HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2002-02-06
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for February 6, 2002
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Brian Brown
District 2 - Jim Sharp
District 3 - Len Cutuli
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 Planning Commission · Agenda of February 6, 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 during this time period. No action can be
taken by the Planning Commission on these communications on this date, unless
agendized.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Public Hearings allow citizens the opportunity to speak in
favor of or against agendized items. More detailed information is found in the actual
agenda attached. If you have documents to distribute, 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
.
.
.
VI.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of February 6, 2002
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for February 6, 2002
7:30 p.m.
I.
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; and/or
(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 jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, provided that the Planning
Commission may undertake no action or discussion unless otherwise authorized by law.
V.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless
prior 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.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Site Plan Review 02-1 (Continued from January 9, 2002)
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.
VIII. STAFF CONCERNS
IX. COMMISSION CONCERNS
X. ADJOURNMENT
3
.
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
Noy 06
Noy 20
Dee 04
Dee 18
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of February 6, 2002
2002 Aaenda Forecast
Conditional Use Permit 02-1 (Coffee Bean & Tea)
Conditional Use Permit 02-2 (Macaroni Grill)
Negative Declaration, Height Variation 02-3 (Rossmoor Center)
TO BE SCHEDULED:
.
o
o
Study Session:
Staff Report:
Permitted Uses and Development Standards in Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Undergrounding of Utilities
4
.
.
.
a
a
Study Session:
Study Session:
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of February 6, 2002
Retaining Walls
ADA Handicapped-Accessible Restrooms
5
.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 February 6, 2002
Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 6, 2002. The meeting
was held in the City Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Hood, Commissioners Brown, Cutuli, Ladner, and Sharp
Also
Present: Deoartment of Develooment Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Terence Boga, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Assistant Planner
Absent: None
AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION by Cutuli; SECOND by Sharp to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Brown, Cutuli, Hood, Ladner, and Sharp
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Hood opened oral communications.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed oral
communications.
1 These Minutes were transcribed from audiotape of the meeting.
\\DATAFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\02-D6-D2 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
46
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
None.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Site Plan Review 02-1 (Continued from January 9,2002)
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 Report
Mr. Whittenberg delivered the supplemental staff report. (Staff Report is on file for
inspection in the Planning Department.) He provided some background information
on this item and noted that a copy of the initial staff report of January 9, 2002 was
attached to the supplemental staff report. He stated that one of the main issues
discussed was the impact from the proposed room addition upon the adjoining
properties, related to intrusion on privacy. He noted that both staff reports indicate
that the City looks at this issue from a different viewpoint than a homeowner
association (HA) might. He said that the City sees this application as meeting the
minimum setback and lot coverage requirements, and height provisions. He stated
that this is a structure that the City would allow without any review at all. He
indicated that the reason this application was brought before the Planning
Commission (PC) is because of a development agreement (DA) between the City of
Seal Beach and the Bixby Ranch Company that has provisions that continue to
apply to the subsequent landowners upon sale or transfer of the property. He noted
that because there was no residential plan submitted at the time the project was
approved at the Council Level, a Site Plan Review (SPR) is required for all future
construction within this residential development. Mr. Whittenberg continued by
stating that another issue was whether or not the HA had adequately considered
these issue in their approval of the project. He indicated that a copy of the grading
plan had been included with the supplemental staff report reflecting the distances
\\DATAFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\02-Q6-02 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 February 6, 2002
between the new addition and the other structures on the adjoining properties. He
briefly outlined the distances from the corner of the proposed addition to the
cattycornered lot to the north and to the other existing structures. The Director of
Development Services noted that there is a typical 10-foot separation from residence
to residence on side yards, and generally there is a minimum 20-foot building
separation from rear yard to rear yard when lot lines are contiguous and there is no
"jog" in them. Mr. Whittenberg then reported that another issue was concern over
the property owner constructing a second-story deck above the proposed single-
story addition. He stated that should the owners propose constructing this deck, the
issue would have to go before the HA first for review and approval before coming
before the PC for an additional SPR.
Mr. Whittenberg then explained that the construction of a fireplace on the single-
story addition was also at issue. He noted that the fireplace would project into the
side yard setback in accordance with the City's encroachment standards. He stated
that because the fireplace will butt up against the rear of the existing 2-story house,
it must be a certain height above the. roof line in accordance with Building Code
provisions and that is why it is as high as it is. He noted that it would appear that it is
physically attached to the existing 2nd story. He stated that Staff has outlined other
alternatives for this structure that can be presented later.
