Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/09/1991APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9TH, 1991 cc: Cassettes #1-91(1), 1-91(2), 1-91(3) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Noel, Stutz Absent: Commissioners Ellinger, Pahl Staff: Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works; Ann Jamison, Planning Director; Laura Johnson, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Polly Savoie, 11640 Buena Vista Drive, requested the Planning Commission consider agendizing as an urgency item discussion of the location of the propane tank for her new residence. Ms. Savoie explained the location of the pad for the tank was chosen based on Town regulations; however, one neighbor felt it was too close to the street and the Town Building Inspector subsequently placed a stop work order on the project as the pad was located within the 30' setback. Ann Jamison clarified that Ms. Savoie was asking whether the Commission would consider the tank an ornamental garden structure. The Commission discussed provisions for allowing gas for a limited length of time without allowing occupancy. Bill Ekern noted gas is not necessary for construction of the house to continue. He noted arrangements could be made through bonding but once the Building Department releases the gas, the Town has no control over the residence short of the sheriff and legal action. MOTION: Chairman Jones put the request to consider the propane tank an ornamental garden structure to a straw vote: Jones, Carico, Stutz indicated the tank should not be considered an ornamental garden structure; Comiso noted she could not say without seeing the details; Noel abstained, noting it would likely require a variance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED January 9, 1991 Page 2 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.0 PLANNING COMMISSION DISCLOSURES Chairman Jones noted he and Commissioner Comiso spoke with Dr. Pulford while visiting the site, receiving information that would probably come up again in the hearing. Commissioner Comiso noted she would disclose if any information she received was not presented at the hearing. 3.1 LANDS OF HANSEN, Lot #19 Amherst Court: A request for modification of a Conditional Development Permit and approval of a Site Development Permit for a new residence. Ann Jamison introduced this item, giving a brief history of the Council, Commission, and Site Development Committee review it had undergone. She noted that in response to Planning Commission Site Development Committee direction the applicant had a proposal with parking out of the setbacks. The application complies with all other conditions of the Zoning Code and the only modification was to the layout of the driveway and parking areas. Bill McClure, applicant's attorney and son-in-law, noted their understanding after the Study Session that as long as the proposal met height and parking requirements, the Commission was less concerned with exceeding the footprint and the maximum development area. He noted removal of the garage, a requirement of the CC&R's, would result in a 2400 square foot building footprint. Mr. McClure referred to concerns with grading and drainage on the property, noting the Staff recommended condition that all conditions of the Town Geotechnical Consultant had to be complied with prior to issuance of a building permit, as well as the applicant's own geologist signing off on the project. He clarified they need the CDP and Site Development Permit before investing in the completion of a geologic and geotechnical investigation; however, if the geologists do not consider it safe, the home will not be constructed. The Public Hearing was opened. Gerald McNaught, 14712 Amherst Court, noted he lives across the street from the slide area and expressed concern with development and the potential for slides. Commissioner Comiso noted it is of the utmost concern to the Planning Commission and qualified engineers and geologists must approve the development plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED January 9, 1991 { Page 3 Chairman Jones noted it is not possible to address every element of risk. Ann Jamison clarified that the conditions of the Town Geotechnical Consultant must be adhered to stringently, and a structural engineer must sign off on the drawings. Ms. Jamison also noted all planning and building files are public record and can be reviewed during regular office hours. Shelley Detrick, 14227 Amherst Court, noted he had spoken and written to the Commission previously regarding the application. Mr. Detrick noted one house in the area did slide off its foundation. He expressed concern that the size of the development kept increasing. Barbara Detrick, 14227 Amherst Court, noted the original Planning Commission authorization was for 2400 square feet of floor area and should be adhered to. Bill McClure noted he understood the house Mr. Detrick referred to was not bolted to the foundation, and bolting is standard practice now. He noted the increased coverage is not near the slide area. He also clarified the slide area will have to be removed and reconstructed to eliminate weaknesses, requiring taking the hill to the ` sheer plane and rebuilding. The area will be safer whereas if nothing is built, the bW owner will not be required to address the slide. Paul Freudenthal, project architect, noted at the last meeting they felt the Commission was sympathetic to the plan. He noted the engineering on the property is very thorough, and standards are far more restrictive currently than in the past. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Noel felt the lot was unbuildable with the level of development proposed. In response to a question from Commissioner Noel, Bill Ekern noted that it is possible to restructure the landslide through engineering, taking out the slide and addressing the subterranean water. Commissioner Comiso noted the project had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, but if it did not meet the requirements of the Town Geotechnical Consultant and Town Engineer, it could not be built. Chairman Jones clarified that if the applicant did all the geotechnical work and subsequently came back to the Commission for a site development permit, it might 16V not be approved even if geotechnically sound, after the applicant invested heavily. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED January 9, 1991 Law Page 4 Commissioner Carico noted she understood the additional 500 square feet of development was for a garage. Ann Jamison noted the Town was not responsible for enforcement of CC&R's. Commissioner Carico noted she would prefer to see the project redesigned to meet the 2400 square foot limitation without the garage, asking the homeowner's association responsible for the CC&R's to waive the garage. Bill McClure noted in speaking with residents he understood the Town doesn't want carports. He further noted getting 50% of the homeowners in the association to waive the garage would be difficult. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Comiso, seconded by Stutz and passed to approve the amendment to the CDP to allow 5,802 square feet of development area and 2,937 square feet of floor area and a Site Development Permit with Staff Recommended Conditions 1 - 10. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Comiso, Stutz NOES: Commissioners Carico, Noel ABSENT: Commissioners Ellinger, Pahl Chairman Jones noted Ann Jamison's resignation, thanking her for all her hard work and wishing her well in her future endeavors. 3.2 LANDS OF PULFORD, 25852 Westwind Way: A request for a variance to the 30 foot sideyard setback requirement and a Site Development Permit to allow construction of a second unit. Ann Jamison introduced this item, referring to the Staff Report and noting the 900 square foot second unit proposed complies with development area and floor area limitations of the Code. She noted Staff was unable to make findings to allow the unit in the proposed location. She also noted Staff's concern with the prominence of the building, 26' in height. Commissioner Comiso asked whether there was any discussion with Dr. Pulford regarding limiting the building to a single story. Ann Jamison responded she did not recall any, the discussion centered on the reason for the variance. The Public Hearing was opened. Dr. Pulford, applicant, noted he had received no objections and some encouragement from his neighbors, specifically from the adjacent neighbors, the Alfinitos, who wrote to the Commission in support of the proposal. Dr. Pulford explained moving the second unit 15 feet to the north makes it invisible from PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED January 9, 1991 L Page 5 Westwind Way and from the main house. He noted it would be visible from the Alfinito's property, but only for a short time until the trees on their property mature He clarified that he wished to build a two-story building to allow more space for a garden and so it wouldn't extend out into views from the Alfinitos and the main house. Commissioner Stutz noted the building site was on a hill and she felt a two-story building would stand out. She also noted vehicular access was from the opposite end of the property and questioned whether Dr. Pulford had considered building the second unit at the other end of the property. Dr. Pulford noted a building at the other end of the property would be visible from all six houses and from Westwind Way. The Public Hearing was closed Commissioner Comiso questioned if moving the house inside the setback would result in the slab being poured over the existing drainfield. Bill Ekern noted it ` would, but sanitary sewer was available. Dr. Pulford clarified that the cottage would be hooked to sewer, but the existing residence is not. Bill Ekern noted hooking to sewer was not required unless the septic system fails Commissioner Comiso noted she had difficulty with the cottage being two stories and was unable to make the first two necessary findings for a variance. Chairman Jones noted he was unable to make the findings for a variance as it would grant a privilege the neighbors aren't afforded and there is no hardship involved. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Carico, seconded by Noel and passed to deny the variance based on the inability to make the necessary findings. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Noel, Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Ellinger, Pahl The Commission discussed the request for a site development permit V PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED January 9, 1991 Page 6 Commissioner Stutz noted both houses should be required to connect to sewer. She suggested limiting the second unit to being no higher than the present house on the streetside to maintain the feeling of low -profile houses. Dr. Pulford noted he felt moving the second unit downhill would make it more obtrusive and he couldn't understand the reason for requiring an unappealing eyesore. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Stutz, seconded by Comiso and passed to deny the Site Development Permit without prejudice. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Noel, Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Ellinger, Pahl 4. NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Discussion of the process for projects resulting in impact to conservation easements. Ann Jamison requested direction from the Commission as to what constitutes an impact on a conservation easement and what kind of process is appropriate for Staff to take those projects through to make that determination. Barbara Tryon, Atherton Court, noted difficulties in getting a detaining pond approved on her property, which led to this issue coming before the Planning Commission. Ann Jamison noted Staff understood from the applicant's representative that the detaining pond was not intended to be considered at the Planning Commission Site Development meeting as Staff didn't have information on the extent of the work proposed. Mrs. Tryon stated neither she nor her representatives were aware the pond was to be pulled from Site Development. Mrs. Tryon noted she did not feel the pond was a major activity change as there is already water in the conservation easement and she felt the issue of "activity" was a technicality that should have been addressed at the Site Development meeting. Commissioner Carico noted that in the past, conservation easements were addressed individually and uses allowed varied by the particular conservation easement. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED January 9, 1991 kw Page 7 Commissioner Noel noted any water collected is an advantage to a property and he would not object to water in a conservation easement. Commissioner Comiso felt the Commission should look very carefully at each project to see if activity proposed in a conservation easement is going to protect or do harm to the easement. Chairman Jones noted the question of activity in the conservation easement could have been brought to the commissioners attention at the Planning Commission Site Development Committee meeting; if it was determined to be a major modification, it could have then been directed to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Noel noted he wished the Commission to concentrate on policy direction to Staff rather than discussion of specific projects. Commissioner Stutz noted the ordinance allows for the Planning Commission to determine whether to allow accessory structures and activities in a conservation easement with affirmation by the City Council. In response to a question from Commissioner Carico, Bill Ekern outlined Staff's concerns including engineering and damage downstream, impact on riparian rights and legal ramifications, and long term problems. He re -iterated that Staff believed the pond was not a part of the project to be reviewed at Site Development as it required additional information, and would have been directed to the Planning Commission level for review when more information was available. In response to a question from Commissioner Comiso, Bill Ekern clarified the jurisdiction of outside agencies, including Fish & Game, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and the Army Corp of Engineers. Commissioner Comiso noted that with the recommendations of the outside agencies, Staff should be able to determine if a project is going to have a significant impact on the land. If it has a significant impact, Staff could consider that an activity within a conservation easement that goes beyond the intention of a conservation easement. Bill Ekern clarified Staff's understanding of the Commission's direction. He noted if someone is going to do work that impacts a conservation easement, and Staff thinks it requires outside agency review, Staff will request the agencies' review. If the review comes back positive, and Staff believes that based on the positive feedback that it does not constitute an activity because it is a negligible impact, then Staff can make that administrative decision. If someone is doing work in a conservation easement, Staff is precluded by the ordinance from allowing that. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED January 9, 1991 Page 8 4.2 Selection of a subcommittee to review the fence ordinance. Commissioner Stutz volunteered, noting she was on the original subcommittee for the fence ordinance. Commissioner Comiso noted she would be interested in serving on the subcommittee. Commissioner Carico noted a majority of the councilmembers felt the fence ordinance did not warrant reconsideration. Ann Jamison clarified there would be no Staff assistance to this subcommittee per the City Council. Commissioner Stutz noted only a couple of Planning Commissioners thought the ordinance should be reviewed, and suggested putting it off until Fall. Commissioner Comiso felt the fence ordinance should be looked at but should be undertaken at a time when Staff assistance was available. 4.3 Appointment of two Commissioners to attend a Subdivision Committee meeting on January 15, 1991. Commissioners Comiso and Noel volunteered to attend the meeting. 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Update on the activities of the General Plan Housing and Mineral Resource subcommittees. Housing: Commissioner Stutz reported the subcommittee had not met since the last report. Mineral Resource: Commissioner Comiso reported the subcommittee met with Mayor Siegel. Ann Jamison noted she had received and distributed to the Commission a document from the State regarding general plan compilation. `7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED January 9, 1991 Page 9 6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12TH, 1990 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Noel, seconded by Comiso, and passed by consensus to approve the minutes of December 12th, 1990. 7. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 19TH, 1990 AND JANUARY 8TH, 1991 December 9, 1990: Chairman Jones noted Commissioner Comiso wished to give her report at a later meeting. January 8, 1991: Chairman Jones reported both public hearings, LANDS OF FINN and LANDS OF LIU were continued. He noted the City Council requested a volunteer from the Planning Commission to serve on the Citizen Advisory Committee to the Urban County Community Development Block Grant program. Former Planning Commission Chair Emling had indicated at the Council meeting his willingness to serve. ( Commissioner Comiso volunteered to serve. Chairman Jones noted there was discussion of mailboxes on Magdalena Avenue and the Council discussed photo montage at the Site Analysis level. 8. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF TANUARY 8TH, 1991 January 8th, 1991: Ann Jamison reported one item was reviewed and approved: Nakao - Landscape plantings. Some additional planting of large trees was required 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Comiso, seconded by Stutz and approved by consensus to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura Johnson Planning Secretary