Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/11/1989PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 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 Carico, Comiso, Jones, Stutz, Noel and Pahl. Absent: None Staff: Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works and Ann Jamison, Planning Director. 2. CONSENT CALENDER 2.1 Minutes of September 27th, 1989 Commissioners Comiso and Stutz requested the first full paragraph on page 5 of the minutes be corrected to say "Commissioner Comiso explained that she supported the variance because she thought the garage looked better that the carport." And that the following be added: " 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." MOTION, SECONDED AND PASSED: A motion by Commissioner Stutz, seconded by Comiso, and unanimously passed to approve the minutes as amended. 3. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 4TH, 1989: Commissioner Emling noted that the City Council had approved the Finn Subdivision as recommended by the Planning Commission. He explained that the City Council was presented with information beyond that that the Planning Commission had reviewed and that he had personnally requested that the item be referred back to the Commission for additional review to include the new information. Planning Commision Minutes 4 October 11, 1989 page 2 4. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 3RD AND 10TH. Commissioner Stutz noted that the Committee had reviewed two applications on the 3rd, both of which were relatively straight forward. She noted that one of the proposals had very poor quality drawing that were hard to read and staff had been asked to require better quality drawings in the future. Commissioner Pahl explained that the Committee had reviewed seven items on the 10th, six of which were staight forward and approved pretty much as presented. The seventh item was a request for a new residence that the Committee refered to the Planning Commission for review due to it's apparent bulk and mass. 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Commissioner Jones relayed correspondence to the Commission from the Purissima Hills Water District offering an explaination of the Water District's actions relative to the Sun Country Cable head -end site. He further noted that the Water District has recently been discussing water rate modifications that could result in a 4. doubling of the current rates. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1. LANDS OF TSUNODA,11622 Rebecca Lane, An appeal of a Site Development approval for a swimming pool. Ann Jamison introduced this item, explaining that Mr. Tsunoda's neighbors had appealed the Site Development Committee approval of a swimming pool because the Committee had only recommended and not required fencing around the pool. In response to inquiries from the Commission, staff clarified that the Town had a specifically established policy to not encourage the fencing of properties in Town. As a result, it is not possible for the Committee to require fencing of this swimming pool. Recognizing the safety concerns associated with pools, the Site Development Committee did, in this case recommend a fence. Staff further clarified that Mr. Tsunoda has agreed to fence the pool and has received a Zoning Permit to do so. The Public Hearing was opened, no one wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Planning_ Commission Disclosures All of the Commissioners noted they had visited the site. Commissioner Carico t L noted she was also on the Site Development Committee that reviewed this request. `, Planning Commision Minutes October 11, 1989 page 3 MOTION, SECONDED AND PASSED: A motion by Commissioner Noel, seconded by Emling, to deny the appeal passed unanimously. 6.2. LANDS OF CHAN, 23531 El Caminito Road, A request for a Variance to allow construction of a fence exceeding six feet in the 30 foot rear yard setback. Ann Jamison introduced this item to the Commission noting that this request was to allow a fence in excess of six feet in height within the 30 foot rear yard setback area. Ms. Jamison explained that the applicant desired to place a fence on top of an existing retaining wall. The result would be a six foot fence measured from grade on the high side, however, the fence would be in excess of six feet on the other side where the grade is approximately four feet lower. Staff explained that Mr. Chan could avoid a variance altogether by setting the fence along side the existing wall rather than placing it on top of the wall. Planning Commission Disclosures fir• Commissioners Emling, Carico, Jones, Stutz and Pahl indicated they had visited the site. Commissioner Comiso noted that she had spoken on the phone with Mr. Chan relative to this request, but had not gained any information beyond what was included in the staff report. Commissioner Noel noted that he had visited the site and spoken with the Menards, the property owner behind the Chan property, about a previous variance application on this property. The Public Hearing was opened. Pat McGaraghan, legal counsel for the Menards, 23446 Toyonita Road, property owner to the rear, noted the letter he had submitted to staff earlier in the day requesting a continuance of this item to allow Mr. Menard to be present at the Hearing. He explained that the property owner was unable to be present due to a work related conflict, but wanted to voice his opposition to the application as his rear yard immediately abuts Mr. Chan's and the proposed fence would potentially be visible from his property. Johni Chan, 23531 El Caminito, presented a series of overhead slides to the Commission demonstrating the existing conditions on his property and showing the proposed fence location and potential impact. The Commission briefly discussed the illegal deck currently existing on this site. Staff clarified that the primary concern of the Planning Commission relative to this Planning Commision Minutes (bw October 11, 1989 page 4 request was the fence height variance application and not the previous activities on the site. The Commission then discussed whether to continue this item as per Mr. Menard's request and determined they would proceed with action on the application noting Mr. Menard's opposition to the variance request. MOTION, SECONDED AND PASSED: A motion by Commissioner Carico, seconded by Pahl, and passed unanimously to deny the variance due to an inability to make the findings as required by Code. 6.3. LANDS OF WU, 12241 Menalto Drive, A request to approve a Variance to maximum Developable Area and maximum Floor Area and a Site Development Permit for a residence. Ann Jamison introduced this item to the Commission explaining that the request is for a variance that would increase the Floor Area on this property to 4,386 square feet where 4,000 square feet is allowed. The request would provide for an addition to the rear of the house and a garage addition to the front. In addition, the proposal includes a reduction in nonconforming Development Area on the site from 10,471 square feet to 9,796 square feet. Allowed development area on the property is 5,175. Planning Commission Disclosures All of the Commissioners noted that they had visited the site. Commissioners Comiso and Jones noted that they had spoken with Mr. Wu and that he he showed them around the property. Commissioner Pahl noted he had toured the property when it was for sale several years ago. The Public Hearing was opened. Mr. Wu, 12241 Menalto Way, spoke in favor of the request noting that the neighbors would not be impacted by the additions. No one else wishing to speak the Public Hearing was closed. MOTION, SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Commissioner Noel, seconded by Pahl, to approve the variance as requested on the basis that the lot is flat on the front kw Planning Commision Minutes `, October 11, 1989 page 5 and steeply sloped on the rear causing the allowable Floor Area on the site to be artificially low. This motion failed by the following role call vote: AYES: Commissioners Noel, Pahl and Comiso. NOES: Commissioners Carico, Stutz and Emling. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Jones. Commissioner Jones inquired whether the Floor Area would be increased if the property owner was to sell off, or otherwise reduce, the amount of steep slope area counted into the calculations for this site. Staff responded that they would need to rework the calculations under that scenario in order to respond to that question. Staff further expressed concern with justifying a variance to Floor Area on the basis of slope, since slope was a key determining factor establishing the Floor Area limit in the first place. The Commission had several questions about the way the Floor Area had been calculated for the project. Staff noted that the numbers would need to be further researched to respond fully to the Commissions questions. 16, MOTION, SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Emling, seconded by Comiso, to deny the variance request without prejudice and request staff work with the applicant to review the calculations for the project and resolve discrepancies between the staff's numbers and the applicant's. In addition, staff should further analyse the slope calculation for the property. The motion passed by the following role call vote: AYES: Commissioner Emling, Stutz, Jones, Comiso and Carico. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners Noel and Pahl. 6.4. LANDS OF FORWARD, 10575 Blandor Way, A request for approval of a Conditional Development Permit and a Site Development Permit for an addition to an existing residence. Bill Ekern explained this was a request for Conditional Development Permit and Site Development Permit for an addition/remodel of an existing residence. Mr. Ekern noted the property has a Lot Unit Factor of .37 requiring that maximum development levels be established for the property through a Conditional Development Permit. The existing development on site was constructed prior to the establishment of development limitations which is why the current Developable area is over what would be allowed today. He noted that the existing Floor Area on site was 2,846 square feet and existing Development Area was 5,786 Planning Commision Minutes `, October 11, 1989 page 6 square feet. The proposed additions would add 660 square feet of Floor Area, but would not increase Development Area on the site since the addition would be replacing existing Development Area. Planning Commission Disclosures Commissioners Emling, Noel, Pahl, Jones and Comiso noted they had visited the site up to the gate. Commissioner Carico noted she had spoken with the neighbor Mr, Schubart about fencing the property and had visited the site. Commissioner Stutz noted she had visited the site and spoken with a friend of Dr. Forward's at the site. The Public Hearing was opened Dr. Terry Forward, 10575 Blandor Way, spoke in favor of the application noting that she believed the modifications she desired to make on her property were in compliance with the intent of the Town's regulations. Mr. Peter Schubart, 24624 Olive Tree Lane, expressed concern that Dr. Forward intended to fence the property at the right-of-way line and grade adjacent to the right-of-way. Staff clarified that existing easements all the way around this parcel would prohibit fencing and grading adjacent to the right-of-way. No one else wishing to speak the Public Hearing was closed The Commission questioned staff about the differences between this request and the previous request made by Mr. Wu. Mr. Ekern noted that this was a Conditional Development Permit request to establish development limits on a lot with a Lot Unit Factor of less than .50 and the previous request was for a Variance to Development Area limitations established by the calculation methods in the code for properties with a Lot Unit Factor greater than .50. This request did not require a variance since the proposed Floor Area did not exceed the limit and the Development area nonconformity was not being worsened by the additions. MOTION, SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Carico, seconded by Stutz, to approve a Conditional Development Permit, setting levels of development on this property at 4,000 square feet of Floor Area and 5,000 square feet of Development Area; and approve the Site Development Permit, subject to the conditions noted by staff in the staff report. The motion passedby the following role call vote: V ( Planning Commision Minutes 4✓, October 11, 1989 page 7 AYES: Commissioners Pahl, Jones, Comiso, Carico, Stutz and Emling. NOES: None. Abstain: Commissioner Noel. 7. NEW BUSINESS: 7.1 Discussion of the timeframe for agenda distribution. Commissioner Jones explained that he would like to have staff distribute a listing of the Planning Commission items earlier to give the Commissioners more time to review the subject properties. Following some discussion of the matter the Commission determined that the agenda information distribution process would remain as it is presently to allow staff adequate time to prepare the agenda and work with property owners. 7.2. Input from the Commission to staff indicating concerns you would like addressed or information you would like to recieve in the future that would help facilitate your job as Planning Commissioners. The Planning Commission noted they would be interested in reviewing a Planning Work program prior to the next Joint meeting of the Commission and Council. In addition, Commissioners Stutz and Carico requested a summary report of action on service requests be developed and distributed periodically. 7.3. Discussion of scheduling a work session prior to the Planning Commission meeting of October 25th, 1989 to view a presentation by Freedman, Tung and Bottomley, consultants to the Town Planning Department. This work session was scheduled for October 25th, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. 8. OLD BUSINESS: There was no old business. 9. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Carico and passed unanimously to adjourn at 10:05 p.m.. Planning Commision Minutes 4, October 11, 1989 page 8 Respectfully Submitted, Ann W. Jamison Planning Director 4