Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/1992APPROVED Minutes of a Regular Meeting �w Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION January 22nd, 1992, 7:30 P.M. mbers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: cassette Sz-7z 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 Cheng, Comiso, Jones, Pahl Absent: Commissioner Ellinger, 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: Commissioners Jones and Comiso both noted they had spoken with the applicant's builder. 3.1 LANDS OF BIRNBAUM, 27760 Edgerton Road: A request for a Site Development permit for an Addition Linda Niles introduced this item, clarifying that the total square footage that will encroach into the setback is 38 square feet, including the eaves. She noted that the applicant had obtained Planning Commission approval for an addition and when the foundation location was surveyed, as required by the conditions of approval for the addition, it was noted that a portion of the new foundation encroached into the setback. The applicant brought this to the attention of the Town. The variance request was not reviewed at an administrative level as at the time the request was made, the applicant's representative did not have findings to support the request and it is Staff's policy to recommend denial unless there are extreme circumstances. After visiting the site, and with the findings in the Staff Report, Staff recommended approval with the following Finding 1: Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 22, 1992 Page 2 Finding 1: That, because of exceptional circumstances applicable to the subject site, being the considerable number of existing significant trees on the site, and the fact that the house was designed and constructed to maintain the existing trees, there was limited area for the minimal 589 square foot addition to be placed. The addition was designed to be added at a location that would not impact the trees, and would fit appropriately into the existing design of the house. The encroachment of 38 square feet is minimal and allows for the preservation of all significant trees on the site. Therefore, the approval of the variance will allow the applicant to enjoy the privilege of a minor addition to an existing single family dwelling on a substantially constrained site. Finding 2: That upon granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of this Title will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners because a modest addition of this sort is not unusual and has been designed to be compatible with the existing structure and adequately screened from the neighborhood while maintaining all existing significant trees. Finding 3: That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district, since the minor E encroachment of 16' is situated on the site in a location and design that substantially �r blends with the existing structure and is adequately screened from the roadway by existing landscaping up near the road, and the fact that the dwelling is set below the road by approximately 11 feet. Finding 4: That the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not expressly authorized by the Zoning District regulations governing the parcel of property, since the proposed addition is associated with a single family residential use and the subject site is zoned for single family residential development. The Public Hearing was opened. Safwat Malek, project architect, introduced Mrs. Birnbaum and noted their willingness to answer any questions the Commission had. In response to a question from Commission Pahl, Mr. Malek explained that they had used as -built plans which showed that the addition was well within the setback; this was an error on their part. Commissioner Jones asked whether this situation could have been avoided by requirement of a survey before and a survey after the foundation was poured. Mr. Malek responded positively. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 22, 1992 Page 3 Commissioner Comiso wished to know whether a survey had been required on any of the other projects Mr. Malek had done in the Town. Mr. Malek noted he had been before the Commission several times but had not been required to undertake a survey on any of the projects. He noted that for a new residence or a major addition, they would have done a survey beforehand. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, Chair - Pathways Committee, addressed the Commission. It was noted that the pathway easement was located on lot 9, the property adjacent to the subject property. Ms. Schreiner noted she had spoken with the contractor and believed the leachlines would not impact the pathway. She also wished to let the applicant know that Edgerton Road and Matadero Creek area paths would be the first marked with the new City Council approved markers. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Pahl noted this situation should not happen again. He felt the building setbacks are inviolable and are one of the reasons people choose to live in the Town. He noted the variance findings suggested by Staff and by the applicant were erroneous as the subject property was not unique in Los Altos Hills, and he proposed findings. Commissioner Pahl stressed that support of this application should not be construed as a positive vote on any future variance applications. Chairman Noel noted he was not aware of many other properties with so many trees. He felt that placing the addition in and around the trees on the site showed the applicant's good faith. Commissioner Jones noted he would not have voted for a variance if the foundation had not already been poured. He felt there was hardship involved with this particular application, time and aggravation as well as economic