HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2002-01-09
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for January 9, 2002
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Brian Brown
District 2 - Jim Sharp
District 3 - Len Cutull
District 4 - David Hood
District 5 - Phil Ladner
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
o
City Hall office hours are 7 00 a m to 6 00 P m Monday through Thursday and
Friday 8 00 a m to 4 00 P m Closed noon to 1 00 P m
o
The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act If you
need assistance to attend this meeting please telephone the City Clerk's Office at
least 48 hours In advance of the meeting (562) 431-2527
o
Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3 They are
rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4 00 p m
o
Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape Telephone (562) 596-1404
o
Copies of staff reports and/or written materials on each agenda Item are on file In
the Department of Development Services and City libraries for public Inspection
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission. Agenda of January 9, 2002
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
The following is a brief explanation of the Planning Commission agenda
structure:
AGENDA APPROVAL The Planning CommIssion may wish to change the order of the
Items on the agenda
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, only
on Items not on tOnight's agenda, may do so dunng this time penod No action can be
taken by the Planning Commission on these communicatIons on this date, unless
agendlzed
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Public Heanngs allow citizens the opportunity to speak In
favor of or against agendlzed Items More detailed information IS found In the actual
agenda attached. If you have documents to dlstnbute, you should have enough copies
for all Planning Commissioners, City staff and the public Please give one to the
secretary for the City files The documents become part of the public record and Will not
be returned
CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar Items are conSidered routine Items that
normally do not require separate conSideration The Planning Commission may make
one motion for approval of all the Items listed on the Consent Calendar
SCHEDULED MA TIERS These Items are conSidered by the Planning Commission
separately and require separate motions These transactions are conSidered
administrative and public testimony IS not heard
STAFF CONCERNS Updates and reports from the Director of Development Services
(Planning and BUilding Departments) are presented for Information to the Planning
Commission and the public
COMMISSION CONCERNS Items of concern are presented by the Planning
Commissioners and discussed With staff
All proceedings are recorded
2
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission. Agenda of January 9, 2002
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for January 9, 2002
7:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II ROLL CALL
III AGENDA APPROVAL
By Motion of the Planning CommIssIon, thIs IS the tIme to
(a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda,
(b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda, andlor
(c) Provide an opportunity for any member of the Planning Commission, staff, or public to
request an Item IS removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action
IV ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
At thiS time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission regarding any Items
within the subject matter Junsdlctlon of the Planning Commission, provided that the Planning
Commission may undertake no action or diSCUSSion unless otherwise authonzed by law
V
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless
pnor to enactment, a member of the Planning Commission, staff, or the public requests a specific
Item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action
1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 5,2001
2 RECEIVE AND FILE "LCP Planning Grants for FIscal Year 2001-2002," dated December 4,
2001
VI SCHEDULED MATTERS
VII PUBLIC HEARINGS
3 Height Vanatlon 02-1
1606 Ocean Avenue
ApplicanUOwner
Request
Jorge and Lisa Moreno
To construct a non-habitable covered roof access structure (CRAS) to
extend above the height limit within the zone In which the subject
property IS located by approximately 7 feet
Recommendation
Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 02-2
4 Height Vanatlon 02-2
A-79 Surf Side
AppllcanUOwner
Deborah Howard
3
.
.
.
Ctty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon. Agenda of January 9, 2002
Request
Recommendation
5 Variance 02-1
200 Surf
ApplicanUOwner
Request
Recom mendatlon
To construct a non-habitable covered roof access structure (CRAS) In
excess of the 35-foot height limit Specifically, the proposed structure
would exceed the height limit by approximately 4 feet
Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 02-4
Joseph and Anna WOYJeck
To construct a proposed garage extension and second story deck
enclosure addition Into the required front yard setback, which IS 18 feet
The proposed garage extenSion will encroach 5 5 feet Into the required
setback and the proposed second story deck enclosure will encroach 1
foot Into the required front yard setback
Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 02-1
6 Site Plan Review 02-1
12282 Bridgewater Way (Centex Homes)
AppllcanUOwner
Request
Recommendation
VIII STAFF CONCERNS
IX COMMISSION CONCERNS
X ADJOURNMENT
Cary and Carol Brody
To approve a Site Plan Review for a proposed 324-square foot family
room addition at the rear of the subject property The proposed lot
coverage will be 4793%, the maximum lot coverage permitted IS 50%
Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 02-3
4
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission' Agenda of January 9, 2002
. 2002 Aaenda Forecast
Jan 23
Feb 06
Feb 20
Mar 06
Mar 20
Apr 03
Apr 17
May 08
May 22
June 05
June 19
. July 03
July 17
Aug 07
Aug 21
Sept 04
Sept 18
Oct 09
Oct 23
Nav 06
Nav 20
Dee 04
Dee 18
.
