The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC Min 1991-03-20 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MARCH 20, 1991 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. SCHEDULED MATTERS IV. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of March 6, 1991 Minutes 2. Minor Plan Review 15-91 132 Dolphin Avenue * Webb V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Height Variation 13-91 C-24 Surfside * Goodwin VI. STUDY SESSION 4. (Third Study Session) Consideration of Municipal ~ Section 28-2407, Enlargements or Structural AI terations to Non-conforming Residential Buildings and Uses. VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - At this time members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any item wi thin the subject matters of the Commission provided no action may be tkaen on Off-Agenda items unless authorized by law. VIII. STAFF CONCERNS IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS X. ADJOURNMENT . . I CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 1991 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers by Chairman Fife. PLEDGE OF AT.T.EGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner McCurdy. ROLL CAT.T. Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Sharp, McCurdy, Dahlman Absent: Orsini MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCUrdy to excuse Commissioner Orsini from toniqht's meetinq due his attendinq the Planninq Commissioner's Institute in Monterey, CA. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Sharp, McCUrdy, Dahlman, Fife ABSENT: Orsini Also: Department of Development Services staff present: Lee Whittenberg, Director Joan Fillmann, Executive Secretary SCHEDULED MATTERS There were no Scheduled Matters. CONSENT C-"T.F.WnAR 1. APPROVAL OF MARCH 6, 1991 MINUTES MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCUrdy to approve the Planninq Commission Minutes of March 6, 1991 with the followinq corrections: Page 18: Paragraph 3, line 47 - insert a comma between "Commission, staff". Paragraph 3, lines 49 and 51 - change the word "serve" to "sell" alcohol. Paragraph 3, line 24 - delete "there" and replace with "at the Mobil Station on Seal Beach Boulevard". Paragraph 3, line 35 - insert a comma at "on his side, by saying..." and capitalization. . e - Page 2 - Planning commission Minutes of March 20, 1991 Paragraph 3, line 29 - add "subsequently" to read "The Commission subsequently found out. . . " . Paragraph 3, line 29 - add "~" to read" found out that the ~ definition...". Page 20: Paragraph 2, line 18 - insert "it would not" to read" far, it would not have the discretion to refuse...". Page 10: Paragraph 1, line 8 - insert "if" before "both of those...". Paragraph 1, line 10 - insert "more" between "much more an issue...". 2. MINOR PLAN REVIEW #5-91 132 DOLPHIN AVENUE staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report, stating the request by applicant Brian Webb is for a closet/living space addition of 53 square feet to a non-conforming single family residence at 132 Dolphin Avenue. The property is non-conforming due to inadequate front and rear setbacks. [Staff report is on file in the Planning Department]. Staff recommended approval subject to seven conditions detailed in the staff report. Staff said on February 25, 1991 the City Council adopted Ordinance 1332 amending the Urgency Ordinance prohibi ting expansions of non-conforming residential structures, exempting single-family dwellings which meet parking and density standards from the moratorium. Commission Comments Chairman Fife asked if the closet addition would be at the rear of the property? Staff said no, that it's in the middle, between the house and the garage. Commissioner McCurdy asked how old the structure was and how the porch was located within 1~ feet of the front property line? Mr. Whittenberg said he didn't know the age of the structure or the circumstances regarding the porch. Chairman Fife, looking at the floor plans, sa1d the exterior door and closet door appear to swing in such a way as they could hit one another. He thought there was a requirement for doors to swing freely through their arc without striking another door. Staff said that requirement was for doors within habitable rooms but not a closet area. e e I, Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 20, 1991 MOTION by McCUrdy; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Minor Plan Review #5-91 subject to the seven (7) conditions detailed in the staff report . *** MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman ABSENT: Orsini PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. HEIGHT VARIATION #3-91 C-24 SURFSIDE Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The request, from applicant Gary Goodwin, is for approval for an after-the-fact Minor Height Variation and building permits for a safety rail above the 35 foot height limit at C-24 Surfside. The