Loading...
PC MINS 19920526M IN U T E S PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 26, 1992 I. CALL TO ORDER S/ 11 I C1 -*X'.. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairman Katherman at the Hesse Park Community Room, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. Ii. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Alberio, Byrd, Clark, Hayes, Lorenzen, Mowlds and Chairman Katherman. Absent: None. Also present were: Director of Environmental Services Dudley Onderdonk; Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru; Assistant Plan- ner Fabio de Freitas; and Assistant Planner Kim Klopfenstein. IV. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. STAFF Environmental Services Director Dudley Onderdonk introduced newly hired Director of Public Works Trent Pulliam, who was wel- comed by the Commission. Planning Commission May 26, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1992 B. COMMISSION o The date of Saturday, July 18, 1992, was tentatively scheduled for a Commission/staff retreat in the Cabrillo Marina. o Chairman Katherman reported on the recent Contract Cities' Conference. At this time, Ms. Lois Larue, 3136 Barkentine Road, came forward to relate her understanding that it would be illegal for the Commission to meet in the Cabrillo Marina since it was lo- cated outside the City limits and that such a special meeting would require public noticing. Environmental Services Director Onderdonk indicated that this issue will be discussed with the City Attorney. Ms. Larue went on to relate her concern that Planning Commission minutes are not properly preserved. V. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Commissioner Byrd moved, seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: A. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 92-36 B. RULES OF PROCEDURES - PLANNING COMMISSION P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 92-37 C. P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 92-38; HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 726 - APPEAL, MR. AND MRS. LIN, 13 HEADLAND DR. In response to inquiries from the Commission, Public Works Director Pulliam explained City procedures for formulating the Capital Improvements Plan. The motion for approval of the Consent Calendar was passed by unanimous oral vote. 2 Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1992 At this time, the Commission agreed to continue considera- tion of Continued Business Item A, Variance No. 327, Grading Per- mit No. 1612, Coastal Permit No. 109, Gene Summers, 108 Spindrift, to June 23, 1992. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 741 - APPEAL, VARIANCE NO. 324; MR. AND MRS. DEILMANN, 38220 GOLDEN MEADOW DRIVE Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the staff report with the recommendation for denial of Height Variation No. 741 and Variance No. 324, thereby upholding the Acting Director's denial decision. He distributed communications from residents in sup- port of the project. Chairman Katherman opened the public hearing. Referring to written material distributed to the Commission, Appellant Howard Dielmann, 28220 Golden Meadow Drive, voiced his understanding that the City has previously approved projects similar to the proposed; maintained that it would be less obtrusive than other additions in the neighborhood; and presented photographs to substantiate his opinion that it would not sig- nificantly impact the view from 7025 Cherty Drive. Expressing his understanding that other property owners in the neighborhood would like to add on to their homes, Mr. Dielmann suggested that the City's process for doing so be "streamlined." He related his willingness to increase setbacks. Project Architect William Cornwall, 29000 S. Western Avenue, Suite 209, explained that the project could be set further back from the front property line to soften its potential impact. The following residents related their support of the project: Mr. Gary Mendelson 28228 Golden Meadow Drive Mr. Stanley Taylor 28231 Golden Meadow Drive Mr. Lawrence Ivins 28203 Golden Meadow Drive 3 Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1992 It was their feeling that the project would not significantly im- pact views and that it would be compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Ivins stressed the importance of allowing property owners to increase the square footage of homes in the neighborhood to bring them up to current standards. Noting the difficulty of such determinations, the Commission discussed whether the project would result in significant view impairment and whether it would have a cumulative impact on the neighborhood. Alternatives to the request were discussed. The Commission generally favored a continuance for the applicant to improve the articulation of the first and second stories and in- crease the front yard setbacks. The Commission's desire of a new silhouette reflecting revisions and an architectural rendering of the project, including landscaping, were discussed. Assistant Planner de Freitas explained staff's position that the second -story addition would have a cumulative impact on 7025 Cherty Drive; however, potential view impairment from 7025 Cherty Drive would probably be alleviated with an increase in the front yard setbacks of the project. Planning Administrator Petru explained public noticing pro- cedures for items appealed to the Planning Commission. MOTION: Commissioner Clark moved that the appeal of Height Variation No. 741 and Variance No. 324 be continued to June 23, 1992 for the applicant to redesign the project so that the articulation of the first and second stories is improved and the front yard setbacks are within the Code and that a revised silhouette reflecting the revisions be constructed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and, there being no objec- tion, it was so ordered by Chairman Katherman. At 8:55 PM there was a recess until 9:10 PM when the meeting re -convened in regular agenda order. B. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 19062, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 634, MR. ROBERT KATHERMAN, 18 ROCKINGHORSE ROAD In that he owns the subject property, Chairman Katherman noted that he would abstain from consideration of the request and that Vice -Chairman Byrd would conduct the public hearing. At this time, he exited the dais. .19 Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1992 Assistant Planner de Freitas presented the staff report with the recommendation for approval subject to standard conditions. Assistant Planner de Freitas advised that the item before the Commission is the creation of two new lots and whether or not all of the Code requirements would be met. However, he confirmed that the following would be necessary with the creation of two new parcels: a Variance for the distance between the main struc- ture and the guest house or a modification of the structure(s) in order to comply with the Code requirement of ten feet; a Minor Exception Permit for a six-foot combination solid block wall/fence in the front yard setback; a septic tank for the residence on proposed Parcel 1; and a reciprocal access easement. Planning Administrator Petru assured the Commission that all Con- ditions of Approval must be met prior to approval of the Final Map. Applicant Robert Katherman, 18 Rockinghorse Road, provided background information on the request; related his willingness to accept a Condition that, prior to recordation of the Final Map, all setback requirements shall be met; commented on his future plans for the property; and asked that the six-month expiration of the Final Map coincide with any extensions granted for recor- dation of the Parcel Map. Ms. Petru confirmed for Mr. Katherman that recommended Condition 27 (full improvement of Rockinghorse Road) would be eliminated. The Commission discussed the need for a reciprocal access easement and the idea of requiring that the lot line betwen the main structure and the guest house shall be a minimum of five feet from the end of the structures. Mr. Warren Sweetnam, 7 Top Rail Lane, voiced his support of the lot split. He asked that an approval be conditioned to require that, when the property is sold, the guest house be en- larged so that its size is in keeping with others in the neigh- borhood. Ms. Petru advised the Commission against the inclusion of such a requirement. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved to close the public hear- ing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clark and passed by unanimous oral vote. The Commission agreed to modify the recommended Conditions of Approval as follows: 5 Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1992 o Condition 2 That the City's filing fee for a Final Map shall be extended by the Director of Environmental Services based on requests from the applicant and that the extensions shall be no greater than the life of the map; o Condition 4 That language pertaining to the the Subdivision Map Act shall be added so that three, one-year time extensions are allowed - for a total of five years, o Condition 7 That a minimum five-foot side yard setback shall be maintained from the common side property line between the two lots; and o Condition 27 Delete. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes to adopt the Negative Declara- tion for Environmental Assessment No. 634 for the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 19062, including Conditions of Approval recommended by staff and modified as reflected above. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alberio and passed by a 6-0 unanim- ous roll call vote with Chairman Katherman abstaining. Ms. Petru indicated that revised Resolutions will be returned for Commission approval of July 9, 1992. Chairman Katherman returned to the dais. VII. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. VARIANCE NO. 327, GRADING PERMIT NO. 1612, COASTAL PERMIT NO. 109, GENE SUMMERS, 108 SPINDRIFT Continued to June 23, 1992 (See Page 2). X Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1992 VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. GRADING PERMIT NO. 1625, MR. AND MRS. YOUNG, 32032 PACIFICA Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the staff report with the recommendation for a continuance pending the review and approval of the recently submitted geology report. She clarified that a Stop Work Order for the subject property issued in January, 1992 was lifted when the applicant submitted this ap- plication in April, 1992. She provided detailed background in- formation on the request. The Commission discussed the idea of requiring the applicant to remove the caissons and the retaining wall; voiced its con- cern that there could be additional. Building Code violations at the subject location; noted that the house would appear to be closer to the back of the property than reflected in the sub- mitted plans; and questioned whether there is proper clearance between the curved portion of the house and the retaining wall. The Commission discussed continuing the item for staff to examine whether there are additional Building Code violations as- sociated with the construction of the project and for staff to contact the applicant to encourage him to attend the meeting when the request is re -addressed. The following motion to that effect was offered. MOTION: Commissioner Clark moved for a continuance of Grad- ing Permit No. 1625 for staff to examine whether there are addi- tional Building Code violations associated with the construction of the project and for staff to contact the applicant to en- courage him to attend the meeting when the request is re- addressed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lorenzen. Commission discussion continued with regard to potential conditions requiring that: the rear yard retaining wall located two feet beyond the BGR line be replaced at a minimum of one foot inside the BGR line; the caissons reduced to be one foot below grade; and the retaining wall be of a stucco finish and landscaped to screen and buffer the retaining wall from the public trail located to the south. Commissioners Clark and Lorenzen withdrew their motion for a continuance. 7 Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1992 MOTION: With regard to Grading Permit No. 1625, Commis- sioner Byrd moved to require that the portion of the retaining wall located two feet beyond the BGR line in the rear yard be removed and replaced at a minimum of one foot inside the BGR line, that the caissons be reduced to one foot below grade; ,that the retaining wall be of a stucco finish, and landscape material shall be installed to screen and buffer the retaining wall. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hayes and passed by a 6-1 oral vote with Chairman Katherman dissenting. Chairman Katherman explained that he could not support the motion in that he objected to requiring the removal of the cais- sons. Commissioner Clark pointed out that final action could have been delayed until such time as staff determines whether there are additional Building Code violations at the subject location. The Commission asked that the Building Department look at this project to make certain it complies with the Building Code. Environmental Services Director Onderdonk clarified that the caissons would be reduced in height. X. ADJOURNMENT At 10:30 PM the meeting was duly adjourned to 1:00 PM on Saturday, June 6, 1992, for a tour of the Salvation Army site. E'?