The Director of Development Services stated that several residents had requested
that this item be continued until the Design Review Committee (DRC) of the HA has
more residents than representatives of the builder as members. He noted that the
Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) do indicate that until September 21,
2002, the membership of the DRC will maintain its current membership of
representatives of the developer. He said that after this, depending upon how
quickly the homes are sold, all representatives could change over to residents of the
development. He stated that the City is bound by state law requirements (Permit
Streamlining Act) and under the provisions of this law, the City has 60 days to take
action on this type of application before the PC tonight. He explained that if no
action is taken within 60 days, the matter is then deemed approved. Mr.
Whittenberg continued by stating that Staff believes the project complies with the
City's requirements. He reported that copies of letters from the Board of the HA
indicating the project has been approved have been provided to the Planning
Commissioners as well as copies of a letter from the Brody's to their neighbors
inviting them to review the plans for the proposed addition.
Commissioner Questions
Chairperson Hood asked if the homeowners have any right to choose the members
of the HA. Mr. Whittenberg stated that as he reads the - CC&Rs, they do not.
Chairperson Hood confirmed that essentially the residents' future was in the hands
of people not of their choosing. Mr. Whittenberg confirmed that this was correct. Mr.
Whittenberg noted that he has resided in two such communities that are governed
\\DATAFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\02-06-02 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 February 6, 2002
by this same type of organization and the language is very typical of what these
associations use.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing.
Mr. Barry Ross, legal counsel for Cary and Carol Brody, stated that as the Director
of Development Services has stated, the project does comply with all City
requirements and with the requirements of the DRC of the HA. He said that despite
a letter from neighbors requesting that the DRC rescind their approval, they refused
to do so. He stated that he is in agreement with Staffs recommendation to approve
Site Plan Review (SPR) 02-1 and. he would be happy to respond to any questions.
Mr. Stan Nathanson asked whether the PC had received a letter he had faxed for
inclusion with the Staff Report. He provided copies and explained that in his letter
he addressed the issue of the majority of the members of the HA being
representatives of the developer. He noted that these same individuals make up the
DRC, essentially approving their own actions. Mr. Nathanson said that the CC&Rs
state that while the developer representatives are members of the HA, there is no
appeal on any action taken by the DRC, leaving no avenue of appeal for the
residents. Mr. Nathanson stated that the plans submitted to the PC are incorrect
and do not properly represent what is being done. He said that the plans reflect one
chimney, but there are actually two with the existing chimney, which is not shown in
the plans. He continued by stating that there is a meeting of the HA scheduled for
March 2, 2002, at which time members of the community will vote and place as a
member a resident of the community. He explained that the homes have all been
sold and as they are occupied, more members will be added to the board when the
current members resign and have their positions appointed by members of the
community. He said that at that time an Architectural Review Committee (ARC)
made up of homeowners could also be appointed. He emphasized that the
homeowners should have the right to determine their future by setting up reasonable
rules that the community can live with.
Mr. Tom Willingham requested that the Planning Commission (PC) review this
application carefully and stated that he hoped the Commissioners were taking the
public comments from homeowners into consideration in making a determination on
this matter. He said that his biggest concern is that this application was presented
and approved in approximately two weeks, leaving ample opportunity to notify the
surrounding homeowners. Mr. Willingham noted that although he is not impacted by
the Brody's addition, he would be very frustrated if an addition were constructed on
the home behind him without providing adequate notice. He recommended that the
PC review the plans again and that residents have an opportunity to provide input.
Ms. Alina Demeter, a co-owner of the most impacted property, presented
photographs reflecting how the back yard of her property currently looks, and how
\\DATAFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\02-Q6-Q2 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 February 6, 2002
close the Brody house already is to her home. She stated that no site inspection
was conducted when the DRC approved the plans for the Brody addition. She said
that she and her parents had been living in their new home for less than one week
when they discovered that the Brody addition had already been approved. She
indicated that the proposed addition would come within one foot of the Demeter
property line, because the Demeter property is located in a culdesac pushing their
property line back 8.5 feet. She noted that again, without a site inspection, the Board
of Directors (the same three members that are on the DRC) declined to overturn the
DRC decision. Ms. Demeter then went on to explain the procedure used by the HA
and the DRC for determining approvals for additions to the homes. She explained
that the HA reviews applications and makes an aesthetic judgment about the effect
of the proposed addition on the harmony and beauty of the addition. She quoted
from a rejection letter received from the DRC as follows:
"The Architectural Committee had approved the plans based upon the
architectural review and approval criteria contained within Article 5,
Section 5.3.3 of the CC&Rs. The Committee had determined that the
plans complied with the criteria established by that Section. Because
the Centex Representatives currently serve as both the Association
Board and the Association Architectural Committee, there can be no
truly independent review by the Board of Directors at this time of an
Architectural Committee approval. For this reason the Association
CC&Rs do not yet allow for the Association Board of Directors to
overturn a decision of the Architectural Committee. "
Ms. Demeter then continued to review the design criteria as outlined in Section 5.3.3
of the CC&Rs emphasizing that the Brody's addition does not comply with these
guidelines. She stated that the proposed addition is detrimental to Lot 28 and 29.
