Loading...
PC MINS 19891212i MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1989 The meeting was called to order at 7:37pm by Chairperson Wike at Hesse Community Park, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. PRESENT Wike, Hotchkiss, Von Hagen, McNulty, Brooks ABSENT None Also present were Director of Environmental Services Robert Benard, Planning Administrator Curtis Williams, Senior Planner Greg Fuz, Associate Planners Laurie Jester and Joel Rojas, and Assistant Planners Bonnie Olson and Lisa Marie Breisacher. COMMUNICATIONS Chairperson Wike acknowledged two letters regarding Code Amendment No. 29 from Diane Urgia and Richard Motz. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of November 28, 1989 -- A copy of the amended minutes was handed to the Commissioners, and a discussion ensued regarding editing of the minutes, after which it was decided to table further discussion until the end of the agenda. B. Report on revisions to Development Code Amendment No. 26 -- Chairperson Wike requested that this item also be deferred to the end of the agenda for further discussion. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VARIANCE NO. 246, Senior Planner Greg Fuze GRADING NO. 1342 presented the staff report 2070 Nobleview regarding the appl icant� s' request to approve replac,emeit of an existing side yard retaining wall and to allow portion of the wall within the front yard setback to exceed 42 inches. Staff's recommendation is to approve the request with conditions. Chairperson Wike and Commissioner Brooks asked if a condition could be included to lower the existing non -conforming wood fence above the wall in the rear yard. Mr. Benard stated that staff had not investigated that possibility and that it may be the applicant's right to continue such a legal non- conformity. Chairperson Wike suggested a continuance so — PLANNING COMMISSION�NUTES I December 12, 1989 staff could look into the matter. Chairperson Wike opened the public hearing. Dorothy Romeo, 2070 Noble View, applicant, asked that she be able to complete the entire project before the rainy season, and stated she did not object to lowering the current non- conforming fence to 41. The public hearing was closed. Mrs. Wike asked for a staff analysis, and Senior Planner Fuz outlined the following options regarding the non -conforming fence: a) It could be considered legal non -conforming, or b) When the wall is replaced the fence could be lowered to the conforming 41, or c) It could remain at 6' but be set back 3', or d) The applicant could be asked to apply for a Minor Exception Permit on the existing fence. Commissioner Hotchkiss moved to accept staff's recommendation, and Commissioner McNulty seconded the motion. Commissioner Brooks asked that Condition #3, Exhibit "A" be amended to replace the word "height" with "no more than six feet in height." The original motion was restated, Mrs. Brooks seconded, and it passed unanimously. B. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 29 The staff report was presented by Senior Planner Fuz, who noted that this item had come back to the Commission at the direction of the Council, which requested that the new ordinance address both side and rear yard fences, walls and hedges, and be made consistent with Proposition "M". Mr. Fuz then detailed differences between Proposition "M" and the existing urgency ordinances. He also reviewed various options for the Commission to consider in preparing a unified ordinance. Staff recommends review and discussion of the issues, receiving public testimony, and continuing the public hearing to January 23, 1990. Commissioner Von Hagen asked if the City Attorney had presented an opinion on the discussion draft. Mr. Benard stated that these items were taken almost verbatim from the new part of the Code created by the passage of Proposition M, and that the draft will go back to the City Attorney after the Commission has provided further direction as to its substance. The public hearing was then opened. Gilbert Alberio, 2177 Rockinghorse Road, stated that he felt view impairment should also be looked at from a sitting as well as standing position; that he wanted the Council, not the Commission, to be the final decision making body; and he asked for clarification on the definition of privacy. George Fink, 32353 Searaven Drive, stated that the 42" exception was unacceptable, and also asked that the City Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION�UTES December 12, 1989 6 Council have the final decision on appeals. Elaine Motz, 32413 Searaven Drive, read from her letter to the Commission, and objected to the 42" height allowance. Paul Weisz, 32365 Phantom Drive, also objected to the 42" exception, and also stated his preference that the City Council be the final decision-making body. Tom Hollingsworth, 3648 Vigilance, spoke as president of the Ladera Linda HOA, and stated that Item 2A is preferred to Item 2; that the 42" allowance will impair views, but 24"-36" would be okay; that privacy should be better defined; and that he also preferred that the Council be the final decision-making body. Mr. Benard noted at this point that the clause on privacy was taken nearly verbatim from Proposition M, and were the City Attorney's words to allow for discretion on the part of the City. Warren Sweetnam, 7 Top Rail Lane, spoke as a representative of the RPV Council of HOA's, stating that he also preferred Item 2A to Item 2; that he believed the covenant clause was inappropriate, the waiver clause was potentially problematic, and he also preferred that the City Council be the final decision-making body. Commissioner Von Hagen