had taken on hlS spa and hlS wall faclng Paclflc Coast Hlghway. He stated he "deflnltely dldn't want to run afoul of the Clty". . ReplYlng to Mr. Suggs, Mr. Dutton stated he placed hlS spa on an eXlstlng cement slab (from prlor owner). He stated that In the course of slttlng In hlS spa he noted the hlghway nOlse and dlrt and declded to bUlld a cover. He looked at varlOUS pre- manufactured alternatlves and declded they dldn't flt hlS needs because they were not sturdy enough and provlded no sound attenuatlon. He sald nOlse from PCH lS on the lncrease and demonstrated thls by plaYlng a tape (of PCH nOlses) to the CommlSSlon. . Mr. Dutton chronologlzed the events leadlng to hlS applYlng for a varlance. On 8-8-88 BUlldlng Inspector Chuck Feenstra lssued a stop Work Order for the spa's cover. Mr. Feenstra told hlm he wasn't sure lf lt was In vlolatlon and that he should draw a plan and subml t 1 t to the Plannlng Department. Mr. Dutton sald he felt the Plannlng Department was very busy wlth the Mola/Hellman Ranch proJect and he got shuffled off to a part-tlme employee (referrlng to Elllne Garcla, a prlor full-tlme Asslstant Alde In the Plannlng Department). Mr. Dutton sald he felt hlS lot coverage was belng calculated lncorrectly by Elline Garcla, that John Fraser had posslbly mlsmeasured hlS setbacks, that he had to 11ttle asslstance from the Plannlng Department staff and that Mr. Fraser falled to flle a Notlce of PubllC Hearlng and therefore hlS hearlng dated was moved from late June to July 5, 1989. He sald he felt hlS property could meet the three State-mandated flndlngs and that hlS varlance appllcation should be granted. . Page 3 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on M1nutes of August 16, 1989 Mr. F1fe sa1d he 1S sympathetic w1th th1s s1tuat1on but that he would vote aga1nst th1S var1ance because of the str1ctures of the law. Mr. F1fe sa1d a few years ago he tr1ed to get a var1ance granted to bU1ld a sW1mm1ng pool one foot 1nto h1S f1ve foot rear yard setback. H1S ne1ghbors have pools with1n two feet of the1r walls. He was trY1ng to 1ncrease the safety of h1s house from veh1cles g01ng out of control and g01ng through the block wall; h1S home backs up to Lampson. But was voted down because the Code had been changed. He sa1d at the Planning Comm1SS1on level we do not appear able to apply the rather 11beral 1nterpretat1ons the C1ty Counc11 seems to apply on appeal. There are var1ance appl1cat1ons wh1ch the Comm1SS1on votes down that "m1raculously" the Counc11 overrules and grants the var1ance when pla1nly he doesn't th1nk they can make the f1nd1ngs. . B111 Coleman * 330 Coastl1ne Dr1ve. Seal Beach Mr. Coleman sa1d he 1S Mr. Dutton's next door ne1ghbor and spoke 1n favor of Mr. Dutton's spa cover because the spa 1S used only occas1onally, there are no power or telephone poles beh1nd the res1dence that m1ght be 1nterfered W1 th and 1 t does not 1mpact any other ne1ghbors. Staff adv1sed Mr. Coleman that 1f the spa's cover was removable the legal1 ty of 1 t would be subJect to the D1rector of Development Serv1ce's dec1s1on. B111 Dutton * (No address g1ven) Mr. Dutton 1ntroduced h1mself as Tom Dutton's father. He sa1d that Tom Dutton 1S an Orange County F1reman Capta1n Para-med1c. He 1nJured h1S back 1n the course of h1s work and needs the spa for health reasons. T1mothy Crowdger * 115 4th Street. Seal Beach Mr. Crowdger spoke 1n favor of leav1ng the spa and cover. He suggested laws