Item 9.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 5, 2008 Page 6 Commissioner Harpootian explained that his no vote was prompted by the unmitigated height of the solid wall on the side of the driveway. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to approve a grading policy exception for a cut of up to seven feet to create a flat rear yard and flat portions of the side yard per the submitted plans. AYES: Commissioners Clow, Cottrell and Chairman Carey NOES: Commissioners Harpootlian and Collins MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion made by Commissioner Harpoothan and seconded by Commissioner Collins to forward to the City Council the recommendation to approve the project with an increase in the Landscape Screening Deposit to $25,000 and the required review of the Landscape Screening Plan by the Planning Commission. AYES: Commissioners Clow, Collins, Cottrell, Harpootlian and Chairman Carey NOES: None This item is subject to a 22 day appeal period and will be forwarded to a future meeting of the City Council. 3.2 LANDS OF LAMPRON, 14238 Stanford Court; File #227-07-ZP-SD-GD-VAR; A request for a Site Development Permit to replace/rebuild an existing swimming pool and a variance to allow the pool and decking to encroach within the side yard setback. The existing swimming pool and decking was approved to encroach 19 feet into the side yard setback by the Planning Commission in 1968. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15302 (Staff -Brian Froelich). Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Commissioner Clow had met with the applicant. Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, presented the staff report explaining the project as the rebuilding of legal non -conforming swimming pool and decking in the side yard setback. In 1968 the Planning Commission had approved a variance for a pool and decking in the setback. Section 10-1.401 (c) of the Zoning Code requires that when more than 50 percent of a legal non- conforming structure is proposed to be rebuilt, the Commission must make two findings in the affirmative. Site constraints include 30% and 40% slopes in areas that are not in the setback, nine heritage oak trees and a septic field. The applicant proposed to reconstruct the pool in a similar location. Development area in the setback for the proposed project would be reduced and setbacks increased by 11 feet. The pool equipment would be moved to a conforming location. The neighbor nearest the setback encroachment had submitted a letter of support for the project stating the privacy and visual impacts would be improved. Commissioner Harpoothan asked about the proposed reduction in the size of the driveway. Brian Froelich explained that a portion of the non -required circular driveway was being removed to provide development area for the larger deck.