hardship, and noted he would have made findings on this basis. Commissioner Jones also felt this was an issue of good faith and as the foundation was poured inadvertently, he could vote positively on this variance. Commissioner Comiso noted all residences that come within ten feet of the setback should be looked at. Linda Niles clarified that it is a requirement on the checklist for submittal of applications. She noted it is not appropriate for an application to go through without a survey unless the work is in the middle of the property. Commissioner Pahl noted that as surveys are expensive he felt that as long as there was knowledge of where the property line is, granting approval subject to verification in the field is acceptable. He suggested modification to the standard condition of approval requiring setback to be verified after foundations are poured 41 and prior to framing to requiring a survey prior to issuance of a building permit. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 22, 1992 Page 4 Commissioner Comiso noted the location of the property lines was not in question when the addition for the subject property was reviewed and approved. Commissioner Jones suggested rewriting the condition to require a survey prior to beginning construction if the property was not surveyed at the time the application is made. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Comiso and passed to approve the Variance to the frontyard setback requirement based on the following findings: Finding 1: Not based on Staff findings but on the fact that the applicant in good faith followed the Commission's recommendations, findings, and conditions for this development. That in good faith they inadvertently poured a foundation consistent with their application which encroaches into the setback. That it is a minor variance and unique in the situation where the particular landowner understood they were acting within our ordinances and under the approved application. That the design is a good design properly utilizing the property and maintaining the existing foliage. Finding 2: The intent and purpose of the applicable sections of this Title will still be served... Finding 3: That it won't be materially detrimental to the public welfare, in fact it will improve the public welfare because of the design of the structure... Finding 4: That the variance will not authorize a use which is not expressly authorized... The rationale behind this variance should not in any way be construed as an indication that similar applications coming before this particular Commission in the future will be met with the same approval. AYES: Chairman Noel and Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Jones, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Ellinger, Stutz 3.2 LANDS OF LIU, 26751 Almaden Court: A request for a Site Development permit for a New Residence and Swimming Pool This item was continued at the request of Staff, with the agreement of the applicant, to allow Staff and the applicant to clarify some drainage design issues prior to review by the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1992 Page 5 4. NEW BUSINESS APPROVED Commissioner Pahl referred to the Standard Conditions of Approval distributed to the Commission to suggest the following corrections: Conditions #4, remove site specific verbiage; clarify that Conditions 6, 7, 8 apply if appropriate to the project and site. He noted Condition 6 should not apply for properties with projects being remodeled in the middle of the property, where they can't come anywhere near the setbacks. 5. OLD BUSINESS In response to a question from Commissioner Pahl, Ms. Niles noted Mayor Hubbard had brought up Commissioner Pahl's comments regarding the tower design at the head -end site for Sun Country Cable. The City Manager is working on a range of issues with Sun Country, and will take Commissioner Pahl's comments under advisement. The Commission discussed concerns regarding the tower design. Commissioner Comiso noted she took exception to the idea that there was not another design that would produce the same reception that was better than the existing crossbar. Commissioner Pahl felt the Town must have been deliberately defrauded as Sun Country Cable obtained Planning Commission approval, then modified the design in the field without returning to the Commission to say it had to be modified for reception. He clarified that while Staff had approved a modification of the pole, from triangular to cylindrical, Staff did not approve the design of the crossbar that was constructed. In response to a question from Commissioner Jones regarding utility lines at Tracy Court, Linda Niles gave a brief history. She noted that the Town was not agreeable to moving the lines along the roadway, but in conjunction with the City of Palo Alto had outlined alternatives and were awaiting the Carnes' response. She clarified that moving the utility lines would be at the Carnes' expense. 6. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY STH, 1992 Commissioner Pahl wished to amend the minutes to state on page 5, prior to New Business: "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..." MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Comiso, seconded by Pahl, and passed by consensus to approve the minutes of January 8th, 1992. LIM Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 1992 Page 6 APPROVED 7. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 8TH 1992 8. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE There were no meetings on January 14th or 21st, 1992. 9. ADJOURNMENT MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Comiso, seconded by Jones and passed by consensus to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura Johnson Planning