416, Construct a new tennis court, Staff Reports1"** STAFF REPORT
**** •
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
SEPTEMBER 15, 1990
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF
ZONING CASE NO. 416; Request for Variances to reduce the required
lot frontage for a proposed Lot Line Adjustment and to encroach
into the side yard setback with a trellis structure for
recreational vehicle parking; Request for a Certificate of
Compliance for a Lot Line Adjustment; 1 and 3 Georgeff Road, Lots
57-A-MS and 57-A-1-MS; Owner: Caldwell
DISCUSSION
Due to an inadvertent omission on the last regular agenda of the Planning
Commission, the subject application has been placed upon the agenda of the
adjourned meeting. The Commission will recall that the requests
pertaining to a pavilion/cabana structure have been approved, and the
applicant desires City action upon the remainder of the application as
stated above. Remaining issues, as discussed previously are as follows:
1. Approval of the grading that has occurred on 1 Georgeff Road. The
applicant has received County approval of the rough grading plans and
reports (see attachment).
2. Driveway access across the neighboring property. easement. Legal
counsel has been discussing this matter and will provide an opinion.
The City's Traffic Commission must review any new roadway/driveway access
regarding safety concerns.
3. Reduced lot frontage. Existing lots are presently nonconforming to
the 150 foot minimum standard. The applicant has indicated his desire to
remedy the current shared driveway access with 3 Georgeff Road.
4. Lot line adjustment. Staff has in the past made reference to
Government Code Section 66412 (d) that provides a City's review of a lot
line adjustment be limited to whether the parcels resulting from the
adjustment will conform to "local zoning and building ordinances". This
subsection does not define or limit which zoning code and building
ordinance provision or provisions a city may consider.
5. Encroachment into the present side yard setback with a trellis
structure on 1 Georgeff Road. It has been noted that this variance would
not be required should the lot line adjustment be approved.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission
to property development
requests be approved,
conditions to insure
standards".
zc416#7
must closely evaluate the proposal in accordance
standards set forth in the ordinance. Should the
the Commission has the authority to impose
compliance with "local zoning and building
MEETING DATE: APRIL 16, 1991
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 416, MR. & MRS. CRAIG CALDWELL,
NOS. 1 AND 3 GEORGEOFF ROAD (LOTS 57-A-1-MS AND 57-A-
MS)
Attached is a revised Resolution No. 91-9 calling for the removal
of the existing residential structure located at 1 Georgeoff Road
within twelve months of approval of the Resolutional, with the
additional requirement that the trellis structure be removed by
April 30, 1991 or the Resolution shall be automatically withdrawn.
MEETING DATE: APRIL 6, 1991
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: LOLA UNGAR, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 416, MR. & MRS. CRAIG CALDWELL,
NOS. 1 AND 3 GEORGEOFF ROAD (LOTS 57-A-1-MS AND 57-A-
•MS)
Attached is a request by Rhea S. Shedden, Attorney at Law,
representing Mr. and Mrs. Craig Caldwell, for a six month extension
for the removal of the existing residential structure located at
1 Georgeoff Road as required in the attached Resolution No. 90-32,
Section 8, Paragraph C and signed by your honorable body on October
6, 1990.
Ms. Shedden cites real estate sales problems as the reason for this
request.
Resolution No. 91-9 has been prepared, approving the six month
extension, per review and motion by the Planning Commission.
24.
**** STAFF REPORT ****
DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 416; Request for Variances to reduce the required
lot frontage for a proposed Lot Line Adjustment and to encroach
into the side yard setback with a trellis structure for
recreational vehicle parking; Request for a Certificate of
Compliance fora Lot Line Adjustment; 1 and 3 Georgeff Road, Lots
57-A-MS and 57-A-1-MS; Owner: Caldwell
DISCUSSION
This matter has been placed on the September regular agenda should it be
necessary for the Commission to take any further actions upon the subject
requests. The subject application was heard on the adjourned meeting held
September 15, 1990. Staff will provide the Commission with any applicable
documents.
zc416#8
**'* STAFF REPORT ****
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SEPTEMBER 15, 1990
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 416; Request for Variances to reduce the required
lot frontage for a proposed Lot Line Adjustment and to encroach
into the side yard setback with a trellis structure for
recreational vehicle parking; Request for a Certificate of
Compliance for a Lot Line Adjustment; 1 and 3 Georgeff Road, Lots
57-A-MS and 57-A-1-MS; Owner: Caldwell
DISCUSSION
Due to an inadvertent omission on the last regular agenda of the Planning
Commission, the subject application has been placed upon the agenda of the
adjourned meeting. The Commission will recall that the requests
pertaining to a pavilion/cabana structure have been approved, and the
applicant desires City action upon the remainder of the application as
stated above. Remaining issues, as discussed previously are as follows:
1. Approval of the grading that has occurred on 1 Georgeff Road. The
applicant has received County approval of the rough grading plans and
reports (see attachment).
