Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Min 1993-08-23 8-9-93 I 8-23-93 available for beach sand if there were not so many street repair projects in College Park East. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. I ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of adjourn the meeting until Monday, August 23rd, to meet in Closed Session. the Council, to 1993 at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 7:40 p.m. of the c~ty Cler and ex-o ~ty of Seal Beach Approved: tfJ~, /'(~ ~roT_~re - .~ "\ , Attest: '" I Seal Beach, California August 23, 1993 The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in regular adjourned session at 6:00 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Forsythe Councilmembers Brown, Doane, Hastings, Laszlo Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bankston, City Manager Mr. Barrow, City Attorney Mrs. Yeo, city Clerk CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney announced that the City Council would meet in I Closed Session pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a) to discuss the matter of Sweet versus City of Seal Beach, pursuant to section 54956.9(b) discuss matters where, in the opinion of the City Attorney, there is significant exposure to a threat of litigation, and time permitting provide a status report relating to the Mola and Stark cases. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn to Closed Session at 6:02 p.m. The Council reconvened at 6:37 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. The city Attorney reported the Council had discussed the matters previously announced. I I I .~t 8-23-93 ADJOURNMENT Brown moved, p.m. second by Laszlo, to adjourn the meeting at 6:40 AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried (/l Beach Approved: _~c~ / ~ "'j_LJ Mayor Attest: Seal Beach, California August 23, 1993 The city Council of the City of Seal Beach met in reqular session at 7:48 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Forsythe Counci1members Brown, Doane, Hastings, Laszlo Absent: None Also present: Mr. Bankston, City Manager Mr. Barrow, city Attorney Mr. Whittenberg, Director of Development Services Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Hastings moved, second by Doane, to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Councilmembers after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such ordinance or resolution. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Mr. Joseph New, 4856 Fir Avenue, directed his comments to recent news articles relating to the resignation/removal of Mr. Fife as a member of the Planning Commission, which he claimed to be inappropriate. Mr. New spoke of Mr. Fife's integrity, knowledge and leadership, the efforts of the Commission in developing codes and ordinances to serve as a quide to assure that businesses and residences alike are developed in a uniform, fair and equitable manner. He questioned the application of the conflict of 8-23-93 interest laws in this case, claiming that the majority of a future proposed development in the vicinity of College Park East will be further than three hundred feet from the residence of Mr. Fife. Mr. New inquired if alternate Commission members had been given consideration where a conflict of interest may exist, and recommended that Mr. Fife be kept on the Commission to complete the remainder of his term. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications closed. I' PRESENTATION Ms. Tina stevenson, member of the Marina Park Improvement Committee, expressed appreciation to those who served on the Committee as well as Mr. Eagle and members of the Recreation Department. She presented the recommendations of the Committee and noted the improvements are to be funded by Quimby monies and donations from various local organizations, donations thus far received from the Junior Womens Club, the Womens Club Craft Division, the Lions Club, and the Seal Beach Playgroup. She reported that adequate funds are now available to purchase new playground equipment, replace the Marina Center entrance doors and patio slider, construct a dumpster enclosure as well as a concrete border. Ms. Stevenson advised of the Committee recommendation that remaining funds be held in reserve to cover any unforeseen eventualities, and should funds remain at the conclusion of the project that consideration be given to landscaping Marina Park, a drinking fountain, a fence/wall along Marina Drive, new heating ducts and a new heater unit for the Center. Mr. Bob Eagle described in some detail the choice of Columbia Cascade multiple unit playground equipment, wood, steel and plastic construction, as well as the research that lead to the selection of that manufacturer. He noted that the equipment will be accessible to and meet the needs of handicapped youth, and the approach to the equipment will be constructed of recycled rubber tiles. Ms. Stevenson pointed out that the equipment was custom designed for the community, incorporating community goals and desires, meets the needs for physically challenged children, and will offer stimulating activities for children ages two through twelve. Ms. Erin Fekjar presented slides depicting the various functions of the playground equipment. Mayor Forsythe thanked the Committee for their efforts towards improvements to Marina Park. I COUNCIL ITEMS LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES - ANNUAL CONFERENCE - VOTING DELEGATE At the conclusion of discussion, Brown moved, second by Hastings, to designate Mayor ProTem Doane as the voting delegate for the Annual League of California Cities Conference to be held October 16th through October 19th, 1993, and Councilman Laszlo as the alternate voting delegate. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried APPOINTMENTS - BOARDS and COMMISSIONS Parks and Recreation Commission Mayor Forsythe appointed Ms. Carla Watson as the District Three representative to the Parks and Recreation Commission for the unexpired term ending July, 1994. I Beach Commission Councilmember Hastings appointed Mr. Tom Quinn as the District One representative to the Beach Commission for the unexpired term ending July, 1994. I I I ., ", 8-23-93 Laszlo moved, second by Hastings, to confirm the appointments as stated. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried OLD TOWN CRIME Councilmember Hastings mentioned a recent news article reporting two armed robbery attempts in the downtown area, to which she inquired as to the status of a police substation and the reserve police officer program. The city Manager reported that staff is looking at the feasibility of utilizing some portion of the Lifeguard Tower for a substation, noted that $10,000 had been designated for design purposes in the 1993/94 budget and should funds become available for a substation it would be necessary to amend the budget later in the year. He noted that names are being accepted for reserve officers at this time, contact has also been made with some police academies to solicit graduate students that may be willing to assume a reserve officer status, which would expedite additional downtown patrols. The Manager acknowledged that robbery crimes have increased significantly over the prior year. Councilmember Hastings encouraged citizen caution pending realization of a substation and additional patrols. The Mayor mentioned a recent newspaper rating of the twelve most family oriented communities, and as opposed to just a few years ago when Seal Beach was rated first, it received no mention. She suggested that safety of the public is a goal that the Council needs to address. CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS "E" thru "0" - "P. R. Sand T" The subject matter of Consent Calendar items "E" through "0" were read for information of the public. Staff requested, with consent of the Council, to include on the Consent Calendar, Item "P", the continuation until September 13th, 1993 of the public hearing to consider the appeal of Planning Commission denial of CUP 93-10 (Fit stop), Item "R", the continuation until September 27th, 1993 of the public hearing to consider the appeal of Planning Commission approval of modification of conditions for CUP 92-12 (Seaside Grill), Item "S", Resolution Number 4251, ground lease agreement with Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company, and Item "T", the Request for Proposals for a Main Street Specific Plan and Environmental Documentation. Given her absence from the August 9th meeting, Mayor Forsythe requested that Item "E" be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. ITEM "E" - MINUTES Brown moved, second by Hastings, to approve the minutes of the August 9th, 1993 meeting as presented. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Brown, Doane, Hastings, Laszlo None Forsythe Motion carried Brown moved, second by Doane, to approve the recommended action for Consent Calendar Items "F" through "0" and additional Items IIp, R, Sand T" as presented. The city Attorney advised the Council of minor changes to Item "S", the ground lease, incorporation of todays date, lease commencement date of September 1st, and designation of the appropriate address of L. A. Cellular for noticing purposes. He also advised that no additional notice will be given for the two continued appeal public hearings. F. Approved regular demands numbered 2847 through 3057 in the amount of $837,529.09 8-23-93 and payroll demands numbered 2807 through 3269 in the amount of $627,284.30 as approved by the Finance Committee, and authorized warrants to be drawn on the Treasury for same. Received and filed the Monthly Investment Report as of July 31, 1993. H. Ordinance Number 1373 received second reading and was adopted entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 93-1, CHANGING THE ZONING FROM COMMERCiAL PARK (C-P) TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL (C-l) AT 16 MARINA DRIVE" (Grotemat property). By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1373 was waived. I. G. I. Ordinance Number 1374 was introduced for first reading entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING ADJUSTMENT OF THE PER-BARREL TAX ON OIL, GAS, PETROLEUM OR OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCE PRODUCTION AND AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH." By unanimous consent, full reading of Ordinance Number 1374 was waived. J. Received and filed the status report regarding the proposed 1993 Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) of the Southern California Association of Governments, and instructed staff to forward same to the Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board for information purposes. I K. Authorized the Mayor to sign a response letter to the Chairman and members of the Assembly Local Government Committee relating to Senate Bill 1234, Government Financing and Redevelopment Reform (Bergeson and Isenberg), and received and filed the staff status report. L. Authorized staff to execute an agreement with Collectech Systems, Inc. to increase collection of delinquent accounts receivable of individuals who damage city property, etc. M. Authorized staff to proceed with disposal of a 1986 Toyota Pick-up Vehicle, Identification Number JT4RN50R4G0153017. N. Proclaimed the month of October, 1993 as "Escrow Month." I O. Adopted Resolution Number 4251 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DECLARING WORK TO BE COMPLETED AS TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROJECT #619 - ADDITION/REMODEL AT THE NORTH SEAL BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4251 was waived. I I I .1 ~;.. ,'" 8-23-93 P. Continued the public hearing to consider the appeal of Planning Commission denial of CUP 93-10, a request for an alcohol-related land use entitlement (on. premise beer and wine) 12235 Seal Beach Boulevard (Fit stop) until Monday, September 13th, 1993. continued the public hearing to consider the appeal of Planning Commission approval of modifications of conditions for CUP-92-12, a request for an extension of hours in conjunction with an existing restaurant, 101 Main Street, Suite 0 (Seaside Grill) until Monday, September 27th, 1993. R. S. Adopted Resolution Number 4252 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT WITH LOS ANGELES CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SUCH LEASE ON THE CITY's BEHALF." By unanimous consent, full reading of Resolution Number 4252 was waived. T. Approved the "Request for Proposal - Main Street Specific Plan and Environmental Documentation" and authorized staff to circulate same, also established a consultant interview panel consisting of the city Council, Planning Commission and Environmental Quality Control Board members of District's One and Three to conduct interviews on Monday, October 4th, 1993. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Hastings, Laszlo None Motion carried PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL - HEIGHT VARIATION 93-1/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - VARIANCE 93-3 - AMORTIZATION PERIOD - 1305 SANDPIPER DRIVE - THOMPSON Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing open to consider an appeal of Planning Commission approval of Height Variation 93-1 with associated Conditions of Approval for a property located at 1305 Sandpiper Drive. The City Clerk certified that notice of the public hearing had been advertised and mailed as required by law, reported receipt of communications from Mark and Elizabeth Thompson and Mr. Mario Rossi in support of the appeal, communications from Dr. Arthur Axelrad, Mr. Alan ShieldS, and Mr. Jerry Andersen in opposition to the appeal. In addition, communications submitted during this meeting from Mr. Larry Nemirow in support of the appeal and Mr. E. T. Topping in opposition. The Director of Development Services reported the Planning Commission had conducted a public hearing on April 7th and 21st regarding the subject height variation, variance, and determination of amortization period which is the subject of this appeal. He noted that copies of written communications submitted to the Planning Commission have been provided the Council as well as a petition initially submitted in 1990, resubmitted for the recent Commission hearing which related to whether covered roof access structures should be allowed on the Hill. The Director stated that at the conclusion of the public hearing the Planning commission made three determinations: 1) to approve the requested height variation subject to certain conditions - that the existing observadome be removed from the structure and that a roofing material and style to match that of the house would be required to replace the observadome; 2) denied the variance 8-23-93 request because they felt findings could not be made as required by state law and City Code regarding the uniqueness of this property or special circumstances that did not exist on other Hill properties; and 3) determined to give the applicant sixty days from the time a final action is taken on the application to require the removal of the existing observadome and replace same with another structure that would more closely conform to the I style of the existing residence. He reviewed the options of the Council to either: 1) grant the appeal of the applicant, allowing the structure to remain as it exists; 2) sustain the recommendation of the Planning Commission, requiring removal of the structure within sixty days of Council adoption of a Resolution; or 3) consider alternatives proposed by the applicant - allow the structure to remain as is, but paint the dome's surface with a non-reflective coating that would either match the off-white trim of the house or approximate the blue color of the sky; allow the structure to remain, but refer the matter back to the Planning Commission to determine, within ninety days, a means of making the appearance of the dome conform more to the roofing material on the rest of the house; or remove the dome, but allow for a more lenient amortization period of at least five years, commencing on the date of the final action of the Council, and during this period the dome would be painted as described in alternative one. The Director explained that an application for a second story addition to 1305 Sandpiper was submitted in 1989, which included a covered roof access structure to a roof deck, the application was reviewed by the Commission as a minor plan review, was approved, and building permits were issued. He reported at that time CRAS were allowed up to seven feet above the allowable height for the property, in this case a total of thirty-two feet in height. He noted that once construction began inquiries and complaints were brought to the Commission and I Council as to the incompatible appearance of the dome with the surrounding neighborhood, henceforth there was considerable review by both bodies as to the issuance of permits for this project, and at the time of final inspections the applicant was advised that the City would not waive its right to require modification at some future time, whereas during that period consideration of the CRAS issue was under review by the Commission and Council. The Director recalled the Council