5
\
.
.
.
TO BE SCHEDULED
o Study Session
o Staff Report
o Study Session
o Study Session
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission. Agenda of January 9, 2002
Permitted Uses and Development Standards In Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Undergroundlng of Utilities
Retaining Walls
ADA Handicapped-Accessible Restrooms
6
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of January 9, 2002
Vice-Chairperson Sharp called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 9, 2002. The meeting
was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice-Chairperson Sharp, Commissioners Brown, Cutuli, and Ladner
Also
Present:
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Absent:
Chairperson Hood
Vice-Chairperson Sharp requested a motion to excuse Chairperson Hood from
tonight's meeting.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Ladner to excuse Chairperson Hood from the
Planning Commission meeting of January 9, 2002.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Cutuli, Ladner, and Sharp
None
Hood
AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Cutuli, Ladner, and Sharp
None
Hood
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\01-09-o2 PC Minutes.doc
1
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Vice-Chairperson Sharp opened oral communications.
There being no one wishing to speak, Vice-Chairperson Sharp closed oral
communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2001.
2. RECEIV~ AND FILE: "LCP Planning Grants for Fiscal Year 2001-2002," dated
December 4,2001
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Cutuli, Ladner, and Sharp
None
Hood
SCHEDULED MATTERS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Height Variation 02-1
1606 Ocean Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Jorge and Lisa Moreno
To construct a non-habitable covered roof access
structure (CRAS) to extend above the height limit within
the zone in which the subject property is located by
approximately 7 feet.
Recommendation:
Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of
Resolution 02-2.
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\01-09-o2 PC Minutes.doc
2
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.~ ~ 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 9. 2002
Staff Reoort
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
noted that the subject property is rectangular with a lot area of approximately 2500
square feet. He described the surrounding land uses as follows:
NORTH, EAST
& WEST:
Residential housing in a Residential High Density (RHO)
Zone.
SOUTH:
The Pacific Ocean and a Public Land Use/Recreation
(PLU/R) Zone.
The Assistant Planner reported that this request falls under Section 28-2317 of the
City Code, which allows for non-habitable architectural features to exceed the height
limit by up to 7 feet subject to standard Planning Commission criteria. He indicated
that the materials to be used in the construction of this Covered Roof Access
Structure (CRAS) would be in substantial conformity with materials used in the rest
of the construction of the house. He noted that a policy statement was adopted by
City Council that sets the maximum dimensions depending upon the type of
construction. He stated that the most significant issue related to CRAS would be the
maximum horizontal dimension allowance of 38 square feet, and this structure
measures 38 square feet. He said that this staircase will be a "straight run"
staircase. Mr. Cummins stated that Staff recommends approval of Height Variation
(HV) 02-1 subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 02-2.
Mr. Cummins reported that Staff received a letter from Jean Harsha, dated January
3, 2002, expressing her desire to speak during the public hearing tonight.
Commissioner Questions
None.
Public Hearing
Vice-Chairperson Sharp opened the public hearing.
Mr. George Moreno stated that in designing their home and the CRAS they did take
into consideration any impact it might have on the neighborhood. He said that this
was the reason for the rectangular design. He noted that the Moreno's had
reviewed the design with Staff to ensure that it was in conformance with City Code
and they would continue to do whatever is necessary to ensure that they remain in
compliance.
