Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1991-05-01 . . . ~ l' CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MAY 15, 1991 I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE II. ROLL CALL III. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of May 1, 1991 Minutes 2. Minor Plan Review 13-91 Address: C-24 Surfs1.de Applicant: Gary Goodwin Request: Minor Height Variation for safety railings exceeding height limit. 3. Minor Plan Address: Applicant: Request: Review 18-91 125 Cottonwood Lane Dana Williams Architectural Review VI. SCHEDULED MATTERS V. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Conditional Use Permit 15-91 Address: 208 Fourth Street Applicants: Edward & Marla Wicorek Request: Major additional/remodel to duplex of non-conforminging property. 5. Conditional Use Permit 16-91 Address: 550 Pacific Coast Highway, 1111 Los Cabos Restaurant Applicant: David Bonnadonna Request: Upgrade existing on-sale beer and wine license to general liquor license. 6. Zoning Text Amendment 13-91 Request: Add Article 32 to Chapter 28 of ~ Code of the City of Seal Beach establishing a Trip Reduction and Travel Demand ordinance in accordance with State Assembly Bill 1791. VI. STUDY SESSION 7. Public Study Session Request: Additions to Non-conforming Dwellings via an amendment to section 28-2407 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach. .' . . ; VI. 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 taken on off-Agenda items unless authorized by law. VII. STAFF CONCERNS IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS X. ADJOURNMENT , . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES of MAY 1, 1991 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of May 1, 1991 was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers by Chairman Fife. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Orsin1. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Orsini, Sharp, Dahlman, McCurdy Absent: None Staff Present: Department of Development SerV1ces staff present: Lee Whittenberg, Director Barry Curtis, Administrat1ve Assistant Michael Cho, Intern SCHEDULED MATTERS -- None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of April 17, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes MOTION by Dahlman: SECOND by Orsini to approve the Planning commission Minutes of April 17, 1991 with the following corrections: page 10, last sentence, edit to reflect that the ". . restaurant has a take-out 1QQg license. ." and page 15, last sentence of comments by Mitzi Morton, replace the word "doghouse" with the term "covered roof access structure". MOTION CARRIED: AYES: ABSTAIN: 4 - 0 - 1 Orsini, Dahlman, Fife, Sharp Mccurdy, due to absence *** . Page 2 - Planning Comm1SS10n Minutes of May 1, 1991 2. Minor Plan Review #8-91 (Architectural Review) 125 Cottonwood Lane staff Report Mr. Cho delivered the staff report. [staff report on file in the Planning Department]. On April 17 an application for Minor Plan Review #8-91 allowing the addition of 1,200 square feet of second story cabana area to an existing 898.5 square foot mobile home. The proposed cabana conforms to the architectural stipulations of section 28-2319 of the Code. The plans provide for no roof decks or balconies above the second story floor line. There are no existing two-story cabanas within twenty feet (20') of the proposed cabana. Staff said the proposed roof hatch with folding stairs 1S to be removed from the plans. The rationale for the roof hatch was for access to proposed air cond1tioning equipment but staff felt it was a violation of the Code requiring no roof decks and easy access like the roof hatch could allow a deck to happen. Staff recommends approval of Minor Plan Review #8-91 subject to the f1ve (5) conditions noted in the Staff Report in addition to the removal of the hatch. ~ Commission Comments commissioner McCurdy asked about the deck. Mr. Cho said there is no deck, only a flat roof area. However, the applicant was thinking, depending on how the air conditioning equipment was mounted, constructing a pitched roof to match the rest of the cabana. Mr. Cho recommended this as a cond1tion of approval. commissioner Dahlman asked about the two living rooms and two master bedrooms shown on the plans. He wanted to know if th1s was two units? Mr. Cho said no, it's not two units, it's a single family home. Mr. Cho said the Code has no requirement stating two master bedrooms or two living rooms are not allowed. This cabana is very large, about 2000 square feet of liv1ng area. Review of the plans did not lead staff to feel it would be a mUlti-family unit. Commiss10ner Sharp expressed concern regarding the window at the stairway, indicating the possibility of