steel tube 36 inch high safety rail is needed to allow cleaning of roof skylights. Staff provided photographs to the Commission. Staff recommended approval, subject to three conditions outlined in the staff report. Commission Comments Commissioner Fife asked staff what the railing was made of? Staff was not sure if it was steel or aluminum pipe. Chairman Fife asked staff if the Building Department had checked the anchoring of the railing? Mr. Whittenberg replied that the structure complies with all ~ requirements but no permit has been applied for and it is above the height limit. Chairman Fife said that for safety he felt there should be a middle piece of pipe to keep someone from falling through the railing but, a middle pipe could possibly interfere with a neighbor's view. Mr. Whittenberg said he felt the rail was so installed to be as unobtrusive as possible and still provide securi ty. Chairman Fife said he preferred the second railing because plexiglass could discolor. Commissioner Sharp indicated that if someone was on the roof cleaning the skylights and started to fall that the single railing would not be of any use; staff agreed. Mr. Whittenberg suggested a clear plexiglass panel could be required which would be mounted to the rail. Commissioner Sharp asked if the installation of another rail one foot off the floor would be more obstructing than plexiglass? Mr. Whittenberg said he didn't think either a second rail or plexiglass would be a detriment to views from adjoining properties. Public Hearing - Chairman Fife opened the Public Hearing. The applicant was not present. No one in the audience wished to speak for or against this application and the Public Hearing was closed. tt Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 20, 1991 Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp suggested the applicant be required to install a second railing twelve inches (12") above the deck/roof. Chairman Fife added the applicant should be required to install another section of pipe, adequately anchored to the vertical supports at a minimum of twelve inches (12") but no more than eighteen inches (18") above the deck/rof or provide the Department of Development Services a report from a registered safety engineer indicating the railing, as constructed, is adequate for all purposes. e Commissioner Dahlman indicated there could be several concerns regarding the many skylights throughout the City and suggested the Comm1ssion review their future po11cy. For example, should the Commission consider all skylights to be subject to safety railings? Is this application different enough to justify going above the height limit to install safety railings? Should skylights at 35 feet be permitted? Mr. Whittenberg advised that the ~ requires a safety structure approximately 36 inches in height surrounding a roof deck. These safety structures are usually built as part of the house and would be a stucco wall, a roof line extension which is shingled etc. Normally the floor area of the deck would be at the maximum height limit and the safety structure would be above that as part of the allowances to exceed the height limit under the Minor Height Variation. Therefore, if a homeowner had a solid stucco safety wall to secure his roof deck the total height could be 38 feet. Commissioners Fife and Dahlman expressed frustration with a height limit of 35 feet that can go to 38 feet high via the Minor Plan Review process. Mr. Whittenberg advised this is currently allowed under the.QQ9&. Commissioner Dahlman said he was pleased the Commission was discussing architectural projections as the issue may be lurking under the covered roof access issue. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Minor Plan Review #3-90, an after-the-fact Minor Height Variation for a safety rail above the 35 foot height limit at C-24, Surfs ide , with an additional requirement for the installation of an extra safety rail to be installed throughout at no less than twelve inches (12") and no more than eighteen inches (lSn) above the roof itself or in lieu thereof, a report from a registered. Safety Engineer indicating the rail as designed is completely safe. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Sharp, McCurdy, Fife, Dahlman ABSENT: Orsini It . e -- Page 5 - Planning commission Minutes of March 20, 1991 VI. THIRD STUDY SESSION: CONSIDERATION OF MUNICIPAL .cmm SECTION 28-2407, ENLARGEMENTS OR STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS TO NON- CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND USES. staff Report Mr. Whittenberg presented the staff report. [Staff reports and Minutes of the two prior study sessions on file in the Planning Department]. The purpose of this additional study session is to allow for additional public input based on information presented to the Planning Commission at the two prior study sessions on February 20 and March 6. Staff had