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\01-09-02 PC Minutes.doc
3
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.-23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002
Mr. Tom Harsha who lives at 1607 Ocean Avenue asked that his wife be allowed to
distribute some illustrations to go along with the comments he would be making. He
asked to correct the Staff Report, which states that no member of the public had
commented on the application prior to January 2, 2002, when in fact his wife had
visited City Hall and extensively discussed the project with Staff prior to this date.
He stated that although the Staff Report indicates that the impact upon Mr. Harsha's
view would be insignificant, he believes it will create a significant impact. He
referred to photographs taken from his home and distributed to the Planning
Commissioners, which he believes provide evidence of the significant impact Mr.
Moreno's CRAS would have upon Mr. Harsha's view. He indicated that plans for the
CRAS were not included in the original plans that Mr. Harsha had reviewed. He
noted that Mr. Moreno's CRAS would obscure Mr. Harsha's last available view of the
ocean from his home, and he stated that as these individual Variances are
approved, it does eventually lead to a significant obstruction of the ocean view for
residents of Old Town. Mr. Harsha stated that he did not want to state that the
Moreno's should not build this structure, but he does want to ensure that there is as
minimal an impact as possible on the view that he and his neighbors have. He
asked that the Planning Commission consider the kind of overall impact of these
individual Variances upon the community. He also suggested that the City consider
adopting a policy used in other coastal communities of staggering the height
variations away from the shoreline.
Mr. Les Schaub, who resides at 1605 Ocean Avenue, stated that he was basically in
agreement with Mr. Harsha's comments. He stated that he wanted to point out that
every time a new home is approved, it appears that the elevation of the foundation
for the new home is higher than the home that was previously there. He said that
the "blanket approval policy" should be re-evaluated and the City should consider
using staggered heights from the beach for homes. He emphasized that this would
help prevent the obstruction of the residents' views. Mr. Schaub also noted that
unless the trees down on the corners of the stub streets have recently been
trimmed, his view of the beach becomes obstructed. He stated that he would like to
see these trees removed and another type of tree planted in their place. He said
that he had no particular objections to the Moreno's home as designed, but he
wanted to point out the cumulative problem created by the individual variances.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Vice-Chairperson Sharp closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown asked the Director of Development Services to address how
heights on properties are measured. Mr. Whittenberg explained that heights are
generally measured from the existing grade level. He said that there have been
recent changes to City policies on the grading of single-family lots for new homes
and major additions to new homes, as a result of some water quality requirements
imposed on the City by the Water Quality Control Board (WQCB). He stated that
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\01-09-G2 PC Minutes.doc
4
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002
what has occurred over the last two years is that most new homes must submit a
formal grading plan that shows the property is graded to drain all of their drainage
onto their own property and not across adjoining properties. He pointed out that
sometimes this does result in having to raise the grade to have the proper flow for
drainage off the property. Mr. Whittenberg stated that as a result of this new
requirement the grading on new homes might change and raise the height of the
home.
Commissioner Brown noted that approximately 10 years ago the City Council (CC)
visited this issue, because of some "doghouses" that got out of control, and this is
the compromise that the CC came up with. He stated that the CC did set up a series
of criteria and the role of the Planning Commission is to review the plans to ensure
that the "doghouses" fall within these criteria, and as long as they do, the PC must
approve them. He said that it is almost an automatic approval if the "doghouse" or
CRAS falls within the criteria, and if it doesn't, it is an immediate denial.
Commissioner Brown stated that although staggering the heights of homes from the
shore might be a good idea, it is not within the Planning Commission's purview to
consider this, but would be a policy decision of CC. He noted that although the
speakers tonight have addressed valid concerns, this application falls within Code
requirements.
Commissioner Cutuli commented that when he resided in Surfside he noted that the
CRAS were blocking the view of the residents along "B" Row, and the CC and
Planning Commission found that these CRAS met the criteria for roof access
structures. He said that at that time CC decided to limit the CRAS to the minimum
size that can be used to achieve access with the various structure styles. He stated
that CRAS are necessary in today's lifestyle of building as much as possible on the
lot that is available and they create minimal obstruction of the ocean view. He stated
that he felt this application should be approved, but said he is also concerned about
the "creeping" height of new homes within the City. He recommended that this be
monitored carefully.