should be changed 1f they 'fly 1n the face' of what the people feel 1S r1ght. Comm1ss1on Comments Correct1on to Mr. Comm1ss1on Meet1ng. verbat1m: Jessner's comments Mr. Jessner w1shed at 9-6-89 Plann1ng to have h1s comment . "Mr. Jessner sal.d I don't see how ... I myself could vote l.n favor of this variance. However, I thl.nk we have a problem Wl. th regard to all the propertl.es along Pacl.fl.c Coast Hl.ghway. In fact, I know we do. And thl.s was pol.nted out to us also by the City CounCl.1 when they dl.rected us, the Commissl.on, to reVl.ew the hel.ght ll.ml.tatl.ons along Pacl.fl.c Coast Highway and some of the other streets that have heavy traffl.c usage rl.ght behind the homes. Thl.S l.tem, I don't know l.f there's any kl.nd of a schedule for us to review thl.s, does the staff know? On the fence hel.ghts? It . . Page 4 - Plannlng CommlSSlon Mlnutes of August 16, 1989 probably hasn't been because th1s was caught up wlth1n the hear1ngs W1th the Mola propert1es. I th1nk we have d1fferent problems 1n d1fferent areas. When th1s came before the Comm1ssion we recommended to the Counc11, at our f1rst reV1ew of 1t, that we look 1nto th1s (ra1sing of the walls and he1ghts) 1n depth to help the people who (11ve) along these streets. I... see a correlat1on between what's been done here and th1s fence he1ght request. I would 11ke to see some sort of workshops arranged between the people 11v1ng along Pac1f1c Coast H1ghway and the Plann1ng Comm1ss1on to see exactly all the problems. Rev1ew some potent1al solut1ons to what they have - because they do have a problem there and 1t'S recogn1zed. Maybe, through th1S workshop and some suggestions and recommendat1ons that come out of th1S exchange the Comm1ss1on and C1ty Counc11 could come to an agreement W1 th regard to help1ng out these people. Maybe the fence he1ght 1sn't the answer. And th1s was the quest10n we had - the Comm1ssion. Maybe allow1ng some sort of a cant1lever- staY1ng at the e1ght (8') foot height l1m1t that's allowed here. But maybe allow1ng a cant1lever from th1S W1th a roof-type th1ng, maybe that's better than g01ng up a stra1ght ten (10') feet in height. Th1s type of structure takes on that appearance. If we deny th1s Var1ance I would hate to see 1t torn down unt11 1t's estab11shed that th1s 1S not what the C1ty wants. After we hold these hear1ngs. I'd (now) 11ke to hear what the other Comm1ss1oners th1nk". IIMr. Jessner sa1d "Var1ances". references to "CUP" should be Mr. Whlttenberg sald the Commlsslon could take an actlon to table thls Varlance untll studles have been made of propertles borderlng maJor arterlals. Then br1ng thlS Varlance back after a determlnatlon has been made re any new development standards. Mr. F1fe sald he was In complete agreement wlth thlS. He would favor denlal of thls Varlance wlth a recommendatlon that enforcement actlon be stayed for 6 months to allow the C1ty tlme to study Solutlons to these problems. Mr. Suggs, Mr. Jessner and Chalrman Sharp agreed wlth thls posltlon. . MOTION by Jessneri SECOND by Suggs that Var1ance 6-89 be tabled for a per10d of six (6) months unt11 further reV1ew of the s1tuat1on along Pac1f1c Coast H1ghway can be done. . . . Page 5 ~ Plann1ng Commiss1on M1nutes of August 16, 1989 Mr. F1fe requested Mr. Jessner amend h1s mot1on to not 11m1t study to Pacif1c Coast H1ghway and to have the mot1on read "all maJor arterial thoroughfares 1n the C1ty where property backs up to an arterial". Mr. Jessner