Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24/1990PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24TH, 1990 cc: Cassettes #18-90 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Ellinger, Noel, Pahl Absent: Commissioner Stutz Staff: Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works; Laura Johnson, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Stephanie Munoz referred to her letter to the Commission and requested rebuilding and build -out be addressed at the Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission scheduled for November 1, 1990. Chairman Jones noted the Agenda for the meeting had already been set. Commissioner Pahl noted the Subcommittee on Rebuilding and Build -out would be meeting on November 1, 1990. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.0 Planning Commission Disclosures. There were no disclosures. 3.1 LANDS OF LUKE, 27177 Byrne Park Lane: A request for a variance to the fence height/setback limitations of the Zoning Code. Bill Ekern introduced this item, referring to the Staff Report and noting the fence construction was begun without permits. The fence is proposed to be on the street side of the reference line, 6 feet in height. The Public Hearing was opened. 4W John Luke, 27177 Byrne Park Lane, applicant, explained the original plans for the new residence included a fence and he was under the assumption it had been approved. As outlined in his letter to the Commission received October 4, 1990, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved October 24th, 1990 Page 2 Mr. Luke noted his landscaping was being destroyed by dogs and deer. He felt the 4- 1/2 foot fence allowed by code in the location proposed wouldn't protect the property. He noted the proposed fence would enhance the value of his property and surrounding properties, was 75 - 80% see-through, and there are many precedents of fences in violation of the ordinances. Commissioner Noel questioned what led the Lukes to believe they had a permit for the fence in 1972. Mr. Luke noted it was in the original architectural plans but a shortage of funds delayed construction. Bill Ekern clarified that the fence is not shown on the building permit plans approved by the Town so there is no way to know what intentions for fencing were. Dot Schreiner, Pathways Chair, noted there have been serious problems in past months with horses at the pathway crossings of drives made of slippery materials. She further noted the Luke's driveways have materials identified as hazardous. She wished to inform the Lukes Town Staff is working with the Pathways Committee to address the problem, noting the Lukes will be receiving a letter presently. Elaine Luke, applicant, noted they have an ordinary black asphalt drive. She explained their intention to resurface the drives once the fencing and landscaping are complete. In response to a request from Chairman Jones for clarification of pathway requirements, Bill Ekern clarified the intersection of a driveway and a pathway is to be made of material that can be roughened, per the Site Development Ordinance. Over time, driveways are slurried and sealed up, making the surface slippery for horses. Mr. Ekern further noted the Pathway Committee is in the process of putting together a list of properties with drives that cross pathways, clarifying that the Lukes were not being singled out. Chairman Jones requested any further questions regarding the driveway be taken up with Staff. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Comiso wished to compare this application to several reviewed in recent months. At her request, Bill Ekern clarified that a fence on La Barranca was at the 30 foot setback, the property line in that case, and the issue was the 6 foot height. This was denied by the Planning Commission; however, the City Council approved the requested variance based on findings including the fact that the property was surrounded on three sides by roads. He clarified that a request for a 6 foot fence in `, the setback on Gigli Court was denied by the Planning Commission. 09 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved October 24th, 1990 Page 3 Commissioner Pahl noted he found nothing wrong with the Luke's application, but with the fence ordinance the Commission must make findings to approve a variance. Council has overruled the Commission in the past. Staff has administratively approved variances for fences within the reference line and put them on the Council's consent calendar so the Commission never saw them. He felt it was important to handle variances consistently. He suggested it may be advantageous to continue the application to the next Planning Commission meeting to get information on other fences approved to ensure the Lukes fair treatment. Commissioner Comiso noted she had nothing against the Luke's proposal. She felt there wasn't a clear enough policy on what is rural and what is not. She noted she had tried in the past to make findings for unusual circumstances and been voted down. Commissioner Carico noted the fence ordinance was enacted to ensure the open character of the Town. She expressed her support of the fence ordinance, noting the requirements were the result of a series of public hearings about ten years ago. After a brief break to confirm facts regarding two Zoning Administrator approved 4W fences at the request of the Commission, Bill Ekern explained the policy operative for deciding on fence permits approved at the Staff level. Staff can review administratively permits for minor variances in the setbacks as set forth in Municipal Code Section 10-1.1107(2)d, but not variances for height. Both fences, one on La Loma Drive and one on Foothill Lane were 4-1/2 feet in height. Staff's findings for the variances were based on the rural nature of the fences and their wood and horizontal design. The Lukes' request is to construct a fence on the street side of the reference line that is 6 feet in height, entailing a variance to the height requirements and review at the Planning Commission level. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Ellinger to forward the application to the City Council without any recommendation from the Planning Commission. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Noel, Pahl NOES: Commissioner Carico ABSENT: Commissioner Stutz Mr. Luke noted his family would be out of Town until November 25, 1990 and requested the hearing be forwarded to the City Council meeting of December 5, 1990. He expressed concern the delay in construction would result in further damage to the property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24th, 1990 Page 4 Approved Bill Ekern responded that a temporary fence permit to string fencing between posts for a predetermined length of time would be possible with the understanding that whatever action the Council takes is binding. Commissioner Carico stated she felt strongly the Planning Commission should have taken action on the application. She noted she was not opposed to it going to the City Council, but felt it could have been denied without prejudice by the Planning Commission. She noted she would have voted 'no' due to inability to make findings to grant the variance. 3.2 LANDS OF HANSEN, Lot 19 Amherst Court: A request for an amendment to a Conditional Development Permit, a Variance to the parking requirements of the Zoning Code and a Site Development Permit for a single-family residence. Bill Ekern introduced this item, noting this proposal was slightly larger than the guidelines laid down by the Conditional Development Permit. Staff worked aggressively to get a project that is acceptable and felt this was as good a project as the Town would get on the site with the least impact over time. He noted Staff recommended approval with conditions, amending the CDP to allow increased floor area and a slightly larger footprint. He also noted Staff's recommendation of a variance for two parking spaces as it would reduce the amount of fill. He noted any development will entail a great deal of grading; however with the existing landslides, the geologists and engineers agree reconstructing the hillside in an engineered and well drained manner is necessary and will affect the amount of work that occurs on the hillside substantially. Commissioner Comiso expressed concern regarding safety issues that would result from reducing the parking requirements, as the area required to turn a car around is limited. The Public Hearing was opened. Bill McClure, applicant's attorney and son-in-law, noted that after coming before the Planning Commission twice and the City Council once a Conditional Development Permit was approved. Noting the size of the house is 20% below the floor area allowed on the lot by current Town regulations he explained the height limitation of the CDP resulted in a problem with building coverage. He noted the Commission could relieve the height limitation if there was concern with coverage or relieve the coverage limitation if there was concern with height. He noted they were comfortable with the Staff recommendation, and though they would prefer a third parking site, because of the retaining wall and the amount of fill they are willing to abandon it. He noted the proposal was tailored to try to meet all the concerns the Commission raised in the past. k PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24th, 1990 Page 5 Approved Shelley Detricks, 14227 Amherst Court, expressed concern limited on site parking will result in increased parking on Amherst Court. She felt the Town was not consistently enforcing regulations as when they built they were not allowed to impact the hill and were required to have six parking spaces. Commissioner Comiso clarified that as the Commission did not know what occurred thirteen years ago they could only address this house and current ordinances. Commissioner Carico noted a variance is a land situation, not a personal situation, so each property is considered individually. Steve Shapiro, 14228 Amherst Court, referred to two letters to the Commission from neighbors, the Furbushes and the Moons. Mr. Shapiro noted he measured Amherst Court to be 22 feet in width. He noted every house on the street has a 'U' shaped driveway, and for safety purposes, so no one would have to park on the street, all were required to have more than four on-site parking spaces. He noted even one car parked on the street is difficult to get around. He stated when a public body approves a project that endangers people they are liable. He also noted concerns with drainage problems. Mr. Shapiro suggested problems could be avoided with a smaller house and inclusion of a driveway. He noted all the existing houses on the street are 2,000 square foot homes. Commissioner Ellinger questioned whether the Page Mill Estates architectural review committee was still in existence. Mr. Detrick noted he was reasonably certain it did still exist. Commissioner Comiso questioned how the Town was affected by private CC&R's. Bill Ekern responded the Town was not affected at all. Barbara Detrick, 14227 Amherst Court, noted the floor area and development area both appear to have been increased by 1,000 square feet beyond what was allowed and she felt the increase in area could be used instead for parking. She noted coverage was of concerns because of run-off problems. She expressed concern with emergency equipment getting through in the event of fire. Mr. McClure noted if the neighbors would prefer a taller house, the architect has a proposal which includes four parking spaces. Mr. McClure clarified they are concerned about safety issues and geologic considerations of development on the lot, noting that the project could only be built after the review and approval of their geologist as well as the Town geologic consultant. He further noted that until a project is approved, they can't address slides and geology with potential Planning Commission denial of the proposal. He also noted that under current laws, future disclosures would be required. He noted the lot is unique and steeper than neighboring lots. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24th, 1990 Page 6 Approved Paul Freudenthal, project architect, noted the house is small relative to those being done today and only 3,000 square feet where 4,000 square feet would be allowed. He noted once grading is done and the retaining wall engineered the site will be less likely to pose problems. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Pahl noted he was opposed to placing artifical restrictions on property. He noted he could not make any findings to allow parking and wished to consider options for proceeding with the request as approval/denial of one aspect hinged on the others. Bill Ekern recommended the Commission take a definitive action on the proposal. Commissioner Comiso expressed concern with cars entering and exiting this property. She noted the lot is so difficult she would like to see four parking spaces on site. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Ellinger to disapprove the variance to allow other than four on-site parking spaces on this lot. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Ellinger, Noel, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Stutz MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Comiso to deny the amendment for the Conditional Development Permit and to deny without prejudice this specific application. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Ellinger, Noel, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Stutz Mr. McClure requested consideration of a study session with the commissioners and the applicant. Bill Ekern noted this could be agendized for the Planning Commission Site Development meeting of November 14,1990, and suggested the applicant contact Staff to schedule the meeting. 4. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Ellinger wished to consider whether requirements agreed upon at applicants presubmittal meetings with Staff should be compiled and added to drawings submitted. When the applicant comes before the Commission and conditions of approval are amended they will already have the conditions. n PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24th, 1990 Page 7 Approved Bill Ekern noted the Planning Department brings forth major concerns associated with individual applications in reviewing each proposal with applicants. Commissioner Pahl questioned whether a list of conditions could be compiled. Bill Ekern noted the standard conditions are the ordinances, just numbered and noted. A list of standard conditions could be created and given to applicants. Chairman Jones wished to make a request from the Chair to the commissioners, that in making the Planning Commission Report at City Council meetings they refrain from using individual commissioners names and not include individual comments, rather represent the Commission as a whole. Commissioner Carico noted she had quoted Commissioners at the last City Council meeting, however it was not a part of her report on the Planning Commission's actions but was a part of her report on LANDS OF HAU, and it was an integral part of what she felt had to be considered and that was a request to Mr. Han from Planning Commissioners to have activities on his property other than just the ones he described he was going to have. She had no objections to that but felt very strongly if that was the case, then conditions could be applied to control things such as traffic. She noted she felt it was necessary to quote them, though perhaps it was wrong. She noted she will give a minority or a majority opinion when giving a report, but that she tries not to quote any one commissioner unless asked by Council members and agreed it was not necessary. 5. OLD BUSINESS Bill Ekern referred to the Planning Commission Site Development Committee meeting approval of an extensive remodel for the LANDS OF LIZAUR, 11571 Buena Vista Drive on June 13, 1990. He noted the Lizaur's foundation and soils engineers advised them the remaining little wall must be knocked down. The Lizaur's requested that the Town acknowledge at the building permit stage that the project is a completely new house. The only change to the plans is the Lizaur's will then be able to install a new foundation. Chairman Jones brought the request to a voice vote; by consensus, the Planning Commission concurred with the request. 6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 10TH, 1990 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Jones, and passed by consensus, with Commissioner Comiso abstaining, to approve the minutes of October 10th, 1990. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24th, 1990 Page 8 Approved 7. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 17TH, 1990 Commissioner Carico reported on LANDS OF HAU, the Council requested the applicant reconsider the size of the proposed ball room or come in with a variance for a second unit. She noted LANDS OF RAFFIN, an addition approved by the Planning Commission and appealed to the Council level for review, was granted. Bill Ekern, reported on LANDS OF FOWLER, the Council approved the Tentative Map with conditions essentially in the form approved by the Planning Commission. The Council did not request modification of the lot lines as Staff had recommended. He reported on LANDS OF GINELLA, the circular drive was approved. Commissioner Pahl expressed concern there is a sense that if people complain enough about a denial they get approval. Bill Ekern noted Councilmember Johnson requested a discussion of policy on circular drives be agendized for the meeting of November 7, 1990. He also reported the LANDS OF MCCULLOCH Final Map was approved for 28 new lots. Regarding the LANDS OF MAHONEY, request for a fee waiver, the Council is addressing encroachment permit fee for fences. For underground projects there is a fee; however the Council considered it too high for fences and is exploring different fees. It is Staff's opinion that there should be fees for work done on Town property. 8. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 23RD. 1990 October 23rd, 1990: Bill Ekern reported one item was reviewed and approved: Nakao - Swimming pool, decking, landscaping. The pool was reviewed and denied three times over past months. Applicant revised the plans to address the concerns of the Site Development Committee. 9. ADTOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura Johnson Planning Secretary