Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/08/1992r�•rc� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY STH, 1992 cc: Cassette #1-92 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Noel called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Noel and Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Jones, Pahl Absent: Commissioners Cheng, Stutz Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Laura Johnson, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR There were no presentations from the floor. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Disclosures: Commissioner Jones noted he had seen the applicant on the Lands of Colby, but had not spoken with him. 3.1 LANDS OF COLBY, 26463 Aric Lane: A request for a Site Development permit for a Second Unit, Swimming Pool, and Decking Linda Niles introduced this item, noting it conforms to the zoning code, is proposed to match the existing dwelling, and includes the required on-site parking space. Some additional landscaping may be necessary for mitigation. The second unit will connect to sewer. Ms. Niles noted that as originally submitted, the proposed second unit was over the 1000 square foot limitation. She noted the City Engineer recommended four additional conditions: first, requiring extension of the flat grade two feet beyond the pool decking; second requiring slope stabilization; third, requiring that grading cut and fill amounts be shown on the plans; and fourth, that the drainage plan be submitted for the review and approval of the City Engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED January 8th, 1992 Page 2 The Public Hearing was opened John Matthews, project architect, explained he had learned on Thursday that Staff's measurement of the floor area was over the 1000 square foot limit, as it is Town policy to count development with three sides and a roof into the floor area measurement of a structure. He was unaware that the area at the entrance counted into the floor area, and noted that from their standpoint the building is 960 square feet. He noted this policy was not written down and they might have pursued a different design had they been aware this was the standard. Ms. Niles noted she had researched the issue and this had been policy since before the Town's planning consultants had been retained over three years ago. Commissioner Pahl noted that 1000 square feet was the maximum allowed for a second unit. If an area is covered by three sides, it acts like a structure and is easy to fill in. Mr. Matthews noted the policy encourages a dull design. He explained that the issue in designing the house was not how to maximize space, but how to use the space. 4W He felt the original design was interesting, and sympathetic with the main structure. He noted he would accept the plan before the Commission, modified to conform to the 1000 square foot limitation, but suggested it would be fair to approve the second unit as originally proposed. Commissioner Jones questioned whether the entrance area was enclosed on three sides. Ms. Niles clarified that to consider the second unit as originally submitted, not counting the indented area of the structure as floor area, it is necessary to review the enforcement of policies. Even though the policy was not written down, it has been enforced for more than three years. She suggested it may be necessary to get policies into written form. Ms. Niles noted Staff makes every effort to ensure applicants are aware of Town policies. Commissioner Ellinger defined floor area as that area contained within a taut string stretched around the building. He felt the policy for counting floor area makes a rectangular or rounded building the best design and it does encourage dull design. Mr. Matthews noted he had read and had no problems with the Staff Recommended Conditions of Approval, including those recommended by the City Engineer. k PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED January 8th, 1992 4W Page 3 In response to a question from Commissioner Ellinger, Mr. Matthews noted possibilities for decreasing the floor area of the second unit included shaving off the bay windows or area from the back. He noted he was trying to avoid square rooms. He confirmed that the general shape of the structure will stay the same. The Public Hearing was closed. The Commission discussed whether the indented area at the front of the second unit was enclosed area. Commissioner Comiso noted concern that the Commission would be doing something for one applicant that has not been done for others previously in not counting this area. Whether or not the policy is correct, it has been enforced. Commissioner Jones noted he specifically did not wish to overturn policy, but felt it did not apply in this case. Commissioner Ellinger noted that if this was an open, pergola type roof, the area would not count as floor area. Ms. Niles confirmed this, noting this had been 6, proposed to the applicant but they wish to cover over the patio area. Commissioner Pahl noted the issue should be looked at without being site specific, not with an application before the Commission. He was receptive to considering policy at a future Planning Commission meeting. He noted the applicant did have the option of withdrawing the application while the Commission looked at the policy. Commissioner Jones felt that in this case, the policy is inapplicable. It is like a variance with a finding. Because of the angles in the building, the policy does not apply. He also felt the policy should be agendized for consideration. Commissioner Ellinger felt the policy did not apply. In reviewing most new residences, the Commission has not looked specifically at each concavity to determine whether it is enclosed or not. Because of the size of this project, the issue comes to light. If the policy is to be applied as a taut line rule, it would be necessary to go back and look at all the 'U' shaped homes as they have eaves. Linda Niles noted that the roof area proposed over the indented area is much more substantial than an eave. Eaves are not counted in the floor area. This area is counted because it is more easily enclosed since the roof is of the same construction as the main roof. She noted that as the policy has been applied to other projects with unusual angles, Staff has counted anything that has a roof that goes to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED January 8th, 1992 Page 4 exteriors of the walls as floor area. Staff felt it was appropriate to review the policy, however not at this point in the application. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Jones, seconded by Ellinger and failed to deem that because of the 45 degree angles, this indentation in the building is not enclosed area on this plan. AYES: Commissioners Ellinger, Jones NOES: Chairman Noel and Commissioners Comiso, Pahl ABSENT: Commissioners Cheng, Stutz Commissioner Pahl referred to the City Engineer's recommended condition that cut and fill amounts be included on the plans, noting the Commission had requested cut and fill amounts on the plans, however as a requirement, it has not been uniformly enforced. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Jones and passed to approve the Site Development permit for a second unit, swimming pool, and decking with the following conditions: 1. The site drainage must be designed to meet the goal of reducing the rate of run off associated with the proposed development, to be submitted for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Fire retardant roofing is recommended. 3. Paint color shall match the existing or alternatives (non -reflective earthtones) shall be approved by Staff in conformance with the Town's adopted color board. 4. Prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits a landscape planting plan must be submitted to and approved by the Site Development Committee. Drought tolerant and native plantings are recommended. Additional planting is required to adequately screen the solar panels from Aric Lane and existing residences adjacent to the subject site. 5. No trees are shown to be removed from the site, and if any are damaged beyond repair or destroyed they shall be replaced with an equal size tree up to a maximum 24' box size tree. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees are to be fenced at the dripline. The fencing shall be of a material and structure to clearly delineate the dripline and approved by Staff. This fencing must be inspected by Town Staff prior to commencement of 4r grading. The fence must remain throughout the course of construction. No PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED January 8th, 1992 L Page 5 storage of equipment, vehicles, or debris shall be allowed within the driplines of these trees. 6. The location of the foundation is to be certified in writing by a registered Civil Engineer or licensed Land Surveyor as being in the approved location and elevation established by this permit. 7. Skylights shall be constructed to reduce emitted light. 8. Repair any pathway damage prior to release of any building permit finals. 9. A minimum of 2 feet of flat grade shall be required outside the edge of the pool pavers before beginning the proposed 2:1 slope shown on the north and west sides of the pool. 10. Jute netting and plantings for slope stabilization shall be reviewed and approved by Staff and shall be installed prior to final inspection of the pool and decking. AYES: Chairman Noel and Commissioners Ellinger, Comiso, Jones, Pahl 4, NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cheng, Stutz Commissioner Ellinger noted the Staff Recommended Conditions of Approval for this project were a model of standard conditions and he would like to see them drafted and distributed to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Pahl noted that he would like to see MDA and MFA numbers and actual development area and floor area on plans, as well as cut and fill amounts. Ms. Niles clarified that the MDA and MFA amounts calculated by Staff do generally differ slightly from those supplied by applicants, but these minute changes could be shown in the Staff Report. 4. NEW BUSINESS 4.1 County Referral, Lands of Lyons, 15833 Stonebrook Drive: A request to Santa Clara County to allow a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 27 feet to 20 feet for an addition to an existing residence Linda Niles introduced this item noting the existing residence has a 23' 3" setback where the applicant is requesting to convert a garage to a studio/bath and darkroom. The proposed addition will make the setback 20 feet, not in conformance with the 4V County's 27 foot required setback or the Town's 30 foot required setback. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED January 8th, 1992 t Page 6 Commissioner Jones noted he questioned whether this would require a variance in Los Altos Hills as the floor is proposed to be six feet below grade. Ms. Niles clarified that a retaining wall is proposed only on the north side of the addition. Commissioner Pahl felt the subject property should not be annexed, and noted the existing residence was already closer to the property lines than is allowed by current Town ordinance. Commissioner Comiso noted annexation would bring a lot with a Lot Unit Factor of .77 into the Town. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Comiso and passed to recommend that this item be required to develop under County guidelines and that no variance be allowed that does not conform to County requirements. AYES: Chairman Noel and Commissioners Ellinger, Comiso, Jones, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cheng, Stutz 5. OLD BUSINESS _ Commissioner Pahl noted he had spoken with Mayor Hubbard regarding Sun County Cable. Mayor Hubbard would bring up to the Council that the Commission was waiting for input in regard to Sun Country on what to do with an applicant who builds something different than the Planning Commission approved project. In response to a question from Commissioner Pahl regarding the fence ordinance, Linda Niles noted Staff was working on this item. Commissioner Pahl noted the Commission had given some direction to Staff for a draft ordinance. 6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11TH 1991 Commissioner Jones wished to amend on page 4, on the second vote, that he voted 'no'. The 'aye' vote should be attributed to Commissioner Ellinger. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Comiso, seconded by Jones, and passed to approve the minutes of December 11th, 1991 as amended. 7. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 18TH, 1991 Commissioner Jones reported the City Council denied the LANDS OF MERRILL request for a tentative map for a two lot subdivision and directed that it return PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED January 8th, 1992 Page 7 directly to Council when resubmitted. LANDS OF BEN ARTZI, request for a new residence, tennis court, and swimming pool, was denied. LANDS OF FORWARD, request for a variance for a fence was denied with a 2:2 vote. A new member, Muriel Knudsen, was appointed to the Pathways, Recreation, and Parks Committee. Council also addressed compensation. 8. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 31ST 1991 AND JANUARY 7TH, 1992 December 31st, 1991: Linda Niles reported one item was reviewed and approved: Yue - Tennis Court, Landscaping. Landscaping was approved. The tennis court was continued to allow staff review of the noise report, a subdivision condition requiring noise mitigation, to determine whether the noise berm was required to be maintained or whether there were other options available. January 7th, 1992: One item was reviewed and approved: Mooring - Landscaping (for cottage). Drainage conditions were added. Commissioner Pahl noted concern regarding construction fencing not being in place 40the required for a property on Simon Lane. Ms. Niles noted she would confer with the building official. 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Comiso, seconded by Jones and passed by consensus to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura Johnson Planning L04