Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/19901 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24TH, 1990 Planning Commission Approved 2/14/90 cc: Reel #2-90 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Vice Chairman Jones and Commissioners Comiso, Stutz, Noel, Pahl Absent: Chairman Emling and Commissioner Carico. Staff: Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works and Ann Jamison, Planning Director. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items agendized for the Consent Calendar. 3. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF TANUARY 17TH, 1990 Vice Chairman Jones reported that the City Council had passed a 180 day extension of regulations for earthquake damage. He noted the hearing date had been set for the Matadero Creek Subdivision easement dedications. He further noted that the public hearing for the design of the intersection at El Monte and Voorhees, proposals to consolidate the entrance onto El Monte, had been continued to February 7th, 1990 due to lack of a quorum. Vice Chairman Jones explained that the Joint City Council Planning Commission meeting, scheduled for January 31st, 1990, has been cancelled as two Councilmembers are unable to attend on that date. The City Council's request for meeting date possibilities was referred to Item 7.2 for discussion. 4. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF TANUARY 16TH, 23RD, AND 24TH January 16th: Ann Jamison reported two relatively non -controversial applications, Ashman and Meyer, were approved. A third applicant, Liu, Swimming Pool - site was approved, and applicant was asked to develop a landscape plan for the pool and residence. January 23rd: Ann Jamison reported on two applications: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES P.C. Approved 2/14/90 January 24th, 1990 Page 2 1.) Larkin, Landscape plan - modified to require mitigation for views from Purissima; 2.) Henning, Swimming Pool, Driveway, Landscape - major tree mitigation was required, pool site was required to be brought down to grade rather than being constructed on fill. There was no presentation of the January 24th, 1990 Site Development Committee meeting as the five commissioners were present at both meetings. 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR There were no presentations from the floor. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1 LANDS OF BURGER, 25325 La Loma Drive, A request for a variance to the 1,000 square foot floor area limitation for a secondary residential {4 unit. Planning Commission Disclosures Commissioner Comiso had been to the site twice and spoke with Mr. Burger. Vice Chairman Jones had visited the site that afternoon and Mr. Burger had explained the site. Commissioner Stutz visited the site and introduced herself to the applicants but didn't discuss the project. Commissioner Noel visited the site and didn't speak to anyone. Commissioner Pahl visited the site and spoke with Mr. Burger. Ann Jamison introduced this item, noting Code limitation of a second unit to 1,000 square feet. Staff reviewed the project and believed it was appropriate to approve the application as outlined in the Staff Report and with the conditions recommended in Attachment 1. The Public Hearing was opened. Bill Burger, 25325 La Loma Drive, introduced himself and requested the Commissioners ask any questions they had for him. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Road, Chairman of the Pathways Committee, recommended a two-way path on the road right-of-way, noting La Loma Drive's narrowness. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES P.C. Approved 2/14/90 January 24th, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Burger was not opposed to this but noted that their portion of the frontage was very small. He further noted that there were no paths for use on the street and that he would be pleased to add one at such time as there are other pathways on the street, for continuity. Commissioner Stutz explained that the only time a resident can be required to install a pathway is when an application is made. Mr. Burger questioned what type of circumstances Staff's recommended Condition 5 referred to in regard to the destruction of the structure. Ann Jamison responded that Staff's intent was not directed at natural causes, rather at human causes, and the commissioners might want to reword the condition so that it excludes natural disasters. The Public Hearing was closed ` At Commissioner Comiso's request, Ann Jamison explained the term "ridgeline saddle" used in Attachment I of the Staff Report. Commissioner Comiso expressed concern that so many different terms are used to define sites, and the commissioners and Staff will get embroiled in definitions. Commissioner Comiso questioned Staff regarding architectural compatibility. Ann Jamison responded that one condition recommended by Staff was that any new residence be architecurally compatible with the existing structure. Commissioner Comiso also questioned the height restrictions of the recommended conditions and noted her concerns that too many restrictions were being placed on the proposed new residence before any remodeling plans were seen. She noted that properties on both sides of the Burgers property were two-story residences. At Commissioner Pahl's suggestion, Mr. Burger explained that he and his wife want to build in compatability with the land. They felt that because of the difficulty involved in getting a variance approved, the general format of the recommended conditions was not too onerous for them to meet. He felt he understood Staff's objectives. He defined his understanding of the conditions, that based on the overall effectiveness of the plan presented they were not necessarily being limited but put on notice to keep the level of the new residence down. He thinks they'll be able to work with the Staff recommendations. Commissioner Comiso noted she recognized that Staff was looking at ways to protect the ridgeline, but felt it was too cut and dried without a submitted plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES P.C. Approved 2/14/90 January 24th, 1990 Page 4 Commissioner Stutz noted that it was necessary to make restrictions if more building is going to be allowed than is currently defined by code; the square footage is being allowed, but no more than 25% of the new structure is to be more than 18 feet. Bill Ekern explained that the variance is going to have environmental impact and it is necessary to look for ways to provide long-term mitigation. Vice Chairman Jones questioned how it would be handled administratively if the Burger's plans for the new residence did not meet the provisions of the variance. Staff explained that the applicants would be required to reapply for a variance. Commissioner Pahl expressed his concern with Finding 1 of the Staff Report, noting the dozens of California ranch -style houses in Los Altos Hills and questioning