Mr. Whittenberg interjected that every so often a structure will be constructed a little
bit higher than indicated in the plans, and in these cases the Building Inspectors do
bring this to the attention of Staff. He said that in these cases the owners are
required to lower the roof back down to the required height. He continued by noting
that regarding the height above the new grade necessary to comply with the WaCB
Grading Plan, the City can no longer do anything about these cases. He explained
that drainage is based on a minimal slope that the Engineering Department is
comfortable with for slope drainage on the property.
Commissioner Ladner asked if Commissioner Cutuli were stating that the height of
all new homes should be measured and certified or documented by the Building
Inspector. Commissioner Cutuli stated that he would like to see this. Mr.
Whittenberg interjected that this was already a part of the Building Inspector's final
inspection. He explained that this is normally measured when the framing for the
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\01-D9-D2 PC Minutes.doc
5
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002
house goes up. He said that if it js too high, it must be lowered to meet the height
requirement.
Vice-Chairperson Sharp commented that it would be a wonderful thing if before
homes had been constructed in Seal Beach, they would have been tiered from the
beach; however, this has not been the case, and there is no possibility of doing it
now.
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to approve Height Variation 02-1 and adopt
Resolution 02-2.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Cutuli, Ladner, and Sharp
None
Hood
Mr. Boga advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 02-2 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
4. Height Variation 02-2
A-79 Surfs ide
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Deborah Howard
To construct a non-habitable covered roof access
structure (CRAS) in excess of the 35-foot height limit.
Specifically, the proposed structure would exceed the
height limit by approximately 4 feet.
Recommendation:
Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of
Resolution 02-4.
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
described the surrounding land uses as follows:
NORTH:
Residential housing in a Residential Low Density (RLD)
Zone at Surfside and the Naval Weapons Station (NWS) in a
Public Land Use/Recreation (PLU/R) Zone.
SOUTH:
The Pacific Ocean and the beach in a Public Land
Use/Recreation (PLU/R) Zone.
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\01-09-02 PC Minutes.doc
6
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.-- 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002
EAST & WEST:
Single-family dwellings located in a Residential Low Density
(RLD) Zone at Surfside.
The Assistant Planner reported that this request falls under Section 28-2317 of the
City Code, which allows for non-habitable architectural features to extend above the
height limit. He stated that in reviewing this type of application the Planning
Commission shall consider the following criteria:
1. Whether such variation is appropriate for the architectural style of the building.
2. Whether the variation is appropriate for the character and integrity of the
neighborhood.
3. Whether such variation will significantly impair the primary view of any property
located within 300 feet.
He stated that the materials to be used in the construction of this Covered Roof
Access Structure (CRAS) would be in substantial conformity with materials used in
the construction of the rest of the house, and falls within the adopted City Council
policy guidelines. He reported that this is a straight run, rectangular staircase with a
maximum square footage of 38 feet. He noted that the plans do show a Jacuzzi spa
tub with a guard railing extending above 35 feet. He said that this guard railing is not
subject to this section of the Code and Staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission direct the applicant to have the plans re-drawn with a guard rail that is
no higher than 35-feet. He stated that Staff recommends approval of Height
Variation (HV) 02-2 subject to conditions.
Commissioner Questions
None.
Public Hearina
Vice-Chairperson Sharp opened the public hearing.
Ms. Deborah Howard stated that she was present to respond to any questions from
the Planning Commission.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Vice-Chairperson Sharp closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown asked if the condition regarding the height of the guardrail had
been included with Resolution 02-4. Mr. Whittenberg noted that it was listed on
Page 3 of Resolution 02-4 as Condition No.2. Commissioner Brown noted that the
same comments as the previous application apply and he moved to approve.