adoption of new CRAS design requirements in 1992, also a requirement that all previously approved covered roof access structures once again receive Planning Commission review to ensure that the use of those structures continues as initially set forth on the original plans and that they meet the new criteria as closely as possible. He reported there were more than one hundred thirty such structures reviewed, staff recommended modifications to one structure however that was not imposed by the Commission, and in this particular case the Commission felt they could not approve the project as it presently exists given the current criteria that: 1) the structure be of minimum size both horizontally and vertically to provide access to the roof deck; 2) the structure not be constructed along an exterior side of the property; arid 3) the style of the structure should closely match the roof style of the residence itself. The Director reported the.determination of the I Commission to allow the height variation for the property thus allowing the covered roof access structure to remain yet required that the dome be removed and replaced with a roof that would match the style and slope of the house, the variance was not approved as it was felt the property is no different from other Hill area properties, also felt that views were substantially affected by the dome structure. With regard to the issue of amortization, he noted the applicant had estimated that the total cost to purchase, install, remove and replace the dome would be approximately $18,600, a memorandum from the City Attorney's office cited court cases in California that have determined a I I I ., ':Htl' I\~., , 8-23-93 baseline criteria for amortization of about $10,000 per year a billboard case in particular that was felt to be fairly , consistent with this situation, and using that reference and the fact that this structure has been in place since 1990, determined an amortization period based upon a $6,000 per year use figure. In response to questions of the Council, the Director surmised that it is possible that there could be a salvage value of the dome should another person be interested in such equipment, that there was considerable discussion at the April 21st Commission meeting of the financial impact on the applicant, and the final decision with regard to the amortization period is at the discretion of the Council. Mayor Forsythe invited the appellant to present initial remarks, thereafter other interested persons to present their comments to this appeal. Mr. Mark Thompson, 1305 Sandpiper Drive, said he and his wife were present to request support for the granting of their appeal, reversing the decision of the Planning Commission and approving a height variation for a covered roof access structure. Mr. Thompson said there are at least one hundred thirty other homeowners that have covered roof access structures that do not conform to the new Code criteria, they are either too large, located to the side of the structure, or are of a different roofing material, and in at least thirty instances the structures are nonconforming due to two of the criteria, yet all have received unconditional approval with the exception of their application where the Commission ordered that the dome covering the stairwell be removed at personal expense within sixty days. Mr. Thompson said at the time application was made for a building permit to remodel their residence the Code allowed a covered roof access if it did not exceed the twenty-five foot height limit by more than seven feet, therefore a minor height variation was not necessary, stated the only reason the Planning commission ever saw the improvement plans was that a minor plan review was necessary for the remodel as a result of the substandard size garage, and that plan review required that neighboring properties within one hundred feet be notified. He claimed that the Building Department knew of the dome during that process, had requested detailed drawings of same, and a permit was issued for its installation, and for the sake of argument, had the Commission seen the detailed plans and determined to not approve them, there would have at least been an opportunity to change the design of the improvements prior to construction and investment of $22,000 in the covered roof access structure, yet the project met Code requirements, was built according to the plans, and the inspector signed the final permit. He said it is inconceivable that a portion of their residence is now being required to be removed as a result of an ordinance that was not in effect at the time their home was remodeled, the only homeowner that is being forced to comply retroactively, which leads to suspicion that the new ordinance was drawn to find some way to require removal of the dome, resulting in feelings of discrimination and unfair treatment. Mr. Thompson offered that his family has lived in Seal Beach for eighteen years, have conducted a business, and have been actively involved in the community, this appeal a request for fair treatment, not special treatment, ~ chance to retain the covered roof access as it is presently configured, the opportunity to coat the dome with a non-reflective paint to match the trim of the house or a blue to match the sky, which he said is felt to be a fair compromise. He concluded that they have always maintained that their CRAS was legal and conforming at the time it was designed and built, yet the new Code provisions now makes it nonconforming. Mrs. Thompson requested that the letter from Mr. Larry Nemirow be read for the record. Rabbi Howard Liabson, 4364 Ironwood Avenue, voiced his concern with the problem facing the Thompsons and said they would never 8-23-93 consider invading