Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/08/1989PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California Wednesday, February 8, 1989 Chairman Kaufman called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present: Commissioners Carico, Emling, Jones, Noel, Patmore, Stutz and Chairman Kaufman Absent: None Staff: Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works; Sally Lyn Zeff, Planning Director; Kani Ingersoll -Newton, Planning Secretary B. CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Kaufman requested the minutes of January 25, 1989 be amended to note the following; Motion one on page four should reflect the correct boundaries for Eshner to be "A 10' Pathway easement to be dedicated on Parcel #1 beginning at the existing papthway between lots 8 & 9, Juliette Lane, north to approximately the 740' contour, then following the 740' contour to the northern property line of Parcel #1, then along that prop- erty line to the cul-de-sac. The pathway 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. C. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 1989: Commissioner Kaufman informed Commissioners that council unanimously denied LANDS OF WARNER, FILE TM #5-87, 12335 Stonebrook Drive, request for approval of tenatative map and negative declaration; unanimously approved LANDS OF MCHALE, FILE TM #5-889 12350 Stonebrook Drive, request for ap- proval of tentatiave map and negative declaration; LANDS OF SNEDIGAR, 12291 Conception Road, for appeal of Site Development conditions approve by Planning Commission, Council unanimously approved to grant appeal of condition #10 requiring that the finished floor elevation of that portion of the proposed residence parallel to Purissima Road be lowered to eleva- tion 371.5, denied Snedigar's appeal of Condition #11 with regard to type IIB pathway, and denied appeal of Condition #3 with regard to redesign of the circular driveway; approved issuance of conditional certificate of compliance to the estate of Irma C. Goldsmith authorizing execution of, and ordering recordation of. D. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 1989: Commissioner Emling informed Commisisoners that Site development committee approved the landscape plan and driveway modification for LANDS of McEL- ROY, 12100 Foothill Lane; approved a pool for LANDS of SANTY, 27881 Elena Road; approve an addition for LANDS of MEAD, 14410 Miranda Road; and ap- proved a landscape plan for LANDS of LI, 28404 Christophers Lane Commissioner Emling asked that one of the other Commissioners attend the City Council meeting appointed for him to attend on March 1st, as Emling is an item on the agenda of the let with regard to Land Use Voting Policy. Council mem- ber Casey stated at the council meeting of February 1st, that Commissioner Em - ling has consistently voted on the Lands of Belluci and this was in direct violation of the Town's policy, but also of State Law. E. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR: Dr. Martin, 11666 Dawson Drive, informed Commissioners that he attended the Santa Clara County Commission meeting on Thursday February 2, 1989 and he felt that it was of interest and importance to the Town of Los Altos Hills. He made commment that the application was to be qualified for pro- tection to Hale Creek and that the Water rights should superseed the Quarry Hills project. Dr. Martin feels that it is important for the Town to have representation from Council and Commission of Los Altos Hills at the March 2, 1989 Santa Clara County Planning Commission regarding the Quarry Hills Project. He stated that if the application is not annexed, Los Altos Hills will primarily be affected and that the residents must live with the outcome from the County's decision. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.LANDS OF CHAN, FILE VAR k30-88, 23551 E1 Caminito, continued request for a variance to allow a deck to be located in the required 30 -foot setback from the property line. Ms Ze£f informed Commission that Mr. Johnni Chan withdrew his application for variance. Mr. Chan wanted to explain his position. He informed Commissioner that he was going to call and withdraw. He stated that if the deck bothered his neighbor of 10 years he simply would not proceed with his request for variance. He stated what he had learned during this whole process and Mr. Chan said that he didn't feel he would have gotten a fair hearing from the Planning Commission. Mr Chan said that he had been to Town Hall several times, ending with no help from staff. He felt that the Planning Commission had already made their deci- sion before he even got to say a word about his variance and he just wanted the Planning Commission to know how he felt. Commissioners informed Mr. Chan that when his neighbor presented the Planning Commission with the pictures of the deck taken from his property that it was kw not during a public hearing and that no decision could be made, unless the pictures were presented at the current meeting; also that Chan knew that he could not build within the 30' setback from visits to Town Hall and discus- sions with Mr. Ekern. j action needed. �I 2. LANDS OF SHADAN, FILE VAR #21-88, and CDP #7-88, 25561 Deerfield Drive. Request to consider CDP #7-88 for a new house to replace a house at 25561 Deerfield Drive and to intrude on the required 30' side yard setback by 101. Ms. Zeff referred to her report dated February 2, informing the Commission the the original denial by the Planning Commisison of the variance in setback and the CDP and Site Development Permit was appealed to the City Council. The City Council upheld the appeal for the variance, but had remanded the other issues to the Planning Commission. Sally Zeff had provided finding for allow- ing the level of development proposed by the applicant. If the Commission wishes to lower the amount, the appropriate findings must be made. The Maxi- mum Development Area of this lot is 6,000 square feet, which is greater than the ordinance minumum of 5,000 square feet. They are proposing to build less than this amount. However, the ordinance does allow a lowering of this figure with this Condition Development Permit. The maximum floor area of this lot is 4,000 Square Feet. An extension of the equation gives a floor area of 2,400 square feet. The applicant proposes 3,900 square feet, plus or minus. Again the Planning Commission may determine a floor area limit of less than 4,000 square feet. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Rick Alves, 2615 Miller, Mountain View, informed Commission that City Kneil liked the design of the house and that they were not in excess of the mum square footage allowed, and that the 700 square feet that would sit in the setback, due to the slope of the property, would not be seen by any other property owners and didn't see what was such a hard dicision. Sandy Barker, Barker Architects, Palo Alto; informed Commissioners that he was instructed by the developer to design the house so that it has character, so that it sat at an angle on the lot, and that it sits it away from the neigh- bors. Bill Kavanough, Shadan; wanted to address commission that they are a small construction company and that the funds come from the employees. All of the hold up have cost him money and are still costing him money everyday that the CDP and Site Development Permits are withheld. He stated that he felt the house was a benefit to the community and if the only problem was square footage then Commissioners should inform him and he will cut down on the size of the house. He noted if he had to do a major redesign then their applica- tions would then have to come back to the City Council and Planning Commission and it was all taking time. Ruth McMann, 13351 Burke, informed Commissioners that the neighbors would like for the Planning Commission to go ahead an approve this house, and that if they were to ask for a smaller house to be built there, she felt that would ng leave a opportunity for an addition. The neighbors concern was just that a nice family move in to keep the neighborhood happy. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Patmore and Seconded by Jones to grant 4 iditional Development Permit with maximum development area of 6000 and maxi - 11n floor area of 4000 square feet. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones and Seconded by Kaufman to re- quire additional Road Right -of -Way of 201. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Noel and Seconded by Patmore and passed unanimously to reconsider the previously approved Conditional Development Permit granted to Shadan due to Road Right -of -Way. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Carico and Seconded by Patmore and passes unanimously to add a condition of approval; Condition N9 shall read "The town standard for public rights-of-way is 601, or 30' half -street. The existing right-of-way of Deerfield Drive is 40'. This issue is presently un- der consideration by the City Council and ultimately the General Plan amend- ment process. The Town will require an additional dedication of 51. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Patmore and seconded by Noel and passes unanimously in favor of MDA/MFA be consinent with lot size, slope and right- of-way and the setback not be 70' but consistent withy 25' Road Right of Way as it would have been applied in the center. Commissioner Patmore feels the City Council looks favorable in a reduction of size with the only exception to clear the setback, and the new maximum devel- opment area numbers of 5740. nning Commission requested Shadan do a redesign to meet the following: dicate an additional 5' of Road Right of Way bringing the half street to 25'; redesign as necessary to allow the 40' setback 1n front and maintain the 30' setback on either side of the house, and while following all of these con- ditions not exceed the Maximum Development Area of 5740 square feet. NEW BUSINESS: Bill Ekern stated that what he wanted out of this discussion was to be able to prepare a report for City Council based on his December 22, 1988 Staff Report to the Mayor with regard to Road Right -of -Way. Mr. Ekern noted that he would reference his report Commissioners asked that N4 be changed to read: A subdivision of land, a new residence on an existing lot or a major remodel on an existing lot that has frontage on a existing local street or short cul-de-sac created prior to the adoption of this policy shall dedicate right-of-way equal to 25' or 30' from the defined centerline of the road, whichever is equal to the dedication that now exists for the majority of the lots on the street, unless the majority is 25' or less, in which case the dedication shall be 251. In no event shall the dedicated right-of-way width be less than a 20 foot half street. 4W Commissioners asked that N6(c) be changed to read: In no event shall a right-of-way of less than 40 feet be approved. If right of ways of less than 50' are approved by the Planning Commission, specific findings must be made relating to traffic, safety and future development. 46/ Commissioner ammended N7 as follows: The setback for all new construction on all properties shall be no less than 70' from the centerline of the dedicated road right-of-way or vehicular easement. Corner lots will have setbacks of 70' from the centerline of the minor road. The Site Develop- ment Authority will retain the right to determine the side of greater set- back. (Staff recommendation: on lots which have frontage on roads with 30' half -street rights-of-way, the applicant is not required to demonstrate on their site plans that the structures are 70' from the centerline, all others will be required to show the surveyed centerline on their site plans.) Commissioners noted that they felt a few streets should be changed from minor to major, such as: Manuella, as it is a connector road to Palo Alto; Hilltop should be major up to the point of Barley Hill; O'Keefe should be major; Conception should be major; Ascension should be major and St. Fran- cis should also be major; and Black Mountain should be minor MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: It was passed by consensus, to provide City Council with an ammended map for further consideration. Planning Commission Meeting was adjourned at 10:43. 4 4W