its conversion to a door/entrance to the second floor. He 1nd1cated caution must be exercised when looking at the plans for the poss1bility of creating mUlti-family units after the plans were approved through the Commission. Mr. Cho noted there were no kitchen facilities on the second floor. Mr. Cho indicated the Commission could cond1 tion the removal or blockage of the window with glass block or a fixed window. ~ Cha1rman Fife asked if the applicant, Dana W11liams, or his . Page 3 - Plann1ng Comm1SS1on Minutes of May 1, 1991 architect, Bruce McVay, were present; neither were present. Commissioner Dahlman said in the last several months the Planning Commission has reviewed three two-story cabana applications. In two of the applications the owner was the same and asked if he was a developer? Mr. whittenberg noted that Bill Dawson's name would appear as the owner on all applications because he is an owner of the Trailer Park. Commissioner Dahlman said he had additional questions and would like to talk to the applicant prior to approval. He requested someone in authority tell the Commission whether this 1S two units or one for the Record. Mr. Whittenberg said it 1S one unit because there's only one kitchen facility. There's a potential poss1bili ty for a conversion to be done afterwards but realistically the ground floor stairway is 1mmediately adjacent to the main entry to trailer's front entry. The main front door is a sliding glass door. Commissioner Sharp said the Uniform Building Code (Section 3304) requires an entry door be a side hinged door for an entry door. Mr. Whittenberg said he was uncertain that trailers might have different requirements as they come under a different set of building code requirements set by the State. (State of Cal1fornia, California Administrative Code, Title 25. Housing and Community Development). Mr. Whi ttenberg suggested Commission approval subject to compliance with the appropriate State code conditions regarding trailers. . Mr. Cho suggested staff reschedule Minor Plan Review #8-91 to bring back the plans after staff further discusses these questions with the applicant and his architect. Commissioner Sharp agreed that this should be continued to the next meeting and request the applicant be present. Chairman Fife agreed to rescheduling but with the understanding the Mr. Cho or Mr. Curtis would talk to the applicant about removing the roof access door, changing the flat roof to a pitched roof to match the rest of the architecture and to further eliminate the possib1lity of it's future use as a deck, eliminate or modify the window at the bottom of the stairs and clarification of the entry door itself. Commissioner orsini asked to have the Seal Beach Trailer Park covenants reviewed to see if they are able to rent the trailers; Mr. Cho is to check and confirm. Comm1ssioner Dahlman indicated that if the mobile homes are increasing density they should have to conform with zoning requirements and asked staff to respond to this at the next meeting. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to reschedule/continue Minor Plan Review #8-91 re 125 Cottonwood to the May 15, 1991 Planning Commission meeting with the above-indicated Commission questions answered. . MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Fife, Dahlman, Sharp, McCUrdy, Orsini . . . . . . Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 1, 1991 *** 3. Minor Plan Review #9-91 237 15th street Mr. Cho delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, contractor Daniel Sevensky, [for property owner Charles Mulholland] requests to enclosure an existing second story balcony [located at the landing of an existing guest room over the existing garage] at 237 15th Street. The existing structure is legal nonconforming due to density and parking. section 28-2407 of the Code sets forth the requirements to alterations and additions to nonconforming structures. section 28-2407 .A. 2. (c). allows enclosures of balconies and porches which do not increase the square foot floor area greater than 10% of the allowable floor area. The applicant is proposing an enclosure of approximately 81 square feet of balcony area. Under the Code, approximately 700 square feet could be added and comply with the 10% expansion rule. Staff recommends approval of Minor Plan Review #9-91 subject to the three (3) conditions noted in the Staff Report. commission Comments Chairman Fife asked if heating, electrical or plumbing work would be added to the enclosed patlo? Mr. Cho said no. Commissioner Sharp asked if neighboring structures would be looking directly at this enclosure? Mr. Cho explained the roof and patio floor are existing, this application requests the sides be enclosed by