Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/1989 (2)PLANNING COMMISSION L MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 42r TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 1989 cc: Reel #WK 50 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Emling referred to the roll call and pledge at the Worksession preceeding the Planning Commission meeting, noting that all seven members were present. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2.1 Approval of the Minutes of November 8, 1989. Commissioner Jones requested that the following paragraph be included under Lands of Wong: "Commissioner Jones questioned whether staff supported this 4 project. Staff noted that they had recommended approval." MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Moved by Noel, seconded by Stutz, and passed by consensus to approve the minutes as amended. 3. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 1989 Commissioner Noel noted that Lands of Purissima Hills Water District had been approved, additional conditions had been approved for Lands of McCulloch, and an extension of the Neary Quarry tentative map had been approved. 4. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, NOVEMBER 21, NOVEMBER 28, AND DECEMBER 12 November 14: Commissioner Pahl reported that the Site Development Committee had reviewed the Lands of Eshner and it was communicated to the applicant that there were many problems with the proposed project. He also noted there was a problem with the seismic map on the Lands of Circle, and that the applicants were rechecking their maps. There were no items of significant concern on the November 21 Site Development kw Agenda. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1989 L Page 2 November 28: Commissioner Stutz noted that the Lands of Hau landscape plan had been approved. December 12: Commissioner Comiso reported that Lands of Chen was relatively standard, but that Commissioner Carico was concerned with the empty pool on the lot. She reported that the Lands of Yanez petition for a second story and carport presented no problems. Commissioner Comiso did note that there didn't appear to be a 40' setback on the property. Commissioner Carico stated that she would like to look more carefully at flag lots in the future, although Lands of Yanez had plenty of room surrounding the development. Her concerns center around more intense development and the many smaller, older homes. 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Stephanie Munoz, 13460 Robleda addressed the Commission regarding the trend toward larger homes, and the demolition and major remodeling of older, smaller homes. She suggests the Planning Commission adopt a policy of more restrictive development standards. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1 LANDS OF NG, 12700 Leander Drive, A request for a Site Development Permit (referred from Site Development Committee). Bill Ekern introduced this item to the Planning Commission, noting that the item was continued from the previous meeting at the owner's request. He then referred to the staff report, and specifically to page 3 to make the following correction : "The existing residence is approximately 90' from the same line." Mr. Ekern noted the applicant's concerns regarding Condition 11, and explained that his concerns center around the problems of siting the residence and the provision of adequate mitigation for the proposed residence through preservation and maintenance of the existing vegetation on site. Planning Commission Disclosures Commissioners Emling and Stutz noted they had visited the site and had no conversation with the applicants, Commissioners Pahl, Noel, Comiso and Carico noted they had visited the site. Commissioner Jones indicated he had visited the site and spoken with the applicants, but that he had no disclosures relative to that conversation. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1989 4r Page 3 The Public Hearing was opened. Walter Chapman, Chapman Design Associates, architect for the project, presented his views on the conditions attached to approval of a Site Development Permit. He noted he had worked with three different members of staff during the initial stages of the application. He expressed his understanding of the relevance of Conditions 1 - 10 and 12, and his concern with the terminology of Condition 11. Mr. Chapman presented photographs of site views from six directions, looking towards the property. He explained how siting and vegetation mitigate the proposed residence. Mr. Chapman also provided a model of the proposed residence. Joe McPherson, 12726 Leander Drive, voiced his concerns regarding the maintenance of roads and driveways during construction. He indicated he is satisfied with a signed agreement whereby Mr. Ng accepts financial responsibility for any damage to Leander Drive. Ray Condlisk, 12741 Leander Drive expressed two concerns: 1.) That there is a deed restriction attached to the property confining homes to a single story; and 2.) The Ng's proposed project would eliminate the property's existing turnaround space, resulting in damage to neighboring properties. Michael Schneider of Atkinson-Farasyn, attorney representing the owners responded that the Covenents, Conditions and Restrictions, from June 2, 1961, refers to a minumum building site, and does not restrict the residence to a single story. The commissioners questioned the provisions of the C.C. and R. Dr. McPherson noted that in the proposal, the entrance gates had been moved and the driveway would be in the house next door. Mr. Chapman responded that this was a drafting error and would be corrected, the gates are not being moved. Mr. Schneider questioned the need for the recorded agreement defined in Condition 11. Bill Ekern responded that the only mitigation is the existing vegation and without an agreement, there are no guarantees the vegetation won't be removed to enhance views from inside the residence. Chairman Emling questioned Mr. Chapman about his meetings with staff, and whether ridgeline limitations had been defined. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1989 L Page 4 Mr. Chapman responded that he hadn't realized the degree of the limitations, but noted that the proposal does take the site into account. He indicated they were well into production with the construction documents. He also noted that there may have been some communication problems related to working with the three different staff members. No one else wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Noel noted that if the applicant had come in today, the proposal would be looked at very differently. Commissioner Comiso noted the house could only be seen from one street, she couldn't see the balloons, and she considers it well mitigated. Commissioner Jones noted that he lives closest to the project area, that he never sees it, and there is sufficient mitigation to support the proposal. Commissioner Pahl outlined his approval of the proposal, noting the value of the scale model. He considers the project well designed and referred to the ordinance, 4, that a second story is allowable where sufficient developed mitigation is present. The commissioners discussed the possibilities for rewording Condition 11 with Staff Commissioner Carico expressed concerns that a larger home needs a larger lot and considers voting for the project voting against the ordinance, that a single story building may be required. She noted that views should be retained and buildings should not dominate the hilltop. Commissioner Stutz noted that there are no changes in the proposal from when it was submitted to the Site Development Committee. She noted the driveway is within ten feet of the lot line. Bill Ekern noted the applicants are aware of potential problems with the driveway. Commissioner Stutz also noted there was a change in the model, that it doesn't show decks and railing, and that there is a 1000 square foot basement. She concluded that the shrubs are not six feet high as she had no problems looking over them, off the property. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Comiso to adopt 4 Conditions 1 - 10 and 12, of the Site Development permit (dated 12/13/89, on file at Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1989 Page 5 Town Hall), and to modify Condition 11 as follows: Insert a period after, 'The hedge is to be maintained at a height of no less than 6'.", and delete the remainder of that sentence. AYES: Commissioners Comiso, Jones, Noel, Pahl NOES: Commissioners Emling, Carico, Stutz 6.2 LANDS OF WONG, 11675 Dawson Drive, A request for a variance to the maximum developable area allowed by the Zoning Code for an addition to a residence. This item was continued to the meeting of December 27, 1989, at the applicant's request. 6.3 LANDS OF ASHMAN, 13645 Paseo Del Roble Court, A request for a variance to the maximum floor area allowed by the Zoning Code for an addition to a residence. Ann Jamison introduced this variance request for 771 square feet of floor area over 4W the allowed Maximum Floor Area of 4,000 square feet. The property has a Maximum Development Area of 5,000 square feet, and an existing development area of 8010 feet. Ms. Jamison also noted that the property has a 36 % slope and a lot unit factor of .59. At Commissioner Pahl's request, Ms. Jamison explained the process for calculating the LUF, MDA, MFA, noting that 4,000 square feet is a fall back number for properties on which the LUF is greater than .5 and less than 1. Planning Commission Disclosures Chairman Emling noted he had visited the site but not spoken to the applicants. Commissioner Stutz drove the site. Commissioner Noel visited the site in October. Commissioner Pahl noted he had visited the site. Commissioners Carico and Comiso visited the site and Commissioner Jones had visited the site previously. The Public Hearing was opened John Ashman, 13615 Paseo del Roble, presented a series of slides on the residence, outlining why the variance should be granted. Mr. Ashman explained that the house, built in the 1970's, is not in compliance with the intent of current zoning. Exceptional circumstances that result in hardship include: floor space restricted by `, single loaded corridors, 30 foot setbacks on the sides of the existing residence Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1989 4W Page 6 limiting any additions, the preservation of Oak trees impacting the lot and the house placement, narrow single points access and the slope of the property restrict design. He would like to upgrade to standards of the 1990's, improve the appearance and upgrade the property. Mr Ashman noted the positive affects of approval, including: no increase in MDA, the house is less obtrusive from off site, the exterior is finished, there is more screening and driveway mitigation. He also noted his concerns about the stability of the existing bedroom wing on poles and suggests the house will be more stable with the addition of the bedroom wing. Harold Bexton, 