sa1d he was g01ng to address this 1n h1s remarks following the mot1on. He felt each area should be addressed ind1 vidually. Mr. F1fe agreed that there could be a separate resolut1on for each property but he would 11ke staff to study the overall problem of propert1es back1ng up to maJor arter1als. Mr. Suggs w1thdrew h1s SECOND to the Mot1on. AMENDED MOTION by Jessneri SECOND by Suggs to delete "Pac1f1c Coast H1ghway" and add "all areas w1th1n the C1ty of Seal Beach that back to an arter1al h1ghway". MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 ABSENT: Mr. Rullo * * * VARIANCE 7-89 * 112 CENTRAL AVENUE Var1ance 7-89 was W1 thdrawn on August 16, 1989 by a telephone call to the secretary of Development Serv1ces Department by the appl1cant, Robert N. Lurasch1. * * * VARIANCE 8-89 * 101 MAIN STREET Staff Report Barry Curt1s del1vered the staff report on Var1ance 8-89 Wh1Ch 1S a request by J1m Watson to provide less than the requ1red on-s1te park1ng ... 1n con]Unct1on w1th the add1t1on of 1425 square feet to the second story of an eX1st1ng two-story m1xed use commerc1al structure at 101 Ma1n Street. Mr. Curt1s sa1d the Coastal Comm1SS1on does not recogn1ze Seal Beach's 1nter1m 1n-l1eu park1ng program. Var1ance rec1p1ents will be requ1red by the Coastal Comm1SS1on to lease park1ng from a pr1 vate source 1n order to sat1sfy any park1ng def1c1enc1es. The Coastal Comm1SS1on's park1ng requ1rements are somewhat less str1ngent than those of the C1ty'S. . Page 6 - Plann1ng Comm1ss1on M1nutes of August 16, 1989 Comm1ss1on Comments Mr. Suggs asked staff for further clar1f1cat1on on the Coastal Comm1SS1on's park1ng pOS1 t1on. Mr. Curt1s sa1d they make our appl1cants show proof of acqu1r1ng leased park1ng spaces 1n the area. Any spaces (the Plann1ng Comm1ss1on may grant an appl1cant 1n a Var1ance) are gOlng to requ1re conf1rmat1on to the Coastal Comm1SS1on as real spaces. Mr. Suggs asked staff how does the Coastal Comm1ss1on's requ1rements vary from ours? Mr. Curt1s repl1ed the1r means of calculat1ng the requ1red spaces 1S somewhat compl1cated and he has never had the1r calculat10ns before h1m. However, at 143 Ma1n st. where we requ1re 15 spaces the Coastal Comm1ss1on calculated the1r needs at 6 park1ng spaces. . Mr. F1fe restated the Coastal Comm1SS1on requ1res less park1ng but they must be real park1ng spaces. Mr. F1fe sa1d we now have 150 f1ct1t10US park1ng spaces along Ma1n Street less than what we should have. Is there any maX1mum number of f1ct1t10US spaces that has been 1dent1f1ed to draw the llne at? Mr. Curt1S sa1d no. Mr. F1fe sa1d h1S react10n 1S that Ma1n Street park1ng 1S gett1ng more stressful and 1f we cont1nue creat1ng f1Ct1t10US park1ng spaces people w1ll get fed up w1th no park1ng and cease shopp1ng here. Mr. F1fe sa1d he th1nks the f1Ct1 t10uS park1ng spaces concept has been saturated. Mr. Jessner sa1d he v1s1ted the slte (101 Ma1n st.) today and rev1ewed the eX1st1ng park1ng. He counted 21 park1ng spaces on the slte w1th a garage area for 3 park1ng spaces. Th1S garage has 1 space for 1 car; 2 spaces are for storage. That 1S 24 spaces not 29. He obJects to grandfathered spaces. Mr. Curt1s expla1ned the concept of "grandfathered park1ng". Grandfathered park1ng eX1sts when a use has been eX1stent for a per10d of years (as have the eX1st1ng bU1ld1ngs at 101 Ma1n Street) . Through the 1ssuance of perm1 ts and past Plann1ng Comm1ss1on approvals on th1s slte (Wh1Ch number 8 or 9) park1ng has never been ment10ned as an 1ssue. The slte has always been assumed to have adequate park1ng. At th1s t1me, 1n calculat1ng, the slte has been found def1c1ent. Grandfathered park1ng spaces are spaces Wh1Ch don't eX1st but are cred1ted to the eX1st1ng park1ng to br1ng the Sl te 1nto conformance. At th1S t1me the substandard park1ng 1ssue for th1S property has been put 1nto the staff report and therefore put on permanent record. 