another's privacy. He expressed concern with crime, development of business in the community to enhance the City's economic base, and an understanding of people being hesitant to move their business or home to Seal Beach since they could shortly find themselves out of compliance with city Codes which, in his opinion, is not the kind of outreach to business or individuals that is either wise or welcoming. Rabbi Liabson I deemed gazing at the stars as a wonderful, wholesome activity that can be shared with children yet there are some that propose to take that opportunity away in this case. He questioned if there is more concern with aesthetics than families, and asked that the council determination be different from that of the Planning Commission. Mr. William McNeil, 1305 Seal way, spoke in favor of the dome which he cited as a little creativity and unique, not a detriment to the neighborhood. He expressed his opinion that to require the Thompson's to go through this process is not fair, and that true value is allowing children to view the stars. Ms. Seretta Fielding, Seal Beach Boulevard, spoke for approval of the variance and allowing the dome simply because the applicant went through the due process initially. Ms. Linda Stobbe, 130 Cottonwood Lane, spoke in favor of the appeal, pointing out that the applicants received a building permit for their covered roof access structure, passed the final building inspection, and their architect found nothing that would restrict this structure. She said it is inconceivable that just one of more than one hundred thirty CRAS did not meet the requirements of the new Code provisions, claimed the city is partially responsible for this problem, yet the applicant has been told to remove the dome at his expense. Mr. Peter Anninos, 350 Electric Avenue, recalled Mr. Thompson having told him of his preparation and submittal of plans to construct an observadome, of which Mr. Anninos indicated his support. He cited this as an issue of I fairness whereby the applicant had done all that was required of him, and of the many other such structures this is the only one that has been deemed to not conform to the new standards. Of those persons he has spoken with, most think the dome is a good idea, and some in the neighborhood do not even know it exists. Mr. Anninos spoke favorably of amateur astronomy, the importance of this structure to the Thompson's, their family, something special for the neighborhood, different and positive. Mr. Ira Irwin, 1235 catalina Avenue, said the uniqueness of the homes and the community drew he and his wife to Seal Beach, and in his opinion the Thompson home fits in with the uniqueness. He questioned the reasoning and fairness to ask the Thompson's to tear down this structure after having obtained city approval in compliance with the Code at that time. Mr. Carl Middleton, 4674 Candleberry Avenue, noted considerable mention of family and community values, however this family has complied with the rules, received approvals, yet is the only one being asked to remove their structure, at their expense, and asked that the appeal be granted. Mr. Leonard Raif, 203 - 7th street, expressed his 'view that if the applicant complied with all of the regulations he should not be asked to remove the dome. Mr. Dennis Brown introduced himself as the architect who worked with Mr. Thompson on his project, which he said was a good project until special restrictions started to be imposed. From the last I Planning commission meeting Mr. Brown reported stated claims of loss of property values, invasion of privacy, loss of view, etc. yet said it is his belief that there are only three persons in opposition to this covered roof access structure. He mentioned that this project was reviewed and allowed by city staff however once complaints were lodged the city allowed the structure to be built yet said it would not be approved. He claimed that this is a viable, good project, where all legal Code requirements were met, therefore there should be no problem with the structure. Mr. Thomas Thompson, 323 Spinnaker Way, said he has been a local property owner and business operator for nineteen years, and I I I ," j~,.. ..tIt ~~,. All 8-23-93 explained that the dome is capable of operating three hundred sixty degrees but only one hundred eighty degrees skyward therefore can not invade the privacy of anyone. He offer~d that a photograph can be made to reflect whatever one wants, and in this case claimed that photographs of the subject property are propaganda. Mr. Thompson stated that his son is an amateur astronomer, many persons like the dome because of its uniqueness, and the appeal should be approved. Mayor Forsythe read written communications from Mr. Mario Rossi, Catalina Avenue, and Mr. Larry Nemirow, Daisy street, in support of the appeal. Dr. Anton Dahlman, 1724 Crestview Avenue, indicated his agreement with a number of comments thus far, yet said it appears that all of the facts are not known, for instance had the dome been built below twenty-five feet it would have been legal, also the covered roof access, even though it does not meet current Code, was approved at the edge of the house as were other CRAS, however the Planning Commission, on a five to zero vote, did not approve the roofing material or the observadome. He pointed out that Mr. Thompson does not always use the observadome to view the stars rather uses a hand held telescope principally from his driveway, on windy nights he uses the observadome. He advised that the City Code does not micro-manage the appearance of homes in the community, yet there is an effort to manage those few exceptions that are above the twenty-five foot height limit. Dr. Dahlman said the appearance of events is that the