no new information to present. Reviewing, Director Whittenberg said that at the last Planning Commission meeting (March 6, 1991) staff suggested general parameters for Commission considerat1on. These were (1) to allow repair and maintenance through the issuance of building permits; (2) to continue to allow structural alterations for less than 50% of the of the non-conforming structure's bearing walls; (3) to allow for enlargements or expansions of less than 10% of the allowable floor area if the property meets current parking provisions and set forth a maximum addition of 400 square feet to structures wh1ch are non-conforming due to parking; (4) to create a separate set of standards for non-conforming properties that have 3 or more units on them and in those cases at least 1 parking space per unit must be provided in conjunction with any proposed expansions that might be proposed through the Planning Commission; (5) to increase the time period for Planning Department staff to consider an application from the current requirement of 14 days to 21 days for more thorough analysis; (6) the current exception in the ~ which says that if someone wishes to enclose an existing porch or balcony that that not count as the allowable floor area (staff felt that if the owner wished to enclose these areas and incorporate it into the residence itself it should be counted as the 10%); (7) look at the definition of "bedroom" 1n the municipal ~, particularly the language which indicates the definition of "bedroom" as determining parking. That language might not need to remain in the ~ since, at this time, parking requirements for new structures are not based on the number of bedrooms in the structure but on the number of units --- two parking spaces per uni t. Addi tionally, with the other provisions suggested -- a certain number of parking spaces be required as part of the expansion -- staff felt that language was not necessary. Mr. Whittenberg, referencing the Commission's request for information on how the Orange County Tax Assessor's Office deals wi th property reassessment after additions and alterations are completed, said the Assessor's Office was unable to give staff a clear and direct answer. Staff will continue to explore the situation and will report to the Commission at the next study session. e e It Page 6 - Planning commission Minutes of March 20, 1991 Commission Comments Regarding the Minor Plan Review process which would allow a remodel to demolish all but 50% of the weight bearing walls, Commissioner Dahlman said the majority of publ1c input to date has indicated a desire to increase that provision to require 75% retention of the weight bearing walls. He suggested revising the staff criteria as a progress measure at this study session. Commissioner Dahlman said, regarding the size of the maximum addition, Ms. Morton's testimony reflected the original committee's work wanted 300 square foot addition max1mums, not 400 square feet additions. He suggested these two revisions could be made to staff's suggested working criteria. Director Whittenberg replied that the numbers will be a major area of concern but the purpose of the study sessions is to find what the general consensus of opinion is. Commissioner Dahlman said that after ton1ght's pubic input, if everyone is in agreement, that perhaps those criteria can be revised. Public Hearing Leroy Brown * 705 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach - Felt the document should be revised to clarify any open-ended language where it indicates "other type of expansions", felt the exterior door provisions should be eliminated, felt the 50% interior bearing wall figure should be reduced to tie it to a unit or to another figure, felt when a reduction in the number of units is proposed to have additional clarifying language that additional bedrooms would not be allowed to be created as part of the reduction in the number of on-site units, felt the parking requirement for exist1ng structures to conform is 2 spaces per unit, felt the 400 square foot minor expansions should be based on a square foot per unit basis and he suggested 100 square feet, suggested the ~ be changed to not allow for the third floor. Charles Antos 328 17th Street. Seal Beach Spoke on philosophical concepts on this issue, saying that prior to the Minor Plan Review procedure (1985), additions to non-conforming buildings were not allowed. People desired to do maintenance work to the1r non-conforming buildings. Now, the Commission is faced wi th a "combination of all sorts of things hodgepodged together". He felt homeowners should not be hampered if the City allows non-conforming buildings to be maintained. He suggested using an escalating formula for expansions: not to exceed 10% nor 100 square feet per unit nor a maximum of 300 square feet per parcel. He felt the main question before the Commission and publ1c was "Do you want buildings that