2. Driveway access across the neighboring property_ easement. Legal
counsel has been discussing this matter and will provide an opinion.
The City's Traffic Commission must review any new roadway/driveway access
regarding safety concerns.
3. Reduced lot frontage. Existing lots are presently nonconforming to
the 150 foot minimum standard. The applicant has indicated his desire to
remedy the current shared driveway access with 3 Georgeff Road.
4. Lot line •adjustment. Staff has in the past made reference to
Government Code Section 66412 (d) that provides a City's review of a lot
line adjustment be limited to whether the parcels resulting from the
adjustment will conform to "local zoning and building ordinances". This
subsection does not define or limit which zoning code and building
ordinance provision or provisions a city may consider.
5. Encroachment into the present side yard setback with a trellis
structure on 1 Georgeff Road. It has been noted that this variance would
not be required should the lot line adjustment be approved.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission
to property development
requests be approved,
conditions to insure
standards".
zc416#7
must closely evaluate the proposal in accordance
standards set forth in the ordinance. Should the
the Commission has the authority to impose
compliance with "local zoning and building
STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 16, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 416; Request for variance to reduce the required
lot frontage for a proposed lot line adjustment and to encroach
into the side yard setback with a trellis structure for
recreational vehicle parking; Request for a Certificate of
Compliance for a lot line adjustment; 1 and 3 Georgeff Road;
Owner: Caldwell
DISCUSSION
The Commission will recall, at your last regular meeting held July 17,
1990, the requests related to the development of a pavilion/cabana were
approved and the remainder of the application was continued. Also, at the
last meeting the applicant was requested to provide the preliminary
reports for the rough grading that has occurred on the property. Staff
has spoken with County personnel and was informed that the grading plans
can be approved. The written reports from the County will be provided at
your next meeting. Additional information was requested from the
applicant's legal representative regarding the development of a driveway
over an abutting property and property development standards addressing
the minimum 150 foot lot frontage. The City Attorney will be able to
provide his opinions at the next meeting. The City's Traffic Commission
must also review the new driveway access proposal.
As it pertains to the lot line adjustment, the Staff has in, the past made
reference to Government Code Section 66412 (d) that provides a City's
review of a lot line adjustment be limited to whether the arcels resulting
from the adjustment will conform to "local zoning and building
ordinances". Further, said subsection does not define or limit which
zoning code and building ordinance provision or provisions a city may
consider.
As indicated by the applicant previously, an approved adjustment will make
the request for variance to encroach into the side yard setback for the
trellis structure null and void. Further, the applicant has indicated his
desire to remedy the current shared driveway access situation on property
that has presently nonconforming lot frontage.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission must closely evaluate the proposal in accordance
to property development standards and perpetuity of nonconformities.
Should the requests be approved, the Commission has the authority to
impose conditions to insure compliance with other zoning and building
standards.
zc416#6
•II*** STAFF . REPORT
DATE: JULY 12, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 416; Request for Conditional Use Permit for a
pavilion/cabana; Site Plan Review for proposed pavilion/cabana;
Variances to install kitchen/cooking facilities in the proposed
pavilion/cabana, to reduce the required lot frontage for a
proposed Lot Line Adjustment, to encroach into the side yard
setback with a trellis structure for recreational vehicle
parking; Request for a Certificate of Compliance for a Lot Line
Adjustment; 1 and 3 Georgeff Road; Owner: Caldwell
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of June 19, 1990,
continued the application to the June 30 field inspection. At the field
meeting, the Commission, staff, applicant and consultants for the
applicant conducted a detailed review of the site and surrounding
properties. The applicant informed the City that the additional studies
pertaining to the as -graded site were to be presented to the County for
review. As of this writing, staff has not received the final report on
this matter. As the Comission is aware, this application has been
continued a number of times so as to allow the applicant time to provide
the required documentation for resolution of the violations identified.