applicant deceived the Planning Commission inasmuch as he omitted the dome from the drawings that were submitted to the Commission, the Commission approved the drawings, the dome was then added. He stated that the dome was likewise illegal in 1989 in that the Code allowed a CRAS up to thirty-two feet in height, required that it be used solely as a covered roof access, yet as it presently exists it has an additional use as an observadome. Ms. Beth Hemphill, 3740 Oleander, expressed her viewpoint that the dome is offensive, not conforming to the area, privacy is an issue, and suggested its existence be taken care at the earliest possible time. Mr. Alan Shields, 1300 Catalina Avenue, advised that his residence is adjacent to and underneath the dome, said the appeal should be denied as being groundless and without merit, the dome was never approved, and can meet none of the criteria set forth for a covered roof access structure. He described its location as at the edge of the house, the roofing material looking nothing like that of the remainder of the home, the area is to be of minimum size both vertically and horizontally to cover the stairwell structure accessing a roof deck, and in this case the structure is vertically twelve to thirteen feet above the roof deck with the observatory dome housed approximately five to six feet above the doorway onto the roof deck. He continued, claiming that this structure is not appropriate for the style of the building, is not appropriate for the character or integrity of the neighborhood, it impairs the primary view of properties within three hundred feet, is used as an observatory dome therefore is not nonhabitable, and claimed that detailed and complete plans for the variation of this CRAS were not submitted. Mr. Shields read the findings of the Planning Commission in support of their decisions. Noting that ten persons had spoken in support of the dome, Mr. Shields made reference to a petition signed by two hundred seventy persons in March, 1990 declaring that devices such as this are not acceptable, two hundred sixty-six of those persons from the Hill area, one hundred of those from streets in the immediately vicinity of the subject property. He compared statements of the applicant from the minor plan review application of June 1989 to those of the resubmitted application of February 1993 where the applicant stated 'the structure is appropriate for the character of the surrounding neighborhood as it fits with the overall architectural design of the house' and that 'I am not aware how the present structure may be in any way detrimental to other property in the neighborhood.' Mr. Shields 8-23-93 charged that the drawings of the subject structure in no way represents the appearance of the finished mechanical device structure, and pointed out that Dr. Axelrad, Mr. Andersen, and himself, those property owners most effected by the dome, have all spoken against it. With regard to claim of discrimination, Mr. Shields noted that of the one hundred thirty plus CRAS ninety-eight are located in Old Town or surfside, of those located in the Hill area only three were required to be reconsidered and only due to size, those structures are located to the central portion of the dwelling, the roofing materials are architecturally compatible with the house, all of which lessens the impact on the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Paul Klair, 713 Sandpiper Drive, said of all of the other CRAS none have had a negative effect as has the Sandpiper dome structure, citing the impact on adjoining properties and property values, and suggested that the appellant could pursue his hobby without the use of an observadome. Dr. David Rosenman, Seal Beach, indicated concurrence with the concept of diminished values for properties located adjacent to this structure, and spoke for a five year amortization period. Mr. E. T. Topping, 720 Sandpiper Drive, said although he does not live next to the dome it is visible from his rear yard and balcony, and expressed his opinion that it does not conform with anything in the Hill neighborhood. Ms. Carla Watson, 1635 Catalina Avenue, offered that even though she lives here and supports the community that does not give her the right to construct anything she wants, rather, before building any type of structure she would first contact her neighbors, suggesting that the community and neighbors should learn to work together. Mr. Les Hauth, 1315 Catalina Avenue, said given the unanimous vote of the Planning Commission he felt quite certain that the commission had done their job well and would likely feel the Council to be remiss in doing their job if the Commission decision is not supported in some manner. Mr. Jerry Andersen, 1301 Sandpiper Drive, said when he first observed the construction of the covered roof access structure next to his residence, before the observadome, he contacted his neighbor, Mr. Thompson, and expressed concern with its height, that to no avail, he then spoke with other neighbors, councilmembers, the City Manager, was a proponent of the petition in opposition to the dome, all of which is considered to be working within the system. He questioned the accuracy of the architect in that the report from staff confirms that the CRAS as built did not conform to the elevation drawings. He offered that he again tried to talk to Mr. Thompson, suggested that if he wanted to have the dome it should brought down to within the twenty-five foot height limit or just have the CRAS, not both, yet Mr. Thompson said that the issue was over. Mr. Andersen commended the accuracy of the staff report and actions of the Planning Commission whereby the applicant is not denied the covered roof access structure but is required to