are non-conforming to be able to add more than 10%?" He said he had a philosoph1cal problem with having a building with half the required parking to be able to add more than 10% without bringing that building into conformity. Conversely, if someone with a non-conforming and wishes to reduce e e e Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 20, 1991 the number of units that should be assisted by the Commission. Instead of placing pages and pages of various Ordinances in the ~ he suggested adopting one or more policy resolutions and then test it for six months to see if it works. If not, have more hearings to see how it could be refined. In that way, the old Resolution can be repealed and a new policy resolution adopted without the necessity of going through Public Hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council and the Ordinance procedure and modifying the ~ etc. Modifications to Resolutions can be in use by the Planning Department immediately. Dave Potter * 1007 Seal Way~ Seal Beach - Said he was in favor of the expansion to legal non-conforming buildings and was opposed to creating an all single family residences in Old Town. He felt maintaining a building or bringing it up to ~ requirements perpetuates its life; if no maintenance were allowed all the buildings would collapse. He suggested the Comm1ssion adopt an easy process with few government regulations, a standard which could be administered by City staff would be good and if the remodels meet the standard then Consent Calendar review by the Commission would not be needed. He felt a written proposal by staff would be necessary to bring the public to meetings; study sessions are too ambiguous. Commissioner Dahlman said people are concerned with using obsolescence to force buildings to come into conformity. The City does not want dilapidated buildings around because we don't allow them to be maintained. Mr. Potter, saying the Commission and staff are spending a lot of time on this issue, asked how many buildings of each size was involved? Mr. Whittenberg estimated 345. The Orange County Assessor did not have that information computerized so it would involve staff counting each individual property. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Potter how much of the weight bearing walls should be allowed to be ripped out during remodeling; 50%? Mr. Potter said he was not prepared to talk on that issue. Commissioner Dahlman asked how many square feet should be allowed for these additions? Mr. Potter said he was bothered by a strict 10% or any percentage, saying smaller structures suffer. Mr. Whittenberg said now the City uses 10% of the allowable area not 10% of the structure, as was done in 1984- 1985. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Potter how he felt about a situation of an empty lot allowing at this time one single family home v. a lot next door with a legal non-conforming structure with 3 units/1 parking place? Mr. Potter said he felt "You can't be fair to everybody" and cited Proposition 13's pro's and con's in terms of taxes. He said "It's imposs1ble to provide the same level of equity to every single piece of property". Charlie Dickenson * 515 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach - Said he was upset with the apparent attempt to achieve an Old Town area that is all single family houses. He felt the people in town weren't aware of what's going on at these study sessions but he would personally notiIY a lot of people now. He advised the Commission to look at ~ Section 28-2407 because at one time the community spent 18 e e , Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 20, 1991 months reviewing it; he likes the present Codes and would like them to remain. Apparently referencing Al Brown's proposed remodel projects at 123 8th street and 601 Ocean Avenue, he said he didn't see the problems with the projects that the Commission seems to be finding with them and asked what brought the Commission's attention to the issue of expansions to non-conforming buildings? Addi tionally, he asked how many large additions have been done since 1985? Commissioner Dahlman said this issue was discussed in 1984 at which time the ~ was changed with good improvements. At this time, the Planning Commission wants to further refine the ~ on this same issue. Mr. Dickenson said a definition of "density" is needed. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Dickenson his opinion on allowable expansions of legal non-conforming buildings, asking specifically whether he favored 10% of the allowable area or a reduction to a set number of square feet? Mr. Dickenson said he likes "...what's on the books. It's worked well... it's fair". Galen Ambrose * Seal Beach - Said he likes a diversity of people, with apartment houses, duplexes etc. He favored less density with a smaller footprint on a lot. Mr. Ambrose said any building that is non-conforming now should not be allowed to add square footage until the Commission and staff resolve the issues on the Minor Plan Review process. Regarding what's being done at Planning Commission meetings, Mr. Ambrose said he had seen the notices in the paper. Ginny Vance - 223 13th Street, Seal Beach - Said she likes a diversity of people in Old Town, but was "astounded" to learn that the Minor Plan Review process would allow the rebuilding of apartment houses in single family neighborhoods; she was not in favor of this. Regarding the demolition of bearing walls, she did not believe in removing 50% of the bearing walls and rebuilding a maximum square foot building. She urged leaving yards for children to play. Regarding Planning Commission agendas and study sessions, she noted she had seen the City notices in the local papers and suggested people read the local papers and/or call City Hall for information. Director Whittenberg said any new building in the City would have to meet density requirements. Chairman Fife 1ndicated that, under the Minor Plan Review process, could substantially demolish a structure and rebuild it. Chairman Whittenberg said that currently a two-unit structure would be allowed to increase the area 10% of the parcel's area but could not increase the number of bedrooms. The number of units could not be increased. Chairman Fife indicated he had heard public input with a general antipathy toward Seal Beach becoming a "... rich ghetto of maxed- out mansions and upper-class, upper-crust apartments. saying that certain people at certain income levels will ins 1st on certain amenities in the place they're going to live and they're willing to pay for it. If owners of legal non-conform1ng apartments are e e It Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 20, 1991 allowed to expand his building up into that market then he can get rid of the young, struggling families which can afford only so much and will accept a 600 square foot apartment. As this takes place a gentrification process takes places with people who will pay $2200 per month for an apartment. He asked if the people in the Old Town area really understand what some of these zoning matters can lead to and what is it they want? He indicated the study Sessions had been well published and said "... unless we rent the Goodyear blimp and fly it back and forth over the City, I don't know what else we can do". He echoed Commissioner Sharp's comments that "... we don't have any axes to grind, we're not on a train, we don't have a goal other than to find out what the people really think this ~ is doing and is that satisfactory to them. If not, what changes do they want to make". No other speakers wishing to talk, Chairman Fife said the Study Session would draw to a close. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp suggested staff draw up another document for Commission and public discussion prior to submission to the City Council for their input? Chairman Fife said he leaned toward having Director Whittenberg distill the comments and perhaps suggest some final revision of his language. And then bring that back to the Commission as the f1nal recommendations of the Planning Department at the first opportune Commission meeting. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman for the Director of Development Services to review and distill the public and Commission comments from the three Study Sessions on municipal ~ Section 28-2407, and to report back to the Commission at the first opportune Commission meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Sharp, McCurdy, Fife, Dahlman ABSENT: Orsini Director Whittenberg said he anticipated have a draft to the Commissioners at the regularly scheduled April 17th meeting. *** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - There were no oral communications from the audience. STAFF CONCERNS Chevron Service station - 2950 Westminster Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. Whittenberg said staff wrote to the Alcohol Beverage Control Board's (ABC) legal department asking their opinion on whether ABC . e It Page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 20, 1991 regulations differentiated between a service station selling food and one not selling food when considering a request to sell alcoholJ.c beverages. When a response is received it will be reagendized for Commission consideration. Chairman Fife said he read The Code of the City of Seal Beach on automobile service statJ.ons and the focus on items for sale was on automotive needs and not on things for passenger convenience. Chairman Fife asked staff to take another look at whether automotive needs are really the focus of things to be sold in automobile service stations. He said "... unless we take a more restrictive interpretation of that, that really does lead to mini marts de facto". Commissioner McCurdy said he had not determined the City was against