She noted that with the two chimneys the appearance is not in harmony and the
one-foot setback from the Demeter property line offends common standards of
privacy, decency, and enjoyment of the property. She reported that the Brodys have
verified that they were not property owners at the time they submitted their plans for
approval, and contrary to what they have stated, the Brodys did not provide
disclosure of their plans to adjacent homeowners. She also stated that prior to the
closure of escrow by the Demeters, the developer, Centex Homes, did not disclose
the impending violation of their property entrance as required by the Business and
Professions Code. Ms. Demeter explained that the Brody's plans are incomplete, as
they do not reflect two fireplaces or the distances from the adjacent properties. She
stated that when there are staggered lots, the Code in other cities requires that an
average of all property lines be made. She expressed that she and her family feel
violated and humiliated in the worst way, and are completely helpless. She
appealed to the PC to carefully consider their determination.
Mr. Steven Cooper, owner of the home directly behind the Brody's, stated that he
does not want to be at odds with one of his neighbors when he moves into his new
home. He said that he has no issue with the Brodys, but with the developer, Centex
\\DA T AFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\02"()6"()2 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 February 6, 2002
Homes. He stated that the Centex never called him to advise him of the Brody's
plans. He indicated that until today, he did not know that a deck could be
constructed over the Brody addition.
Mr. Peter Demeter, co-owner with Alina Demeter, stated that the first time he had
seen the blueprint of plans displayed tonight was at the PC meeting of January 9,
2002, along with the Staff Report on SPR 02-1. He noted that his business is
Engineering Architecture and he has since had an opportunity to review the plans.
He stated that having to look at the single story roof of the Brody's proposed family
room addition would not be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Demeter explained that the
value of his property is in jeopardy as a result. He said he was not aware of the
plans for this addition until he received the public notice from the City. He stated
that the addition should be acceptable to all of the homeowners, and this would not
be the case.
Mrs. Tanya Demeter stated that she likes the Brodys and understands their desire to
improve their property. She said that she had invited the Brodys to come to her
home so that they might see what the view is like from the Demeter kitchen. She
noted that because the most frequently used entrance to her home is through the
kitchen, they cannot help but regularly be exposed to the view of the Brody's home.
She stated that atter doing some calculations she determined that the distance
between comers of the lots along her street is 49 feet. She said that because the
Demeter lot is staggered, the distance is 30 feet. She stated that with the Brody
addition, there would be a distance of only 17.5 feet. Mrs. Demeter indicated that
they are willing to negotiate with the Brodys to see if they are able to reach a
compromise. She also requested that the PC give careful consideration to any
determination.
Mr. Barry Ross stated that it appears most of the residents' complaints have to do
with the provisions of the CC&Rs or with the actions of the developer, issues that Mr.
Ross noted the PC should not have to consider. He explained that when a property
that is a part of a community association is purchased, before homebuyers can close
escrow they are required to sign a statement of having received, reviewed, and
accepted the provisions of the CC&Rs. He noted that all of the homeowners of the
Old Ranch Homes would have been required to sign such a statement. With regard
to the homeowners not having received adequate notification from the HA, Mr. Ross
stated that this was. an issue that should be referred to the developer and is not a
reason to deny Mr. Brody's plans. He said that if Mr. Brody's plans are in
compliance with City Code, they should be approved. He reiterated that the HA did
approve Mr. Brody's plans, and there is no question that the DRC is properly
constituted and has made their decision. He noted that the fact that the
homeowners are unhappy with the membership of the HA is not an issue to be
considered by the PC. Mr. Ross then reported that the plans as displayed are
correct as there will only'be one chimney. He stated that the existing chimney is to
be removed with the only remaining chimney to be the one constructed with the
room addition. He also reported that the Brody's were the legal owners of the
\\DATAFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\02-QS'()2 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
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2002
property when the HA approved the plans. With regard to the statements made
about Section 5.3.2 of the CC&Rs, Mr. Ross stated that having Adjacent Owners
sign acknowledgement of being notified is discretionary and not mandatory. He said
that the Demeter house was not yet occupied when the Brody's circulated their plans
for adjacent owners to sign, and he commented that he believed the Demeters did
not yet own the property. Mr. Ross explained that there were no plans for
construction of a 2nd story deck, and he noted that should the Brody's wish to
construct a deck at a later time, they would again have to go through the appropriate
channels for approval of this deck.