take the dome off of that structure. Mayor Forsythe read the written communication from Dr. Axelrad in opposition to the appeal. It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to declare a recess at 10:32 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:43 p.m. with Mayor Forsythe calling the meeting to order. The appellant, Mr. Thompson, indicated regret as to the affect this issue has had on his relationship with Mr. Andersen and the other neighbors, and hoped that can be repaired. Mr. Thompson claimed certain quoted comments of Mr. Andersen were not entirely accurate, and stated when he had said there was nothing further to talk about the structure had already received City approval and he was under the assumption he was protected by the City Codes, he conveyed to Mr. Andersen that he respected his opinion, was sorry he had not had earlier input, however at that time the structure was completed. He said it would have been a tremendous I I I I I I . ~., I .. .~ . '. . .r~ 8-23-93 hardship at that point to remove and relocate the structure to another location of the dwelling. With regard to the issue of integrity, Mr. Thompson reported he and his wife have had discussions with the City Manager and Director of Development Services who confirmed that due process steps had been followed and the fact that th~ Commission did not see detailed drawings is because the matter before that body was a different consideration therefore there was no need, yet detailed drawings were subsequently provided to the Building Department at their request and thereafter were approved. Mr. Thompson mentioned there is still some misunderstanding as to the size of their covered roof access structure, yet that structure continues to be within the legal size and height limit, the dome shorter and narrower than it needs to be. He added that there is no salvage value of the dome, and to replace the dome with something that would be equally appropriate in their minds, would be a significant financial hardship. Mr. Thompson questioned what would be an appropriate replacement and how that would affect the neighbors materially, offering that to simply take the dome off and leave a flat roof would look terrible, which is not going to happen, or if the dome were replaced with a pitched or hip roof the height would be approximately what it is now, thus there would be no material difference to the adjacent properties. Mr. Thompson reiterated his opinion that due process was followed, some people feel what has been done is appropriate, some do not, expressed belief that the issue is a gray area, asked that his compromise proposals be considered, otherwise allow an amortization period of at least five years. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared the public hearing closed. Considerable discussion followed with members of the Council posing questions and points for clarification. The appellant stated he did not recall the exact number of inspections of the project during construction; the Director clarified that the plans contained within the staff report are plans approved and stamped by the City's plan checking firm, subsequently approved and stamped by the Building Department prior to construction occurring; once construction commences, depending upon the complexity of the project, there could be as few as five or as many as twelve inspections to ensure that the project conforms to the plans; Councilman Doane surmised that in the eyes of the inspector construction was in accordance with the plans; the Director noted that the initial drawings submitted to the City were not in a detail that showed the actual observadome, nor was the dome specifically shown on drawings provided to the Planning Commission; the initial concept approval for the second story addition with the CRAS was granted by the Commission in June, 1989, final permits issued in December, 1989, construction began in January, 1990; the appellant argued that the dome was shown on the plans when his project was before the Planning commission, and it was not necessary to provide detailed drawings of the dome until such time as requested by the Building Department; Councilmember Hastings indicated her understanding that it was not necessary to provide detailed drawings to the Commission as the issue before that body was a minor plan review and the CRAS/dome was not being considered at that time; the Director noted that if the elevation drawings had shown a structure more similar in shape to what actually exists rather than what is shown on the elevation drawing it is likely that issue would have been noticed by city staff or the Commission at the time of their review, yet specific detail was not required; the issue as to whether an observadome is an appropriate structure came up at the time of construction, that issue then considered by the commission and Council, with the City Council instructing the city Attorney to forward a letter to the Thompson's advising that although approval of the project was going forward, the city was reserving its right of further review based upon whatever new 8-23-93 criteria might be developed, the new guidelines under consideration at that time; the Mayor pointed out that it is understandable that the CRAS/dome was not questioned given the elevation drawing where the CRAS appeared to be just that; the appellant acknowledged his intent to install the observadome at the time the elevation drawings were prepared/submitted, however the specific style had not yet been chosen; the Director stated his belief that it had been a staff request that more detail be provided as what the dome area atop the stairway would actually look like, that request subsequent to the Commission approval in concept of