Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1968-03-20 . . . . . MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 20, 1968 The Seal Beach Planning Commission met in regular session Wednesday, March 20, 1968 in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Present: Absent: Boeger, Crowley, Lanning, Murphy, Peters None The meeting was called to order by Chairman Crowley at 7:32 p.m. Minutes of March 6, 1968 meeting were approved as presented. I. Public Hearing - Jack T. and Harriet B. Cairns, V-4-68 Jack T. and Harriet B. Cairns, 640 Taper Drive, Seal Beach, California, request approval of a Variance to construct a swimming pool which would encroach six inches and three and one-half feet respectively, into the required five foot side and rear yards setback. The property is legally described as Lot 64, Track 2590. No written objections were received. The applicants were not present to discuss the plan. Chairman Crowley asked the Commissioners if they were aware of any precedents in this matter. The Commissioners did not know of any. The Chairman asked the Secretary pro tem if the utility companies had any policy regarding swimming pools encroaching into their six foot easement. Mr. Mulqueeney, the Secretary pro tem, stated the Edison Company, while not approving the variance, would not object be- cause they .did not want to go. on record in restricting a property owner's use of his land. Commissioner Lanning asked if other pools were less than five feet from a property line elsewhere in the neighboring area. Commissioner Boeger said some pools were set back two and one-half feet from property line, but they were constructed be- fore this ordinance took effect. Mr. Jack Watkins, 641 Sand Piper Drive, Seal Beach, addressed the Commissioners stating he lived directly behind the applicant's home and objected to the request because; 1. A three and one-half foot rear yard encroachment far one resident would set a precedent and all other property owners in the area would be able to encroach this distance. 2. Chlorine and other chemicals could be "splashed upon his rear yard, thus affecting his plant life; and, 3. With a pool so close to his rear property line there was a possi- bility of liability to himself if a child tumbled over his rear wall and rolled off the narrow coping into the pool. Discussion of these points ensued. Mr. Watkins asked if the applicant would suffer much if the pool was narrowed by three and one-half feet. The Secretary pro tern mentioned that insurance companies would not insure pools with a width narrower than 15 feet in the diving area, and that a reduction of three and one-half feet would result in a pool ll~ feet wide. . . . Commissioner Murphy stated the plans showed that additional steel was to be provided for adequate reinforcing of the sides of the pool. He further mentioned that proper drainage would be provided so the water would not affect the neighbors" property. Mr. Watkins suggested a kidney-shaped pool with the wide end at the point of the house~ The problem of the need for a rectangular pool versus a kidney-shaped pool was discussed. The Deeds and Restrictions upon the property were considered and determined not applicable. The Commission observed that no other city was known to have this five foot set- back restriction. Mr. James Francis, 637 Sand Piper Drive, stated pools are considered an attractive nuisance by the courts. If the pool was set back five feet from the property line, it would serve to protect small children. Commissioner Boeger said the noise emanating from a pool was similar to that from a pati9. Mr. Francis disagreed. Mr. Boeger said the purpose of a setback is to provide light, air and ventilation but the pool did not interfere with this. . Commissioner Peters asked for the City's reason for this pool setback. Commissioner Boeger did not know. Mr. Peters surmised it was to provide additional separation from splashing and noise. He noted, however, there were other pools in the area less than one and one-half feet from the property line. A motion was made by Mr. Boeger and seconded by Mrs. Lanning, subject to the con- ditions listed in the Resolution. The motion passed unanimously. Resolution No. 206. II. Planning Commission Attendance at City Council Meetings The Planning Commission member.s informed the Secretary pro tem that they would alternate attending Council Meetings when Planning Commission decisions are ap- pealed to the City Council, or when needed for the more important hearings. III. Other Business Resolutions to Planning Commission Members. The Planning Commission indicated they want to receive copies of all Planning Commission Resolutions. Agenda Preparation. Chairman Crowley stated a need for an item on the agenda labeled "Oral Communications" . Information to Building Inspector. . Commissioner Murphy noted that a Mr. Ray Herbeck, 850 Catalina Avenue, had not complied with the Planning Commission's decision on Variance V-35-67. Decision - 2 - . . ~ was to change the converted garage back to the use for which 'it was designed. Mr. Murphy informed the Commission that a garage door had been cut into the wall in .an attempt to comply, but it did not appear to meet City Codes for a garage door span of 16 feet. Commissioner Murphy instructed the Secretary pro tem to so inform the Building Inspector. Use of Property as a Junkyard. Commissioner Boeger informed the Secretary pro tem to contact the Building, Inspector, by letter, regarding the use of certain properties downtown for storage of junk. The Commission felt that the Building" Department must enforce the requirements of the City Codes. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00p.m. ~ ~