Mr. Cary Brody stated that all they had done was purchase a home and apply for
and receive approval for construction of an addition to that home. He said that they
had researched every aspect of this process and continued to comply with all City
requirements and have applied for approval by the PC. He stated that they had no
idea of the timeline on how Centex was showing new homes. Mr. Brody stated that
he was required to have only those homeowners who had closed escrow sign off on
the plans. He offered the scenario that six months from now the homeowner would
mount a recall of the current members of the HA. He presented photographs of one
of the homes in the development noting how the trees planted in the yard and in the
neighboring yards with time begin to obscure views from one lot to another. He
described other photo views of his home and the Demeter home to reflect that the
addition and the new chimney would not be as highly visible as the Demeters claim.
Mr. Brody reported that the CC&Rs state that under no circumstance are
homeowners granted any view. He questioned whether any new addition to any
home in Seal Beach and approved by the PC would not increase the value of the
home. He stated that although his home is very nice, his bathroom and closet area
are as big as the current family room and the fireplace was constructed in a comer
of the house, which he wants to change. He commented that things have gotten out
of control. He explained that he had invited the Demeters into his home before they
had closed escrow on their home. He also noted that he had shared his plans for
adding onto his home with his neighbor, Mr. Cooper. Mr. Brody stated that if this is a
reasonable project and it meets all of the City's requirements, there should be no
reason to deny this application.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public
hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Brown asked whether the City had a provision for calculating average
setbacks for staggered lots. Mr. Whittenberg reported that this was not the case.
He explained that the City uses a standard 10-foot rear yard setback and 5-foot side
yard setback requirements, except for the Old Town area. Commissioner Brown
asked if there were other areas in the city with staggered property lines. Mr.
Whittenberg stated that this is usually found in areas with culdesacs at the ends of
streets. He indicated that the jog is usually on the rear property line only.
\\DATAFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Cannen_data\PC Minutes\2002\02-G6-G2 PC Minutes.doc
7
.~
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 February 6. 2002
Commissioner Cutuli asked Mr. Boga whether the PC had any part in evaluating
CC&Rs, and if these take precedence over standard building codes throughout the
City. Mr. Boga stated that compliance with CC&Rs is strictly a matter between the
neighboring homeowners and the developer. He said that legally it is not the PCs
job to evaluate whether or not proper notice was given in accordance with the
CC&Rs or whether the standards of the DRC were properly applied. Commissioner
Cutuli asked if the CC&Rs within a district limit what can be done on a property, the
PC cannot supercede the CC&Rs, even though City Code may allow the revisions.
Mr. Whittenberg interjected by stating that the Bridgeport development is made up of
a number of different tracts, and there are specific provisions for this area because
many of the homes have a zero lot line on the property line. He also noted that
there are provisions that only 50% of the home in certain tracts in that area can be
two-story homes. He said that the City would not approve a project in that area
unless their HA indicates that they have reviewed and approved the project.
Commissioner Cutuli clarified that when making decisions on what can or cannot be
constructed, the City must honor the CC&Rs and cannot overrule them. Mr.
Whittenberg responded that the City could overrule the CC&Rs, but the City has
taken the position that it will not consider a project from any area of town that is
subject to CC&Rs unless the appropriate design review or architectural review board
has approved the plans. He indicated that this is the provision for Surfside Colony.
Mr. Boga continued by stating that the PC could give approval to a project that is
allowed by City Code; however, the reality is that the homeowner could not build it
because it would not be consistent with the CC&Rs and this could be held against
the homeowner. He emphasized that the City will consider whether the DRC has
approved the project as consistent with the CC&Rs, but this is really more of a
courtesy, as the PC is determining whether the project complies with City Code. He
continued by stating that whether the project complies with the CC&Rs is the
homeowner's responsibility.
Commissioner Sharp stated that he lives in a gated, controlled community in Leisure
World and purchasing a condominium there involves a major investment. He said
that he purchased his home there because it is a controlled community and it has
rules and regulations, which were clearly explained to him at the time of purchase.
He noted that if a prospective buyer felt that he or she could not abide by these
regulations, then they should not consider moving to Leisure World. He said that
although he sympathized with the Old Ranch homeowners and hoped they had
carefully read their CC&Rs prior to purchasing their homes, as far as the City is
concerned had this project been constructed in any other part of the city outside a
gated community, it would have been approved without having to come before the
PC. He said that the PC has absolutely no right to deny this application because of
the CC&Rs, or the Design Review Board, or because of a view. He stated that the
issue must be addressed with the builders, the CC&Rs, and the review board, and
he believes that the PC is bound by law to grant approval.
