Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/2016Approved February 4, 2016 1 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 6, 2016 Minutes of a Special Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 06, 2016, 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Partridge, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Couperus Staff: Suzanne Avila, Planning Director; Genevieve Fernandez, Assistant Planner; Steve Padovan, Consultant Planner; Jaime McAvoy, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR There were no presentations from the floor. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF POLYAKOV/SABSOVICH; 25541 Fremont Road, File# 297-15-ZP- SD-VAR; A request for a Conditional Development Permit for additions totaling 329 square feet and a variance to allow an addition within the front yard setback. CEQA review: Categorical exemption per section 15301 (e) (Staff-G. Fernandez). CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 3, 2015. Ex Parte Disclosures: Commissioners Mandle, Partridge, Tankha, and Chair Couperus all said that they had spoken with the applicants. Assistant Planner Genevieve Fernandez presented the staff report. Commission asked questions of staff. Chair Couperus opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Applicant Ilya Sabsovich spoke on behalf of his application, and why he chose not to make any changes to his original plan. Commission asked questions of the applicant. Commission asked clarifying questions of staff. Approved February 4, 2016 2 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 6, 2016 Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Couperus closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Abraham said that a Conditional Development Permit (CDP) is not granted indefinitely, and that the intensity of this development was not in alignment with the ordinance changes that the Commission proposed to the City Council. Commissioner Mandle said that the document history was understandably confusing but Town ordinances do change over time. It was made clear by the Commission that the applicant was to reduce their proposed floor area, but she would be willing to accept the plans, which are in excess of any Maximum Floor Area (MFA) that could be calculated from the area of this lot. She said she was willing to consider a variance for the MFA as it was not harmful to the community, was supported by the neighbors, and largely in the footprint of the existing house, which was already overbuilt. Commissioner Tankha said that she understood CDPs to only be applicable to the application it was tied to, and once development was complete it expires. As such, the Commission is not bound by anything that was previously granted. She said she would be willing to agree to enclose the balcony due to the safety issue, but not the additional floor area as the property was currently maxed out. She later suggested granting additional floor area, but less than the applicant was requiring. Commissioner Partridge said that he was disappointed to see exactly the same plans returned to them after the Commission gave specific directions, as well as accommodating by granting the entry way expansion and side balcony enclosures. He agreed that the balconies were a safety issue, but a balcony does not have to be enclosed to add a window for ventilation. He would prefer the applicant adhere to the Commission's previous direction, and said that he could not support this application as presented. Chair Couperus said that he saw this presentation, not as the applicant defying the Planning Commission, but returning with more information to make a stronger case for his request. While the increased floor area seemed to be a bigger topic than the bulk of the house, he felt that the footprint was more important. He has mentioned before that floor area and/or ratio does not always affect the three-dimensional aspect of a property, and that was true in this case. He said that he was inclined to grant with a variance as it would have little visual impact on the house, and would make it more livable for the applicants. Commissioner Abraham said that the Commission appeared to all be in agreement that a variance was required, meaning this item would have to be continued again as a variance was not noticed. Staff agreed. Approved February 4, 2016 3 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 6, 2016 Architect Amnon Levy addressed the Commission and acknowledged that he understood their discussion about the direction of the project. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Tankha moved that the Commission ask the applicant to come back with a revised plan where they flex the 62 square foot addition to the front entry way, 41 feet to the east side to enclose the balcony and 45 feet to the west side to enclose the other balcony, and enclosing the rear balcony, staying in the foot print of the house and omitting the increased floor area that was requested. Additionally, the applicant should apply or a variance, at which the Planning Commission will hear the request for the subject property. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mandle. AYES: Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Couperus NOES: Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner Partridge ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 3-2. 3.2 LANDS OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS (APPLICANT: AT&T); 26379 Fremont Road, File# 257-15-ZP-SD-CUP; A request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify an existing/previously approved wireless communications facility by replacing existing antennas and adding additional equipment to the top of an existing 69 foot monopine, relocating existing emergency communications antennas to the 52 foot level, relocating existing AT&T GSM antennas to a new mount at the 48 foot level, and adding and replacing equipment within an existing shelter near the base of the monopine for AT&T Mobile; CEQA review: Categorical exemption per Section 15301(b). (Staff-S. Padovan). Ex Parte Disclosures: There were no ex parte disclosures. Consultant Planner Steve Padovan presented the staff report. Commission asked questions of staff. Chair Couperus opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Tim Page, Crown Castle, representing AT&T, spoke on behalf of the application. Seeing no one else wishing to speak Chair Couperus closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission discussion ensued. Approved February 4, 2016 4 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 6, 2016 MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Tankha moved to forward a recommendation to the City Council that the Conditional Use Permit for modifications to an existing wireless communication facility be approved, subject to the findings in Attachment 1 and conditions of approval in Attachment 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Abraham. AYES: Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Partridge, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Couperus NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3.3 LANDS OF GERA; 12345 Gigli Court, File# 51-15-TM-IS-ND; A request for a Tentative Parcel Map for a two-lot subdivision of an existing 2.85 acre parcel and consideration of an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. (Staff- S. Padovan). Ex Parte Disclosures: Commissioner Mandle said that she had spoken with the applicants. There were no other disclosures. Consultant Planner Steve Padovan presented the staff report. Commission asked questions of staff. Pete Carlino, Lea and Braze Engineering, said the applicant was agreeable to negotiating with the Open Space Committee (OSC) for the size and location of the open space easement. Chair Couperus opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Applicant Anil Gera spoke on behalf of his project. Mr. Carlino spoke on behalf of the project's engineering. Mark Buaman, Murray Engineers, said that he had worked on an adjoining property and spoke to other seismic investigations in the area. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chair Couperus closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Approved February 4, 2016 5 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 6, 2016 Commissioner Tankha said that the proposal was in accordance with the General Plan and that each parcel met the requirements for subdivisions. New factors and technology make it reasonable to revisit the "no subdivision clause" on the property. She wanted to make sure that an open space easement was granted and that maintaining a wildlife corridor was important. She also said that she did not see the freeway noise as being a viable reason to deny the subdivision, and offered her support of the application. Commissioner Partridge said that if it was not for the language "not further subdividable" this would be a non-issue. Their role as Commissioners is to follow the policy of the City Council, so he is struggling with overriding the language as it had been ordered by them. He then he expressed he was bothered by the noise mitigation issues, as this was a documented reason for the previous City Council making the lot unsubdividable. Commissioner Mandle thought this was a very thorough analysis of the potential subdivision, and unless there was some hidden issue behind the language against subdividing, her concerns have been addressed. She wanted to make sure the OSC was able to provide their input for the location of the easement and have it accepted by the City Council. She offered her support of the project. Commissioner Abraham said that he supported the subdivision as presented, and thought that it was thorough and met all requirements. He said that he would like to see #24 and #25 of Attachment 2 removed, as he felt that the noise conditions were not necessary and would encumber the property. He felt that the applicant's proposed open space easement was adequate, but would like to defer that decision to the City Council. Chair Couperus said that he was conflicted and shared Commissioner Partridge's concerns. He asked if the Planning Commission could override the decision of a previous Council and would this be setting a precedent that says “because technology has changed, I can challenge previous rulings, such as no longer subdividable.” He would prefer the Commission let the Council know that they like the proposal, but were concerned about the subdivision language. He said he would like to know what the Council thinks on the matter. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Chair Couperus moved to forward a recommendation, based on the Initial Study (Attachment 3), that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program in Attachment 4 and given that the geologic problems seem to have been resolved and the noise problems are solvable, forward a recommendation to approve requested Tentative Parcel Map, contingent on the Council affirming that they wish to override the condition that the parcel is non-subdividable. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Partridge. Approved February 4, 2016 6 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 6, 2016 AYES: Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Partridge, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Couperus NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3.4 INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLE 7 (RESIDENTIAL- AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT) AND ARTICLE 8 (OPEN SPACE RESERVE DISTRICT) OF TITLE 10, CHAPTER 1 (ZONING) OF THE LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES, MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION, INCLUDING PERSONAL CULTIVATION, ALL MEDICAL MARIJUANA COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS, AND MEDICAL MARIJUANA DELIVERIES WITHIN THE TOWN LIMITS; File# 438-15-MISC; CEQA review: Categorical exemption per section 15061(B)(3) (Staff-S. Padovan). Ex Parte Disclosures: Chair Couperus said that he had spoken with Scott Vanderlip. There were no other disclosures. Consultant Planner Steve Padovan presented the staff report. As there was no one in the audience, Chair Couperus did not open the PUBLIC HEARING. Commissioner Mandle expressed concern with the prohibition of delivery or personal cultivation if residents are entitled to receive it for their own use. If an elderly resident has a prescription, then we could be creating a hardship for them if they cannot have their prescription delivered to them. Chair Couperus said that he agreed with her notion, but asked how the Town would know that a person is actually growing it just for their own personal use. Commissioner Mandle said that there were regulations for personal use. Mr. Padovan said that there were a certain amount of ounces that a person could possess for their own use if they had a medical card. The