101 Ma1n Street w1ll always be cred1ted w1th the 4 grandfathered spaces. At th1S p01nt 29 are requ1red. . Mr. F1fe asked Mr. Curt1s what would happen 1f the Coastal Comm1ss1on granted approval to an appl1cant on the bas1s of leased spaces someplace and then the lessor of those spaces (at some t1me 1n the future) sa1d "That's 1 t --- I don' t want to renew th1S lease and I'm tak1ng back my spaces" (llke Grace . Page 7 - Plann1ng Comrn1ss10n M1nutes of August 16, 1989 Bretheran Church) would that be presumed to be a revocat10n of h1S author1ty to so operate h1s property as far as the Coastal Comrn1ss10n 1S concerned? If th1s should happen, 1S there any way the C1ty learns of th1S? Mr. Curt1s sa1d he was uncerta1n of the Coastal Comrn1ss10n' s follow-up measures on Var1ances they have 1ssued. If a person d1d lose the1r lease and the Coastal Comrn1ss10n acted on 1t they would not1fy the C1ty and we'd have to recons1der the s1tuat10n. If they d1dn't act upon 1t, the C1ty wouldn't act on 1t because we d1dn't have those requ1rements 1n the f1rst place. Mr. F1fe sa1d th1s could create a tremendous hardsh1p on a person w1th an establ1shed bus1ness. He thought the C1ty would probably w1nd up "cav1ng 1n" and have more establ1shments hunt1ng around for a shr1nk1ng number of park1ng spaces. Publ1c Hear1ng Opened J1m Watson * 101 Ma1n street. SU1te A. Seal Beach . The garage has 3 park1ng spaces for cars. It 1S only temporar1ly be1ng used for storage of my new off1ce carpet1ng. He needs about 700 square feet for my own bus1ness to expand for our computers and storage. He's not 1ntend1ng to h1re add1 t10nal staff; he employs 14 people. He 1ntends to rent the rema1n1ng square footage to other people. In regard1ng to the letter from Ms. Enders, she 1S works next to my bU1ld1ng and has two park1ng spaces plus two more tandem spaces. Somet1mes her employees park on my spaces. (Copy of Ms. Enders letter attached for reference). Mr. Watson sa1d there are many old bU1ld1ngs along Ma1n Street that should be remodeled 1n the future. It's 1mposs1ble to prov1de park1ng for them. The C1ty w111 be saddled w1th old bU1ld1ng that you can't remodel or the C1ty w111 have to come up w1th a plan that w111 work. Those bus1nesses w111 not be able to prov1de park1ng. A 25 foot w1dth lot could accommodate 3 compact spaces or 2 standard spaces. That means you could only bU1ld 600 - 700 square feet of bU1ld1ng on that lot. We need to st1mulate reta11 sales. We can't do anyth1ng long range on Ma1n Street w1thout a park1ng program. VARIANCE 8-89 APPLICATION WITHDRAWN Mr. Watson sa1d he 1S w1111ng to w1thdraw th1s appl1cat10n and wa1t for the 1n-11eu park1ng problems to be stud1ed and Solut10ns reached. . Mr. Jessner sa1d th1s 1S an 1ntens1f1cat10n and not a pos1t1ve force for the downtown area. Mr. Sharp agreed because of other tenants. Both would 11ke to see a park1ng study done as soon as poss1ble. . . . Page 8 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of August 16, 1989 MOTION by Flfei SECOND by Jessner that Var1ance 8-89 app11cation be tabled for a per10d of one (1) year w1th the requ1rement that 1f brought up for cons1derat1on by the proponent that at the t1me 1t be set for cons1derat1on by the Commiss1on ad)01n1ng property owners be aga1n renot1f1ed and whatever add1t1onal advert1s1ng 1S requ1red for cons1derat1on be repeated. MOTION CARRIED 4 - 0 ABSENT: Rullo SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no Scheduled Matters. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There was no communlcatlon from the audlence. STAFF CONCERNS Mr. Whl ttenberg presented a letter from B1xby Ranch Company, dated July 31, 1989, regardlng reconslderatlon of a CUP request by Mobll 011 at 12240 Seal Beach Blvd. We have revlewed that communlcatlon and dlscussed lt pre11mlnar1ly wlth the Clty Attorney. It appears a rehearlng would not be approprlate, based on the actlons of the Plannlng Commlsslon and Clty Councll tak1ng thelr hearlngs In an orderly fashlon and proper notlces belng provlded to the B1Xby Ranch Co. Staff 1S followlng up on thlS and as soon as the Clty Attorney's Off1ce has approved the response we wlll provlde coples to you. COMMISSION CONCERNS Rum Runner's Restaurant/Chlll & Wlllles - Regardlng the recent problems wlth thlS restaurant John Fraser sa1d they last applled for a CUP In 1980. That was to allow lounge entertalnment and alcohol sales. The condltlon of that CUP was that lt be renewed In one yeari lt was not renewed. They have been operatlng wlth a vOld CUP. John Fraser sald (as far as he knew) the ABC llcense lS stlll In the name of the orlglnal app11cant. They are now In the process of changlng from Rum Runner's to Chlll & Wlllle's. However, lt's the same ownershlp. Mr. Whlttenberg sald they are revlewlng thlS matter wlth Greg Stepanlclch, Clty Attorney's Offlce. He lS checklng the CUP process and the entertalnment process lf there are actlons the Clty may begln to undertake to allev1ate the problems we are experlenclng there. Mr. Fraser sald the property owner called hlm, Mrs. Douvalls. She sald thelr famlly never lntended lt to be anythlng but a restauranti not a n1ght club at all. Mr. Jessner sald it appears they are operatlng Wl thout the requlred Cl ty perml ts. Mr. Fraser gave them a certaln t1me frame to apply for a CUP. The owner must approve any request for a CUP appllcat1on. Mr. Whl ttenberg stated the partlcular lssue we've asked the Clty Attorney lS "1f . Page 9 - Plannlng Commlsslon Mlnutes of August 16, 1989 there are vlolatlons of Clty standards what actlons can be taken both In the short term and the long term"? We're waltlng for a deflnl te answer. staff wlll have somethlng prepared for the CommlSSlon at lt'S September 6, 1989 meetlng. Mr. Flfe asked staff for a staff report on the flve acres at Hellman Ranch. Staff replled there was no current update. ADJOURNMENT Chalrman Sharp adJourned the meetlng at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully Submltted, C\~ ~ L' ,~ ..--.. Joan Flllmann Secretary Development SerVlces Department . THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. * * * THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 1989 WERE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 6 1989. _ *_ . / . . . Joan 7llC0ooy 0ndre.r ::AHorn"y all3all1 1 "'31 T'=='>:c"!" ~:C'ce :. : Car. ~~. ~rro, ("~.:'_ ':or"i_:.a a - :'C J ~ ;'l1r-t1st J, 1929 Sanr:ra ~!assa-La.Vl.tt InterJ.!'" D1.rector of T:evelop""e.'"'lt. Semces Clt.V 0:: ~eal Pe?ch. 211 UC'Thth Street SeC'~ Beacn, callfornlC' 9J"7.:'') :-'e: Var1.ance 6-89 101 !,~ F'treet EearlI1C" AuC'USt l€, 19~9 ['ear ~~s. !