Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/27/1991APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27TH, 1991 cc: Cassette #5-91 (1) and 5-91 (2) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Ellinger, Noel, Pahl Commissioner Ellinger left the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Absent: Commissioner Stutz Staff: Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works; Margaret Netto, Planning Consultant; Laura Johnson, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Mary Compton, 27855 Via Ventana, noted concerns with rain water resulting in mud flowing down residents' driveways, requesting Sun Country Cable be asked to tamp dirt and replace gravel from undergrounding of cable on Via Ventana. Chairman Jones requested Staff contact Sun Country to address the problem. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Jones removed item 3.3 Approval of the Minutes of March 13th, 1991, to follow Report from the Site Development Committee on the agenda. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Comiso and passed by consensus to approve the balance of the consent calendar, specifically: 3.1 LANDS OF MALEK, Buena Vista Drive, APN 182-29-034: Acceptance of an application for a tentative subdivision map. 3.2 LANDS OF CIRCLE, 26541 Taaffe Road: Acceptance of an application for a tentative subdivision map. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS �W Planning Commission Disclosures: Chairman Jones apologized to Mr. Wong for not be able to keep a meeting with him. Commissioner Carico noted she had been Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 27th, 1991 Page 2 �w on the Wong site more than once in the past, but had not visited it for this application. Commissioner Noel noted he spoke with Mr. Wong. 4.1 LANDS OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS (Sun Country Cable), PUTissima Road at Viscaino Road: Review of Site Development Permit Condition #1. Commissioner Noel wished to raised the question of whether, as the only Planning Commissioner with cable service, he should abstain from voting on this issue. Bill Ekern introduced this item, referring to the Staff Report, noting the Site Development permit condition regarding color. The Public Hearing was opened. Brett Fontes, manager, Sun Country Cable, clarified that because of concerns of the arborist regarding the foundation of the tower initially proposed, Sun Country amended the tower with Town Staff approval to a monopole design to enable it to remain within the confinement of the Oak trees. He noted the monopole was oxidizing and would continue to do so. He also noted he doubted that any paint job could make it disappear into its surroundings. In response to a question from Commissioner Pahl regarding the -tv" type antennas at the top of the tower, Mr. Fontes clarified that the antennas are commercial use antennas, a larger version of a home antenna, with specific types for specific channel reception capabilities. Commissioner Ellinger asked if Sun Country would consider a sleeker cross arm. Mr. Fontes noted that the tower was mounted according to the manufacturers' recommendations and specifically for Sun Country. He noted they would be willing to consider changes to the tower, but that there had been large investments of time and money on the existing tower, including installation of landscaping that would be impacted by construction equipment. The Public Hearing was closed. Chairman Jones noted he felt Condition #5 of the Conditional Use Permit, that structures would require a Site Development permit, had never been satisfied with respect to the tower. Bill Ekern noted the tower is technically exempt from review by the Commission. He noted the issue of the antenna was addressed with the landscape review at which time the impact and mitigation of the tower, including color, was discussed. Commissioner Noel noted Sun Country had made regular presentations to the City �w Council. He also noted Sun Country had worked with Staff to make changes beyond Planning Commission Minutes March 27th, 1991 Page 3 APPROVED the mitigations suggested by the Planning Commission and he couldn't see making any changes at this time. Bill Ekern clarified that the tower redesign was a staff level approval based on preference for the potential of more visibility with the monopole rather than damage to the Oak trees. The issue had not been required to go to the City Council. Commissioner Pahl noted his main concern was the cross beam. He felt that what was constructed looked very different from six "tv" type antennas he had envisioned, and noted concerns with visibility of the structure. Commissioner Corniso noted agreement with Commissioner Pahl. She felt the impact of the tower wouldn't fade and noted she would not have voted for this tower until mitigation was addressed. Commissioner Ellinger outlined issues of consideration, including color and galvanization, specific design, height, existing trees and landscaping, safety of neighbors and ballfield users, and design choice for the site. He felt Sun Country had satisfied what was required at the time, but suggested that it was reasonable to make changes that were not severely disruptive to users and economically. Chairman Jones noted he would have voted 'no' on the CUP if he had been aware the tower would look as it does now. In response to a question from Commissioner Carico, Bill Ekern clarified that if the Commission felt the antenna design was not acceptable, that could be transmitted to the City Council. He noted Sun Country's willingness to work with the Town. Brett Fontes noted Sun Country's willingness to review the tower. Commissioner Pahl noted he felt it was in Sun Country and the Town's best interest to see if the tower can be altered technologically. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Comiso to review the design of the antennas and top structure of the tower at Staff and Sun Country's earliest opportunity. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Ellinger, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Stutz ABSTAIN: Commissioner Noel (from voting only) Chairman Jones appointed Commissioners Pahl, Ellinger and Comiso to address kW these issues of the tower with Sun Country and Staff. Planning Commission Minutes March 27th, 1991 Page 4 APPROVED �w 4.2 LANDS OF WONG, 11675 Dawson Drive: A request for a variance to the maximum development area for deck construction. Bill Ekern introduced this item, referring to the Staff Report and noting Staff recommended denial due to inability to make the required findings. In response to a question from Commissioner Comiso, Bill Ekern clarified requirements of the urgency ordinance enacted in 1987. The Public Hearing was opened. Winston Wong, 11675 Dawson Drive, noted the house had no useable outdoor area. He had taken drawings of the proposed decking to show to his neighbors who were in support of the application. Mr. Wong distributed a letter signed by neighboring property owners. Commissioner Ellinger asked if the Town Planner ever indicated there was no limit on floor area allowed. Mr. Wang responded that he was told he could build a specific amount. Commissioner Ellinger asked if the real estate agent ever indicated there was a limit. Mr. Wong noted that it was sufficient to satisfy his family's needs. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Carico questioned whether there was any removal of existing development area since the Wong's last application. Bill Ekern responded no development area was removed. Mr. Ekern clarified that the 7,000 square feet of floor area allowed by the urgency ordinance was not generated arithmetically, but was a grandfathered number for a lot created prior to a certain date. Commissioner Comiso noted she felt the house was left unfinished as there was no useable outdoor living space. She felt a future owner would request development area for decking, noting there were at least six variances approved since 1987 using findings of liveable outdoor space, including Lands of Chang, September 1987 and Lands of Newsome, March 1988. Commissioner Comiso suggested findings for the variance. Commissioner Pahl proposed a supplement to approval of the variance: That if the variance is granted, the applicant be advised that there is no more floor or development area on the property so the applicant understands the property is built out. Commissioner Noel noted that common sense suggested that the Wong's do need help with an extra ordinary situation. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 27th, 1991 Page 5 Mr. Ekern requested clarification that a property owner's creation of a situation can provide finding for a variance. Town ordinance specifies that it has to be something not of the applicant's own making. At the time the house was built, discussion did occur regarding outside living space, the decision was made and Staff and the Site Development Committee were told that it was not an issue, that the design of the house was of concern rather than the future clevelopability of the lot. He noted the Commission was required by law and by ordinance to look at the constraints imposed by the land itself on development. Commissioner Comiso noted that the Wongs were allowed to keep the doors that opened out into air. Bill Ekern responded the house was redesigned several times and that was a Building department decision. The Commission never looked at window and door placements when reviewing a Site Development permit. Commissioner Comiso noted she is always careful to look at provisions for outdoor living space. She also noted that the house would have to be cut down quite a bit to make useable space other than decking. Bill Ekern responded that it was a design issue and did not speak to the land. Commissioner Carico noted that the development area on the property was built out and the owners were told that no findings could be made to provide for more development area. Commissioner Ellinger noted the applicant needed some sort of solution, but voting in favor could create a precedence to allow all properties built to the maximum allowance to build more based on hardship. Commissioner Noel noted this was an extraordinary situation could not be extended to the entire town. Commissioner Pahl noted the property was developed when an urgency ordinance was in effect. Noting the cost of redesign, he felt it was likely that instead of redoing the project when the ordinance went into effect, the applicant just chopped off the deck to work within the ordinance. He felt it was not inconsistent in that the unusual circumstance was the timing of the application. Commissioner Carico noted that at the time the project was approved, people building out their property were told they would not be able to have any walkways, etc. She suggested that chopping away at the ordinance without changing the ordinances is changing the look of the Town and the Commission must let Staff know the ordinances are going to be upheld. Chairman Jones noted he didn't see how the Town could prevent anyone from #6W continuing to apply for variances. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 27th, 1991 Page 6 Commissioner Pahl noted the intent was to send a message as loudly as possible and hope that it provides guidance to the future. Commissioner Ellinger noted that if the Commission was obligated to uphold the law, it could vote against the request and refer it to the City Council without prejudice. Bill Ekern noted the City Council would ask the Planning Commission to make a planning decision. If the applicant is not satisfied with the decision, the applicant has the option to proceed to the City Council. Chairman Jones noted it was very well for Staff to say they could not make findings for a variance. Findings must be persuasive to the Commission, not just to Staff. Commissioner Comiso noted that at the time of site development the commissioners can make sure there is area for outdoor living space. Bill Ekern noted the Town cannot dictate how an applicant uses development area. Chairman Jones noted each land use decision was individual and the Commission was not setting a precedent by approving one variance request. Commissioner Carico noted that as a Planning Commissioner she could say that there was five people on the Commission who would look on such a request favorably so people can build out to a property's maximum development area. Chairman Jones noted that a sequence of events might be used to justify a finding Commissioner Ellinger questioned whether there was a mechanism to ensure provision of living space. Commissioner Pahl suggested that when a house is built, upwards of 10 or 15% of development area could be preserved for future development. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Comiso, seconded by Noel to approve the requested 546 square foot variance to allow the addition of decking, based on the following findings #1 and #2, and with findings 3 and 4: Finding #1: This lot was subdivided, sold, and plans designed under ordinances and rules that do not apply today. An MFA, as known, did not exist. The hardships and confusion of redesign and delays therefore were not of the applicant's own making but due to the confusion caused by the urgency ordinance and the Site Development process in effect at the time this application was being processed. The Site Development Committee neglected to insure that useable outdoor living space was included on this property. Strict application of the ordinance would prevent this �W house from having outdoor living space. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 27th, 1991 Page 7 �W Finding #2: In granting this variance, the intent and purpose of the ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding areas. Reasonable outdoor living areas and decks are enjoyed by others in the area, as well as throughout Town. The intent of the MFA criteria is to limit the bulkiness of structures. Additions of decks and eaves has been proved to decrease the appearance of bulkiness therefore the intent and purpose of the ordinance is served. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Noel, Pahl NOES: Commissioner Carico ABSENT: Commissioner Stutz The Planning Commission had a brief intermission and resumed at 9:15 p.m. 4.3 Adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 1 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) to clarify Article 4 (nonconforming uses and structures). Bill Ekern introduced this item, noting the recommendation of the subcommittee on Rebuilding and Building Out and Council's request for Planning Commission consideration of this issue. 6W The Public Hearing was opened. Dan Seidel, 26642 Purissima Road, noted he felt it was not appropriate to allow a change in use of a nonconforming structure to a different use as each has different impacts. He suggested that the Commission should only consider allowing a variance when there is no other way to address a problem. Timothy Tang, 26638 Purissima Road, noted that change of use of a nonconforming structure was an important factor that should be considered as each use does not have an equal impact on the neighbors. He noted it will be very difficult, if the Town continues to be too sympathetic, to maintain the uniqueness of Los Altos Hills. Chairman Jones noted there would be definitional problems with defining uses. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Pahl noted that it was not possible to define every potential change of use as there would be the problem that because the ordinance is exclusive, it becomes inclusive of changes not defined. #4bW Commissioner Comiso suggested consideration of change of use by a specific governing body. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 27th, 1991 Page 8 �W Bill Ekern noted the ordinance as structured today does not require a Site Development permit or building permit for any of the changes Chairman Jones noted concerns regarding not allowing preservation of structures that weren't legal when built and how to tell when they were built. Bill Ekern noted it gave the Town the opportunity for verification of predating ordinances or that work was done with a permit if a building looks new. Commissioner Pahl noted the burden of proof would be on the city to make the claim that the structure was not built legally when constructed. Commissioner Carico noted she preferred an ordinance that allowed no change in use in any nonconforming structure. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Carico to recommend to the City Council adoption of the ordinance with the following modifications and with the provision that the Planning Commission act as the reviewing body for change in use: Section 1, 10-1.401 Nonconforming structures. The provisions of this Chapter shall not prevent the reconstruction, repairing or rebuilding of any legal nonconforming structure, so long as the reconstruction, repair or rebuilding does not result in an �hlr increase in the non -conformity [or change of use in the non -conformity] that existed prior to the damage or reconstruction. Section 3, 10-1.406 Nonconforming Uses: Maintenance. Such repairs and maintenance as are required to keep it in sound condition may be made to a structure occupied by a legal nonconforming use; provided, however, no structural alterations [or change of use in the nonconformity] shall be made except as required by law on ordinance or authorized by the Planning commission by a conditions use permit. AYES: Chairman Jones and Commissioners Carloo, Comiso, Noel, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Ellinger, Stutz 5. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Jones referred to a letter from Dr. Raffin regarding water that each commissioner had received. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Jones and passed by consensus to refer the letter to the City Council requesting its consideration. #41W Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 27th, 1991 Page 9 kw Bill Ekern noted he received a request from a resident to cut a fire break and requested direction from the Commission regarding the level of review it should proceed to. He noted the breaks generally run 200 to 300 feet in length and about 15 to 20 feet wide, moving about 1000 yards of material. In response to a question from Commissioner Comiso, Bill Ekern clarified the fees for a Staff level review of grading would be approximately a $100.00 dollar fee and $200.00 deposit. Commissioner Pahl noted concern that a property owner would cut a firebreak and then put down tar to prevent re -growth. He noted appreciation of residents who come in to work with Staff and suggested requiring the minimal amount of information to allow Staff to make a decision, not engineering drawings, etc. Mary Compton, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, noted the Committee discussed the potential for crisis with the freeze and drought and new vegetation growth. She suggested it may even be necessary to require firebreaks, noting her experience living in southern California where the fire department would cut mandatory fire breaks and charge the property owner. Chairman Jones noted that if a project did need to be engineered, Staff should not hesitate to require it. Bill Ekern noted Staff concern with setback requirements for ingress/egress easements on properties with driveway easements on three or four sides of the property. The Commission agreed by consensus to request Staff agendize the issue for Planning Commission discussion under Old Business. Bill Ekem recommended that new residences would benefit by more analysis at a public hearing at the Planning Commission level, providing an open ended time frame for discussion. He noted this would address Commissioner Ellinger's concern that applicants see conditions regarding a project before it is approved. The Commission discussed scheduling and agreed to consider new residences at public hearings at the Planning Commission level. Commissioner Carico suggested starting Site Development at 6:30 or 7:00. Bill Ekern responded that Staff had concerns that the committee's time would be too limited but if larger projects were reviewed at the Planning Commission level, less time would need to be allotted for Planning Commission Site Development. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 27th, 1991 Page 10 4AW 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Update on the activities of the General Plan Housing and Mineral Resource subcommittees. Housing: Bill Ekern noted he met with the City Manager to consider interns to assist the housing subcommittee. Mineral Resources: Commissioner Comiso noted their document would be delivered to Town Hall presently. 7. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 20TH, 1991 Commissioner Noel reported the Council approved the deletion of the words "prairie style" for lots #16 and #18 of the Matadero Creek Subdivision Conditions of Approval. No conclusion was reached regarding the conservation easement on the LANDS OF ESHNER and LANDS OF PACKARD; it was up to the applicant of LANDS OF ESHNER whether to proceed with an EIR. Mr. Micko requested the Council consider setting up a study session; the Council declined to proceed with a less than one acre proposal. 8. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF 4ar MARCH 19TH AND 26TH, 1991 March 19th, 1991: Bill Ekern reported one item was reviewed and approved: Savoie - Landscape plantings. The propane tank was required to be mitigated from views. March 26th, 1991: Bill Ekern reported two items were reviewed and approved: Murthy - Swimming pool. No deck drains were allowed. Ungermann - driveway modification. Chairman Jones noted, under LANDS OF YU, the opening of the Public Hearing should be after the Staff Report. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Noel and passed by consensus, with Commissioner Carico abstaining, to approve the minutes of March 13th, 1991 as amended. 9. ADJOURNMEN The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura Johnson, Planning Secretary