the project, that detail shown as page sixty-six of the staff report. Mr. Jerry Andersen contended that the elevation drawing shown on page sixty-six is a building document which shows how it will be constructed and whether it can be constructed in a safe fashion, in this case that answer is yes, is it appropriate for the structure, that answer is no. councilman Brown said he did not feel any new information over what had been provided to the Planning Commission had been presented. Mayor Forsythe expressed concern with government involvement in private property issues, however acknowledged that given the close proximity of residential properties compliance with City Cod~ is essential, in this case the dome is not compatible with the area overall, and the suggested alternative to coat the dome will not resolve the problem. Councilmember Hastings expressed her belief that the dome was done in good faith and that Mr. Shields and Mr. Andersen have likewise presented their views in good faith. She mentioned the financial hardship that could be realized by the Thompsons, as well as the fact that a CRAS is meant for access to a roof deck, and noted that the Council is bound to uphold the ordinances of the city. councilmember Hastings moved to impose a five year amortization period from August, 1990, then allow thirty to sixty days for removal of the dome. Councilman Doane seconded the motion. After brief discussion, the motion was amended to impose a two year amortization period only. The City Attorney clarified that the amortization period would commence this date and conclude August 23, 1995. Discussion continued. Councilman Laszlo moved a substitute motion to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission, granting the height variation with conditions, denying variance 93-3, however extend the amortization period for one year until August 23, 1994. Councilman Brown seconded the motion. After further discussion Councilmember Hastings requested that the motion be amended to direct staff to oversee the replacement of the roof treatment. The amendment was accepted by the maker and second of the substitute motion. AYES: NOES: Brown, Doane, Forsythe, Laszlo Hastings Motion carried The City Attorney advised that a resolution reflecting the action of the Council will be prepared for consideration at the next meeting. COUNCIL CONCERNS Councilmember Hastings inquired as to the status of the entertainment and campaign reform ordinances. The City Manager reported the entertainment ordinance is being worked on and it is anticipated will be presented to the first reviewing body by the first meeting in October. The City Attorney noted the most recent communication from Seal Beach resident Mr. Goodwin relating to the campaign financing issue, and offered to submit an ordinance for the agenda upon direction of the Council to do so. Councilman Laszlo requested that a draft of same be provided I I I I .1 I ~.1 t. ~ , ' " \i.i".~ 8-23-93 the Council for review prior to placement on the agenda. Councilmember Brown spoke in support of developing some means to provide an alternate representative to Planning Commission positions, as had been suggested by a gentleman addressing the Council at this meeting. Councilman Doane concurred, expressed regret at the loss of Mr. Fife from the Planning Commission for reasons of a potential conflict of interest relating to an upcoming Bixby Ranch development proposal, suggested a means be sought to reinstate him to that posit10n, and making reference to provisions of the Municipal Code relating to the Planning Commission, suggested that alternate representatives be given consideration. with regard to a potential time frame for considering the Bixby proposal, the Director of Development Services reported the applicant has indicated intent to revise their plans, those could be anticipated within two to three weeks, the environmental consultants have indicated their documents could possibly be revised within three weeks to reflect the new project submission, therefore the draft environmental document could likely be circulated for public review and comment in about six weeks, that process taking forty-five days, then hearings would commence before the Planning Commission. In response to Councilman Doane's comments relating to former Planning Commissioner Fife, Councilmember Hastings noted that the city Charter takes precedence over provisions of the Municipal Code and an appointee serves at the pleasure of the city Council, and offered that the city is appreciative of the service Mr. Fife has provided the community, however it is also important that the Council district be represented by a vote on an issue affecting that area. Councilman Laszlo said he appreciated the comments relating to his Planning Commissiop vacancy and would take them under consideration. Mayor Forsythe suggested an alternate representative at large, to which Councilmembers Hastings and Laszlo objected. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications open. Dr. David Rosenman, Seal Beach, mentioned his attendance at a civic meeting the prior day at which comments were made in support of Councilman Laszlo's decision to ensure representation of the needs of the people from that district at the Planning Commission level. There being no further comments, Mayor Forsythe declared Oral Communications closed. CLOSED SESSION No Closed Session was held. ADJOURNMENT It was the order of the Chair, with consent of the Council, to adjourn the meeting until Monday, September 13th at 6:00 p.m. to meet in Closed Session. With unanimous consent of the Council, Mayor Forsythe adjourned the meeting a 1:32 p.m. Clerk ,and ex-of of Seal Beach of the Approved: ~ d d.n.:Jd", Mayor Attest: a.u-..p C~