\\DA T AFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Cannen_data\PC Minutes\2002\02-o6-o2 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
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2002
Commissioner Cutuli described this as a "hostile action" on the part of the Brodys to
develop the land behind their home in an area that is already as crowded as it ever
should be. He stated that just as Mr. Boga had noted, the PC does not create the
laws, but must interpret and abide by them. He said that if the PC did make laws he
would vote that this area should be immediately halted because the ARC has not
been appointed by the homeowners and is a situation where the developer is the
ARC. He commented that developers are not happy until every square inch of every
piece of land is developed. He said that he believes that once a tract of homes is
sold, the ARC should consist of the homeowners only. He stated that although he is
totally against this project, based upon what City Code allows he must vote to
approve. Commissioner Cutuli went on to state that he is totally against this project
and it will certainly affect property values, as it is a tremendous eyesore. He stated
that when the ARC is made up of the people that live in the area, this project will
eventually be grandfathered in and this type of project would not be allowed again,
and should not be allowed.
Commissioner Ladner stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Cutuli.
He said that he disliked the idea of have someone build an addition directly in his
back yard. He said that he also understands that he is obligated to vote a certain
way, and the property is within the legal jurisdiction of the City of Seal Beach so he
must vote yes, although he is totally against this project.
Commissioner Brown explained that the PC is a non-discretionary body, who follows
the rules and occasionally interprets them, but certainly does not make new rules.
He stated that this project is in conformance with City Code. He said he agreed with
Mr. Barry Ross that the issues that the Brody's neighbors have presented should be
taken up with the ORC. He stated that it is not the PC's responsibility to settle
"homeowner squabbles." He noted that he does not like the Old Ranch
development of homes and consistently voted against it, but the people who do
make the rules have decided to allow the development, and once that has taken
place, the PC is obligated to approve this project. He stated that it was not the place
of the PC to say that the ORC does not represent the community. He said he would
vote to approve SPR 02-1.
Chairperson Hood stated that this is a case of the failure of the system and it
appears that someone is attempting to, use the system to his own advantage. He
noted that the process was begun before having gone through escrow, and the
people making the decision would be benefiting from the sale of the home. He
commented that the Brody's would probably have a difficult time living in this
neighborhood with the amount of "bad blood" that has been raised with this issue.
He said that unfortunately the PC has been backed into a corner and is constrained
to deal only with certain issues. He said that legally he has no reason to vote
against this project, but ethically he cannot vote for it. He stated that he would
abstain from voting.
\\DATAFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Mlnutes\2002\02-D6-D2 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
.45
46
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2002
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Brown to approve Site Plan Review 02-1 subject to
conditions and adopt Resolution 02-3.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
4-0-1
Brown, Cutuli, Ladner, and Sharp
None
None
Hood
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.
STAFF CONCERNS
None.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Brown inquired about the construction at 308 Ocean Avenue. He
said that he had received a question regarding new construction within a setback
area. Mr. Whittenberg stated that he had reviewed the files and found that th~
project is being constructed in consistence with what the PC had approved. He
offered to compile a report on this project to present to the PC and its next meeting.
Commissioner Brown asked where the new construction was being done within the
setback area. Mr. Whittenberg reported that new construction was completed on the
north side of an existing structure, above an existing non-conforming setback
garage. He said the rest of the house is already within the non-conforming setback.
He said the plans had Clearly indicated this structure and there was some discussion
at the PC in 1997 about building in this area. Commissioner Brown stated that
although he understood that the PC allows existing non-conforming structures to
remain, the Commission has rarely allowed any new construction to violate a
setback. Mr. Whittenberg said that he did not recall, but the minutes appear to
reflect that because the new construction was over the garage, and there is a large
courtyard area, that it would be acceptable. He stated that Staff could provide the
information at the next PC.
Commissioner Brown then reported that his time on the Planning Commission was
coming to an end soon.
Commissioner Cutuli reported that he would not be present at the next Planning
Commission meeting, as he will be out of the country on vacation.
\\DATAFILE\USERS\CAlvarez\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\02-G6-G2 PC Minutes.doc
10
.~
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
.
.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secreta
Planning Department
APPROVAL
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Meeting Minutes of February 6, 2002
The Commission on March 6, 2002, approved thEh. Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of Wednesday, February 6, 2002. ~ .
C:\Carmen_data\PC Minutes\2002\02-D6-D2 PC Minutes.doc 11