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\01-D9-D2 PC Minutes.doc
7
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002
MOTION by Brown; SECOND by Cutuli to approve Height Variation 02-2 and adopt
Resolution 02-4.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Cutuli, Ladner, and Sharp
None
Hood
Mr. Boga advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 02-4 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
5. Variance 02-1
200 Surf
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Recommendation:
Staff Reoort
Joseph and Anna Woyjeck
To construct a proposed garage extension and second
story deck enclosure addition into the required front yard
setback, which is 18 feet. The proposed garage
extension will encroach 5.5 feet into the required setback
and the proposed second story deck enclosure will
encroach 1 foot into the required front yard setback.
Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of
Resolution 02-1.
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this item and
stated that the applicant is seeking to add approximately 1,815 square feet to an
existing single-family residence (SFR). He described the surrounding land uses as
follows:
SOUTH, EAST
& WEST:
NORTH:
Residential housing in a Residential Low Density (RLD)
Zone.
Residential housing in a Residential Low Density (RLD)
Zone and property within The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan
Zone (HRSP) Zone as well as a portion of Gum Grove Park.
He described the property as located on the corner of Surf Place and Carmel
Avenue with two entrance points to the lot. He stated that the applicant would like to
enter the garage from the side yard. He noted that currently City Code defines the
Z:\CAlvarez\Cannen_data\PC Minutes\2002\01-D9-D2 PC Minutes.doc
8
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002
narrowest portion of a property, which fronts a street as the front yard of that
property, and the adjacent sides to that front yard become the side yard. He
explained that the applicant would like to create the front entry garage entering from
the side yard of the property, which creates a setback problem, as City Code states
that the front yard setback must be 18 feet and the side yard setback must be 5 feet.
He stated that the applicant would like to have a side yard setback of 20 feet and the
front yard setback be 12. feet 6 inches. Mr. Cummins noted that in reviewing
Variances the Planning Commission must make very specific findings, which are:
1. The variance will not adversely affect the General Plan.
2. Special circumstances applicable to the property somehow deprive the property
owner from enjoying the same privileges enjoyed by other property owners within
the same vicinity and zone.
3. The granting of such a variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges.
The Assistant Planner explained that this lot does reflect special characteristics, as it
is a corner lot that is square allowing entry from either street. He stated that the
current garage encroaches into the front yard setback area, and the applicant would
like to extend the garage closer to the front yard setback line and construct a second
floor over the main residence, which will encroach approximately 1 foot into the front
yard setback area. He noted that in light of the main issue regarding corner
properties, which is line of sight from a vehicle, this proposal would be better than
what the property owner could do by right if they created an 18-foot front yard
setback and 5-foot side yard setbacks. He stated that the 20-foot side yard setback
would allow for a greater line of sight for vehicle approaching the corner. He stated
that Staff is recommending approval of Variance 02-1 subject to conqitions and
adoption of Resolution 02-1. Mr. Cummins noted for the record that a letter dated
December 20, 2001, from Mr. Eddy, at 135 Surf Place stating his opposition to
Variance 02-1.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Brown clarified that what the applicant was proposing was to consider
the front yard as the side yard and the side yard as the front yard. He asked
whether the entire side yard would follow the 20-foot setback, or whether this would
only apply to the garage. Mr. Cummins stated that the 20-foot setback does not
follow all the way. Commissioner Brown asked if the 20-foot setback would follow
only for the garage, and the other wing of the house would have a 10-foot setback.
Mr. Cummins reported that the other wing of the house already exists and has a 10-
foot side yard setback and that is to remain.
Public Hearina
Vice-Chairperson Sharp opened the public hearing.
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\01-G9-02 PC Minutes.doc
9
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002
Mr. Joe Woyjeck stated he was present tonight to respond to any questions
regarding his application.
Mr. John Lange stated that he lives across the street from 200 Surf Place and was
present tonight to voice his overwhelming support of this application. He said that
the Woyjecks are people that anyone would want in their neighborhood. He
reported that he had basically done the same with his property when he remodeled
approximately 10 years ago. He recommended approval of Variance (V AR) 02-1.