-fassa-Lavltt: ! aT"" tP..e aC~OlI1J...l"lq ":.':OTJerb" o..ner locatef at 827 - 829 Ccean Avenue, Seal Peach to the above rent1.oneC nrooertv concerned \VJ.th a var1.ance to the on-s1.te parklI1g rec:rn.ren:nt. I strongly obJect to thls varlance. 'Ib alla,.T such a varlance \\uulc stnke at the ver" heart of the C<X!e' s lI1tent to DrOVl.'-'e a sane ~ "aY to C()")e ~ ~ th the b1.""'aest Droble- ~\:e l<'e have 1I1 the ole" to\7!1 area - laCK of on-street .....arklI1C'. Puch an actJ..on If,Dulr not only cause se~1.0US ~.aI"'ane to MY nronerty's value 1I1 -::>ar+....lcular, ey.acerbatlI1q an already Da111ful oarklI1g sltuatlon, but 1I1 ne!"leral to the ,vhole buslI1esS area. I a:rn not alone 1I1 !"lY thlnklI1g anr ~Vl.ll CD \vhatever 1.S necessarv to nrotect r;y lI1terest. I urqe you not to errant the var1.ance recrueste( anc llIlore the very cor"'.e enactec to COT:'e \'11. tn the ,robler"'. ':hank you for your k1I1,:1 consl.ceratlon. Jl"E; ~ ~~7 trul" VO~? /' "\ / I f / 1/'--tJ.." \.. /' , , / .;- [/;O!-J.' :~F,I'(IV ENfi"~S l'ttomev at J..ew /, / _.........~... .... J.---- / '- roA,. rde' /fe<!/)w &,.0-. ArrACI-IM6"AJr To N~AJ~Tt5S OF A()Gl.JSr /(i,/ Jt1W. . . . ~JrJi2I~(J Jf~~ B-/s- ./#:1 a/J /~ I 'I ~ ;J.Uv e~, ti ~ a:L ?CJI ~~~1JA. ~ 1i3I-ed. ~~a--~~ ~~~A- .;P~~ At-~F ~~~~1'~ t:! I'i.._", ~J ~ ;for: J~) ~/ _ (3:2.0 a~ ~. '._P:_~. JLAA/~ ~ ,~cL ~~ ~~t~ Vrl^' ~~Mr-9*Y . . ~ tY~ r ~_~cJ1 ~)/ !-;r!- "Juj~M ~9-n~ ~ 1~./'030()~~M s.6 /1fA, tP~pj. 3). 0 ~~~-P~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,JJ~t;;J<-e- ~ wd1 ~~~- oJ~ ~ ~ /J4'fiA//~c/~ ~~~PCi-l~~'1 ~ ~ ct r;ru-.- &"'l:.~' ~ /JVz- t.P.Jti:.. ~ ~ ~ d 3/0 k~.;tk~~~ J~~ ~)I~ ~JftJ- ~~p.~~~~ t;;M~ . ,f}~h~ ~ ~J~ d1~~.~C~ 0-- ~~~ ~ Ji~ rJ,;.J ~ ' ~ rrmL~4~- 3dO~~~ <::' Ii./ J.-,"" 1 . . -0 "-<.. ~! - &ttn: J'oalllla Yea, ..: Variance e-aQ 320 eoa.tllne Drl". Dear .,... -Waa.. J",o- 2<~'~7.?+ _ ~ . .y husbaDd, fllli_ Y. Cole_n III, aDd. ..,...If, 8ueaJl G. Col__n, are " request 1. a varianae OIl beh;alf '01 .aur _1.ghbai-, ..1Ir. Tho. Dutton. Ve live at "330 eoa_tllne "Dri"., Seal Beach. We are qy.ite faa.111ar with the PrOble. af nol.. and road dirt ezudin<< froalPaciflc Coast Highway. -Last year a nuaber of ~opl_ an our .tr..t ral..d the back wa'Il in order 'to alleviate the nal_ and dirt proble.. It atands to reason to oover aDd _belter a body of water 1.,. 8P&, 1n order to help keep the DOi.. decibel. 40wn and 'to he1p JUMp l~ olean. Ve .ee no'thing Wrong with the twc-.id.ed, 80lid roof 8'truCture around Ir. Du~'ton'. spa. l't DOt only i_ highly funotlODal lB 'thi. regard, but as other dighbona will t.ll you, i~ al80 loob quite at'tractive. ). Ilr. Dutton had an eaiating slab In the far coraer of hi. yard, and in order to eave ti_ and .,ney he put 1t to ... 'for il... 1I])a. Inatead of _king another JUlW .lab ou't 111 tbe lliddle of hia -pre! Iab..where, where i't WGuld not look in agre...nt with the landacape Which already ezis'ted 'there, he optea for the ohoice wbich ...