bronze aluminum siding with clear panels. It is on the second story, it is elevated and it is a dlfferent material from the rest of the house. The painting of the enclosure was requested so it matches the rest of the house. Dan Sevensky * Contractor and Applicant - said the structure is a bronze aluminum frame, not a siding, with acrylic sliding windows between. There are objections to painting the structure because the material is baked-on enamel and comes in two standard colors (bronze and white) from the manufacturer. The color trim on the residence is brown and the bronze is a close match. The paint may peel within a month. He believed the acrylic panels would meet Page 5 - Plannlng Commission Minutes of May 1, 1991 fire regulations and building standards because they are ICBO approved (Chapter 489, Patio Enclosures). MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCUrdy to approve Minor Plan Review #9-91 with the removal of Condition #2: The enclosure will match the color scheme of the existing structure. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Fife, McCUrdy, Sharp, Orsini,Dahlman *** PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Variance #3-91 241 Fifth Street Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. [Staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Jeff Deckner, filed an application to add approximately 811 square feet to an existing nonconforming residence at 241 Fifth Street. Specifically, the applicant is requesting to add a 208 square foot family room to the first floor of the dwelling, a 304 square foot master bedroom to the second floor of the dwelling, and a 299 square foot music room above the detached garage, which would be connected to the master bedroom addition by an open walkway. The subject residence was constructed in 1913, and is nonconforming due to an inadequate side yard setback along the north property line (2 feet instead of the required 3 feet). According to the Women's Club of Seal Beach this is one of the ten oldest existing houses in the City. The applicant is proposing to add 811 square feet, which due to the nonconforming status of the property, exceeds the maximum allowable addition of 528 square feet by 283 square feet. The applicant must either correct the nonconformity or apply for and receive a variance to allow the continuation of the side yard setback. To maintain the structural integrity and historical character of the building, the variance has been requested. Due to the age of the dwelling and its local historical significance, staff believes that the structural integrity of the dwelling must be maintained, and requiring the relocation of the nonconforming wall would be a disservice to the community as a whole. Staff believes the proper approach is to allow the existing dwelling to remain in its nonconforming state, while requiring all new constructlon to meet current City standards. The applicant's request meets these requirements with the exception of two (2) proposed windows in the new second story master bathroom, which is located above the existing kitchen. Due to . . . Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 1, 1991 fire regulations and building standards because they are lCBO approved (Chapter 489, Patio Enclosures). MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Mccurdy to approve Minor Plan Review #9-91 with the removal of Condition #2: The enclosure will match the color scheme of the existing structure. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Fife, Mccurdy, Sharp, orsini,Dahlman *** PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. Variance #3-91 241 Fifth Street staff Report Mr. curtis delivered the staff report. [staff report on file in the Planning Department]. The applicant, Jeff Deckner, filed an application to add approximately 811 square feet to an existing nonconforming residence at 241 Fifth street. Specifically, the applicant is requesting to add a 208 square foot fam1ly room to the first floor of the dwelling, a 304 square foot master bedroom to the second floor of the dwelling, and a 299 square foot music room above the detached garage, which would be connected to the master bedroom addition by an open walkway. The subject residence was constructed in 1913, and is nonconforming due to an inadequate side yard setback along the north property line (2 feet instead of the required 3 feet). Accord1ng to the Women's Club of Seal Beach this is one of the ten oldest existing houses in the city. The applicant is proposing to add 811 square feet, which due to the nonconforming status of the property, exceeds the maximum allowable addition of 528 square feet by 283 square feet. The applicant must either correct the nonconformity