Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/25/1989Planning Commission Minutes of January 25, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California Wednesday, January 25, 1989 Chairman Kaufman called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers. A. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present: Commissioners Carico, Emling, (*)Jones, Noel, Patmore, Stutz and Chairman Kaufman. Absent: None Staff: Bill Ekern, Acting City Manager; Leslie Mullins, Planning Technician; Kani Ingersoll -Newton, Planning Secretary B. CONSENT CALENDAR: No minutes for approval C. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 1989: Commissioner Mary Stutz informed Commissioners that council unanimously approved to grant continuance of Quarry Hills application until April 19, 1989. Council approved: Lands of Ghafouri, variance to exceed allowed maximum development area for 27580 Elena Road by 608 square feet to allow for driveway and parking modification; Lands of Santy variance for a swimming pool and decking to be located within the 30' setback from the rear and side yard property lines; Lands of Snedigar variance, 12291 Con- ception Road to allow a maximum development area of 15450 square feet and maximum floor area of 6180 square feet. Council voted to grant appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a variance for Lands of Shadan and referred the determination of a conditional development permit back to the Planning Commission for a decision in an amount they deem ap- propriate. Also approved Lands of Frampton, 11480 Magdalena Road tenta- tive map and negative declaration for a four lot subdivision. D. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS OF JANUARY 17th AND 24th 1989: Commissioner (*)Emling reported the Site Development Committee on January 17th approved a grading request for Lo at 12740 Dianne Drive; approved %W 1 RMrnr�L 6/��18� Planning Commission Minutes of January 25, 1989 addition request for Weiss at 12541 Corbetta Lane; approved addition re- quest for Snyder at 27097 Adonna Court; approved garage/addition request for Allegra at 26721 Taaffe Road; and continued consideration for fence request for Americh at 27801 Edgerton. Commissioner (*)Carico reported the committee on January 24th approved landscape request for Wu on Moody Road; and driveway modification request for Grey on Laloma. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR: PUBLIC HEARINGS: LANDS OF ESHNER, FILE NTM 8-88, 26410 Altamont Road, Request for recommendation of approval of Tentative Map and Negative Declaration for three lot subdivision Mr. Bill Ekern referred to Sally Zeff's staff report dated January 12, 1989 informing commission this is a public hearing to consider a Negative Declara- tion and Tentative Map for the subdivision of a 16.19 acre parcel into 3 lots with a remaining parcel: TM 8-88. Noted the background as follows: The par- cel proposed to be subdivided was created as Lot #14 and Parcel H1 of a pre- vious subdivision, Tract 4897, recorded in 1970. A convenant was recorded at that time that the land would not be subdivided "except upon the express writ- ten approval of the Town given by resolution of the City Council of the Town." Since approval of a Tentative Map would not be inconsistent with the recorded agreement. Mr. Ekern described the project description with regard to: lot acreages; sewer availability through Los Altos Sewer; Water service by Puris- sima Hills County Water District; Access: access to the remaining parcel will I� from Altamont Road, access to parcels 1, 2, and 3 would be from a private t Wd leading off the public street known as Horton's driveway, the applicant is requesting a conditional exception to allow this private road serving 3 parcels to have 40' right-of-way rather than the required 601; Environmental Review - a negative declaration has been prepared for this project; and lot sizes and slopes: net area, average slope, lot unit factor, maximum develop- ment and floor areas. Mr. Ekern recommended that the Planning commission re- quest that the applicant re -design the subdivision to more adequately plan for future development of the land. If the Commission chooses to recommend to the City Council that the Council approve the tentative map, staff recommends that it be subject to conditions of approval of the Janaury 12, 1989 staff report that reads: 1. Recommend to the City Council that the Council certify the Negative Declaration; and 2. Council approve the requested Tentative Map as revised, based on the findings presented in Staff report dated January 12, 1989 and conditions in the same staff. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr Paul Nowack, Engineer, asked that the commission approve the Tentative Map with a Condition of exception to the Road Right -of -Way and with an exclusion of pathways as per concerns expressed by Mr. McGowan about safety and privacy. Mrs. Dot Shreiner, Pathway Committee, informed staff and applicant of proposal of a pathway from lots 6-7 and 8-9 on Chaparral Way through to Julietta as a Lm Z Planning Commission Minutes of January 25, 1989 connector path. Mrs. Shreiner referred to the Town's General Plan - Recrea- tion and Path & Trail Elements with regard to path requests. MWIA.WLeo Quilici, 27350 Juliette Lane, with regard to pathway requests, Mr. Quilici noted concerns over safety, security and privacy. Mr. Quilici added he does not consider that his property is "Recreation Area" for the residents of Los Altos Hills and that he moved here for peace and quiet and privacy. He feels that pathways are a benefit to the Town, but that they should run along parallel with the roads and not his backyard area. Mr. Richard McGowen, representing Ms. Eshner, informed Commission he has writ- ten a letter to the City Manager and City Attorney with regard to the Eshner Land Covenant Agreement, as we are now asking for three lot subdivision with a remainder parcel. Mr McGowan stated "that as friends and citizens we'll do our part with governmental agencies as needed". Stated that Jules Eshner if he was still alive would not have wanted to dedicate pathways. Asked that a condition be set so that the Pathway Easement if approved not be used during Julie Eshner's lifetime with regard to her privacy. Ms. Fran Stevenson, Beaver Lane, referred to the Town's General Plan with regard to the Path and Trail element. Ms. Marlene McGowan, Juliette Lane, spoke to Chairman with regard to his al- leged comments about the removal of the existing Eshner house to make for a better subdivision. She also spoke to Planning Commission and Pathway Commit- tee with regard to pathways going around all corners of one's property with concern about privacy. MAW Vernon Kelly, bank trustee for the Eshner property, spoke about the path- ways and how they will lower property value and make it less likely for the property to appreciate. Mr. Kelly stated he thinks the pathways are suffi- cient as is. Ms. Sharon Quilici, Juliette Lane, spoke to Commissioners about the maintenance of the pathways, that maintenance is never done, and that she has to keep it safe on her own. She feels the responsibility is all onesided. The Public Hearing was then closed, and Commission began review of the Condi- tions of Approval. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was passed by consensus to ammend condition #2 as follows: The proposed new private road within the subdivision shall have a fifty foot (501) right-of-way. The Final Map shall reflect this right-of-way. Furhter, a note shall be added to the map and the owner's certificate indicat- ing that upon further subdivision of the property, or issuance of building permit on Lot #2, the road shall be dedicated to the Town of Los Altos Hills standards, (*)as a public road. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was passed by consensus to ammend condition #4 as follows: A Conservation Easement shall be recorded for that area shown on Parcel #1, as shown on Exhibit "A" of the Tentative Map as being of 30 - 40 percent slope. The Final Map shall reflect this easement. I Planning Commission Minutes of January 25, 1989 PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was passed by consensus to ammend condition #5 as t�ows: (*) A 10' Pathway easement to be dedicated on Parcel #1 beginning at existing pathway between lots 8 & 9, Juliette Lane, north to approximate- ly the 740' contour, then following the 740' contour to the northern property line of Parcel #1, then along that property line to the cul-de-sac. The path- way easement is included in the right of way of the private road. (*)This easement is to be dedicated to the Town of Los Altos Hills on the Final Map, but no public access is allowed for the lifetime or residence of Ms. Julie Eshner, whichever is longer. (*) shows that the minutes have been amended with the corrections. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was passed by consensus to add new condition #5a as follows: The applicant shall dedicate to the Town of Los Altos Hills twenty five foot (251) storm drainage and sanitary sewer easements. The Final Map shall reflect these easements. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was passed by consensus to ammend conditon #11 as follows: All wells on the property shall be sealed, or registered and permitted, in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Water District standards, and Santa Clara County Environmental Health Services. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was passed by consensus to ammend condition #13 fol- lows: A Type IIB pathway to be upgraded shall be constructed within the path- way easement described in Condition 5 above. The work is to be shown on the Iirovement plans for the subdivision. The work is to be done prior to recor- ion of the Final Map, or a bond to the satisfaction of the Director of Pub- lic Works posted to ensure the completion of the required work prior to is- suance of Site Development Permits. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was passed by consensus to add new condition #17a as follows: An inventory of all trees on this subdivision which are 20" circum- ference at 4' shall be made by a qualified tree surgeon and the need for trim- ming, cabling and other protective steps shall be reported to the Director of Public Works. Subdivider shall perform the work prior to recordation of the final map or bond to insure that this work is done. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Patmore, seconded by Emling and passed by the following roll call vote to approve the requested Tentative Map as revised, based on the findings presented in the staff report of January 12, 1989 and subject to the conditions of approval as recommended by the Committee with regard to the Road Right -of Way. AYES: Commissioners Carico, Emling, Jones, Noel, Patmore, Stutz and Chairman Kaufman. LANDS OF VAYNTROB, FILE #VAR 33-87, #CDP 1-88 (modification) and Site Development Permit modification, 27067 Horshoe Lane, Request N Planning Commission Minutes of January 25, 1989 for a modification of approved Variance, Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit for a new house on a vacant lot with a Lot ! Unit Factor of less than .5 and exceeding the Maximum Development 4r Area and height for the lot. Mr. Ekern referred to Staff Report dated January 12, 1989 informing Commission this is a public hearing to consider a request for a modification of approved Variance, Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit for a new house on a vacant lot with a Lot Unit Factor of less than .5 and exceeding the Maxi- mum Development Area and height for the lot. Mr. Ekern noted that on April 13, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Development Permit for the project, giving the lot a Maximum Development Area of 5,000 square feet and a Maximum Floor Area of 3,534 square feet. The Planning Commission also granted a variance for the project to exceed the Maximum Development Area by 460 square feet and the height limit by 2.5 feet, and also approved Site Development Permit subject to conditions. The applicant requests a modifica- tion to his approved permits to modify the design of theproposed house. There is a Net lot area of 0.98 ac.; and Average Slope of 34.5%; and a Lot unit factor of 0.47. Because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property including size, shape, topography, loca- tion, or surroundings, strict application of the ordinance is found to deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties. Upon granting of the variance the intent and purpose of the ordinance will still be served and the receipient will not be granted special privlledges enjoyed by other owners nearby. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public wel- fare; will not allow a use of activity which is not authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has no recommendation on this application. 4e Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Alex Vayntrob, Horshoe Lane, informed the Commission of proposed changes in his previously approved variance and conditional development and site permits with regard to leakage in the old design passed in April of 1988. The Public Hearing was then closed. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Patmore, seconded by Jones and passed unanimously to approve modifications to previously approved Variance #33-87 and Conditional Development #CDP 1-88 and Site Development Permits issued to the Lands of Vayntrob, 27067 Horshoe Lane. LANDS OF LEHR, FILE #VAR 29-88, 12407 Hilltop Drive, Request for a variance in setback for minor additions to an existing legal non -conforming structure. Mr. Ekern referred to Staff Report dated January 12, 1989 informing Commission this is a public hearing to consider a request for variance in the required 30 -foot setback from the property line to allow minor additions to the exist- ing house on the lot, which is located partially in the setback. The addi- tions are so minor, adding a total of 13 square feet to the house, as to not 5 Planning Commission Minutes of January 25, 1989 require a Site Development Permit, however, the Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Commission review variances in setback of more than 2 feet. The )licant's architect's statement of reasons for the variance are that the oposed additons would be underneath the existing overhang of the house and would therefore not increase the amount by which the building intrudes on the setback. Findings are as such: The existing house was built at least 30 years ago and is an existing legal nonconforming structure. The proposed 13 square foot addition would be located under the overhang of the existing house, and would not, therefore, extend any further into the setback than the house currently does; and because the existing house legally intrudes into the setback, and the proposed minor addition would not further intrude into the setback, granting of the variance would not grant the Lehrs any priviledges they do not already have; and the proposed variance would allow minor addi- tions to an existing house, a primary use expressly authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. Based on the findings in the Staff Report of January 12, 1989 Staff recommends that Planning Commission approve the request for variance in setback for the proposed minor additions. The Public was open and closed with no one speaking on the subject. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Carico, seconded by Patmore and passed unanimously to approve the request for Variance, File #29-88, in the setback for minor additions to an existing legal non -conforming structure. 