640 Santana Road, Novato, architect for the project, presented photographs identifying removed developable area, including much of the existing deck and large amounts of existing pavement. He noted the existing house had a useable floor area of 2960 square feet. No one else wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. At Chairman Emling's suggestion, the Planning Commission reviewed the slide, "Exceptional Circumstances of Property." Commissioner Jones noted that the additional square footage was gained through incidence, that other repairs were the primary reason for the remodel. Commissioner Comiso noted that placement of the house precluded building on any other part of the house. Commissioner Pahl questioned staff as to what alterations the applicant could make to obtain staff approval of the variance. Ann Jamison responded that the problem with granting the variance related to the fact that the variance findings can not be made as the property was not unusual for Los Altos Hills. Ms. Jamison recommended removing MFA in some other area, for example turning the garage into a carport. She noted that reworking the design of the house within the existing floor area would not require a variance. Joann Ashman explained to the Commission that the Ashman's had spent a great deal of time and money looking at various alternatives for improving the interior and exterior of the house and this proposal was the simplest and most practical. Mrs. Ashman expressed her frustration at the variance process and suggests the Planning Commission either adhere to the 4,000 foot rule or discuss each case on its own merits. kw Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1989 [10 Page 7 Commissioner Carico responded that the Commissioners are legally bound by the ordinances to determine exceptional circumstances, and in this case they are unable to make that finding. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Comiso, seconded by Carico to approve the request for variance on Finding 1: The location of the existing structure deprives such privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. AYES: Commissioner Comiso NOES: Commissioners Carico, Jones, Noel, Pahl, Stutz, and Eroding. Commissioner Jones expressed his regrets over the decision that had to be made. Mrs. Ashman voiced her disappointment and frustration at the variance process. Chairman Emling noted that the constraints of what findings are based upon has frustrated all the commissioners, and further suggested appeal of the decision to the City Council. 6A LANDS OF RAMAN, 12378 Priscilla Lane, An appeal of a Site Development Permit. Bill Ekern introduced this item, noting that one of the conditions of the Raman's Site Development permit for an addition was a five foot easement be reserved. In the future, if the adjoining property came under the Site Development review, a five foot easement would be required for pathway purposes, thus creating a total ten foot pathway easement. He noted the Raman's were appealing this condition. Commissioner Carico questioned staff as to why an easement was not required on the remodel next door to the Raman's. Bill Ekern responded that the neighbors had a minor remodeling project, approved at staff level. Pathway easements cannot be requested of projects approved at the staff level. Planning Commission Disclosures Commissioners Emling and Carico noted that had been to the site but don't know the Raman's. Commissioner Comiso noted she had visited the site and was on the Site Development Committee that approved the Raman's addition. Commissioner Jones echoed Commissioner Comiso's disclosure, adding that he visited the site a second time and walked it extensively. Commissioner Stutz noted she was on the Site Development Committee that initially reviewed the Raman's application and Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1989 t Page 8 had met Mrs. Raman at that time. Commissioner Noel noted he visited the site. Commissioner Pahl noted he was familiar with the site. The Public Hearing was opened. Vas Raman, 12378 Priscilla Lane, presented his rationale for opposing the easement condition. He noted the position of the easement infringes on his rights as a property owner. Mr. Raman said the requirement had never existed before and he had seen no indication that easements were required on any other remodals in his area. He noted there were a number of redwood trees on the property line, and other Oak trees would produce difficult terrain, and was especially concerned about this in light of his legal liability. He stated he hasn't the resources to carry additional liability insurance. Mr. Raman also cited a legal precendent, the Nolan case, where an easement requirement was overturned. Mr. Raman also indicated previous requests for a general map went unfulfilled; Commissioner Pahl supplied him with a map. Bill Ekern, at Commissioner Carico's request, explained that pathways were not requested on lots that showed no potential for inclusion in the master pathway map. John Hettinger, 12372 Priscilla Lane, supports the Raman's appeal, noting there is no need for this particular pathway and it is an undue hardship on the Raman's. Commissioner Carico suggested that the street might become quite busy with the development of the McCulloch subdivision. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, representing the Town's Pathway Committee explained the relevance of the easement in connecting Priscilla Lane to the lands of the McCulloch subdivision on the Master Path Plan. She noted the permissive paths people currently use will no longer be usable when the land is subdivided. Her concerns centered around the forecasted growth in that particular area and that without implementation of the pathway system, people will be unable to move around safely. Walt Gregorwich, 12370 Priscilla Lane, suggested an alternative pathway. Commissioner Stutz responded that the plan was to connect cul-de-sacs, and only the two properties were involved. ` Mr. Hettinger noted the homeowners on the street considered the pathway an imposition on their privacy. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1989 Lo Page 9 Mrs. Raman voiced her concerns regarding the desirability of connecting cul-de-sacs Mrs. Schreiner noted that it is common for homeowners to expect to use permissive paths but that they don't want paths on their land; however, people are not going to be allowed to walk on these permissive paths forever, and this is what they must plan for. She further noted that the more paths there are, the less usage there is likely to be on each pathway. Commissioner Comiso questioned the usability of a path with a number of trees. Commissioner Stutz noted a pathway with trees on Purissima, and suggested that even a two foot wide path is still usable. No one else wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed The commissioners discussed liability for dedicated pathways. A discussion ensued between Staff and Commissioner Pahl as to whether homeowners were also potentially liable for injuries which might occur on pathways. Commissioner Pahl explained it is possible for a property owner providing the easement to be 4W indemnified by the town, but left it to the Town Attorney for his opinion as to the best way to accomplish that fact. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Noel, seconded by Stutz to uphold the dedication of a 5 foot pathway from the Raman property. This dedication to remain undeveloped and unvested until such time as a companion piece adjoining the property is dedicated. At that time, a path can be developed, with no trees removed. AYES: Commissioners Jones, Noel, Stutz NOES: Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Pahl and Emling MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Comiso, seconded by Carico to uphold the Raman's appeal. AYES: Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Jones, Pahl, Emling NOES: Commissioner Noel and Stutz Commissioner Comiso noted that the question of liability deserves attention. She noted a policy will be difficult to define and legal advice is necessary. Chairman Emling concurred and referred the subject of liability to Councilmember Toni Casey, to be scheduled for the next City Council meeting. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1989 L Page 10 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Discussion of options for addressing concerns related to the Site Development Process. The commissioners discussed the possibilities for moving Site Development to Wednesday evenings, preceeding Planning Commission meetings. Ann Jamison expressed her concerns relative to such a move, noting the amount of work the Planning Commission has to do in the future. She expressed Staffs willingness to meet with a representative of the Environmental Design Committee, on an informal basis to discuss landscape plantings plans. Ms. Jamison further clarified that the commissioners would not be expecting any staff reports in addition to what is presently used at Site Development meetings. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Moved by Pahl, seconded by Emling and passed by consensus to move Site Development meetings to 6:00 p.m. the second and fourth Wednesday of each month, preceding each regular Planning Commission meeting, beginning in January, 1990, and that these meetings be comprised of a Committee of the Whole such that all commissioners are not required to attend but are encouraged to participate. Site Development applications reviewed at this time will include new residences and additions over 900 square feet or over 15 feet in height. Staff will supply each commissioner with the equivilant of the information currently distributed for Site Development meetings, including all relevant maps. No additional staff reports are deemed necessary. All pool and landscape plans will be reviewed by Staff with representatives of the Environmental Design and Pathways committees on an informal basis. 7.2 Review of the Draft Planning Commission Work Program. This item was removed by consensus to the Planning Commission meeting of December 27,1989. 7.3 Determination of whether to have the December 27, 1989 Planning Commission meeting. Motion by Emling and passed by a show of hands to hold the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for December 27, 1989. The commissioners further discussed the pathways issue and liability, and the existing ordinance, its interpretation and application. Bill Ekern noted that the issue of pathways was currently under review by a subcommittee of the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 1989 j Page 11 Chairman Emling noted the City Council meeting scheduled for December 20, 1989. 8. OLD BUSINESS 8.1 Discussion of the "Vision" of Los Altos Hills. Ann Jamison noted that Freedman, Tung & Bottomley would be making their presentation on "developing a vision" of the future of Los Altos Hills. 9. ADTOURNMENT Respectfully submitted, Laura Johnson Planning Secretary