mini-marts, indicating the Council had discussed selling liquor in service station mini-marts but whether or not they sell other items (candy, soda pop etc.) he had not seen objections to it and they are located everywhere else. COMMISSION CONCERNS Low Income Housing - Commissioner McCurdy said the low cost housing in the Old Town area should not disappear, asking where low income persons were expected to live? He did not feel the City should deplete its low income housing supply. Chairman Fife agreed, saying he was philosophically opposed to any process which either by law or fact eliminates low/moderate housing stock, noting it is desireable for the community to have and mandated by State law. The Minor Plan Review process can imperceptibly creep up and accomplish a certain result by making it attractive to property owners to build up-scale apartments that can generate higher rents. Leisure World Front Doors - Commissioner Sharp said certain units at Leisure World were remodeled and used sliding glass doors for front doors. It was stopped about 6 months ago. What is the State law? Mr. Whittenberg said he would review this questions with the Building Inspectors and report back to the Commission at the next meeting. Brown Act - Commissioner Dahlman said he appreciated the City Clerk's information on the Brown Act and asked if staff had any update on Moira Hahn's problem with the Archaeological Committee? Mr. Whittenberg said the Council has received the report and has referred it to the Planning Commission; it will be on the April 3rd Commission agenda. It will be necessary for the Commission to put that into the General Plan amendment format and necessary environmental reviews prior to Public Hearings. Commissioner Dahlman asked staff whether the Committee's report was valid because of an alleged Brown Act violation. Mr. Whittenberg said the report forwarded from the Council to the Commission is the report prepared prior to the occurrence of the separate meeting. Commissioner Sharp said that wasn't what the Council Motion was. Mr. Whittenberg said that was the intent of the Second to the Motion. Commissioner Sharp said he realized that was the intent of e e e Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes of March 20, 1991 the Second but felt the Planning commission did not have a clarified document until the City Council does some more work on l. t. Mr. Whittenberg said at the Public Hearings the Commission and ultimately the Council will be able to receive any and all information people wish to provide them on the subject of Archaeological Elements to the General Plan. The Council has not determined the Committee can' t do any more work and must stop. The Council indicated a certain document must be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration as part of a General Plan amendment. The Council discussed if a particular document was the one that had reached "a consensus of opinl.on among all the members of the (Archaeological) Committee prior to certain members of the Commi ttee leaving a meeting and discussing it l.n a different venue". Commissioner Dahlman said "There never was a consensus among all of the members of the Committee. There was a difference of opinion on several issues which is a matter for dispute actually". Zoning Maps Chairman Fife asked staff to provide all Commissioners with maps showing zoning areas of the City. Staff will provide. Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Project Chairman Fife asked if Bixby Co. was preparing their Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Bixby Old Ranch Golf Course Project. Staff said staff had sent Bixby a letter indicating the areas that staff feels need to be covered in the EIR. Staff met with Bixby's representatives March 19th to discuss the EIR work. The Council will discuss consultants for that project at their March 25th meeting. Once the Council has made their decisions, staff will proceed to select new consultants or retain the existing consultants. 1990 Census Figures for Leisure World Commissioner Sharp asked what had been done about the Census figures for Leisure World. Director Whittenberg said staff has not received information from the State Department of Finance or the Federal Census Bureau as to the process and procedure that will be necessary to undertake a Special Census. They won' t have that information until August or September 1991. Between the 1980 Federal Census and the 1990 Federal Census the figures show a 2200 person decrease in population in Leisure World. Staff has a strong disagreement with that number and to rectify any problem a Special Census must be undertaken and it must cover the entire city, not just Leisure World. Golden Rain has figures as to what they feel the population is but for Federal financing purposes the Census Bureau will not accept those figures; approximately 8400 persons. . e - Page 12 - Planning commission Minutes of March 20, 1991 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned the meeting at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, , Cfo~o-- Joan Fillmann Executive Secretary Planning Department Note: These Minutes are tentative and subject to approval by the Planning Commission. *** The Minutes of March 20, 1991. wFr,e approved by the Planning Commission on April ~fidl, 1991. ~ . - j1P- T" 1 I !