Loading...
PC MINS 19920728MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 28, 1992 LUX The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Chairman Katherman at Hesse Park Community Center, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. PRESENT Commissioners Alberio, Clark, Hayes, Lorenzen, Mowlds, Vice Chairman Byrd and Chairman Katherman. ABSENT NONE Also present were Director of Environmental Services Dudley Onderdonk, Planning Administrator Carolynn Petru, Associate Planner Terry Silverman, Assistant Planner Paul Espe, Assistant Planner Donna Jerex, and Assistant Planner Kim Klopfenstein. The Pledge of Allegiance followed. REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS A. Staff 1. Director Onderdonk submitted the Proposed Planning Commission Policy Recommendation to City Council for the Planning Commission's consideration. Staff was directed to forward the Recommendation to City Council via the City Manager's office. 2. commission received copies of the Draft ordinance prepared by the City Attorney of the proposed gasoline service station conversion ordinance. City Council requested that the commission review this situation and make a recommendation. A public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for the Planning Commission Meeting on August 25th. I 3. Director Onderdonk reported that Staff had received a letter from the applicant to withdraw his request for permit parking on the cul-de-sac of Marguerite Drive in Lunada Pointe. Staff has received a Policy Directive from City Council to put this item on the same agenda with the Lunada Pointe gate closure issue. Chair- man Katherman asked that the issue be discussed with the Coastal Permit No. 1 - Revision. B. commission Commissioner Mowlds asked if the Conditional Use Permit becomes void when ownership changes. Staff advised that the CUP runs with the land regardless of ownership, but if the approved use stops for more than six months the CUP can be revoked. The Commission requested that Staff review the Code with the City Attorney to determine if the Development Code could be changed to void the CUP when ownership changes, thereby giving the City an opportunity to review the permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 28, 1992 Commissioner Clark asked if Staff had considered input from the community when granting the continuation of Marymount's SUP allowing amplified sound on campus, had there been any complaints and would this issue come before the Planning commission. Planning Administrator Petru responded that Staff had considered input from the community and that Marymount is required to place the events as far away from the homes as possible and to direct the speakers and the activity away from the homes. Ms. Petru advised that Staff had not received any complaints for the past two years and that it would not come before the Planning Commission unless staff's decision is appealed. Chairman Katherman called for another volunteer to attend the Salvation Army Commissioner workshop with him and Commissioners Mowlds and Lorenzen on the 4th of August at 10:00 a.m. at City Hall in the conference room of Environmental Services. Commissioner Alberio agreed to attend. Commissioner Hayes and Vice Chairman Byrd asked for excused absences. NOTION: Chairman Katherman moved, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to approve the excused absences of Commissioner Hayes on August 11, August 25 and September 22, and to approve the excused absence of Vice Chairman Byrd on September 22. There being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Katherman. Chairman Katherman reminded the Commission and Staff of the 9:00 a.m., September 26th landslide tour of Abalone Cove. The entire Commission is to attend. Director Onderdonk will make sure that Charlie Abbott( and his four-wheel drive vehicle) will be able to attend. Chairman Katherman commented that at the last Mayor's Breakfast former Councilman Ken Dyda was appointed Chairman of the Finance Committee and that the next meeting of the Mayor's Breakfast will be on August 17th at Coco's at 7:00 a.m. Vice chairman Byrd will take Chairman Katherman's place, as he will be on vacation. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Minutes of June 23, 1992. Commissioners agreed to amend the last sentence of the last paragraph of Page 1 to read: 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 28, 1992 Commissioner Clark noted that there is a great deal of sensitivity in the community concerning the Marymount en- rollment and encroachment into the surrounding community. Commissioners agreed to amend on Page 2 Item B. of the Consent Calendar that the discussion of Variance No. 317 on page 4 of the Minutes of March 24, 1992 should be amended again to read: The Commission noted that the garage was operable and func- tional as a garage when the applicant purchased the property and remained in that configuration until long after the neighborhood was incorporated into the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. B. Minutes of June 30, 1992 Commissioners agreed to correct Page 2 by inserting commissioner's Lorenzen name as seconding the motion to limit speakers to five minutes. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 107 - EXTENSION; Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, Pedregal School, 6069 Grove -oak. (PE) Vice chairman Byrd moved, seconded by commissioner Lorenzen, to approve Item A. as amended, Item B. as amended and Item C. without amendment. There being no objection, it was so ordered by Chairman Ratherman. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. COASTAL PERMIT NO. 1. - REVISION Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association (Bruce Burrell), Tract No. 40640 (Marguerite Drive at Palos Verdes Drive West). The Staff report was presented by Associate Planner Silverman and included a letter from Save Our Coast 2000 which supported Staff's recommendation to deny the request to close the pedestrian gate. Commissioners Byrd and Mowlds asked who had legal liability and who was responsible for maintaining the trail through Lot 27. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the City had an established trail on the HMDI property. Planning Administrator Petru advised that the City had legal liability and the Homeowners Association is responsible fc;r the maintenance of the trail. Ms. Petru stated that a trail system has 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 28, 1992 been approved for HMDI, but it has not been dedicated and people that use it are trespassing. Commissioner Hayes asked if there was access to the trail from Palos Verdes Drive West and Staff responded that there is access to the bluff from a trail from a staircase on Palos Verdes Drive West. Commissioners expressed concern about the crime and Commissioner Mowlds thought there should have been some studies done to determine if crime in this area is higher than other areas. Commissioner Alberio commented that when HMDI is developed Lunada Pointe may not have the same problems with crime. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if Staff had discussed Mr. Collins letter of July 23, 1992 with the Sheriff. Associate Planner Silverman said that she had discussed the crime problem with the Sheriff and had asked how crime in Lunada Pointe compared to crime in other areas of the City. They informed her that it had one of the lowest crime rates in the City. They did not discuss how it relates to crime on the peninsula as a whole or to other adjacent cities. Director Onderdonk assured the Commission that the staff is very concerned about public safety and will redouble efforts to inform them of concerns of access and of potential crime along the coast. He stated that there is a need to find a balance between public safety and public access. Chairman Katherman opened the public hearing. Richard Colling, Applicant, Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association, 63 Marguerite Drive, provided the Commission with copies of Resolution dated May 5, 1983 by California Coastal Commission adopting City's Coastal Plan with sections pertaining to the blufftop, and blufftop access highlighted and with photographs of the bluff and the trail in question. Mr. Collins believes that the closure of the gate is in compliance with the Coastal Specific Plan and the Coastal Act since the easement granted to the City over Lot 27 is for a public trail from Palos Verdes Drive West to the bluff top only and does not require access through their Tract. He stated that public access is available nearby at Palos Verdes Drive West, and adequate public parking is available at the Pointe Vincente Interpretive Center (at the other end of the HMDI property), plus additional parking will be available on the HMDI property once it is developed. Also, the public trail over Lot 27 begins at Palos Verdes Drive West which could be widened to provide parking at that point. Finally, the Lunada Pointe HOA believes that access at the end of Marguerite Drive is not in the interest of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 28, 1992 public safety because of the deaths by drowning and falls over the cliff, the crime, vandalism and public nuisance that occur in the area and that even if the Coastal Act were applicable, public access at this point is so unsafe as to warrant an exception. Marguerite Drive has become a parking lot and fire trucks cannot turn around in the cul-de-sac when the public is parked there. Commissioner Alberio asked how he reconciled closing the gate and public access. Mr. Collins answered that public access was to be granted to connect to the trail that runs along Palos Verdes Drive West and that the trail system does not run along their tract or through Marguerite. Associate Planner Silverman disagreed with Mr. Collin's claim that requirements were only to provide trail access from Palos Verdes Drive West. Conditions of Approval of the Lunada Point Subdivision require a 15 foot public access from the cul-de-sac of Marguerite Drive to Lot 27 in order to maximize access to the coastline as required by the Coastal Act. Ms. Silverman stated that Staff is sympathetic to the problems the homeowners are experiencing, but it is also Staff's responsibility to report the requirements of the Coastal Act and the Coast Specific Plan. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if Pointe Vincente Interpretive Center parking is closed at dusk. He asked if it would help if the gate at the end of Marguerite Drive was closed at dusk, and would the homeowners bear the responsibility of closing and opening the gate. Also, he requested that the Homeowners Association bear the cost of an appeal to the Coastal Commission if the gate were closed. Mr. Collins responded that closing the gate at dusk would help, but would not entirely eliminate the problem, and they would prefer to not be responsible for opening and closing the gate. Planning Administrator Petru confirmed that closing the gate could be appealed to the coastal Commission. Mr. Collins said they would consider agreeing to bear the cost of an appeal but he would have to consult with the Homeowners Association Board. Staff advised that the City had only required the applicant to bear the cost of appeals for large developments. Commissioner Hayes expressed concern about the obstruction of fire truck access and with the crime in the area. She also commented that the fence does not comply with the City's Code and asked if the Homeowners would be willing to put in a more attractive fence. Mr. Collins agreed that they would be willing to have that stipulated as a condition of approval. 9 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 28, 1992 Chairman Katherman asked where alternative parking would be provided. Mr. Collins replied that the HMDI project has provisions for public parking, the Interpretive Center has 61 parking spaces, Palos Verdes Drive West could be widened and there is parking on any of the residential streets on the east side of Palos Verdes Drive West. The Golden Cove Shopping Center was a another possible parking site since people who park there might shop in the stores and the business owners might not object. Associate Planner Silverman advised that access across the drainage channel adjacent to the Interpretive Center is not part of a dedicated public trail and is on private property. She added that the access to Lot 27 is merely to provide access to the coastal bluff and not to the shore line. Staff has made recommendations of several available alternatives that can alleviate some of the problems. The option of requiring permit parking in this Tract could not be considered at this meeting, but the Homeowners Association could come back with a future request. Vickie Schoenfeld, 93 Laurel Drive and Jamie B. Lewis, 79 Marguerite Dr.; discussed the crime, vandalism, trash dumping, fist fights, graffiti, fires, and the gangs and other dangerous and undesirable elements being drawn to the area and adjacent bluffs. Also, fire engines were not able to access fires on the HMDI property from Marguerite Drive and instead had to approach the site from Hawthorne Boulevard. They asked the Commission to approve the request to close the gate at the terminus of Marguerite Drive. MOTION: Moved by Vice Chairman Byrd, seconded by commissioner Lorenzen, to close the public hearing on Item A. The motion passed 7-0. Chairman Katherman suggested that the southerly boundary of Lot 27 could be fenced off which would block access between Lot 27 and the HMDI property, thereby providing coastal access only at the point where Lot 27 meets the coast. He asked Staff if there public parking will continue on Marguerite after public access and public parking is provided from HMDI. Planning Administrator Petru responded that Marguerite Drive is a public street and will remain so when HMDI is developed with public parking available at both places. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the City could shut the gate at dusk and open it in the morning. Associate Planner Silverman explained that it is difficult to enforce the opening and closing of the gate on a daily basis due to staffing and budget considerations. She advised that it may be appropriate to allow the Homeowners Associa- tion to fence the Southern portion of the tract to prevent 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 28, 1992 continuing access from Lot 27 to HMDI property. Ms. Silverman commented that if the gate closure were considered, parking could be obtained on Rue de Beaupre. However, that would transfer the problem from the Lunada Pointe tract to the adjacent tract and also would encourage an unprotected crossing across Palos Verdes Drive West for pedestrians. Vice Chairman Byrd stated that public safety is paramount over coastal access. Commissioner Alberio said that the Coastal Commission requires that the City provide access to the coast, but they don't require access to the coast when it is unsafe to the public. Commissioner Clark believes the City has responsibility to take care of its residents and the overriding factor is one of public safety, and therefore, the City has a mandate to close the gate. Commissioner Hayes said she felt that there was substantial justification for an exception to the Coastal Act in the interest of public safety and property values. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Mowldso to approve the Coastal Permit No. I - Revision to close the gate immediately. Commissioner Mowlds proposed to amend the motion that if appealed, all costs associated with appeal including the cost of the staff time will be borne by the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association. Vice Chairman Byrd suggested a further rther amendment that when the HMDI project is completed and the trails are deeded to the City, the Planning commission again review the necessity of keeping the gate closed . Chairman Katherman said he thought the crime problem might be a result of the isolated location which doesn't get adequate sheriff patrols, which is exacerbated by the fact there is a subdivision under construction with a number of homes unoccupied. He suggested closing the gate at dusk for a period of six months. Associate Planner Silverman reiterated that closing the gate at dusk would become a serious enforcement problem for the City. Vice Chairman Byrd proposed a new amendment to the motion to perma- nently close the gate for a period of six months at which time the Planning commission would reevaluate the situation. Commissioner Hayes asked Staff how long before the HMDI subdivision would be built -out. Planning Administrator Petru advised that HMDI has three years to final their map and, although there have been IN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 28, 1992 preliminary discussions with Staff about moving forward, final build -out on the site could be years away. Commissioner Alberio stated that public notice would be necessary if the gate is closed. Planning Administrator Petru advised that public notice could be stipulated as a condition, but it was not a requirement of the Development Code. The Commissioners agreed to change the motion as follows, with Commissioner Hayes agreeing reluctantly as she preferred the gate remain closed indefinitely: MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Mowlds, to grant approval to close the gate for 24 hours a day for a trial period of six months at which time the Planning Commission will reevaluate this approval, that notice is to be posted at three public access points to be determined by Staff, and that the Lunada Pointe Homeowners Association is to indemnify the City against any and all costs with respect to an appeal to the Coastal Commission. Motion passed 7-0. Commissioner Clark voted yes with the qualification that he does not agree with indemnification from any appeal costs to the Coastal Commission because he does not draw a parallel with a developer in a major development and residents in the City trying to preserve their safety. At Vice Chairman Byrd's suggestion, Chairman Katherman stated the rationale for the Planning Commission's decision to approve the request to close the gate as follows: The overriding issue of public safety and the safety of the residents within the Lunada Pointe subdivision outweighs the need for coastal access from the end of Marguerite Drive since such access encourages illegal access to the abutting property known as HMDI. Alternate public access and public parking is available at Pointe Vincente Interpretative Center and pedestrian access is available through the Lot 27 gate at Palos Verdes Drive West. This approval is granted on a temporary trial basis for a period of six months in order to determine the cause of the very serious crime problems in the neighborhood and to act as a deterrent. The Planning Commission felt that the appropriate public access point to HMDI's site is through the public access and parking that will be provided throughout the HMDI subdivision as part of the conditions of approval. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 28, 1992 RECESS AND RECONVENE - The meeting recessed for a break at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m. Chairman Katherman requested take the New Business item at concluded before 11:00 p.m. acclamation the calendar was Business. NEW BUSINESS that the agenda order be changed to this time so New Business could be There were no objections and by reordered and the next item was New A. Grading Permit No. 1629; Mr. and Mrs. Wang, 29902 Avenida Magnifica. Assistant Planner Espe presented the staff report concerning the applicants' request for a retaining wall. Staff's recommendation was to approve the request, subject to conditions listed in Exhibit A, attached to the staff report. Chairman Katherman asked if Staff would allow pilasters as proposed by the applicant with the balance of the wall to allow 900 light and air to pass through. Assistant Planner Espe responded that Staff would allow pilasters if they were architecturally pleasing. Chairman Katherman asked the applicants if they had any objections to the conditions on Exhibit A., specifically, condition No.10, an open guard rail, and Condition No. 11, a request that lighting be changed to reduce illumination in the canyon. , The applicants responded that they did not agree with the Staff's description of the wall as a massive, but they had no objection to Condition No.10 and suggested they would hide the lighting behind the columns of the guard rail and the lighting would not be facing toward the canyon. Planning Commission agreed that this would satisfy Condition No. 11. Assistant Planner Espe clarified that the applicants understood that there is to be no lighting in the canyon and that they are to hide the lights in some fashion, either behind the fence itself or behind the pilasters. Chairman Katherman suggested that Condition No. 11 be reworded by Staff to clarify this point. MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Lorenzen, seconded by Commissioner Alberio, to approve the application with Exhibit A, Condition No. 11 amended to require that the applicant shall provide lighting which does not cause excessive illumination in the canyon, per staff approval. Staff is to review