-.4 appropriate We see nothing wrog with allowizag 1Ir. Dutt01l t.0 --'p his .pa where it is It has co.'t hili a lot of Imniiy aDd. ti_, -&ad 1t would not 88em appropriate to 'tear it down. It U. DOt a lived in dwelling, it is &1.mply a spa used DCOa81anally for recreational 1188 only. As a peraon, Jfr. Dutton 1. hlRhly reepeo'tecl by all of his neighbors. a. is . fire_n' a chief for th Ci!;y bf Los A~l.s, and W8 would very much like to ... the City of Seal Beach 8iva h'f. a variance in 'this ..tter. Pleaee take it upon youreelf ~ gi". a hardworking, respectable neighbor and friend a var'anoe f8r hi. lei.ure ~i.. enjoYD8nt by dev'fating from Sec~ion 28-401 of the Seal Beach Xunicipal Code. Very truly your., ~~ W~ U. ~1t YilJ.iam Y. Cole_n I I I ~~ if'~" 8uean G. Cole_n #' .L-,:,J. ....;:;of. " - ~ ~,~ \. ,..... '1 ijI;,' >Of. T 1Hc. eo ~;, -", ~ <~l-, #.; ';iq~t 'f~~ .~- "'"' ~ t · a. ( 'i'.;/?/]7 ~~ ~/t--o ~/IJ ~' - - - - --...a_~~~~ ~_~_~ -- -~~ ~~ - __n -3 ~ () _~~ p~ 4'.. _..... _' ~~ . . ---- A-. -. , ~---L~ ;3.:::l C c..., . u. _ ...... ~--~ I ~ . . . ---"'~.& "1 J -- . . · ~~ ~ J ..... - -~':tk ~r~~~ . .. ~'vJ ~~_~_ ,__r;Q n..~~ ~~..~~. . ~~~'~"- . ~--?iL-~~_~ .~.~ ~..~. ~ L-~ ~- - ---79 - ~~.~.---rc . ~~ - - ....,j.._~ <;... . - ~ . ~ ---76__ _n_._ .. _n. _ __ _ _.--.-._- . --. -~I - -. . . '.' _._-~~ · --~ - - - {PdLV;1' J~TT-//E:) -. t..~ ~ ) - .-..-....~___n.~~ -=---------- ~-~--~._-~ . -',--_."-'- ....., - ~ 3' . . I I I ! ~-W1~ ~~ ~ r' --1--- 0 ~ ~ ~ ~-- WU-o---~ i)~S-9i0A~ J o-,~_ L I~ ~~ .()..A.k ~r:J IO~F ~ ~~~JVO. :J~ . I~ ;J;!:-~~~~~ ___ I 0 " \ FL~' vel) 9 ~-ILf-g 0-) . . I I ---- :- - .- I --- L----- ---- ----- ---____ t - - - - -- -- -- J . . , , ''J . FILE COpy BIXBY RANCH CO]\1P~~Y . c.....,... L...... ..,...,.,., ~ Fred H Butby, Founder .1875 J952 July 31, 1989 Ms. Sandra Massa-Lavitt Acting Director of Development City of Seal Beach City Hall 211 8th Street Seal Beach, California 9074" Services . t Re: Redevelopment of Mobil Oil Property at 12240 Seal Beach Boulevard, Seal Beach, California and Construction of a Coin Operated Carwash. Dear Ms. Massa-Lavitt: As you are probably aware, Bixby Ranch Company denied Mobil Oil Corporation's request for a permanent right to ingress and egress along the Southerly property line at the above referenced station site back in October, 1988. Bixby's pos1t1on was that it would be premature to commit to such an easement before a final determination of the surround1ng land uses and traffic circulation pattern was made by the City of Seal Beach. While Bixby was not opposed to Mobil Oil Corporation's application for redevelopment of the service station, Bixby was opposed to the addition of a coin operated car wash as it was our opinion that such a use might be incompatible with various types of land uses that the City might approve in the future for the surround- ing vacant land. Bixby was unaware that Mobil Oil Corporation was being reheard on July 5, 1989 to reconsider the original condl- tions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 9-88. We may not have been properly notified of this hearing date. On July 14, 1989, we received a letter from Mobil Oil request- ing permission to perform minor repairs to Rossmoor Center Way. This prompted a call to Barry CUrtis with the City's Development Services Department about the status of the project at which time we learned there had been another hearing. We requested a copy of the minutes which I be- lieve we received on Monday, July 18, 1989. On Tuesday, July 19, 1989 I contacted Mr. CUrtis about an appeal. He stated we had missed the ten day appeal perlod (WhlCh we __/=. TH e assumed ended July 15) but sald that a Plannlng Commlsslon ~~DeD~ might be able to reopen the matter in l1ght of the events. "'T FALJ iii rr.4 a If I"-( c ~ ........ 