asked Mr. Sweetnam if his statement that the covenant was not appropriate reflected the position of the HOA Council. Mr. Sweetnam said it was his opinion as president of the Council, but that he also believed it did reflect the member's opinions. Mr. Von Hagen noted that the Council felt the covenant clause was necessary to improve enforcement capability on this issue. Dick Matz, 32413 Searaven, discussed already established view protection afforded by the Seacliff Hills development. Mrs. Wike summarized the concerns of the speakers, and called for a discussion regarding the 42" fence exception. Mrs. Wike suggested deleting all exceptions on fences so that permits would be required. Commissioners Von Hagen and McNulty suggested that the criteria for requiring a fence permit be delineated topographically, since not all fences built would necessarily affect views. Commissioner Hotchkiss stated that language should be added to the clause to prevent overloading of the staff. Mr. Fuz noted that staff's earlier version of the ordinance exempted fences, walls and hedges that would be within 42" of the adjacent upslope pad elevation., but that the Commission wanted a case-by-case approach with no exemptions, and that the 42" exemption had been selected as a starting point to avoid being inundated with a tremendous amount of discretionary applications. Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION*NUTES December 12, 1989 0 Elaine Motz, 32413 Searaven, read from Exhibit "A" Regarding Item #2, the Commissioners agreed that "significant" impairment be retained as the criteria for permit review, because this would allow more flexibility in the judgment process. The Commission also agreed that the parameters of the appropriate viewing area should be determined by the City Council through administrative guidelines . On Item #3, the Commissioners discussed the definition of privacy, and suggested that it include not only the interior of the structure, but also patios and attached decks. Commissioner McNulty suggested deferring this question until administrative guidelines are prepared and approved by the City Council. The consensus of the Commission was to accept Item #4. On Item #5, the "standing or sitting" view impairment criteria, Commissioner McNulty suggested altering the language to state that view impairment be demonstrated from a standing position "unless the primary viewing area is more suitable to viewing in a sitting position." Mr. Fuz stated that this issue is related to the viewing area question, and should also be deferred until administrative guidelines are available. On Item #6, the covenant clause, Commissioner Von Hagen stated that he shared the speakers' concerns on this issue, and that the HOA's should be polled to see what they think. Commissioner Hotchkiss said he also foresaw enforcement and staff problems on this, and asked the staff to come back with another recommendation. The consensus of the Commission was to accept Item #7. The Commissioners„ suggested deletion of Item #8C regarding the waiver. The Commissioners,�,also agreed unanimously that the City Council should have the final decision-making authority on appeals (Item #9.) The public hearing on this issue was continued to January 23, 1990. A ten-minute recess was called at 10:00pm. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The staff report was presented NO. 148, ENVIRONMENTAL by Associate Planner Laurie ASSESSMENT NO. 582 Jester regarding the 28350-28358 Western Ave. applicant's request to allow Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONUTES December 12, 1989 • the facade remodel of an existing commercial center, the extension of a roof canopy and a new equipment screen cap. Staff's recommendation is to approve the application with conditions. Chairperson Wake asked that the following language be added to Exhibit "A": "all signs shall be consistent with the Development Code and shall be installed by October 2, 1990." Commissioner McNulty moved to accept the staff recommendation as amended, Commissioner Von Hagen seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mr. Benard noted the additional NO. 132 -- EXTENSION staff report, letters from the Miraleste Elementary City Attorney and Sherry Unmak, School all handed out before the meeting. Mrs. Jester noted that the City Attorney is concerned that Condition #2 of the previously adopted Resolution is not valid, and he is also suggesting changing the recommendation of the time on the extension. l Commissioner Brooks nfzted that one of the school board members had informed that they would like the CUP cr\ extended %nger than six months to keep the pressure off- the negotiations with the City. Commissioner Brooks then moved to extend the CUP for six months with the stipulation that the school board and the City get back to the Planning Commission within that time with their decision. The motion was seconded by Chairperson Wike. The motion was not voted upon. Commissioner McNulty stated that he felt six months was too long; that two months was sufficient. Mrs. Brooks noted that there are two issues that need more time to be resolved: if the neighbors want a park, and if the property would revert back to the HOA, if it would ever again be a part of the City or used as a school. Mr. Benard noted that if the Commission denied the CUP, the Resolution wouldn't be available until January, and there would be an appeal period; however, this action would probably be perceived as a breach of good faith between the City and the school district. Commissioner Brooks made a second motion to extend the CUP 90 days to March 19, 1989, and to add the conditional language suggested in the City Attorney's letter of December 12, clause #4A -E. Commissioner Von Hagen seconded the motion, which then passed unanimously. Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONIONUTES December 12, 1989 C B. GRADING NO. 1310 The staff report was presented 6264 Ocean Terrace by Assistant Planner Lisa Marie Breisacher, regarding the applicant's request for approval of a 3' high downslope retaining wall and patio deck to be placed in a slope exceeding 35%. Staff's recommendation is to approve the request with conditions. /f Chairperson Wike ecommended that the patio deck be approved if the circular dT4v-e� is eliminated since there is not enough landscape area. Commissioner McNulty stated that the lot was very large and the hardscapsng was not excessive. Commissioner Brooks stated she was glad she had visited the property, since the photographs did not gave sufficient representation of the situation, •ate t4i�a-t ,-5he agreed with Mr. McNulty that the large lot could handle the hardsca a areasxar.� Mso v� Robbie Lewis, 6264 Ocean Terrace, applicant, detailed all the landscaped areas she had on her property. She also stated that weed in the City ri tQ of�w� were impairing her view and vandalismA 86' was directed to contact staff regarding this situation. Commissioner McNulty moved to accept staff's recommendation. Commissioner Von Hagen seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. NEW BUSINESS Items "A" (Grading No. 1010) and "C" (CUP #23 "NN") were continued to the January 9, 1990 meeting as per Commission procedure regarding New Business stems after 11:00pm. Mr. Benard noted that on Item "B" (CUP #23 "MM" and Grading No. 1316), the applicant had submitted a request to have the stem removed from the agenda so that he could work with the staff pursuant to staff's redesign recommendations. QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE There were no questions from the audience. CONSENT CALENDAR (As per an earlier motion, the tabled consent calendar came up for discussion at this point in the agenda.) A. Minutes of November 28, 1989 Commissioner Von Hagen objected to changes made in the minutes that are not discussed at the meetings first. Chairperson Wike stated she had made corrections for clarification purposes only, and that corrections made during Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSIONAMNUTES December 12, 1989 0 the meetings were too time-consuming. Commissioner Brooks stated that the City Council also makes changes in their minutes outside the meetings, and that she wanted her statements to be cemF�y. Richard Bara, 1 Peppertree Drive, objected to the use of the word "demanded" in his statement in the November 28 minutes. A lengthy debate ensued over the issue of the minutes at this point. It was finally decided to discuss all changes in the minutes at the meetings, and the November 28 minutes were unanimously approved as amended, with Chairperson Wike initiating the motion and Commissioner Von Hagen seconding. B. Report on revisions to Development Code Amendment No. 26 (CR District Standards) required by the California Coastal Commission. The Commission reviewed the changes made by the Coastal Commission. It was noted that the maximum building height of 48' was not modified by the Coastal Commission, but that they had deleted the clause allowing parking requirements to be determined through a Conditional Use Permit. The Coastal Commission also included a clause requiring 10% public access parking within the district, and accepted the City's 20 acre minimum lot size and 30% lot coverage standards. Commissioner Von Hagen moved to adopt the Resolution recommending that the Council accept the revisions made by the Coastal Commission. Commissioner McNulty seconded the motion, which passed with no objections. STAFF and COMMISSION REPORTSIDISCUSSIONS Regarding Mr. Benard's memo to the Commission that all questions for staff come through him, Mrs. Wike commented that she Inked to have direct access to the staff especially on minor questions, so they could be handled quickly. Mr. Benard detailed the times that staff had been asked to perform field research without first checking with him, and stated that the Commissioners could call staff with technical questions on staff reports, but that all other questions must come to him first. Commissioner Von Hagen asked about the status of the inquiry to the City Attorney regarding the legality of continuing items because a Commissioner did not get out to see the project. Mr. Benard stated that he had sent the City Attorney a memo requesting advice, but that Mr. Calonne stated it could not be high priority in light of the other issues he was dealing with. Mrs. Wike suggested that each Commissioner decide if they wish to abstain from voting on an application they have not seen, but that the item not be Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION#NUTES December 12, 1989 0 continued. Mr. Benard also noted that from now on, the staff will advise the applicants that the Commissioners --have -w�.oy -the property before the meeting. t Senior Planner Greg Fuz stated that this was his last Planning Commission meeting. He has accepted a position with the County of Santa Barbara as of January 8, 1990, and he wished the Commission the best of luck. It was noted that the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting will be on January 9, 1990, and that there is a joint pre-screening workshop regarding the Kaji.ma development on January 8 at'7:30pm in the Community Room of City Hall. on the motion of Commissioner McNulty, the meeting was adjourned at 12:26am.