the lighting plan. motion passed 7-0. E PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 28, 1992 Chairman requested return to the Public Hearing calendar. PUBLIC HEARING B. VARIANCE NO. 332; Kelly Vince and Catherine Bannerman, 28127 Lobrook. Assistant Planner Jerex presented the staff report regarding applicant's request for after -the -fact approval of encroachment into the required front yard setback. Original plans did not clearly show the scope of the project, but Staff's findings indicate that there are unusual physical constraints on the subject property which are sufficient to support this request. Staff has received several letters in support of the project from directly adjacent neighbors and one letter that requested special conditions of approval for the project. Commissioner Alberio noted that this was done by an out-of-town contractor and wanted to make sure that contractors working in the City had licenses. Commissioner Mowlds stated that the only time the City checks subcontractors is at final inspection. The Commissioners asked Director Onderdonk to review the City's contractor business license procedures and report back to the Planning commission. The Chairman declared the public hearing open. Kelly G. Vince, 28127 Lobrook, requested that his application be modified to comply with his neighbor's request to bring the wall out to the end of the driveway, to add a door and to bring the wall into the five foot side yard setback between the two properties at the level of the driveway. Mr. Vince submitted photos to the Commission. Chairman Katherman stated that the Commissioners could not consider a variance from the side yard set back because that was not the request before the Commission, and Assistant Planner Jerex agreed that since the request for the side yard encroachment wasn't publicly noticed it should not be heard at this meeting. . Commissioners directed the Staff to renotice this item to include the five foot side yard encroachment under the driveway and to address the issue in staff analysis of whether or not there would be a door for access from the side yard into the addition. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Kowlds to close the Public Hearing. The motion passed without objection. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 28, 1992 MOTION: Commissioner Clark moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to continue this application to a new public hearing and to include the side yard variance in the application. Motion passed 7-0. B. VARIANCE NO. 312, AND GRADING PERMIT NO. 1579,* (related application: HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 724) ; Pat and Carmine Coppa, 1433 Caddington Drive. Assistant Planner Jerex presented the staff report for this request to allow 24 cubic yards of grading into the side yard and a 5 foot encroachment into the required 20 foot front yard setback for a first and second story addition. similar variance requests for this type of encroachment are often granted in this neighborhood due to the small lot size and hardship created by the older homes. Staff recommends approval with conditions . Assistant Planner Jerex advised that a view analysis had been done and that Staff had not received any letters of concern about the height variation request. Vice Chairman Byrd asked if the front of the new garage had been modified in any way. Assistant Planner Jerex advised that it follows the line of the existing garage. Vice Chairman Byrd commented that the front of the new garage would not be any closer to the sidewalk than the existing garage and that what is being done is adding a third garage. Assistant Planner Jerex said that was correct. Chairman Katherman opened the public hearing. Scot Ferguson, 311 Fieldview Avenue, Duarte, CA, Architect representing Pat and Carmine Coppa, owners, informed the commission that the retaining wall will be approximately 8 feet from the side property line, however, the second floor of the addition would cantilever over the retaining wall and will be 6 feet from the side property line. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Ferguson confirmed that the side wall is the retaining wall and that it will be approximately 5 feet in height with the wall of the addition crippled on top of it. He also explained that they were continuing the existing line of the two car garage at the lower level, adding the third car garage and that the second story will be set back at the front and cantilevered on the side, and also that there is a deck in the front. Commissioner Alberio and Chairman Katherman questioned the size of the driveway and Mr. Ferguson answered that there is a concrete 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 28, 1992 sidewalk right at the curb line from the street and then there is six or seven feet of unused right of way that is landscaped and is actually part of the driveway, so the driveway is functionally 21 to 22 feet long. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Commissioner Mowlds, to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed 7-0. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to accept Staff's recommendation to approve Variance No. 312, and Grading Permit No. 1579 subject to conditions. Motion passed by 7- 0. Chairman Katherman advised that he would sign the resolution this evening and that there is a 15 day appeal period. Mr. Ferguson asked if he could submit for plan check and building permit prior to the end of the 15 day appeal period and Planning Administrator Petru advised that it has not been Staff's practice to allow projects to go into plan check until the appeal period has run because applicant has to pay plan check fees which could be forfeited if there is an appeal. D. HEIGHT VARIATION NO. 734 - APPEAL VARIANCE NO. 314 GRADING PERMIT NO. 1595, Mr. Pero Tepic, 29006 Highmore. Assistant Planner Klopfenstein presented the staff report on applicant's request for approval to add a first story addition of 554 sq. ft., a second story addition of 646 sq. ft., and a three car detached garage with an upper level deck. Staff's recommenda- tion is to deny Height Variation No. 734 - Appeal, and to approve the Variance No. 314, and Grading Permit No. 1595 subject to the conditions in Exhibit A of the staff report. In response to Vice Chairman Byrd's and Commissioner Clark's comments that they did not believe the view impairments were severe, Assistant Planner Klopfenstein stated that Staff takes the strictest interpretation of view impairment and looks at views regardless of foliage and, therefore, had concluded that the portion of the structure above 16' would block the view of the harbor and the bridge, which Staff considered to be significant impairment. Ms. Klopfenstein confirmed that Staff did not receive any letters of concern. She advised that the second story addition that exists now was approved under the County and Staff felt that expanding the second story across the entire home would also result in a massive front facade that would not be in character with the neighborhood. 12 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 28, 1992 Chairman Katherman opened the public hearing. Pero Tepic, Applicant, 29006 Highmore Avenue, informed the Planing Commission that he wants to raise the second level in order to improve his view and to make his home look better. Since the existing addition does not look very good and his revisions would make it look better, he believes his request should be approved. Also, he has not received any complaints from his neighbors with regard to view impairment. Mr. Tepic stated that he has five cars and four children and needs to add the garage in the rear of the property to have sufficient parking. He also stated that his neighbor has the same type garage off the rear alley that he wants to build. Waco Winters, 1622 South Gaffey Street, San Pedro CA, architect representing the applicant. In response to the Commissioners' questions, Mr. Winters answered that they originally considered expanding on one floor but found that the lot coverage would be over 504 percent and the additions would have to encroach into areas on the lot with excessive slope. Mr. Winters stated that the property next door has over 50% lot coverage, but it had been approved when the property was under the County. Mr. Winters explained that they were trying to keep the footprint as small as possible to contain the cost. MOTION: Commissioner Hayes moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Byrd, to close the public hearing. Motion passed 7-0. MOTION: Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by Commissioner Hayes, to accept the applicant's elevation drawings of the proposed second story addition. The Commissioners agreed to bring this motion back after discussing the height variation appeal. Chairman Katherman expressed concern about how the building would look from the street and requested more articulation of the front facade by bringing out the entryway or perhaps by putting a trellis around it. Vice Chairman Byrd agreed that there should be some type of facade articulation to break the mass of the structure. Chairman Katherman suggested the motion be changed to add that the applicant work with the staff to further articulate the front facade of the second story to improve the aesthetics of the addition. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 28, 1992 Assistant Planner Klopfenstein asked if the Commission thought the lower facade should be moved out or the upper changed. Chairman Katherman said it should be combination of both and Vice Chairman Byrd stated that the purpose is try to alleviate the flat, massive frontage. The Commissioners agreed that they don't need to see the revised drawings. The Commission would uphold the appeal of the height variation and Staff would bring the resolution to them at the next meeting. MOTION; Commissioner Mowlds moved, seconded by commissioner Hayes, to uphold the appeal, thereby approving the height variation, and to approve the variance and the grading permit, with conditions as outlined on Exhibit A and amended by the Commission. Motion passed 5-2. Commissioner Lorenzen voted against the motion because he felt that the second story addition was too massive in appearance. Chairman Katherman voted no because he would like to see the revised plans come back to the Planning commission for final approval. CONTINUED BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Alberio moved, seconded by commissioner Lorenzen, to adjourn. Notion passed 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:47 p.m. to the next regular meeting on August 11th at 7:00 p.m. 14