Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 ITEM 7.1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION bari.4F Tuesday, September 15, 2015, 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 L ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Commissioner Abraham(arrived at 7:08 P.M.), Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Partridge, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Couperus Staff: Suzanne Avila, Planning Director; Jaime McAvoy, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR There were no presentations from the floor. 3. STUDY SESSION AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Study Session to Consider Alternative Approaches to Development Regulations for Small Lots and to Receive Public Comment. Small Lots Include Parcels That Are Less Than .50 Acres That Require Conditional Development Permits. Maximum Floor Area for Lots Up To .83 Acres Will Also Be Discussed. No Action Will Be Taken at This Meeting; File#342-15-MISC (Staff- S. Avila). Planning Director Suzanne Avila presented the staff report. Commissioner Tankha inquired about the additional proposed variances in terms of strengthening the language. Did the ad hoc committee look at a maximum variance allowed or more objective criteria for what could and could not be allowed in the setbacks? Sometimes the language of the variances could result in different interpretations, and there should be some sort of objective criteria. These proposals do not eliminate the struggles the Commission is dealing with,at the present time. nd� r� c-ut VU -3 Commissioner Mandle said the goal was to add specifics to the requirements for variances into setbacks speeifieally. If these findings are approved, then an applicant would always be required to go through three findings and the Commission would determine whether or not the project meets those requirements. There is a wide range of properties in Town and the struggle was whether it is feasible to come up with a number that could be used without having to apply judgment. She asked if the other Commissioners had suggestions. 1 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes September 15,2015 Commissioner Partridge said that he worried that a specific guideline or number would be the default standard for someone to push for, and that it would not be a graduated approach. It was too hard to tie the hands of the commission to a specific number. For example, if the process became too easy there would be more requests for variances. There needs to be a significant benefit and not just an applicant applying for a variance to make life easier. Commissioner Abraham said the Planning Commission needs to make sure the language is not so restrictive that in very unique situations, variances could not be granted. We want to keep the flexibility for rare situations. Lot Unit Factor (LUF) and lot area sometimes get mashed together, and in the future the Commission needs to look at net lot area and square footage. The metric needs to be something quantitative. Chair Couperus said that variances tend to be lumped into one group when encroachments should really be considered based on what they are. Was the applicant asking for a variance for a firetruck or driveway turn around, or was it for a patio or a corner of the first floor? He said he was more willing to grant a variance for a turnaround than a first floor, but less likely to be willing to grant it if there was a second story. Could the Commission, at least in that context, provide some numbers or a higher threshold, as this could have a side effect of causing developers build up, which would impact the rural feel of the Town. Commissioner Partridge said he was reluctant to relax the setback requirement, but was willing to talk about increasinthe setback for two story structures. Commissioner Mandle�noted that thisnoutside the scope of what they were reviewing, and-then ar - 'standard setbac ngmatter the property. Asking for a variance means you are encroaching • , which can be subjective. m S� -To vt1(. 4-e A \I yI c►n cA, C%' ✓tt UG:f 17-1 r► t,vA 1(1+0 10e /11Mii, Commissioner Tankha requested clarification on what is considered a hardship, and if lot size was going to be included. Does having a small lot entitle you to a variance? Director Avila said that no one is entitled to a variance, and lot size was taken into consideration when a variance is requested. Chair Couperus opened the floor to public comment. Samuel Broydo, Los Altos Hills, said he is not directly affected by lots of small size, but was confused by the complexity and infinite options that would allow a person to argue forever to get a variance. He requested the Commission consider "maximum fairness," allowing small lots to be grandfathered into Los Altos Hills rules, which allows development to a certain point. Neighbors were aware when they bought next to a small lot that there may be development, and the applicant knew they had a small lot when they purchased it, so this should not be an argument or an issue. Forrest Linebarger, Los Altos Hills, is currently developing three (3) Conditional Development lots in