Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/27/1989PLANNING COMMISSION 4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27TH, 1989 Chairman Emling called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Council Chambers. 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Chairman Emling, Commissioners Comiso, Jones, Stutz, Noel and Pahl. Absent: Commissioner Carico Staff: Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works and Ann Jamison, Planning Director. 2. CONSENT CALENDER Commissioner Pahl removed the minutes of the September 13th, 1989 meeting from the Consent Calender. He wished to clarify the minutes relative to Public Hearing F. 2. LANDS OF QUATTRONE, to indicate under disclosures that he had spoken with Mr. Quattrone rather than Mrs. Quattrone. He further clarified the second motion on Public Hearing F.3. LANDS OF FINN which applied specific elevation and setback limits to Lots 4 through 6 to include a phrase added to the end of the last sentence "and as deed restrictions on each of the lots 4 through 6". The Commission, in response to a presentation by Bob Stutz, 25310 Elena Road, representing the Pathways Committee, directed staff to correct the minutes to reflect the motion and second that had been passed clarifying pathway requirements for the subdivision. This correction reads as follows: MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Moved by Commissioner Noel, seconded by Carico, to include a condition on the subdivision requiring a 10 foot wide pathway easement between Lots 3 and 4 to link to existing pathway easements to the southeast of this parcel. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Moved by Pahl, seconded by Noel and passed by consensus to approve the minutes of September 13, 1989 as amended. kw PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/27/89 Page 2 3. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20TH, 1989: Commissioner Pahl noted that the Council had approved the Planning Commission recommendation regarding the abandonment of the conservation easement on the Lands of LoConte and referred the Tenative map for the Lands of McCulloch to an ad-hoc committee of the Planning Commission for reconsideration of the Tenative Map conditions, particularly relative to structure placement and height. 4. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 19TH. Commissioner Jones noted that the Site Development Committee had reviewed four properties and that there were no significant issues or comments relative to these properties. 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR: A. Richard Jones, 12660 LaCresta Drive, stepped down from the dias and clarified that he was addressing the Commission as an individual from the Community and not as a Planning Commissioner. Mr. Jones then read a statement pertaining to a Public Hearing to be held by the Purissima Hills Water District on October 10th, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. regarding a proposal for a water rate rate increase. He noted that he did not believe the rate increase, as proposed, was structured so as to encourage water conservation and therefore he would be speaking against the proposal. Mr. Jones outlined an alternative proposal which he felt better addressed the need to promote water conservation. He then encouraged the Planning Commissioners and citizens to attend the Water District Public Hearing and speak out against the rate increase as proposed. Stephanie Munoz, 13460 Robleda Road, requested the Commission consider establishing a restriction prohibiting cyclone fencing because of it's unattractive appearance. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1 LANDS OF ASHMAN, 13645 Paseo Del Roble, A request for a Variance to lot coverage and building height limitations and Site Development Permit approval for an addition/remodel to a residence. Mr. John Ashman, 13645 Paseo Del Roble, requested the Commission delay his item pending arrival of his architect. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/27/89 Page 3 The Commission agreed by consensus to move this item to the second Public Hearing on the agenda. 6.2 LANDS OF COLUNSON, 27500 Edgerton Road, A request for a Variance to allow enclosure of a carport (to create a garage) located within the front yard setback and a Site Development Permit. Bill Ekern briefly introduced this item to the Commission noting that Dr. Collinson had been granted a variance in May of 1987 to construct a carport within the front yard setback. Subsequent to the issuance of the Building Permit for the carport it was noted that the construction that had occurred was more significant than that approved by the variance or the Building Permit. In December 1987 the Planning Commission denied Dr. Collinsons request for modification of the Variance to allow the construction to remain and acted to rescind the Building Permit. The City Council, on an appeal from Dr. Collinson, upheld the Planning Commissions actions in March of 1988. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Comiso, Mr. Ekern read the findings for 4 the original Variance. The Public Hearing was opened Dr. Collinson, 27500 Edgerton, clarified that the petition included in the Commissioners packets had been submitted by neighbors and not by him. Dr. Collinson then clarified several aspects relative to the Site Development conditions and requested that he not be required to modify the existing driveway drainage pattern as it has existed for some time and was not changed by the neww construction. Dr. Collinson then read a letter from his neighbor, Linda Lewis, in support of his request. Ekern, in response to Commissioner Noels question, explained that the original Variance had been for a carport attached to the house, consisting of two posts and a roof. Migeal Aymerich, 27811 Edgerton, spoke in support of the request noting that he would rather look at a garage door than the contents of a carport as he drives by the property. Commissioner Stutz clarified that the Commissions concern should center around whether or not there are unusual conditions on this site which make approval of this variance to the front yard setback specific to this site and not applicable to every PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4*0 9/27/89 Page 4 site in town. Arther Middleton, 27525 Edgerton, told the Commission he had supported the variance to allow the carport, but opposed the variance to allow it to be converted to a garage. Marion Middleton, 27525 Edgerton, spoke in opposition to the variance request indicating she did not want the carport or the garage there. No one else wishing to speak the Public Hearing was closed. Planning Commission Disclosures: Chairman Emling and Commissioners Noel and Comiso noted they had visited the site; Commissioner Stutz noted that she had driven by the site and was present at the Site Development meeting on the project; and Commissioner Jones noted that he had driven by the site and was present at the City Council meeting when the item was discussed. Commissioner Pahl abstained from action on this item noting that the property was within 300 feet of his own property. 