3OlO Old RDdI Partwy SUIte 100. Sa! Beach Yhforma 90740-2750. 2lJ.493-1475 H 00 u res B' - /, _ e, ., . , Ma. Sandra Massa-Lavitt .7uly 31, 1989 Page two At this time Bixby is proceeding to rescind Mobil Oil Corporation's license to ingress and egress on the souther- ly property line and across Bixby property and will be proceeding with construction of a simple chain link fence. Please consider this letter as formal notification that Bixby will not be granting Mobil's request to repair the paved 8urfaces to the south of the property. Accordingly, Mobil will not be able to fulfill condition. 4(B) of resolution 1546. This circumstance requires that Mobil refile for a modified Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a valid building permit to be issued. We respectively re- quest that the City grant Bixby Ranch Company the right to appeal Mobil oil Corporation's Conditional Use Permit 9-88 to allow Bixby the o~rtunity to explain to members of the Planning Commission why a car wash is not an acceptable use. - .. ~4-- Stewart Honeyman Vice PresJ.dent Real Estate Investments cc: Victor Grgas, Mayor James Sharp, Chairman, Planning CommJ.ssion Robert Nelson, City Manager . . Mr. Dutton stated that BUJ.ldJ.ng Inspector Feenstra was on the roof of DomJ.no's pJ.zza on 8-8-88 and saw hJ.s cover. He came over to 320 CoastlJ.ne and J.ssued a "stop Work Order". He saJ.d Mr. Feenstra told hJ.m he wasn't sure J.f J.t was J.n vJ.olatJ.on and that he should draw up a plan and submJ.t J.t to the PlannJ.ng Department. Mr. Dutton saJ.d he dJ.d thJ.s. He saJ.d that J.n August 1988 the Mola development proJect was very big and J. t appeared to Mr. Dutton that "everyone J.n plannJ.ng was booked. I got kJ.nd of shuffled off to a part-tJ.me employee. ThJ.s gal started calculatJ.ng lot coverage, J.ncludJ.ng the drJ. veway I had poured (as was assured by the CJ. ty I dJ.dn' t need a permJ. t for that) . She was statJ.ng my lot coverage was anythJ.ng that had cement. I thought ... what a deal. She was tellJ.ng me I was gOJ.ng to have to Jack hammer up the concrete J.n order to bUJ.ld anythJ.ng on my property. I. .. dJ.dn ' t want to get J.nto that. The big mJ.stake of my IJ.fe was that I decJ.ded to complete the cover. I consulted a few people J.n town and got some bad advJ.ce and yeah, that's what happens. On 2-10-88, SJ.X months afterwards, after I had been enJoYJ.ng my back yard as part of my house, John Fraser showed up WJ. th Inspector Feenstra. They stated that through my slJ.dJ.ng glass door he could see my (spa) cover and he'd IJ.ke to take pJ.ctures of J.t. I said 'What's the deal?' He replJ.ed there's been a complaJ.nt by a neJ.ghbor. I don't thJ.nk so. Mr. Feenstra said they were acting on thJ.s "stop Work Order". I allowed the pJ.ctures because I dJ.dn't thJ.nk I had anythJ.ng to hJ.de. When Mr. Fraser took pJ.ctures I asked what was happenJ.ng? What are the optJ.ons? Mr. Fraser saJ.d the worst case scenarJ.o was that you'd have to tear J.t down, but we'll see. On 2-16-88 I got a regJ.stered letter from the CJ.ty that saJ.d that J.f I dJ.dn't act on it or get a permJ.t J.t would be forwarded to the CJ. ty Attorney. I called thJ.s CJ. ty but WJ. th Mr. Fraser workJ.ng part tJ.me and WJ.th my work schedule I wasn't able to get ahold of hJ.m. I decJ.ded to go for a var^@^eA@A@A@.@'@'@'@.@A@A@A@.@.@.@.@.@'@~ .Joo.n _ ~ LUlti) ~tJr.:> .., ~ Ln ca;::e. .