Seal Beach : Parking Variance for Tavern Draws Protest

An appeal has been made by 17 residents opposed to allowing a Hennessey’s Tavern to open on Main Street with fewer than the usually required number of parking spaces and other unusual parking arrangements.

The Planning Commission’s approval of the variance was made in December, with the backing of City Manager Allen Parker and John Baucke, chief of planning for the city.

One of those appealing is Charles Antos, the principal planner ousted by Parker in late 1983 and eventually replaced by Baucke. Since his forced resignation, Antos has worked as a consultant to firms and individuals doing business with the city.

Antos originally was joined in the appeal by a former planning commissioner, James T. Gilkerson, and John P. Follis. Follis led the campaign for a special election--set for Jan. 29--on the Bixby Ranch Co.’s development of three four-story office buildings in an area where the building height limit is 35 feet.

On Thursday, 14 other residents joined the appeal.

In December, the public hearing on the Hennessey’s application was advertised as dealing only with parking.

According to the appeal, the notice to the public should have mentioned several other variance requests, including the lack of a loading zone, less landscaping than the usual minimum and a residence above a commercial building.

“In addition, it is clear that providing off-site parking in any city-owned lot would require a (separate) variance,” the appeal contends.

The variance granted by the Planning Commission covers tandem parking, use of parking lots of other businesses, smaller parking spaces, a higher-than-usual number of parking spaces for compact cars and off-street spaces that are more than 300 feet from the restaurant.

“This appeal has nothing to do with a restaurant, . . . (it) is based on errors and omissions on the part of the city . . . “ the residents said in a message to the City Council, which is scheduled to hear the appeal Jan. 14.

City Manager Parker said he supports the restaurant venture and takes issue with the residents’ claims about how the hearing was advertised.

“The minor variances did not have to be noticed (advertised), “ he said. “The issue was parking, and that was noticed.” All the minor variances are covered by the major one, he said.