4. LANDS OF CHAN, FILE #VAR 30-88, 23531 E1 Caminito Road, Request for a variance to allow a deck to be located in the required 30 ` foot setback from the property line. Applicant, Johnni Chan constructed the subject deck on his property without permits earlier this year. On May 20, 1988, he was informed that he must cor- rect the violation of the Zoning Ordinance by either removing the deck or by obtaining approval of a variance from the Planning Commission. When no response was received, a First Notice of Violation was sent on June 22, 1988, and a Second Notice of Violation was sent on August 12, 1988. The City At- torney's office sent a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Chan on November 30, 1988 stat- ing that the City would file a lawsuit to abate the deck as a public nuisance if no action was taken to correct the violation on or before December 10, 1988. On December 14, 1988, an application for a variance for the deck was received by the Planning Department. Applicant requests a variance in the re- quired 30 -foot setback for a deck constructed without permits 10 feet from the property line in the rear. Applicant has not submitted a statement of reason for the variance. In meetings with staff, he argued that the deck is temporary. The Zoning Ordinance does not recognize decks as temporary struc- tures. All structures, whether temporary or not, must be located in con- formance with the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on the findings in the staff report dated January 12, 1989, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the requested variance in setback. The Public Hearing was opened. `i I Planning Commission Minutes of January 25, 1989 Johnni Chan, 23531 E1 Caminito Road, informed Commission that the structure was only temporary and that is was assembled with only nuts and bolts and that ( could be taken down at any time. He asked that his hearing be delayed un - the next public hearing, so as to allow enough time to meet with his neighbor to come to some sort of a reasonable agreement. Commissioner discused with Chan that regardless of how the deck was assembled that it is still not considered a temporary structure. Commissioners dis- cussed his request for a continuance and stated that they would most likely deny his request for variance regardless of what transpired from discussions with his neighbor due to the fact the neighbor has no authority to grant ap- proval of his variance and that authority lies with the Commission. Roger B. Menard, 23446 Toyonita Road, presented Commission with pictures of the Chan deck as seen from his property. Menard resides directly behind the residence of the Chan Family and stated that Chan's deck is elevated within 5 feet of their back fence and property line. Stated he is directly affected by the deck, which overlooks their pool and backyard area and infringes on his privacy and the full enjoyment their home. Mr. Menard requests that Commis- sion deny the variance permit for the Chans and require them to remove all structures that do not comply with the ordinances of the Town. The Public Hearing was then closed. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Patmore, seconded by Carico and passed by the following roll call vote to grant a continuance until February 8, 1989 public hearing, on a request for a variance to allow a deck to be located in Crequired 30 -foot setback from the property line. AYES: Commissioners Carico, Emling, Jones, and Patmore NOES: Chairman Kaufman, Commissioners Noel and Stutz NEW BUSINESS: Road Right -of -Way Commissioners and Mr. Ekern discussed the recommendation of Staff that the City Council adopt recommendations on Road Right -of -Way as a policy for the requirement of the right of way dedication. It was further recommended that at the time of meetings regarding the Road Right -of - Way that a map clearly defining existing roads as major or minor be in- cluded as an exhibit for the Plan. Mr. Ekern informed Commissioners that the first meeting outlined the areas of discussion. Bill Ekern presented a map of the Town delineating categories of roads and that it was decided that there are two main classifications of roads, major and minor. Major roads are arterials and collectors. Minor roads are lo- cal and cul-de-sac. The second meeting centered around general policy for these types of roads. Specific roads were examined for existing rights-of-way. Conception Road and Purissima Road were examined as Planning Commission Minutes of January 25, 1989 I.9 L major roads. Hilltop and Hillview Drives were examined as minor roads. Mr. Ekern said that in general, it is the belief of the subcommittee that there are benefits to the Town, both now and in the future, with wide rights-of-way. The right-of-ways help preserve the open space while allowing the Town to undertake public improvements such as tree planting, roadside pathways and, potentially, bicycle lanes. However, it was recognized that there are certain roads, those designated as lo- cal and cel -de -sac, which are not heavily travelled and on which certain benefits could be obtained by using the larger setback require- ments and other easements which do not affect potential lot develop- ment. Commissioners Stutz and Patmore stated that they felt that noth- ing needed to be added to the staff report by Mr. Ekern and that it was well put together. Mr. Ekern gave thanks. at