4Ar In response to several questions by the Commissioners, Ekern clarified that the Building Permit had been revoked, but that the Variance for the carport as originally proposed was still in effect and that if the Commission denied this request that Dr. Collinson would be able to maintain a carport on the property in conformance with the original Variance approval. Commissioner Noel question whether a garage could later be converted to additional living space for the residence. Ekern explained that it could be. Commissioner Stutz noted that approval of the neighbors is not valid justification for a variance and that she was concerned about the impact granting this request could have on the preservation of setback areas throughout the community. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz, seconded by Jones to deny the Variance request to allow enclosure of the carport (to create a garage) within the front yard setback. AYES: Commissioners Stutz, Jones and Noel NOES: Chairman Emling and Commissioner Comiso ABSTAIN: Commissioner Pahl Chairman Emling explained that the applicant had the right to appeal the decision �✓ of the Planning Commission to the City Council within 10 days. (41W PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/27/89 Page 5 Commissioner Jones noted that he seconded the motion because he would not have supported the original variance for the carport and therefore would not support a variance for a garage. Further, he did not believe he could go against the City Councils previous actions to uphold denial of the variance. He suggested Dr. Collinson modify the current structure to comply with the original approval and mitigate the view from the road with landscaping. Commissioner Comiso explained that she supported the variance because she thought the garage looked better than the carport. Commissioner Comiso explained that she believed the first finding could be made since it had been made on the original carport variance request. Further she noted that she supported the variance since the petition submitted by the neighbors supported the request. Chairman Emling noted that he supported the applicants request since he thought it could have been a garage from the start. 6.1. LANDS OF ASHMAN, 13645 Paseo Del Roble, Arequest for a Variance to lot coverage and building height limitations and Site Development Permit approval for an addition/remodel to a residence. Bill Ekern introduced this item to the Commission explaining that this was a request for Variances to the Floor Area limitation to allow 5,490 square feet where 4,000 square feet is allowed; Developable Area limitation to allow 9,412 square feet where 5,000 square feet is allowed and 8,010 presently exists; and to building height to allow 34 feet where 27 feet is allowed. He noted that the average slope of this lot is 36 percent. In response to a request from Commissioner Pahl, Ekern clarified the methodolgy for determining the height of the structure. Planning Commission Disclosure: Chairman Emling and Commissioners Comiso,Stutz, Noel and Jones noted that they had all visited the site. Commissioner Pahl noted that he had walked the site previous to this request when the house was for sale. The Public Hearing was opened. John Ashman, 13645 Paseo Del Roble, expressed his desires to add an additional bedroom to his home and upgrade the master bedroom suite by expanding the room [ and adding a masterbath. He noted that he did not believe the proposed addition V would be visible from offsite and that the addition complied with the intent of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/27/89 Page 6 Town's regulations. Mr. Ashman explained that he had contacted his neighbors and that no one objected to the addition as proposed. Harold Bexton, 640 Santana Road, Novato, California, Architect for the project, described the request to the Commission noting that the Ashmans were removing existing developed area (parking and decks) to help mitigate some of the impact of the additional structure and patio/pool area proposed; adding a roof element to the existing structure to facilitate views from the existing entry hall; and adding a bedroom downstairs and expanding the master bedroom and bath upstairs. Mr. Bexton presented graphics to assist in explaining the opportunities and constraints this lot presented, which contributed to the need for the variances. Commissioner Pahl questioned the specific need for the additional floor area and roof height and the use of fill and the "Loffelstein" wall create the pad for the swimming pool. Mr. Bexton clarified that the applicants would like to have a larger master bedroom siute and masterbath on the main floor adjacent to a small room to be used as a nursery initially and a study later on. He explained that the applicants could `r potentially eliminate the increase in the roof height foregoing improvement of the view from the entry hall and could also do some floor area reduction if the Commission preferred. He then presented a plan showing the modifications that could be made. Mr. Bexton concluded his response by noting that the pool is to be set back from the "Loffelstein" wall and sit on natural grade with only the sides supported with fill. He noted that the wall was to be landscaped to give it a more natural appearance. Chairman Emling explained to Mr. Rexton that the Commission could only consider the application as requested. No one else wishing to speak the Public Hearing was closed The Commissioners discussed several aspects of the project including concerns for the height of the structure, the safety of the "Loffelstein" wall, and the amount of development area existing and proposed on the site. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Pahl, seconded by Noel, and passed unanimously to deny the requested Variances and Site Development Permit without prejudice. C Chairman Emling noted to the applicant that they can appeal the decision of the ♦r Commission to the Council within 10 days or return at a later time with a new ` PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/27/89 Page 7 application. The Ashman's request clarification of the Commission's concerns with the development and the intent of the slope regulations. The Commission noted that they could not give the Ashman's specific direction or advisory opinions but noted their concerns with this proposal related to the total height of the structure, the height of the addition from natural grade and the high level of existing and proposed developable area on the site. Mr. Ekern clarified that the slope calculations are generated through soil loss equations and are intended to assure the preservation of sensitive lands. 6.3. LANDS OF HANSEN'Lot #19 Amherst Court, A request for a Conditional Development Permit and Site Development Permit for a new residence. Ann Jamison introduced this item to the Planning Commission noting that a 420 request for development of this site had been considered by them in June of 1989, at which time the Commission had establish a 3,000 square foot floor area and 4,600 square foot development area limit on the property. These limits were intended to address concerns related to quantity of site grading and coverage, floor area and apparent bulk of a the proposed three story structure which extended from setback line to setback line. Jamison then presented a series of overhead slides which graphically depicted the staffs concerns with the project as proposed in the current application and described the current staff recommendation to readjust the allowable developed area to 5,000 square feet, the floor area to 4,000 square feet and include a 12 foot limit of the visible front height of the structure as viewed by a person standing on the centerline of Amherst Court. Planning Commission Disclosures: Chairman Emling and Commissioners Stutz, Jones, Noel and Comiso all indicated they had looked at the site. Commissioner Pahl indicated he had not visited the site. The Public Hearing was opened. v Bill McClure, Attorney for the applicant noted to the Commission that the house as PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ` 9/27/89 Page 8 proposed has less floor area and lower building height than the house next to it and complies with the Commissions' goals in that it reduces the amount of floor area, developed area and grading from the original proposal. Further, he expressed concern that the proposal by staff would negatively impact the rooms on the back of the house. Safwat Malek, Triangle Associates, Architects, 475 San Antonio Road, Los Altos expressed concern for dropping the house down into the property reiterating the concerns for the "tunnel effect" on rooms at the back of the house and the drainage away from the house. No one else wishing to speak the Public Hearing was closed. In response to questions by the Commission staff clarified that the significant slope on this lot requires that a Conditional Development Permit be approved outlining specific parameters that will guide the development in meeting the intent of the Codes and the goals of the Community. Staff further clarified that the conditions proposed by staff offer the property owner trade-offs by allowing more floor area and development area than originally conditioned by the Commission in exchage for less visable facade from the street and smaller apparent mass as a result of plugging the house into the site rather than carving out a pad and setting the house on it. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman Emling, seconded by Commissioner Jones and passsed unanimously to 1. Deny the proposed project; 2. Issue a Conditional Development Permit to allow: • A maximum development area of 5,000 square feet; • A maximum floor area of 4,000 square feet; • A maximum building footprint of 2,400 square feet; and • An effective visible height of any man-made structure, as viewed from five feet above the centerline of Amherst Court, of no greater than 12 feet. 3. Continue the request for a Site Development Permit until a design is submitted in conformance with the above Conditional Development Permit. 4. Take any other related actions, as desired. (The Commission clarified that there were no other related actions.) 7. NEW BUSINESS: 7.1 Discussion of the compensation program for members of appointed boards 4W PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9/27/89 Page 9 and commissions. Commissioner Jones recalled the brief discussion of this item from the Joint Planning Commission/ City Council meeting noting that he suggested revising the compensation program to provide salary and a W-2 form for tax purposes rather than the current method which resulted in a 1099 form for non -salary wages. The Commission discussed the matter as it affected each members tax situation. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Commissioner Pahl, seconded by Comiso to Recommend to the Council that the compensation program board and commission members be changed to a salary accountable through a W-2 tax form. The motion failed to a tie vote. AYES: Commissioners Jones, Comiso and Pahl NOES: Chairman Emling and Commissioners Stutz and Noel ABSTAIN: None 7.2. Scheduling of a Commission workshop on Ridgeline and Hilltop Preservation Regulations. By concensus the Commission agreed the workshop would be held November 14th, 1989 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 7.3. Selection of Planning Commission members to sit on an ad-hoc committee to re -review the McCulloch Subdivision Tentative Map. By consensus the Commission agreed to appoint Commissioners Comiso, Jones and Stutz. 8. OLD BUSINESS: There was no old business. 9. ADTOURNMENT: MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso, seconded by Pahl and passed unanimously to adjourn at 10:45 p.m.. Respectfully Submitted, Ann W. Jamison Planning Director