Points reiterated at the field inspection include the following:
1.
the lot
proposed
2.
3.
approval
Verify the proposed location of the driveway in conjunction with
line adjustment. Traffic Commission review is required for the
driveway.
Use of native vegetation is required on the slope and canyon
Remove unpermitted lighting system on slope and get Association
for remainder of site lighting system that has been installed.
RECOMMENDATION
Until further notice, staff would recommend that the Commission hold from
any decision until the remaining studies are submitted and reviewed by the
County and City. Should the Commission feel that the matter is not
progressing further, the Commission would have the option to deny the
requests based upon lack of information.
zc416#5
.**
STAFF REPORT
* * * *
•
DATE: June 15, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 416; 1 Georgeff Road; Owner: Craig Caldwell
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission will recall, at the regular meeting of April 18,
1990, the matter on the above -stated application was continued so as to
have the applicant work with staff in resolving the identified property
development violations. Since the last meeting, staff has conducted two
field inspections with the applicant's representative and the County
drainage engineer and County building and grading inspector. The County
personnel have submitted letters outlining their observations and
requirements, and are attached for your review. The Rolling Hills
Community Association has also submitted a letter to the City to document
their concerns. During the past two months, staff does recognize the
efforts of the applicant and his representatives in trying to satisfy the
requests of the Commission.
In further reviewing the application, staff must note that the prescribed
six month time period for City action since the filing of the application
(12/26/89) on the original Conditional Use Permit request will expire soon
(6/26/90). Correspondingly, the Commission has the option to take action
upon the matter based upon the evidence submitted up to the meeting, or
consider a request for continuance to a specified meeting date upon the
applicant waiving his right to provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act.
zc416#4
STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 9, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 416; Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
pavilion/cabana; Site Plan Review to determine compatibility of
the proposed pavilion/cabana with the site; Variance to install
kitchen/cooking facilities in the proposed pavilion/cabana, to
reduce the required lot frontage for a Lot Line Adjustment, to
encroach into the side yard setback with a trellis covering for
recreational vehicle parking; Request for a Certificate of
Compliance for a lot line adjustment.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting of February 20, 1990,
continued indefinitely the above -stated application and instructed the
applicant to resolve property violations that have occurred on the site.
At the last meeting, staff itemized apparent violations and concerns that
the applicant must address. These included the following observations
made by the Commission, staff, and the applicant's representative at a
previous field inspection:
1. Construction of the foundation for the pavilion/cabana structure
had occurred and was not consistent with submitted plans.
2. Construction of masonry pilasters apparently for light standards
for the tennis court.
3. Construction of a large retaining wall and brick walkway that
have an extensive lighting system.
4. Grading of the site from top to down to the canyon base and
landscaping that deviates from any prior plans.
5. Construction, without required permits, an attached lattice
covering for recreational vehicle parking within the side yard setback.
The applicant has responded in the following manner:
1. The applicant has now submitted a request for variance to install
kitchen/cooking facilities as part of the pavilion/cabana structure.
2. Staff and the applicant's representative conducted a site
inspection since the last meeting, and observed that the masonry pilasters
have been demolished.
3. The applicant is requesting to resolve other matters stated by
seeking a variance to reduce lot frontage and certificate of compliance
for a proposed lot line adjustment with property located at 3 Georgeff
Road, Lot 57-A-MS. The applicant suggests that if the property line can
be adjusted away from the lattice covering, this structure would then not
encroach into the side yard setback. Conditions addressing other project
development incidentals, if the application is approved, can be included
with a discretionary action.
zc416
page 2
4. As it pertains to lot line adjustments, the Commission will
recall that the City Attorney has made reference to Government Code
Section 66412(d) that provides a City's review of a lot line adjustment be
limited to whether the parcels resulting from the adjustment will conform
to "local zoning and building ordinances". Further, said subsection does
not define or limit which zoning code and building ordinance provision or
provisions a city may consider. The applicant is requesting variance
relief from the requirement that residential lots have a minimum frontage
along a roadway easement line of no less than 150 feet (Ref.: Section
16.16.040). Should the variance be approved, appropriate conditions
relating to compliance with particular sections of the zoning ordinance
can be imposed.
