Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/24/1992APPROVED Minutes of a Regular Meeting 4r► Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Council cc: Cass June 24, 1992, 7:30 P.M. mbers, 26379 Fremont Road Chairman Noel called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Noel and Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Jones, Pahl, & Stutz Absent: Cheng Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR There were no presentations from the floor. None 4.1 LANDS OF RATNAM, 13408 Middle Fork Lane: A request for a Site Development Permit for a Landscape Plan and Paint Color; continued from June 10, 1992 meeting. Linda Niles introduced this item, noting this was continued from June 10 to allow applicant to meet with Environmental Design and Protection Committee, Staff and neighbors. The neighbors were contacted about the site meeting, however, they could not make it. Mrs. Palmissano, over the phone, gave some information and requests to consider. Neighbor on other side did not come. The EDPC submitted a letter which is included in staff report dated 6/13/92. Mrs. Palmissano had concerns regarding adding a few trees and changing a species proposed on the north side of the lot. Mrs. Ramam had no problems with the changes proposed by Mrs. Palmissano. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 24, 1992 Page 2 Ruth Buneman, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, stated that unless anyone had any questions regarding any of those items, she saw no need for further discussion. Commissioner Ellinger questioned whether the applicant submitted a request for a variance. Ms. Niles stated that if the applicant were to propose the fountain larger than 4' where it is shown on the plan he would need a variance to encroach into the setback. Applicant has summary of revisions to show commission regarding the fountain. Mr. Ratnam submitted a summary of revisions for the Commission's review. He discussed the changes on the red line plans, the cost of trees and picture of a portable fountain. He added two 24" Oak trees on the west side of house.; changed all olive trees to 36" instead of 24"; and (as neighbor requested) replaced all the cedrus deodorus with coast live oak. Also, regarding the bedroom of the neighbor's daughter, they have added a tree to assure privacy. Mr. Ratnam also provided the Planning Commission with tree prices as requested. Mr. Ratnam felt they incorporated to the best of their knowledge whatever was asked. His intention is to get the approval. The EDPC requested that he throw acorns on the north west slop. He also stated he would plant one gallon or five gallon trees on the slope and plant in the fall when it rains. The applicant felt he had completed all requests made by the Planning Commission and EDPC recommendations. Chairman Noel - Any questions from the Panel? Commissioner Pahl asked Mr. Ratnam if he had spoken to Ms. McDaniels and asked if he was agreeable to the EDPC recommendations? Mr. Ratnam replied yes, that they were acceptable and asked the commission to consider the fountain. Commissioner Stutz had one question on the letter from the EDPC, and requested that item 4 not be just a recommendation but a requirement. The Commission agreed. Commission discussed the fountain as a separate issue. Ms. Niles noted that the public hearing is for the site development for the landscaping, the hardscaping, and a fountain in the setback. If it is an ornamental feature it can be allowed in the setback. If it is larger than what the Town considers an ornamental feature, it cannot be in the setback without a variance. Mr. Ratnam Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 24, 1992 Page 3 was hoping the Commission would make a determination on whether they felt it would fit in the category of an ornamental garden feature. CLOSE PUBLICHEARING Chairman Noel asked if anyone else in the audience wished to speak on landscape ? Commissioner Jones stated that Commissioner Ellinger received a note from Staff that he should abstain on this and did not understand why he did not have a note as he was also absent from the meeting. Ms. Niles thanked Commissioner Jones for reminding her as it has slipped her mind. Commissioner Jones asked why he has to abstain? He had been to the site and studied the plan and heard the testimony at this meeting. Does he still have to abstain? Ms. Niles stated the requirements: if you did not attend the last meeting you would be required to listen to the tapes to bring yourself current. A similar situation came up with a Council member and the City Attorney made that determination. Chairman Noel stated that the public hearing has been closed on the landscaping portion . Commissioner Stutz will go along with neighbors suggestion regarding acorns that they will provide many trees over the years. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Comiso and seconded by Stutz to accept the landscape design portion of this application adding 1 through 4 of the EDPC conditions dated 6/13/92 with the recommendation of changing #4 to read "Planting required", rather than recommended. AYES: Chairman Noel and Commissioners Comiso, Pahl & Stutz ABSTAIN: Ellinger & Jones ABSENT: Cheng Mr. Ratnam requested additional information regarding actual planting and return of deposit. Ms. Niles referred to page 4, item 3 of staff recommendations which details proper return of deposit. Mr. Ratnam stated with regards to the fountain and discussions with Ms. Niles, there was a concern for a permanent structure in the setback area so they plan to go with a portable fountain. kw Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 24, 1992 Page 4 Commissioner Pahl noted; if its a portable structure, there is no requirement for this body's consent. If it is a permanent structure, you need to apply for a variance. Mr. Ratnam showed pictures of the fountain which is in three parts. The color will be bronze to match roof color. Ms. Niles stated there is not a problem with a temporary structure in the setback. Commissioner Stutz wondered about portability. Is this in the same category as a shed that you put on the back of your lot? Commissioner Comiso asked if we consider a shed we buy at Sears portable? Commissioner Pahl stated it depends on the intent. If the intent is to affix it to the property, then it is a permanent structure. If the intent is that it can be moved with ease, then he would consider that a portable structure. He can not tell from the catalog if this is portable fountain or not and does not want to give an opinion as to its portability. If it is portable, it does not need a variance. Ms. Niles stated ornamental garden structures are allowed if there is no foundation . Commissioner Stutz asked if the fountain would have to have some kind of foundation under it so it will not be lopsided. Ms. Niles stated that was the applicant's problem because there is not a foundation allowed for a temporary structure. Ms. Niles read the section in Code describing ornamental garden structures such as benches, statuaries, planters and fountains. Mr. Ratnam mentioned that the fountain will be a free standing fountain with no plumbing. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl and seconded by Comiso that the Commission will not approve any permanent ornamental fountains greater than 4' in width as part of this hardscape plan. AYES: Chairman Noel, Commissioners Comiso, Jones, Pahl, & Stutz NOES: None ABSTAIN: Ellinger and Jones ABSENT: Cheng Chairman Noel noted that the application was approved and would be in front of ` the City Council July 1 on the Consent Calendar. y 4.2 LANDS OF GARROW, 13912 Mir Mirou Drive: A request for a Site Development Permit for a second unit cottage and hardscape. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 24, 1992 Page 5 Commissioner Comiso noted that she had called staff on the fact that she had a problem with this being called a second unit on a separate piece of property. It is not secondary to the primary dwelling on the first piece of property. Ms. Niles indicated that in the Zoning code, it does not matter if an owner constructs a secondary unit first or second. The proposal is for a second unit at this time, and it meets the standards. The public hearing for site development for this particular structure is not changed. Commissioner Jones asked if it were a primary dwelling would it not require four parking spaces? Ms. Niles replied yes, it would. Commissioner Jones asked how can it be called a secondary dwelling? Ms. Niles stated it was proposed as a secondary dwelling on the property. We would only require five parking spaces if there were a primary and secondary dwelling on the property. Tobin Daugherty, the Architect, stated he had some areas he would like to present in map form and photos to the Commission. The first issue is that the owners use both lots as one property. If a main house were to be built, of course, parking spaces would be added. The property has an earthquake fault zone that runs through it and renders a portion useless to a large building. The tennis court and secondary dwelling will probably be the only thing put on the lot. Commissioner Pahl asked Tobin if he were to build primary house on the property, where would it go? Tobin replied where the secondary dwelling is going. Because of the quake zone and setbacks there is limited area. He pointed out the fault zone on plan. Chairman Noel asked if there were any other questions. CLOSEPUBLIC HEAEMG Ms. Niles stated that there will not be a primary dwelling on the lot. The applicant, if he proposes a primary dwelling, would be required to construct a garage with at ` least four additional parking spaces. Commissioner Pahl stated he did not understand why whatever dwelling is there is not the primary dwelling. V Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 24, 1992 Page 6 Ms. Niles stated the applicant proposed a secondary dwelling and the Town needs to review whatever application the applicant has proposed for determination of approval or denial. The applicant is proposing a secondary unit on this parcel that meets the standards. Commissioner Stutz stated that the property is maxed out. It only has 873 square feet left to develop in that area so they would have to tear up the tennis court and start over if they were to put a primary dwelling on it. Commissioner Pahl asked that if this property was sold (the parcel with the secondary dwelling), that parking spaces required for a primary dwelling be installed. He stated that what we have created by our action if we approve this is a pre-existing non conforming unit. If on the other hand this was proposed with a rejoining of the two properties to form one then he would have no problem with it at all. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl and seconded by Stutz to approve the Site Development Permit with conditions 1-9 and that a covenant be recorded requiring that if the subject lot is sold separately from the main lot that the property would be required to add the appropriate number of parking spaces required for a main dwelling unit. AYES: Chairman Noel, Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Jones, Pahl & Stutz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Cheng LANDS OF YU, 12000 Emerald Hill Lane: Information item regarding color selection for new residence in conformance with the town color board. Ms. Niles brought the proposed colors to the Commission as required on the original conditions of approval. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl and seconded by Comiso to approve color selection. AYES: Chairman Noel, Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Jones, Pahl & Stutz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Cheng 6. OLD BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 24, 1992 Page 7 No old business. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Comiso and seconded by Ellinger to approve minutes with changes on page 3 and page 8. REEK9973MU •►1 t.•uu ►Y9 Commissioner Jones discussed calculating floor area and provided Commissioners diagrams of examples. Stated it does not make sense to count any area under eaves. Need some consistency. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Jones, seconded by Ellinger to recommend to Council that the policy for determining floor area be changed so as to include only areas within the walls of the structure and under a roof not eaves. It was also recommended that bay windows be counted when they extended as low as 4' above grade. Additionally, any area outside the walls of the structure would not count as floor area even when located under an eave and enclosed on three sides. AYES: Chairman Noel, Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Jones, Pahl & Stutz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Cheng 9, REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING; OF JUNE 9. 1992 3.1 LANDS OF CARNEGHI,14220 Berry Hill Court: A request for Site Development Permit for a pool, walkway. Approved with standard pool conditions. 3.2 LANDS OF HANSEN, 25431 Adobe Lane: A request for Site Development Permit for a landscape planting, lighting. Continued to allow the 1 t • i t • u_Y.1 Y• • ► u I I ofenj 0 L1421_ 'r' Ms. Niles mentioned for Commissions' information that there was a budget meeting Tuesday night and Council was reviewing all the Committee budgets and one of the statements they made was that they would like to see again `W representatives from all committees at the City Council meeting and indicated they appreciated the Planning Commission coming to the meetings. Also, the Council requested that section by section the General Plan be reviewed by the Planning Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 24, 1992 Page 8 Commission over the next year to determine what sections need updating and have the Planning Commission make a recommendation at the end of the fiscal year regarding what in the General Plan needs to be update. glow-TWOURNN The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Lonberger Planning Secretary