Town was not looking to regulate that, but asked if they were concerned with someone starting their own business. Approved February 4, 2016 7 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 6, 2016 Commissioner Mandle said that she wanted to make sure that a 94 year old woman, at the end of her life, who uses marijuana for medical reasons, was to be able to have it delivered to her home. Commissioner Tankha said that she was concerned that if they allowed residents to grow marijuana for medical use in their backyards, what was to stop their children from distributing it throughout Town and to their friends? Chair Couperus said that he was concerned the personal cultivation would make the property a target for organized crime. Commissioner Partridge said that regulating marijuana had not, up to this point, been very successful. He said that he saw the use of marijuana becoming legalized in California in the near future, and was concerned with the Town coming down “heavy handed” and telling people they cannot grow marijuana in their own homes for their own use. He said he could support personal cultivation and delivery for medical use. Commissioner Abraham said that given the urgency of the matter, the Town would have to move quickly to not cause any issues with the process or approval. Mr. Padovan explained that the City Council could consider issuing an emergency ordinance for this item. Commissioner Partridge suggested that the Commission tailor the ordinance for what needs to be done at this moment and come back later with revisions. Chair Couperus and Commissioner Abraham requested the Commission make a decision now, and pull back the regulations later if need be. Commissioner Abraham said that they could not only allow delivery for a 94 year old woman. Commissioners Partridge and Mandle clarified they wanted to allow for all medical deliveries. The Commission discussed whether delivery restriction was enforceable. Commissioner Tankha suggested they leave out medical delivery and approve the rest of the ordinance. The Commission agreed. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Mandle moved to forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the draft ordinance in Attachment 1 with the exception of deliveries of medical marijuana. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Abraham. Approved February 4, 2016 8 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 6, 2016 AYES: Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Partridge, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Couperus NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 4. OLD BUSINESS - none 5. NEW BUSINESS - none 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6.1 Approval of December 3, 2015 minutes. Commissioner Mandle noted a correction to the minutes. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Abraham moved to approve the December 3, 2015 minutes as corrected. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Partridge. AYES: Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Partridge, Commissioner Tankha, Chair Couperus NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 7. REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 7.1 Planning Commission Representative for December 17 – Commissioner Mandle Commissioner Mandle presented a report on the December 16th and 17th meetings. 7.2 Planning Commission Representative for January 27 - Commissioner Abraham Approved February 4, 2016 9 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 6, 2016 7.3 Planning Commission Representative for February 18 - Commissioner Partridge 7.4 Planning Commission Representative for March 17 – Commissioner Tankha 8. REPORTS FROM FAST TRACK MEETINGS – DECEMBER 15, DECEMBER 22, 2015, JANUARY 5, 2016. 8.1 LANDS OF FLIERL; 12121 Foothill Lane, File# 251-15-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development permit for a new two story residence. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a). (Staff- G. Fernandez). 8.2 LANDS OF CROLL; 14161 Miranda Road, File# 371-15-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a new square foot residence (Maximum height 27’), with a 325 square foot basement and swimming pool. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(a). (Staff- S. Padovan). 8.3 LANDS OF ZOU AND SU; 13112 Maple Leaf Court, File# 187-15-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a new 5,935 square foot residence (Maximum height 27’), with a 3,142 square foot basement, a pool cabana, and a swimming pool. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(a). (Staff- S. Padovan). 8.4 LANDS OF TANEJA; 13685 La Paloma Road, File# 159-15-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development permit for a new two story residence. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a). (Staff- G. Fernandez). 9. REPORTS FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS – DECEMBER 8, DECEMBER 15, DECEMBER 22, 2015, JANUARY 5, 2016. 9.1 LANDS OF WU; 27161 Fremont Road, File# 341-15-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development permit for a driveway relocation, pool replacement, sunroom, gate, and hardscape improvements. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (e) (Staff- G. Fernandez). 9.2 LANDS OF PRECISION CAPITAL LLC; 25755 Carado Court, File# 261-15-ZP- SD; A request for a Site Development permit a landscape screening plan for an existing two story residence file #131-13-ZP-SD-GD. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304 (b) (Staff-G. Fernandez). 9.3 LANDS OF MORGAN; 13209 West Sunset Drive, File# 377-15-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development permit for a landscape screening plan for an existing two story residence file #59-11-ZP-SD-GD. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304 (b) (Staff- G. Fernandez). Approved February 4, 2016 10 Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes January 6, 2016 9.4 LANDS OF WIMMER, 21888 Blue Oaks Place, File# 415-15-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening and lighting plan for a previously approved new residence. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(e) and 15304(b) (Staff- S. Avila). 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:23 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Jaime L. McAvoy Jaime L. McAvoy M.A. Planning Secretary The minutes for the January 6, 2016 Special Planning Commission Meeting were approved on February 4, 2016.