Mr. Ian Screen, who resides at 145 Surf Place, stated that he supports VAR 02-1
and has no objections to these plans. He also read into the record a letter from the
Mikkelson family who resides at 125 Surf Place, expressing their support of this
request.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Vice-Chairperson Sharp closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Cutuli stated that corner lots do not properly fit into the category
description for front and side yards because the home would normally face the large
side of the lot. He said that he believes it is an enhancement to the neighborhood to
have the larger side of the house be the front face of the lot. He noted that if the line
of site for drivers would be improved by this addition he would be in favor of
approving it.
Commissioner Brown stated that he is not normally in favor of Variances unless they
strictly meet the criteria and he believes that this is a good example of where a V AR
would be appropriate. He said that there are unique characteristics to this property
that denies some benefit by the strict interpretation of the Code, and he believes this
property falls well within that definition and it would be appropriate to approve this
item.
Commissioner Ladner noted that this project would certainly enhance the
neighborhood.
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Ladner to approve Variance 02-1 and adopt
Resolution 02-1.
MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1
AYES: Brown, Cutuli, Ladner, and Sharp
NOES: None
ABSENT: Hood
Z:\CAlvarez\Cannen_data\PC Minutes\2002\01-09-D2 PC Minutes.doc
10
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002
Mr. Boga advised that the adoption of Resolution No. 02-1 begins a 10-day calendar
appeal period to the City Council. The Commissioner action tonight is final and the
appeal period begins tomorrow morning.
6. Site Plan Review 02-1
12282 Bridgewater Way (Centex Homes)
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Cary and Carol Brody
To approve a Site Plan Review for a proposed 324-
square foot family room addition at the rear of the subject
property. The proposed lot coverage will be 47.93%; the
maximum lot coverage permitted is 50%.
Recommendation:
Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of
Resolution 02-3.
Staff Reoort
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in
the Planning Department.) He reported that as part of the Development Agreement
(DA) executed between the Bixby Ranch Company and the City of Seal Beach, a
Site Plan Review (SPR) would be required for all future development to ensure that
it meets the general criteria of the City and complies with the zoning provisions. He
noted that because no builder was on board when the land subdivision was
approved, City Council's main concern was to have the ability to review and pre-
approve any plans for a residential development. He stated that the Planning
Commission (PC) conducted the architectural SPR and the plans for the Centex
Homes Development were approved. He said that the SPR process still applies to
additions to homes within this development and that is why this application is being
presented tonight. He described the proposal to add a 324 square foot, single-story
extension to the existing family room to the rear of the house. He indicated that the
proposed addition meets the required 5-foot side yard and 10-foot rear yard
setbacks, and with the addition the property will have less than the 50% maximum
allowed lot coverage. He noted that the architectural style will be similar to that of
the existing house. He reported that a faxed document was received from Mr. Stan
Nathanson, who resides in a house whose lot backs up to the Brody's home. Mr.
Nathanson expressed his concern that this project not be considered until the
Homeowners Association (HA) for this development is made up entirely of
homeowners and does not include representatives of Centex Homes, as is currently
the case. Mr. Whittenberg explained that Mr. Nathanson requests that this item be
continued until such time as this action occurs. The Director of Development
Services then stated that because the proposed addition meets all City
requirements, Staff is recommending approval of SPR 02-1.
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\01-09-02 PC Minutes.doc
11
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Brown asked if this item would have been presented to the PC had it
been located anywhere else within the City. Mr. Whittenberg responded that it
would not have come before the PC. Commissioner Brown asked if Staff would
have any concerns about the setbacks were this project located anywhere else
within the City. Mr. Whittenberg responded that Staff would have no concerns.
Commissioner Cutuli asked for clarification as to why this application was brought
before the PC. Mr. Whittenberg explained that the City entered into a Development
Agreement (DA) with the Bixby Ranch Company when the Bixby Project was
approved to require a Site Plan Review (SPR) for any future development. He said
that as these properties were transferred from the Bixby Ranch Company, and in
this case to Centex Homes, the new owners were required to comply with all the
terms of the existing DA. Commissioner Cutuli asked whether the terms of the DA
expire when the homes are purchased. Mr. Whittenberg stated that the terms of the
DA continue to apply ad infinitum. He indicated that Staff would like to discuss this
issue further with the PC at some point in the future.