or apply for and receive a variance to allow the continuation of the side yard setback. To maintain the structural integrity and histor1cal character of the building, the variance has been requested. Due to the age of the dwelling and its local historical significance, staff believes that the structural integrity of the dwelling must be maintained, and requiring the relocation of the nonconforming wall would be a disservice to the community as a whole. Staff believes the proper approach is to allow the existing dwelling to remain 1n its nonconforming state, while requiring all new construct1on to meet current City standards. The applicant's request meets these requirements with the exception of two ( 2 ) proposed windows in the new second story master bathroom, which is located above the existing kitchen. Due to ~ Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 1, 1991 . . provlslons of the Uniform Building Code, staff is recommending that these windows be removed and skylights be provided as an alternative. staff received two letters ln favor or Variance #3-91 which were read into the Record by Mr. curtis. They were from Ruth M. Richards and Eric R. Parks/Amy Gayle DuBois. [Attached to Minutes] . staff recommends approval of Variance #3-91, through the adoption of Resolution No. 1624, subject to the three (3) conditions noted in the Staff Report. Commission Comments commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Curtis why he cited section 28-2407 because it was subject to a moratorium at the present time. Mr. curtis said it wasn't cited because they are seeking a variance and the moratorium was amended to allow additions under this section to single family dwellings. Chairman Fife, noting the difficulty in meeting the three State- mandated findings, found this is a special privilege compared to structures generally but perhaps is not if this is deemed a historical structure. He asked if the City's municipal Code had provisions for historical structures? Mr. curtis said there is nothing in the Code restricting property owners of historical homes. Recently the Historical society and the EQCB have been looking at creating a historic preservation ordinance for the City. Mr. curtis said he went over the staff findings with the City Attorney's Office. It was deemed not to be a request for a special privilege per se because historical structures are a rare commodity within the City. If it were compared to "just a house" then it would be a special privilege. Commissioner McCurdy said he would have to practically demolish the building to move the side wall in one foot, so it's being an old building has no bearing on this. Mr. McCurdy didn't feel that was something he should have to do - whether it's an old or a new building. It's within two feet of the property line. Chalrman Flfe said the Commission has dealt with the issue of "it's expensive to do what you want" many times. Expense has never been an issue. He felt the Commission was prepared to grant this variance primarily because in the adoption of the Historical Preservation Act we would want to encourage owners not to demolish them. Mr. Whittenberg said Code section 24- 03.1 provides for exceptions to nonconforming historic buildings. It applies to recognized historic buildings. To date the City has a Women's Club survey a few years ago. This structure is not noted in that survey and therefore does not fall under this Code section. If it did, the applicant would be before the Commission under a Conditional Use Permit process. Staff feels that even though the . . . Page 7 - Plannlng Commisslon Minutes of May 1, 1991 structure is not listed in the Women's Club survey it is of historic significance locally and staff feels that fact warrants the approval of the variance request. Mr. Whittenberg read the Code section at the request of Chairman Fife. There is no requirement to update that survey regularly. Again, the EQCB and Women's Club will be working to develop a Historic Element to the General Plan. Commissioner Dahlman asked the Commission receive a copy of the historical survey done by the Women's Club and that it be adopted as the corporate list. Additionally, he suggested coming up with a method for adding homes to that list. Chairman Fife and Commissioner Dahlman said they would be more comfortable votlng for this as a CUP versus a Variance. Chairman Fife requested an additional condition be put in place stating the owner could not demolish the structure without the agreement of the Commission or this Historical agency. Public Hearing The Public Hearing was opened. Jeff Deckner * 241 Fifth street - Mr. Deckner, responding to Commission questions, said he has applied for refinanclng to accommodate