RECOMMENDATION
Since the application has
Staff would recommend that
continue the matter to an
and surrounding properties.
zc416#3
been expanded to include the abutting parcel,
the Commission receive public testimony and
adjourned meeting so as to reinspect the site
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 13, 1990
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: ZONING CASE NO. 416; Request, for a Conditional Use Permit to
establish and maintain a tennis court pavillion/cabana and Site
Plan Review to determine compatibility of the proposed
pavilion/cabana with the site; 1 Georgeff Road, Lot 57-A-1-MS;
Owner: Mr. Craig Caldwell
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting held January 16, 1990,
continued the above -stated application to an adjourned meeting so as to
inspect the site and surrounding properties. The applicant is requesting
reconfirmation of applications for a conditional use permit and site plan
review that had expired for the establishment of a tennis court
pavilion/cabana.
Issues raised at the previous meetings included the following:
1. The prior application for the proposed structure expired, and
must again be evaluated for land use compatibility.
2. Questions arose regarding deviations from previous site
development plans and unauthorized work undertaken upon the property.
An inspection of the property by the Commission, Staff, and the
applicant's representative observed the following:
a. Construction of the foundation for the pavilion deviated
from the submitted floor plan
b. Construction of, what appears to be bases for light
standards at the tennis court, has occurred
c. Construction of brick walkways and retaining walls with
an extensive lighting system
d. Grading and landscape work which appears to deviate from
prior plans
e. Construction of a lattice carport structure without permit
zc416
page 2
RECOMMENDATION,
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposed
project as it relates to the issue of land use compatibility, and evaluate
potential impacts. Before a conditional use permit may be granted, the
Commission must determine if the required showing is present in that the
granting of the conditional use permit would be consistent with the
purposes and objectives of the zoning ordinance, and would be desirable to
the public convenience and welfare. Further, the Commission must consider
site plan review for the project and determine that findings required for
site plan review approval as set forth by the ordinance are satisfied.
Should the Commission approve the request, appropriate conditions should
be attached so as to correct all violations ascertained on the site.
zc416#2
DATE: January 8, 1990
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
APPLICATION NO.:
SITE LOCATION:
ZONING:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PUBLISHED:
PRIOR CITY ACTIONS:
PROPERTY SIZE/
CONFIGURATION:
PRESENT DEVELOPMENT:
REQUEST:
STAFF REPORT
Zoning Case No. 416
1 Georgeff Road, Lot 57-A-1-MS
RAS-2
Mr. Craig Caldwell
Doug McHattie, South Bay Engineering
January 6, 1990
ZC 346- CUP Tennis Court/Accessory Pavilion
structure; ZC 336- CUP Recreation Bldg., Variance
building height; ZC 298- CUP Tennis Court/Accessory
building (expired)
203,369 SF (Net), Irregular shape
Single family residence, stable, pool, tennis court
A Conditional Use Permit to establish and maintain a tennis
court pavilion/cabana; Site Plan Review to determine
compatibility of the proposed pavilion/cabana with the site
REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF ISSUES
In reviewing the applicant's request under Title 17 (Zoning), Staff would
identify the following issues for evaluation:
1. The Planning Commission will
October 17, 1989 that the applicant'
new request must be filed, since
pavilion/cabana had expired. Again,
must be addressed.
recall from the regular meeting held
s representative was informed that a
a prior approval (ZC 346) for the
the issue of land use compatibility
2. At the last meeting on this matter, the Commission was informed
that trenching for the structure had been undertaken, but ceased.
Further, there arose questions regarding apparent deviations from previous
site development plans depicting structure development, grading, and
landscaping. The Commission may wish further discussion on this matter.
3. Submitted plans indicate
complied with (10.3% structure, 9.4%
4. A thorough site inspection
and for consideration of conditions
identified an the property.
that lot coverage requirements will be
flatwork, 19.7% total).
is recommended to evaluate the project
to resolve any deficiences that may be
zc416
page 2
RECOMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission closely examine the proposed
project as it relates to the issue of land use compatibility, and evaluate
potential impacts. Before a conditional use permit may be granted, the
Commission must determine if the required showing is present in that the
granting of the conditional use permit would be consistent with the
purposes and objectives of the zoning ordinance, and would be desirable to
the public convenience and welfare. Further, the Commission must consider
site plan review for the project and determine that findings required for
site plan review approval as set forth by the ordinance are satisfied.
The Commission should receive public testimony and continue the matter to
an adjourned meeting so as to inspect the site and surrounding properties.
zc416rh