Public Hearing
Vice-Chairperson Sharp opened the public hearing.
Mr. Cary Brody stated that he was present tonight to respond to any questions
regarding this application.
Ms. Tania Demeter stated she and her family reside at 12283 Old Harbor Court, and
that their rear yard backs up diagonally to the Brody's lot. She said that the Centex
lots are very close together and since her property is located on a culdesac this
contributes to creating a smaller rear yard area. She said that this also creates a
staggered lot line where although the addition would be set back 10 feet from the
Brody's rear property line, the comparative set back from the Demeter's rear
property line would be much less. She explained that this would almost bring the
Brody's addition into her back yard. She stated that she has not had an opportunity
to look at the plans and she is not certain whether the Architectural Review Broad
took her home into consideration. Ms. Demeter stated that although the homes
have 5-foot high fences, when she has her patio foundation poured, she would
actually have only 4.5 feet of private fencing. She asked if homeowners would be
allowed to increase the height of the fences. She said she would like to have an
opportunity to review the plans. Mr. Whittenberg responded that Staff could not
respond as far as what the Architectural Committee considered when reviewing the
plans. He said that the City requires that all properties have at least a 5-foot side
yard and at least a 10-foot rear yard setback. He stated that the Brody's addition
does comply with these standards. He reported that many of the lots in this
development have very small rear yards, mostly within the 15-18-foot range. The
Director of Development Services also explained that the height of the fences could
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\01-09-02 PC Minutes.doc
12
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002
be increased to a maximum height of 6 feet. Ms. Demeter stated that because her
back yard will accommodate a patio large enough for only a table and 4 chairs, she
would not have any room for plants or planters in the back yard. She also
expressed her concern with the Brody's future plans' to add a balcony off the 2nd
story bedroom, which she indicated would really infringe upon her privacy and would
impact the value of Ms. Demeter's property.
Mr. Tom Wiling hand stated that he lives across the street from Ms. Demeter, and
although the proposed addition does not impact him directly, his concern is that
currently less than 25% of the residents are living in the homes. He said that he
supports Mr. Nathanson's recommendation to continue this item until such time as
there are more residents as members of the HA.
Mr. Peter Demeter stated that he wished to emphasize that out of 72 homes in the
development, his home has the smallest back yard. He said that although the PC
could not remedy this, he asked that anything that might impact their privacy be
considered in making a determination on SPR 02-1
Ms. Alina Demeter, daughter of Mr. & Mrs. Demeter, stated that her parents are co-
investors with her on this home and stated that she has known the Brody's since she
was 15 years old. She commented that she likes the Brody's and is happy to have
them as neighbors. Ms. Demeter explained that because of this she came to this
meeting tonight with some trepidation. She presented a rough sketch she had
drawn to help provide a better ides of the proximity of the respective houses. She
noted that from her bathroom window she could literally see into the Brody's home
and watch the TV programming on their television set. She stated that the Brody's
addition would significantly impact the Demeter's privacy.
Mr. Brody stated that the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) were
provided to all of the homeowners when purchasing their homes and to change them
would involve a very complex process. He said that the Brodys have complied both
with the CC&Rs and City requirements, and he noted that many of the properties
within the development do have more land use options than the Brodys do. He
stated that this is a single-story addition with no future plans to add a 2nd story deck.
He noted that because the homes are so close together residents are all able to look
into one another's yards and homes regardless of whether or not the addition is
made. He emphasized that with sideyard setbacks of only 5 feet, all residents are
able to look into their neighbor's yards and homes from the side windows of the
homes.