the Town. He said that the surrounding municipalities give 2 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes September 15,2015 greater accommodations for smaller lots, while the Town is going in the opposite direction, giving harsher restrictions. He asked the Commission to consider adopting some of these accommodations, and to not apply any new, stricter, rules to projects currently in the planning process. Karen Lemes, member of the Los Altos Hills Open Space Committee, requested the Commission not grant allowances for small lots, even though she herself is the owner of a small undeveloped lot. After a unanimously agreed upon variance was granted on the property right above her, flooding occurred on her property for the first time. Dave Cole, Los Altos Hills, said that he feared people would take advantage of these smaller lots, trying to create max profit at risk of the rural character of the Town. He requested no development be permitted on smaller lots. Roy Woolsey, Los Altos Hills, said the Town should be as strict as possible with the smaller lots, which would make it easier to defend the one acre minimum lot size. He questioned, what would stop someone with a 1.5 acre lot from suing the Town to subdivide the parcel into less than one acre lots to sell and develop. Patrick Murphy, Unincorporated Santa Clara County, said he lived in an area that has been heavily impacted by subdividing and smaller lots and max development, but that it has allowed for neighborhood closeness and diversity. He expressed concern on losing the rights to develop on his lot should a disaster occur, and requested that these areas be grandfathered in under county rules. Gregory Fretz, Unincorporated Santa Clara County, said the rules need to be enforced strictly to maintain the nature of the town, and help keep things simple. He proposed requiring neighborhood involvement in the process, where there must be a 2/3 approval rate of the neighborhood to grant a variance. He said this had been part of the County process at one time, and that this would take some of the burden off the Commission. Doug Rimer, Los Altos Hills, said that he agreed with the comments of most speakers in regards to protecting the semi-rural character of the Town. He added that neighboring jurisdictions are differentiated from the Town by density and size, as well as the strict rules that the Town has for development. He indicated a preference for a Floor Area Ratio of.15. David Kehlet, Los Altos Hills, said that the purpose of the revisions should be to make the ordinances more helpful, and that terms like"rural character"and"benefit to the neighborhood" should be removed as they can have different interpretations. The Town should maintain current setback rules, define minimal encroachment, and adopt the neighborhood support rule. Enrique Klein, Los Altos Hills, wanted to address the approval conditions for the conditional development permits of lots of.50 acres or less. The required findings 3 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes September 15,2015 have remained unchanged since 1986, but admittedly are not easily quantified. He suggested three ways to address these objectives. (1) Request that approvals of variances have a 66% neighborhood approval within a 500 foot radius of the property; (2) Minimize the granting of variances; and (3) Enforce setbacks for all lots. He said that the most important would be the enforcement of standard setbacks on lots of all shapes and sizes. Rosemary Nam, Los Altos Hills, said she was in support of very restrictive setback requirements and that fairness was in the eye of the beholder. The Town is trying to make the guidelines clearer to put everyone on the same page, but it is more important to preserve open space and rural character. She then presented photos for the Commission and audience with what she felt was and was not reflective of a setback that reflected the Town's ideology. Harry Price, Los Altos Hills, said the setbacks are good for his particular lot, and that given the new rules he may lose some square footage if he tears his house down, but there are more likely to be fewer applicants for variances if it is clear what the rules are for an exception. He suggested that since there are so few sub one acre lots, that the Town considers surveying them on their own and having the numbers defined by the Town to have certainty on hand. Chair Couperus closed the floor to public comment. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Abraham commented that the vast majority of those who spoke are very much in favor of being tougher on variances, and that maintaining setbacks seemed to be very important. He also commented that a number of people felt that the neighborhood should have to approve by some margin, but this notion runs counter to state law, which says that the planning body is the body that makes approvals on variances. This would not be practical from a legal standpoint, and if it was, it would not be a wise move as it could pit neighbor against neighbor and cause a lot of unhappiness in the neighborhood. He said that if the Town does grant setback variances, they have to step the variance in relationship to the height of the structures. The second story would have to be somewhat smaller if the house encroaches into the setbacks, which would help with impact and aesthetics. Commissioner Mandle was part of the subcommittee, so she said her thoughts were expressed in the presentation,but that it was important for her to hear from the community. She wasby tl a act that the proposed setback findings were too harsh and burdenso o some, arid not enough to others. No one thought they She agreed that neighborhood ATuf co otentially cause personal conflict between neighbors,, do quantify and s liste , arhd-be problematic She said she understood the issue esi. A ' \.}with ambiguity, but agreed t a c ear definition of a variance could result in Vt°411e applicants designing their hom s with variances. A variance is not a guarantee. She iktkfirAl( Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes•(? ��r�S September 15,2015 0 C likes the setbacks the way they are, and prefers a uniform floor area ratio of.14 to remove the incentive to build on multiple smaller lots. Commissioner Tankha said that she appreciated hearing that preserving setbacks and the Town's rural character still mattered to the community. The photos of the houses presented by Ms. Nam were alarming to her, and she agreed the Town needs to implement stricter rules for second stories. It would be worth looking at similar communities and how they approach smaller lots, and looking into the previous restrictions for these lots before they were incorporated was worthwhile. She wanted the residents to remember that these rules are for new construction, and just because someone buys a small lot, it does not mean they should be given new variances unless there are unique circumstances. Commissioner Partridge agreed with much of what the other Commissioners had to say. He said that one of the reasons it is difficult to legislate height in a setback was because properties in Town are so different. The Town should be careful to not overprescribe things, such as the increased setback for a second story, as it may not affect other neighbors. There are examples in Town where these have been well executed. There is currently no guidance on encroaching on setbacks other than a resident telling their story and seeing if the Commission thinks it is plausible, which has resulted in a lot of circumstantial granting of small variances when it was the "right thing to do". He said he wanted the Commission to try and provide a little more detailed guidance, not to encourage variances, but to assist in their justification. He was worried that .14 may be too restrictive for a Floor Area Ratio, as past approvals have already gone above that with some regularity, and that neighborhood approval was unfair. Chair Couperus wanted to make sure the audience knew that the Town will not allow a lot to be subdivided into substandard lots. He then addressed the issue of fairness, stating that applicants who claim that they must be treated fairly for having a small lot need to remember that one has to be fair to applicants who in fact made a point to comply with the rules. The Town wants to create objectiveness in the process without putting in hard numbers, because there may be a situation where an applicant needs a more relaxed approval, but they have created a strict boundary for themselves. He said that he does not support neighborhood approval but that it would be fair to say that the Commission and Council are swayed by letters from the neighbors. He was not comfortable with the concept of Floor Area Ratio as each lot in Town is unique and the buildable area could be adversely affected by its shape. Commissioner Abraham said that the Commission needed to define net lot area. Commissioner Mandle said that it is currently defined in the ordinances and she does not want to change the definition at this meeting as it is an entirely separate matter. The Commission agreed this topic was worth reviewing, but at another time. 5 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes September 15,2015 Commissioner Partridge said he wants more specific advice to produce something different. Should variance findings be changed to guidelines? Chair Couperus suggested taking the old guidelines and supplementing them into the new document which would allow it to be more flexible, but includes everything that an applicant should expect. Commissioner Partridge felt this would help people deviate from the rules as opposed to bringing everyone into conformity. Commissioner Mandl• reques e• i ey 1 e e •ocumen sac o r e • • - • - • - - •1 • •• " . • • 'n ddb Commissioner Partridge asked what the Commission wanted them to look at specifically, to which Chair Couperus said that to maintain the rural character, all aspects, e.g. height, setbacks, floor area, etc., must be considered. 4. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:51 P.M. 414.7) \A Respectfully submitted, 111P4 \4\\\Q Jaime L. McAvoy M.A. l'� Planning Secretary �V`� I Ck •/1\ `-,ti\'‘ \ 6 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes September 15,2015