this request, that he has lived in Seal Beach since 1979 and has lived in that house for a little over 5 years, his present age is 35 years, he does not plan on demolishing the house. Commissloner Orsini said he wanted to make a point of record on how long he has lived here and his age because he would like to see the house stay the way it is with the addition. Mr. Deckner said he intends to keep the house forever; it is a very special structure, being built by one of Seal Beach's first City Council people. It's got a lot of history. They need another bedroom to accommodate a new baby so their family's needs have gone beyond the original structure of the house. Commissioner Sharp felt this Commission does not have the right at the present time to try to tell homeowner to sign a covenant stating whether he is going to tear it down or not. Mr. Whittenberg said he would have to talk to the city Attorney on what leeway the City had under the Code. He felt it would be difficult to enforce at this point. Chairman Fife said his point was that no homeowner be prevented from ever demolishing but that if they wanted to demolish that they come back to the original granting agency the speclal pri vllege because of its historical status. Mr. Whi ttenberg said that Mr. curtis' statement that the homeowner could demolish this structure with only building permits and not Commission was true but the Commission could place a condition on approval requiring coming back to the Commlssion before that. It could be placed on this Variance application. Mr. Deckner, responding to the Commission, stated he is a musician . . . Page 8 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 1, 1991 and there is a guitar vault and music room. Mr. Deckner explained that although the music room and vault will not have heat, each gui tar case has double seals. A guJ. tar being a stringed instrument which is prone to expansion and contraction is simply to loosen the tension of the strings. Mr. curtis explained that heat was not mandatory in a non-habitable room however, staff erred in not calling this a "habitable room" because habitability is determined on ceiling height and room area. Building codes will require at least a space heater. The Building Department plan check process WJ.II determine what heating is needed and that must be complied with. It will probably be a separate unit because the room it totally separated from the main house itself. Mr. curtis clarified that although this looks like a bedroom with a closet there is no access except through the house. There is no plumbing to this room and didn't feel a covenant was necessary. Mr. Deckner said he wants all his instruments in one area. He stated he plays acoustical instruments. Mr. Deckner said he was not adverse to a covenant stating clearly what that room is. Mr. CurtJ.s said any changes to the buildJ.ng would need PlannJ.ng Commission approval because it's non-conforming. MJ.tchell Sheltraw * 299 st. Joseph Avenue. Long Beach - as the applicant for owner, Jeff Deckner, said Condition 2 said the two windows will meet UBC requirements and are contraflam glass (fire retardant) and are non-operable. Therefore, Condition 2 should be struck. Mr. Curtis said the ICBO, who writes the UBC, said there aren't any openings allowed wJ.thin two feet. staff will check on what Mr. Sheltraw said and if they are acceptable to ICBO then staff would not have a problem allowing them. Mr. Sheltraw said he and his client would like to adhere to the period of the structure and keep it as conforming as possible. Mr. Shel traw said, if retained, Condition 2 should read "The assembly of the windows should be a one-hour rated assembly". Mr. Curtis said staff proposed the rewording to be "The two windows proposed for the new master bathroom shall conform to UBC requirements or be removed". Chairman Fife closed the Public Hearing there being no one wishing to speak further for or against this applJ.cation. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to approve variance #3-91, via the adoption of Resolution No. 1624, Subject to the rewording of Condition 2 to read "The two windows proposed for the new master bathroom shall conform to UBC requirements or be removed", and add a Condition 4 to read "All future requests for modifications or demolition of the existing structure shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a Noticed Public Hearing". MOTION CARRIED: AYES: NOES: 4 - 0 - 1 McCurdy, Dahlman, Sharp, Orsini Fife . . . Page 9 - Planning Commisslon Minutes of May 1, 1991 *** commissioner Sharp said he would like to see the Planning Commission go on record as supporting the Women's Club of Seal Beach and the EQCB on getting the historical ordinance on the books. Staff was directed to prepare the list of historical properties for presentation at the next Commission meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None. STAFF CONCERNS 1. 