recognition of their historical significance in this context. Commissioner Noel noted he would vote for the variance, and expressed concern that the commissioner's discussion consisted of opinion and too much that doesn't apply to this application. Commissioner Stutz noted she was not in agreement with deleting the third sentence of recommended Staff Condition 2, "This limitation in no way..." MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Stutz to approve the variance to allow a secondary unit to exceed the 1,000 square foot floor area limitation for a secondary residential unit based on the following Findings; and with the following Conditions: Finding 1: Because of extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property, to wit: That the property is approximately thirty years old; that it was constructed long before our present zoning ordinances; that it fits well within the confines of the lot upon which it is situated; that strict application of the 1,000 square feet of floor area which would require the owners to either eliminate or substantially restrict the utilization of this structure as it is presently situated, provides a basis for Finding #1, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area, and that is maintaining their existing structures. Finding 2: The intent of the 1,000 square foot limit for secondary units is still served by the granting of this variance in that this structure, even at 1,417 square feet will clearly be secondary and incidental to the primary structure (with a possible �r square footage of up to 5,047 square feet) to be developped on the remainder of the site. Reasonable allowances for secondary units are a part of the code and as such PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES P.C. Approved 2/14/90 January 24th, 1990 Page 5 this property owner will not be granted privileges not enjoyed by other property owners in the community. Finding 3: The granting of this variance will not impose a material detriment on the public or a condition detrimental to this or surrounding properties. The total square footage of development allowed on the site is not impacted by this variance and the retention of this house on this site at 1,417 square feet poses no identifiable detriment to this property or surrounding properties. The existing structure was developed in compliance with all applicable zoning and building codes. Finding 4: Secondary units are a permitted use under the R -A zoning district. Therefore the granting of this variance will in no way provide for a use not authorized in the zoning district. Condition 1: The character and style of the new residence shall be architecturally compatible with the character and style of the existing residence. In addition, any remodel or alteration of the existing structure shall not substantially alter the present character and style. Colors shall remain muted, nonreflective earthtones. Condition 2: The new residence on site shall be predominantly single story, with single story elements not to exceed 18 feet at any single point. No more than approximately 25% of the maximum floor area of the new structure shall be in the second story. The foundation and roofline of the new residence shall step with and mimic the existing topography of the site. These additional limits do not relieve this property in any way from full compliance with all aspects of the Towns Code of Ordinances including but not limited to the Zoning and Site Development ordinances. Condition 3: Total floor area on the site shall not exceed the 6,464 square feet allowed by the MFA calculations of the code. The maximum development area shall at no time exceed the existing 15,509 square feet existing and every effort shall be made by the property owner to reduce the development area as part of the new residence development plan. Condition 4: The two 48" Oaks, three 30" Oaks and the existing row of redwoods along the northwest property line must be preserved and shall not be removed from the site to accommodate any new development. Condition 5: This variance expires 24 months after final action of the approving body if building permits have not been issued and acquired for the new primary residence on the property. Should this structure be deliberately destroyed or substantially altered (alter so as to substantially change the character and style of this PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES P.C. Approved 2/14/90 January 24th, 1990 Page 6 rural, California ranch structure) at any time in the future that shall constitute grounds for revocation of this variance and the structure shall be brought into compliance with the secondary unit floor area code limits applicable at the time. AYES: Vice Chairman Jones and Commissioners Comiso, Noel, Pahl NOES: Commissioner Stutz ABSENT: Chairman Emling and Commissioner Carico 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Discussion of the Draft Planning Commission Work Program. Ann Jamison opened discussion on this item, expressing Staff's interest in responding to commissioner's concerns. The commissioners discussed the disparities in residents' desires for the Town of Los Altos Hills and considered approaches to defining direction for the future of the community. They also examined the means for obtaining the types of development residents consider desirable in the Town. The commissioners noted that it would be difficult to address specific issues until some consensus is reached on the direction the town is moving. The Commission suggested the vision discussion be referred to a joint meeting. No work program was adopted. 7.2 Discussion of the 1990 Planning Commission meeting schedule. The commissioners discussed possibilities for scheduling a Planning Commission summer break. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Pahl, seconded by Commissioner Comiso and passed by consensus to cancel the Planning Commission meetings of August 8th and 22nd, and December 26th, 1990. The commissioners discussed rescheduling the Joint Session cancelled for January 31st, 1990. Commissioner Jones referred the Planning Commission's suggested time, Monday evening at 6:00 p.m., to City Council representative Mayor Toni Casey for discussion at the next City Council meeting. 8. OLD BUSINESS ` 8.1 Discussion of the process for developing a vision for Los Altos Hills. �r This item was discussed under New Business. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES P.C. Approved 2/14/90 January 24th, 1990 Page 7 9. ADIOURNMENT Vice Chairman Jones asked for Planning Commission representatives at the upcoming Subdivision Committee meeting scheduled for January 30, 1990. Commissioner Comiso and Stutz volunteered. Planning Commission representative to the February 7, 1990 City Council meeting: Commissioner Comiso. There being no further new or old business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura Johnson 16 Planning Secretary