Ms. Carol Brody stated that they had purchased the home in order to be close to her
husband's job at Los Alamitos High School. She said that they had purchased one
of the properties with a larger back yard with the intent to add onto the home. She
stated that the addition would not only improve the floor plan for her home but would
also increase the value of the property. She also emphasized that they have
followed all of the appropriate channels in preparing the plans for this addition, and
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\01-D9-D2 PC Minutes.doc
13
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002
they are attempting to minimize any imposition upon their neighbors. Ms. Brody
indicated that eventually there would probably be a lot of additions to the homes
within this development because although the homes appear to be large, some of
the inside living areas are quite small.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Vice-Chairperson Sharp closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Cutuli stated that when Centex was designing these home he had
expressed his concerns about having 2-story homes on small lots, which creates a
very crowded community. He said that he believes that in this situation, more
additions to the homes will lead to more crowding. He noted that although this
application would eventually be approved, he would not vote to approve this item
until the HA is comprised completely of residents. He indicated that although the
application meets all of the required criteria, he believes it requires special
consideration.
Mr. Whittenberg noted that in reviewing a copy of the CC&Rs they indicate that for
the first year from the date of the issuance of the subdivision report, all the members
of the Architectural Review Board will be representatives of the builder. He
continued by stating that the document also indicates that at the end of one year one
member may be appointed by the Board, and depending upon the number of homes
sold by that time, the remaining members may be appointed by the Board or they
may still be representatives of the builder. He stated that Staff could research the
date of the subdivision report. Commissioner Cutuli indicated that he would like
Staff to provide this information.
Commissioner Brown stated that the reason the City has established setback
requirements is to safeguard residents' privacy and to allow for airflow and space.
He said that his initial feeling is that as long as this project complies with City Code,
he does not feel that the PC is designed to nor should it become involved in
"homeowner squabbles." He said that the only thing that might sway his opinion
would be that a HA can sometimes impose stricter covenants and regulations than a
city might apply, and they do so to ensure that all of the residents get along.
Commissioner Brown stated that because this application meets all requirements, he
does not see how the PC has the right to deny this request, but since Chairperson
Hood, whose district this pertains to, is absent, he would vote to continue this item
for one month to allow him an opportunity to comment.
Commissioner Ladner asked when the vote from the "HA would take place. Mr.
Whittenberg interjected that the provisions for the HA do not affect the Design
Review Board, which has specific provisions in the CC&Rs that state that for a year
from the date of issuance of the Subdivision Report, the builder can have 3 of its
representatives as members of the HA. He continued by noting that after the one-
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\01-D9-02 PC Minutes.doc
14
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
.46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002
year period has expired, one of the builder members can be replaced by an
appointee of the HA, and if all the homes have been sold by that time, then the other
2 builder representatives could also be replaced. He explained that until the date for
the one-year period is established, he would agree with Commissioner Brown's
recommendation to continue this matter until that information is available.
Vice-Chairperson Sharp indicated that he had no objection to continuing this item
until the first meeting in February 2002. He stated that he believes the Brodys have
every right to go ahead with the project and trying to hold it over until a HA Board
composed entirely of residents is established could pose a hardship as it might take
2 or 3 years to have a full resident HA. He confirmed that he would vote to continue
this item so that Chairperson Hood could comment on this issue.
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Brown to continue the public hearing for Site Plan
Review 02-1 to the Planning Commission meeting of February 6, 2002.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Brown, Cutuli, Ladner, and Sharp
None
Hood
STAFF CONCERNS
Mr. Whittenberg reported that there were no agenda items for the next Planning
Commission meeting of January 23, 2002, so he recommended canceling that
meeting.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Brown asked if the Planning Commission had discussed the issue of
outdoor seating at the Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf on Main Street. Mr. Whittenberg
stated that this issue had been discussed and the tables have been removed and
Staff has had no word of the tables being placed outside again. Mr. Cummins
interjected that Staff had just received an application for a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) requesting approval for outdoor dining.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice-Chairperson Sharp adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Z:\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\01-09-02 PC Minutes.doc
15
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2002
Respectfully Submitted,
C'~.~ ~_
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secre ary
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on February 20, 2002 approved t~ Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of Wednesday, January 9, 2002. ~.
\\DATAFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2002\01.09.02 PC Mlnutes.doc
16