225 Eighth Street Mr. Whittenberg presented a short staff report, noting that when demolition work started to allow for future reconstruction they found a large majority of the rear of the second story was heavily termite damaged. The UBC will not permit the new structure to be attached to substandard portions of the upstairs areas. The walls were removed to be replaced with proper building materials. The removal was substantial enough that staff felt the Commission should review that to give them direction as to whether you feel they can restore the second story addition back to what was approved by Council in April 1988. Very little of the structure remains. staff will not authorize them to proceed because of the amount of demolition work that's been done has been more than what was envisioned in 1988. However, staff has no objection to it being restored to the condition that the Council said it could be done in 1988 --- staff feels that decision should be made by someone other than staff. In 1988 no work was to be done to the rear portion of the second story. That's a bedroom area to remain as it was. When the demolition work began they had to remove all the interior and exterior sheeting of the walls themselves and some portions of the studs because of termite damage. commissioner Dahlman asked about the building's conformity. Mr. Whittenberg said when it was originally built it was conforming but today it is nonconformlng. The rear yard setbacks have changed and now it is required to have a 4.5 foot setback and it has a 6 inch setback. The structure went through a Variance in 1973 and it was nonconforming at that time. commissioner McCurdy said the Commission would not have allowed them to demolish to this point had the termite damage not occurred. Commissioner Sharp noting the City Council has approved it in 1988, felt the Commission had little input at this point. If they had, at an earlier point, done the major additlon and remodel and then . Page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 1, 1991 at a later time come back to the Building Department to replace termite damage they would have been able to do this via a building permit. Charles Antos * 328 17th street. Seal Beach - said he was involved in this project. In 1973 he processed a Variance before the Commission that allowed the second story addition to maintain the same setbacks as the rest of the building had. In 1988, the applicants submitted a plan for an addition, leaving the rear and side setbacks on the existing structure as they were. The Planning Commission did not approve the f1rst floor rear setback, they wanted a greater turning radius for parking. The matter was appealed to the Council and they ruled the first floor rear setback had to be increased to provide the proper 24 foot turning radius using the full width of the alley for automobile parking. The existing nonconforming setback on the side could remain. The second floor rear overhang could also remain. After a City Attorney ruling determined the Counc11 action was proper and plans were submitted and processed based upon this. When demolition began that's when the termite damage was discovered. All that had to be removed. . Mr. wh1ttenberg indicated the homeowners are at a standstill until they get City direction as to if they can proceed. The Commission can give staff direction as to whether they can proceed under the 1988 Council directive. Commissioner Sharp asked staff 1f the City had confirming evidence the termite damage was present? Mr. Whittenberg said the Building Inspectors were at the property during the demolition process. Commissioner Dahlman indicated that the City cannot just permit all building maintenance, otherwise the nonconforming structures will never become conforming structures. Mr. Whittenberg said persons are required to maintain their structures at a certain level under existing health and safety codes. MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Orsini suggested the Commission request staff to allow the applicant to proceed with the construction in accordance wi th his existing plans and recommend that to the Council but tempered wi th the advice that the Council needs to consider at what point should maintenance no longer be considered maintenance and it now become identified as construction which must be in conformity with the present codes. MOTION CARRIED: AYES: 5 - 0 Fife, Dahlman, Sharp, Orsini, McCUrdy . . . . Page 11 - Planning commission Minutes of May I, 1991 commissioner