Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/1996Y Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 1/3/97 `r Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, December 11, 1996,7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes ( 2 ) #22-96 L ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Gottlieb, Stutz, Cheng, Schreiner, Finn & Jinkerson Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Sheryl Proft, Assistant Engineer; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -None. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF BROCKWAY, 25515 and 25525 Bledsoe Court (199 -96 -LM); A request for a lot merger. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Beverly Brockway, 23215 Mora Glen Drive, Los Altos, applicant, discussed the conservation easements, the dedicated cul-de-sac and available parking. She was available for questions. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Schreiner commented on the reduction of the subdivision which will provide better placement of future homes. She hoped that there will be an effort to hide the future house from Moody Road. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson to recommend approval to the City Council for a lot merger, Lands of Brockway. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/8/97 December 11, 1996 Page 2 4 AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Cheng, Stutz, Finn, Gottlieb, Jinkerson & Schreiner NOES: None This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. 3.2 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES, 26140 Duval Way (Lands of St. Luke's Chapel in the Hills) (224-95-ZP-SD-CUP-ND); A request for a Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Negative Declaration for placement of PCS antennas within the existing church steeple, and installation of an equipment box (continued from November 13, 1996). Commissioner Finn stepped down from the proceedings as he was not present for the previous hearing nor had an opportunity to review the tape of that meeting. Commissioner Gottlieb disclosed a conversation with Mrs. Jackson while in Safeway regarding the application. Fact Sheet dated April 23, 2996 from the Federal Communications Commission was previously provided to the Commission. Commissioner Schreiner commented on some of the points in the Fact Sheet, one being that the Federal Goverment and FCC are directed to work with the State to help the carriers if they are interested in placements in road right-of-ways or easements. She felt the information provided in the publication would be helpful in the future. The Planning Director noted the receipt of a letter from the neighbors of Duval Way, indicating their meeting of November 25' at the Chapel, with the representatives of Pacific Bell who presented a revised plan which eliminated the tower and provided for installation of their antennas within the chapel steeple. Pacific Bell also provided the neighbors with an analysis of their projected power emissions as well as the combined emissions including the Cellular One and/or GTE Mobilnet site on the Foothill College campus. They noted a concern with the possibility of additional requests by other applicants for similar sites on Duval Way since it seemed to be an attractive location. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Al Jackson, 26088 Duval Way, commented on the points addressed in the letter from the neighbors of Duval Way. He was still concerned with the lack of a Town plan and the possibility of proliferation of antennas in his area. Fritz Mueller, 26075 Duval Way, noted that the neighbors reluctantly recommend that the Planning Commission grant the conditional use permit request, as amended. The Planning Director commented on the items in a letter from the neighbors of Duval Way highlighting the following: the dedicated Town historical site; Town general plan regarding placement of such antennas; effects of radio frequency emissions; 5 year renewal clause; and Town policy encouraging collocation of antennas. The neighbors are requesting that the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/8/97 December 11, 1996 Page 3 v Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they reconsider the section of the policy regarding collocation of antennas. As they understand it, current technology requires considerable vertical and horizontal separation of such antennas so they cannot actually be collocated. He further commented on available sites in Town not known, and the possibility of notifying residences earlier in the process. Commissioner Jinkerson commented on the following: a maximum 5 year use permit or less; not sufficient information to make an informed decision; not discriminating between providers, however, with good reason, should be able to say no; cellular sites needed in the future; antenna inside a chapel steeple acceptable; and a concern with letting all providers in. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that at the previous City Council meeting, someone in the audience was concerned with the effects on his pacemaker. She asked what effect the antennas would have on a pacemaker and would signing inside the church be necessary. Amy Stanton, PlanCom, Inc., 844 Dubuque Avenue, South San Francisco, contract representative for Pacific Bell Mobile Services, provided the Commission with Fact Sheet #2 from the Federal Communications Commission which includes information regarding Section 704 of the 1996 Act which was mentioned in the Duval Way neighborhood letter. She believed the main concern from the neighbors and the Commission was proliferation of sites. If only the first two sites were approved, they would still need an additional two sites to complete the hand- off to cover corridors in areas of I-280 and the Peninsula. She gave a brief history of cellular PCS carriers. Pacific Bell Mobile Services provided the Town with their master plan for the next three years as a part of their submittal. Their goal is for sensitive antenna design (low, hidden). They have been trying to work with Cal Trans regarding placing antennas in road right-of-ways along I-280 and they are still pursuing this avenue, however not successfully as yet. Richard Caine, Pacific Bell Mobile Services project engineer, answered questions regarding pacemaker concerns noting interference actually comes from the cellular phone, not from the antennas. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner felt the site was a good one and most of the questions have been answered. However, she was still concerned with the big picture (multiple carriers). She asked if they need to accommodate all carriers. The Planning Director noted that the term of the permit can be less than the five year maximum. He noted that the Council has adopted a policy. If the Commission felt the policy is not broad enough, the Commission may request the Council to review or reconsider certain elements of the policy. He felt the application before them was under that policy. Commissioner Jinkerson reiterated his comments regarding the number of possible carriers who will want to install antennas in Town. He would prefer a continuance of this application to gather additional information. The Planning Director asked, if the 16, Commission was inclined to continue the applicant for more information, or until they see other applications, they should offer this applicant the opportunity of a denial so they could have the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/8/97 December 11, 1996 Page 4 4 decision appealed to the City Council. Commissioner Cheng felt with the information they have received from the Council, they should recommend approval. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with future carriers. However, the direction from Council was to review these applications. She felt with the direction from Council she could not deny this application. She would like the Council to revisit the impact on a neighborhood with a multitude of antennas. Commissioner Jinkerson suggested in the future the Commission vote on a complete master application (all proposed sites). Chairman Doran felt they were very generous with a five year use permit. She suggested an overall reduction to three years for use permits. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to recommend to the City Council approval for a request for a Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Negative Declaration for placement of PCS antennas within the existing church steeple, and installation of an equipment box, Pacific Bell Mobile Services, Lands of St. Luke's Chapel in the Hills, 26140 Duval Way, with the following change/amendment to the conditions of approval: "The permit shall expire three (3) years from the date of approval." AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Cheng, Stutz, Jinkerson, Schreiner & Gottlieb NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Finn This item will appear on the City Council agenda for public hearing January 15, 1996. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb, seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson and passed unanimously with Commissioner Finn abstaining, to ask the City Council for direction regarding the following: 1) impact on neighborhoods with the placement of more than 1-2 cellular sites per area; the voting on a package of sites rather than voting on individual sites (one by one) from the same carrier; and the consideration of the current Fact Sheet 42 dated September 17, 1996 by the Federal Communications Commission. 3.3 LANDS OF HSIA, 26685 Purissima Road (127-96-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a guest house/secondary dwelling unit (continued from November 13, 1996). The Planning Director noted that in the conditions of approval (#3) color should match the house although the house is partly a very light stucco and partly a very dark wood. He did not feel this provided the applicant with much direction. He asked for some discussion regarding the requirement to either choose colors from the color board or to match the existing house (light stucco). The condition should be more specific. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/8197 December 11, 1996 Page 5 Commissioner Schreiner agreed with staff suggestion regarding lowering the building pad and finished floor by 1 foot to minimize the foundation wall. Currently, the secondary unit does not appear subordinate as viewed from Leander Drive. She suggested a further reduction of I foot in the body of the house (preferably in the attic) which would give the structure a much lower profile. Drainage considerations were discussed as it relates to lowering the house. Commissioner Stutz did not feel the new structure was compatible with the existing structure. She did not feel the windows in the loft appropriate. It was noted that he barn height is 12 feet; the new structure height will be 17 feet. Commissioners Cheng and Jinkerson agreed with the staff recommendation to lower the building pad and finished floor by 1 foot, lowering the body of the house 1 foot, and eliminating the windows in the loft. Mrs. Hsia, 26685 Purissima Road, noted that the existing trees will eventually provide screening of the new structure from Purissima Road. Also, the loft windows are only to provide ventilation. Chairman Doran also agreed with the staff and. the previous recommendations from the Commissioners. She felt the applicant should adhere to the approved color board so the structure would appear less obtrusive, allowing it to blend in with the existing house. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn, seconded far by Commissioner Jinkerson and amended to approve a Site Development Permit for a secondary dwelling unit, Lands of Hsia, with the following changes/amendments to the conditions of approval: the secondary unit shall be redesigned to reduce the foundation wall by 1 foot in height and the roof shall be lowered in height by 1 foot for a total 2 foot reduction in the height of the structure; the loft windows shall be eliminated; and wood siding shall be added to the exterior of the structure to better match the design of the existing residence. AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Gottlieb, Stutz, Jinkerson, Schreiner, Cheng & Finn NOES: None This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. 3.4 LANDS OF VIDOVICH, LOT 11, QUARRY HILLS (202-96-ZP-SD-VAR); A request for a variance to allow maximum heights of 36 feet and 28 feet, where 35 feet and 27 feet, respectively, are the maximum permitted, for a new residence approved November 6, 1996. The Planning Director noted the preparation of findings for both approval and denial as this application is an unusual situation. Findings were prepared for whatever direction the Commission proceeds. The Planning Director clarified the City Council discussion at the November 6' meeting on the application regarding the appeal for a site development permit for a new residence which indicated a proposed height of 36 feet and 28 feet, and whether it met code Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/8/97 December 11, 1996 Page 6 as it exists currently. The Council found that it did not meet the current definition of the ordinance. The Council felt this did not preclude the applicant from coming forward with a variance application to be heard before the Planning Commission. Further discussion ensued regarding the Findings for approval and denial OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Tom Boyd, 20085 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, project architect, discussed the request for the variance noting that the area of the subject property is over 9 acres and can easily accommodate a large house. The proposed house is quite large, and includes several large rooms. Large rooms, by their nature, require high ceilings to appear proportionately correct. The 27 foot and 35 foot height limits cause ceiling heights to be reduced below the aesthetic ideal. He further discussed the intent of the ordinance which is to limit the impact of a house on its neighbors by limiting the apparent height of any portion of a building to 27 feet or 35 feet overall. He noted that they have accomplished this by depressing the lowest pad elevation 1 foot below the adjacent grade. Granting the variance will not be detrimental in any way, as there will be no exterior impact on the subject property or the adjoining properties. C41i�b9 P Y4:111CN!1L 91llSIONVA Commissioner Jinkerson felt Finding 1 and 2 for denial were appropriate. He could not agree to a variance on a 9 acre parcel. Commissioners Gottlieb and Schreiner agreed. Commissioner Schreiner noted that just because you cannot see it does not make a difference. The code is clear. This is a problem of the applicant's making. There are no constraints on the lot (Human Habitation Setbacks, conservation easements) or other factors that would make it difficult for the applicant to enjoy what is enjoyed by other residents. The code is clear on the findings. The MDAIMFA numbers can still be used by the applicant. The Planning Director noted in the staff report that if the variance is to be approved, the Commission may add conditions to better call out the uniqueness of the property and to avoid setting a precedent. One possible condition would be to require that a restriction be recorded on the lot preventing any future building or building addition on the lot from being located closer than 80 to 100 feet from the property lines. This condition could: 1) compensate for allowing added development in the center of the property; 2) support justifying the variance based on the large size of the lot; and 3) set a precedent which other properties would be unlikely to be able to match. Chairman Doran was in favor of the variance noting there is no reason to encumber the property with a 100 foot setback if they are going to deny the variance. Commissioner Stutz noted that they could not ask for a 100 foot variance as the garage sticks out within 45 feet of the property line. The advantage of requesting a 100 foot setback would be to avoid having the tennis court 04mr being close to another neighbor. She was inclined to go along with the variance request. There Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/8/97 December 11, 1996 Page 7 4 me exceptions to some properties. She felt the 1 foot extra (both directions) on this house would add much more to the house than subtract. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to deny a request for a variance to allow maximum heights of 36 feet and 28 feet, where 35 feet and 27 feet, respectively, are the maximum permitted, for a new residence approved November 6, 1996, Lands of V idovich. AYES: Commissioners Cheng, Gottlieb, Jinkerson & Schreiner NOES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Stutz & Finn It was noted that all applications approved or denied at this meeting are subject to a 21 day waiting (appeal) period during which any member of the City Council may initiate a Council review, or any member of the public may appeal the Planning Commission decision. 3.5 LANDS OF CARSTEN, 13761 La Paloma Road (141-96-ZP-SD); A request for amendments to conditions of approval for a Site Development Permit for a secondary unit approved October 9, 1996. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. A letter from a neighbor, Sally Wood, was received regarding site drainage and the placement of a temporary fence by the applicant which she felt was on her property. She requested no approval of any fence be made until she has an opportunity to have her property surveyed. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Lalla Carsten, 13761 La Paloma Road, applicant, was very concerned with the reduction of her lot below the one acre minimum with the dedication of 30 feet. This will affect property values, the number of horses per acre, etc. Her only concern is with a portion of condition #18. She suggested giving a 20 foot right-of-way and a 10 foot easement so she will still maintain one acre. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY The assistant engineer noted that they are only asking for a 30 foot wide right-of-way for La Paloma Road, not the 60 foot right-of-way. The boundary survey indicates the center line of the right of way, not the center line of the road, are her property corners. The original condition was worded as such as they did not have a boundary survey at that point. It was noted that the road was not in the center of the right-of-way. The Planning Director noted that sometime in the future it would be good to review the overall policy regarding when a property does dedicate land, reducing the acreage below one acre, should the code perhaps state clearly under this type of instance, that the secondary dwelling, horses, etc. are permissible; anything else that is tied to the one acre (enjoying the same privileges of on owner of a one acre parcel) Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/8/97 December 11, 1996 Page 8 Discussion ensued. It was felt this would be a subject to be discussed by the City Council. The applicant's main concern was the marketing of a parcel below the Town's one acre minimum. However, the dedication of right-of-ways is a normal action. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson to deny a request for amendments to conditions of approval for a Site Development Permit for a secondary unit approved October 9, 1996, Lands of Carsten. AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Gottlieb, Schreiner, Jinkerson & Stutz NOES: Commissioners Finn & Cheng The appeal process was explained to the applicant. 4. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4.1 Planning Commission attendance at City Council meetings. It was agreed that a schedule will be maintained for Planning Commission attendance at City Council meetings although they will not be reporting to the City Council. The Planning Director reported the following items were reviewed at the City Council meetings of November 20' and December 4'": presentation by Fire Marshal Dan Dunlap on fire code requirements; changes to planning policies and ordinances; proposed amendments to Master Path Plan; Lands of Chao/Pang; and Pacific Bell Mobile Services request for a Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Variance and a Negative Declaration for the placement of a 20 foot high PCS pole and antennas and adjacent equipment box, Lands of Purissima Hills Water District, on La Cresta Drive. The next joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting will be held January 29, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Report from subcommittees. A joint subcommittee meeting was held December 11, 1996. 6. NEW BUSINESS None. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/8/97 December 11, 1996 Page 9 4 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the November 13, 1996 minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the November 13, 1996 minutes with Commissioner Finn abstaining. 8. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19 AND DECEMBER 10, 1996 8.1 LANDS OF SHAH, 13818 La Paloma Road (186-96-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool and spa. Approved with conditions November 19, 1996. 8.2 LANDS OF HAMM, 24292 Elise Court (208-96-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan. Approved with conditions December 10, 1996. 9. ADJOURNMENT tThe meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Lon rger Planning Secretary