~1 . /! ~ 11~ 5~/cM ! /f!vA..-~ ~ \4}1V1'" "M/ no, - ~~ , (, ~ "' '--! / "~I / /11/ . /! ~~ /Jice4L~r.-' I IJk~)t1~ ~Li()U t-~ ~ ~~.;'cf7r ~I 3 ~dUA).iJ vt:ut /J\f1 tC{- ~~ -10 ~ I ' f?L.e~,^-L- (~t-d'~ a./l..~; /i.ece-<lA~(j v-o ~- ~?J J-"r:~''''^ 7! f"-"f'-'-'- M-o - tJ<!- ~ v4. vte'll..-:II;) LLVi.J; J~--^-~!J &~o/-'LAC-~ f~ ~ _ ' Cvt.Jl~~' {/ '\fie. .ev~..LA.. -,., -- _ "'--- ~~. l'v<Jrd-- v-U: ~ fa! ~ ,~~~ e;o (& ~~7 i ~ ch- I '-8t.vo lA'~ () LAA fVCU'.--o ~ ~ ~ l.4\J t11"^' ~0A..k -AJr&-t~ I d ~ -c)c-t~d 'J~ tu20~ ~-t~ ~ ~~c.t:.o ~Irf. ~f-Ilh-(f / ~~ ~ /J/~. ~ de fef~ ~t{.#Q (l,AA\. ,--f~ -,~t7~ ht-fc,.. 'j kK (J"->C /... vk_ "f'f Q'l Yw., '?; *' ~ f"t-6 1A.:k ' .- ,,- Jl. I \ ~t'~~(J ~~ -.,- /ll;fA'I!Ifw S ~-w ~ ~ c2 IS- - It;- t/1- Sf; a,t-/i ;:U~ ~~ ell 1074L-6 \ i' e v City of Seat Beach Planning Commission SUBMITTED FOR REeD," By hl/rntU1I? Date 3/6 III .... - - - - ~- . e '... ." <.; ~ ~ City Of Seal Beach PlannIng tommliSlon SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By B C.V I<!rt-S Date .3( ~/ f I . v -;n . . //lAJ 6;/- e -\ '- -e--,- ----- e '~ ..... ..... .......... t City of Seal Beach Planning CommIssion SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By 8. CudJ.s Date .3/fh!91 -- /J~~{ 1-1- C 11 ~ / Ct'~ :;;[L L /3E "felf -___ rf 0 9'0 1yo /~I~&-<~<n /!J~)J 5'Rr;r~ t)EAc/7 ~ ~ ~ R3 / ~ ~~/UAA ~ ~ ~-z~/A-;;~/ ~9! A0 :-r ~~ ~ e ~~ ~ - ~y~. If~ /1~ ~ ~;p; - ~ If, ~, 213-'5'7(- JoS-y . ~ ~ ". City of Seal Beach Planning CommissIon SUBMITTED FOR RECORD By R. Curen{) Date .3(lo/'f1 Commercial Property Management 1110 Catalina Ave Seal Beach, CA 90740 tit Carolyn Gaw Telephone: (213) 431-2689 March 4, 1991 Mr. Lee Whittenberg Dlrector Department of Development Servlces Planning Commission of the Clty of Seal Beach Elghth Street Seal Beach, California 90740 RE: Variance 6-90, 1140 Catallna Avenue Gentlemen: e Please note my objection to the above variance. It is my opinion that reserving adequate parking places on our own property for our own cars is a very valuable part of the zoning of the hill area. Providing for at least an adequate double car garage for each house also is a valuable zoning regulation to that area. The quality of uncongested streets is served by these two ru 1 es. It is my understanding that this variance will compromise one of these two t--egulations. We do not need more cars parked on the streets, because the garages are to short to accept the cars, nor do we need cars parked ln dn veways that are too short to accommodate the cars wi thout overhanging the sidewalks. An argument that says, "Well, my car is small enough." is a very shortsighted approach, Slnce people over time seem to acquire "bigger & better" things. The City does not need the liability of a blocked sidewalk which would be caused by the City Planner approval of a short driveway. A blocked s i dewa 1 k cou 1 d be construed to be the cause of an accident between a pedestrian and vehicle. We all know our City's vUlnerability to liability damage suits. Please preserve the good planning regulations that you have made in the past without variances like this one. Sincerely, A Hill Resident , · &~Ji iJ'-til\ ~W-- Carolyn G~w cc: 6 copies NOTICB OF CONTINUED PUBLIC BEARING -. MOTICB IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Seal Beach will hold a continued public hearing on .ednesday, Karch I, 1991 at 7130 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 211 Bighth Street, Seal Beach, California, to cODsider the following iteml VARIANCE 6-90 1140 CATALINA AVENUE Request: ... . Provision of less than the required front yard setback or less than the required garage parking space depth in conjunction with the remodel of, and second story addition to, a single family dwelling located at 1140 Catalina Avenue, Seal Beach. Specifically, the applicants are requesting to either provide a 17 foot front yard setback or a 19 foot deep garage in conjunction with the proposed relocation of the garage opening. , . Environmental Review: This project is categorically exempt from CEQA review. Section 15303(e) Code Sections: 28-401(2) (b), 28-2500, 28-2501, 28-2502 Applicant: Brent Sears Owner: Paul Treece and Susan Perrell At the above time and place all interested persons may be heard if so desired. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Seal Beach at, or prior to, the public hearing. DATED This 21st day of February, 1991 /;: 7 Lee hitfenberg I Director Lbepartment of Development Services ill c:\WPSO\CUP\CUP90--8.NPH