orsini asked about the Fire Department having a problem with the roof 11ne coming out to the property line? Mr. Whittenberg said the plans have been approved through the Fire Department. Mr. curtis said the architectural projection going out over the gate was taken off the building plans. Mr. Whittenberg asked if the intent of the motion was to allow the applicants to contlnue with their constructlon project including the replacement of the second story as it exists with the recommendation to Council that they consider how much removal in the future should be allowed under building maintenance? Yes. 2. AOE-6 Homeporting Programmatic Environmental Impact statement Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the City has received a copy of the "Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Fast Combat Support Ship (AOE-6 Class) U. S. West Coast Homeporting Program". Staff has provlded a copy of the document to each member of the City Council, Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board and will be preparing comments on the document for consideration by the Environmental Quality Control Board and City Council prior to the due date for comments, which is June 3, 1991. 3. Memorandums re: Rockwell Heliport Relocation and Building 91 Expansion Mr. Whittenberg indicated the above referenced memorandums have been provided to the City Council, Planning Commission and Environmental Quallty Control Board for information purposes. The heliport relocation proposal will be considered by the Planning Commission upon submittal of the necessary Conditional Use Permit application, while the addition to Building 91 will not require Planning Commission review, as it complies will all City development standards for the M-l Zone. COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Sharp indicated that the condltion of the property at across from the Parasol Restaurant by the Mobil station where the street is fenced in and has debris was not good and that some clean-up efforts need to be undertaken. Chairman Fife suggested reflectors be placed on an existing chain across an abandoned driveway in to help eliminate accidents where someone may want to cut through after dark. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that those concerns will be forwarded to the Bixby Ranch Company. Chairman Fife requested a copy of any soils or geotechnlcal reports which the City would have on file as part of the recent selsmlC strengthening or building expansion activities of Rockwell . . . Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of May 1, 1991 International. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the files will be researched, and any available information made available to all members of the Planning Commisslon. ADJOURNMENT Chalrman Fife adJourned the meeting at 9:28 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Cioo.-~~~o Joan Fillmann Executlve Secretary Department of Development .". Services *** These Minutes are tentative and subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. *** The Planning Commission Minutes of Ma~~ 1991 were approved by the Planning Commission on May 15, 1991.~ . I~ 1" 0- - I - 9 I ""'11: .. 1."- ' ~t~" ~~ Pu<../... g~4Z-1t1 /~ 6?71.-7~~<<'~: ~~~~~ /J / / Lf t/ L. /I ~ii~~- ...v A'4~~-' .b-,,e..c ~/ *, ;~~;t 7/).-L' dc-uLnA/; ~ ~f-{.. .....rk~ ~l ~;,:?! vb> ~ tf.-;~ >> ~ ~;ffi'J aX 02-~/d.-#~- . ~'-d ;7J' :f/~./ ~1::a;0 -:Y::/~ ,.h/c? $Ld~< ~ fiL~ & 7'c:;.,4 /' . - . . . Eric R. Parks/Amy Gall DuBois 239 5th Street, Seal Beach, CA 90740 Apnl30, 1991 Lee Whittenberg Department of Development Services City of Seal Beach RE: Vanance 3-91, 241 Fifth Street, Seal Beach Dear Mr Whittenberg I am wntlng In response to your notice of public heanng scheduled May 1, 1991 at 7 30 P m In the City Council Chambers We live nght next to Mr Decker's home at 239 5th Street We would be directly effected by the approval of the vanance As Mr Decker's closest neighbors we are supportive of hiS request for vanance We have had an opportunity to review hiS bUlldmg plans and fmd that they Will enhance the beauty of the neighborhood We recommend approval of hiS request for vanance without reservations Sincerely, ~ Enc R Parks Homeowner e e e 'lD WD1 IT M\Y <IN:mN: I AM FPMII1\R WI'IH 'lEE CIXI:WIN RUtl<.L't C-24, J\N) MY' ffi.:B1{[Y IS RIGn' ~ '10 HIS. 'll:IE Ra.IL CN 'll:IE <IX:Il'lJN'S RXF !XES NJI Hm:ER, ~, CR BJlHER lE IN Nli W\Y. . ::~~ 4d~90?YS ImE +~~ I~ 119/ e. e e . '10 wrn IT MW o:::N::mN: I AM FN1IIJ\R WI'lH 'mE CIrr.WIN ~ C-24, JlN) MY H<FERI'Y IS RIGll' ~ '10 HIS. 'mE MIL rn 'mE CD::ll'JIN'S RXF IXES NJI' Hll\Im, CB9IRl:T, CR HJlliER T.E IN liNt WIY. I CHffi "'-- <;.::;.~ ~ ~~ /71'1 . NrnESS C ~ cJ 5' mJE ~ /~ e,