Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/26/1999Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 6/9/99 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, May 26, 1999, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (3) k8-99 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 Cheng, Commissioners, Gottlieb, Jinkerson, Cottrell & Schreiner Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner; Shaunn O'Connor, Assistant Planner; Ola Balogun, Associate Engineer; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF GREEN EARTH, 27168 Moody Court (244-98-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 7,273 square foot new residence (maximum height 27 feet) including a two -car garage and a three - car detached carport (continued from May 12, 1999). Ms. Davis introduced this item by requesting a continuance of the project to allow the applicants to redesign their plans to address the following: (1) investigate whether the house can be moved to increase the separation between the adjacent neighbor (Siudzinski) and to allow adequate space for landscaping; (2) if it cannot be moved, reduce the size of the proposed residence; (3) redesign the driveway, if possible, to shorten its length; (4) a final determination on whether the detached carport should be counted as floor area should be made; and (5) the possible preparation of a negative declaration. She further indicated that the applicants dropped off plans Friday afternoon, leaving no time for staff to review the plans or to provide recommendations. Commissioner Gottlieb disclosed that she reviewed the staff report and the minutes of the previous meeting. Resumed discussion at 7:45 p.m. after unsuccessfully waiting for the arrival of the kw applicants. C9 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/9/99 May 26, 1999 Page 2 Commissioner Jinkerson discussed this sensitive area, adjacent to the Preserve, and reiterated the need for an Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration as expressed at the previous meeting. The Planning Director noted that the California Environmental Quality Act generally exempts single family residences and subdivisions of less than four lots from its provisions. However, it does have specific language stating that any time you find there is a significant adverse environmental impact, you may require a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report to be prepared. His concern was whether they were going to make the same distinction between impact to a neighbor as well as an environmental impact. A second concern was the three week notice period for a Negative Declaration. He suggested in two weeks discuss this issue and at that time indicate what significant issues could be reviewed by a Negative Declaration to see if they were substantial enough to undertake the process. Commissioner Jinkerson cited Leonoff versus Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 CA 3d 1337, Contractor's Service Center on 1.74 acres of vacant property. There was an issue of whether or not the initial study (that which determines if an EBR or Negative Declaration is necessary) must `contain supporting evidence" "Without a properly prepared initial study, the record may prove inadequate to permit judicial review of the agency decision." There was some public concern with the Green Earth project regarding traffic changes and water run-off. He felt opposition to the project was enough to trigger Public Resources Code §210.82.2, citing Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Area versus County of Inyo (1985) 172 CA 3d 151 "personal observations" of project opponents. Environmental Planning versus County of El Dorado (1982) 131 CA 3d 350 stated if there is a possibility that the project may have a significant effect, the agency should undertake an initial study. Also, they have not yet discussed the prior quarry area (top soil stripped) and how the leach field can be put in. Commissioner Cottrell asked that the applicants respond to the issues addressed at the May 12ih meeting. The Planning Director indicated that staff will do some level of environmental analysis to provide the Commission with what staff felt would be the issues to be addressed and what the process would be to prepare a Negative Declaration so the Commission can determine how to proceed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Jinkerson and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to continue the request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence including a two -car garage and a three -car detached carport, Lands of Green Earth, to June 9, 1999. AYES: Chairman Cheng, Commissioners Jinkerson, Gottlieb, Schreiner & Cottrell NOES: None Planning Commission Minutes May 26, 1999 Page 3 Approved 6/9/99 kv 3.2 LANDS OF LABOSKEY, 12145 Edgecliff Drive (81-99-ZP- SD -VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for a minor addition and remodel of an existing residence, and a variance to allow a 3 foot roof height increase on a portion of the house that encroaches into the side setback. Ms. Davis introduced this item noting that the house was built in 1957 and a variance was granted to allow a 20 foot side yard setback. The deck which was a replacement/slightly larger deck was approved by staff November, 1997. The approval involved exchanging some development area elsewhere on the property. Commissioner Jinkerson disclosed that he had spoken to current tenant who was also the previous owner who stated the deck was permitted in 1997. The deck is not located within the setback, and the current encroachment is approximately 50-60 feet. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Peter LaBoskey, 317 Avalon Drive, Los Altos, described the project to enlarge the master bedroom which will fit his family needs. The design provides relief and interest to the front of the house and to reduce the appearance of bulk. Daryl Harris, 10091 Streeter Road, Auburn, project architect, felt the staff report was complete and he was available for questions. The response was yes when Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the basement area was counted. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Cottrell felt this was a modest change to the structure, well shielded with no opposition from neighbors. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with the size of the lot and the total development area even though it has grandfathered numbers. Normally the MDA/MFA numbers are 5000/4000. She did feel that the design was in keeping with the neighborhood (low key). Commissioner Schreiner also felt these were modest additions and fit well. However, she was concerned with the high amount of development area relative to the lot unit factor of .55 and extending a non -conformity. Commissioner Jinkerson commented that the applicants have the same amount of development area as before but shifted around. The amount of the variance is less than 100 square feet. He agreed with the other Commissioners regarding the 5000/4000 rule and the impact, particularly on a steep lot. The reality is that there is already a house here, with approved numbers for the development area with only a modest increase in the amount of floor area. On conditional use permits on smaller lots, they have allowed variances he did not support. In this case, the amount of the variance is less than 150 feet (supported by the code) and the house is a low lying structure. While he does not encourage going beyond the numbers, this is already beyond the numbers. He cannot hold the applicants to a different standard especially when they are not increasing the total number. For all of these reasons, he can support this project. He felt the benefit to the applicants versus the potential damage to the community is minimal because with the small Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/9/99 May 26, 1999 Page 4 variance, they are getting a lot more benefit out of the use of the land with no adverse impact. The applicants are taking less than 150 square foot variance, putting it to use to create more livable space without changing the footprint or impacting the community. Chairman Cheng had no problem with this small addition as it is within the guidelines. The Planning Director did not feel granting a variance on this site would be setting a precedence. This is not a vacant lot; circumstances justify the variance. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed that the variance is minimal. The numbers are existing. This is what makes this property unique. Ms. Davis also noted that the project already has a two story appearance with good screening. Commissioner Gottlieb was comfortable with the variance request with the suggested additional wording to Attachment 1, #2 and Attachment 2, #1. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell, seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson and amended to approve the Site Development Permit for a minor addition and remodel of an existing residence, and a variance to allow a three foot roof height increase for a portion of the house within the side yard setback, Lands of LaBoskey, with the recommended conditions of approval, adding to the Variance Findings (Attachment 1, #2 and Attachment 2, #1) that the proposed development is within the footprint of the existing development as well as within the existing development area so there is no net increase in development area. AYES: Chairman Cheng, Commissioners Jinkerson, Schreiner & Cottrell NOES: None This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. 3.3 LANDS OF HSU, 13620 Roble Alto Court (210-98-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 3,059 square foot addition (maximum height 26 feet) and remodel of an existing residence. Staff had nothing further to add to the report OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Rita Hsu, 13620 Roble Alto Court, applicant, has owned the property since 1982. She provided a brief description of the changes to the site. Phillip Anasovich, 298 Missouri Street, San Francisco, project architect, also discussed the changes to the site noting the applicants have been contemplating the additions for six years. He was available for questions. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/9/99 May 26, 1999 Page 5 42I Scott Vanderlip, Pathways Committee, reiterated their request for a pathway easement to be granted, within the existing conservation easement, parallel to Page Mill Road so a Type IIB pathway may be built in the future. The path will be up on the hill within the conservation easement. After discussion, it was suggested to add additional wording to condition #10 so the pathway alignment shall be agreed on by the Town Engineering Department, Pathways Committee and the property owner. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING The Commissioners all agreed the design was very nice and a considerable improvement MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson to approve the Site Development Permit for a major addition and remodel, Land of Hsu, with the addition/change to the conditions of approval: #10, add that the pathway alignment shall be agreed on by the Town Engineering Department, Pathway Committee and property owner. AYES: Chairman Cheng, Commissioners Cottrell, Schreiner, Gottlieb & Jinkerson NOES: None This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period Brief break at 7:45 p.m. 3.4 Draft Ordinance Providing Enhancements to the Site Development Review Process and Establishing a Fast -Track Process for Review of New Residences and Major Additions; and proposed Negative Declaration (continued from May 12, 1999). Staff nothing further to add to the report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Discussion ensued regarding the following: input provided by the Commission "fast track" projects; the requirements for findings (chimneys, skylights, etc); past projects which would have qualified for "fast track'; how time will be saved; plan review by the Fire Department, Geologist, etc.; notices to properties within 500 feet of the project site; adequate time for comments from the Pathways and Environmental Design Committees; a more detailed notice; Web page for plans; and who will evaluate the process. A six month trial period was suggested. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned that in the future with new staff, the process might not work as well (current staff is experienced and knowledgeable, but new employee(s) would not have this advantage). Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, expressed concern regarding the hearing time as day meetings are not always convenient for everyone. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 619/99 May 26, 1999 Page 6 The Commission provided detailed changes to the Planning Director as follows: Page. 1, Item (e), last phrase, revise to read: "...shall not be considered or altered by the Site Development Authority, unless the Authority makes both findings listed under subsection below." Item (f)(1), last phrase, revise to read: "...the proposed development would substantially deprive an adjacent property or the general public of the enjoyment of their property be ifijtirwas to adjaeent .._,......». --d/of the ^^^eFal Public". Item (f)(2), first line, revise to read: "There is no other reasonable means, pFefefable to the applisairt, to mitigate..." Page 2, Item (a)(3), revise to read: "There is no substantive neighborhood opposition to the project, ("substantive" is not based on the number of neighbors objecting)." Item (a)(4), revise to read: "The applicant agrees in writing to accept all of the proposed conditions of approval, prior to the decision." Item (b)(3), add, at the end of the paragraph: "...above, and to the Planning Commission." Item (b)(4), second sentence, revise to read: "The hearing shall take place at the date and time specified in the notice, but the Director shall make every effort to accommodate the schedules of all interested parties, including continuing the day and/or time of the meeting if necessary." Item (b)(5), first sentence, revise to read: "Environmental Design Committee and Pathways Committee representatives may shall beinvited,. - to participate..." Page 3, Item (b)(6), first sentence, revise to read: "An interim staff report shall be prepared at least five (5) days prior to the hearing." Item (b)(7), revise to read: "The hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Director, and no other person may preside over the hearing unless so designated by the Planning Director or City Manager aetherieed-by aetian or ;he Cit_ n,...s& ' Item (b)(7), add a new section (7a) to read: "In the event that the Planning Director leaves Town employment all projects otherwise eligible for fast- track review shall be referred to the Planning Commission for a period of three (3) months thereafter." Item (b)(9), last line, revise to read: "...whether the opposition is supported by facts or relevant information" Item (b)(10), last line, revise to read: "...Planning Commission, a minimum of ten (10) days prior to the end of the appeal period." Item (b)(I1), first sentence, revise to read: "The final staff report shall be forwarded to the City Council on a consent calendar for a meeting to be held not earlier than ten (10) days or later than twenty-one (21) days after the site development decision hearing;" Item (b)(12), revise to read: "Appeals of the Planning Director's decision may be made in writing by any impacted :.ae�.,.. est,.,, party, including by any Councilmember or any two (2) Planning Commissioners, not later than the date and time of the City Council's consideration of the item on its consent agenda, or not later than twenty-one (21) days after the site development decision hearing in the event that no Council meeting is scheduled." Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/9/99 May 26, 1999 Page 7 Page 4, Item (c)(3), revise to read: "There is substantive neighborhood opposition to the project ("substantive" is not based on the number of neighbors objecting)." Add a new #3 after (f), to read: "Not later than six (6) months after the effective date of this ordinance, staff shall initiate a review of the effectiveness of the ordinance. The review shall be made at a public hearing by the City Council subsequent to review and recommendation by the Planning Commission Any appeal during the 6 -month initial implementation period shall not require an appeal fee." CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Jinkerson and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the proposed ordinance to the City Council, Page I of the Ordinance, with previously noted additions/changes. AYES: Commissioners Cottrell, Gottlieb, Schreiner & Jinkerson NOES: Chairman Cheng MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson to recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the proposed ordinance to the City Council, Pages 2, 3 & 4 of the Ordinance, with previously noted additions/changes. AYES: Chairman Cheng, Commissioners Cottrell, Gottlieb, Schreiner & Jinkerson NOES: None 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees. None 5. NEW BUSINESS None 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for May 20'a, Commissioner Schreiner, reported on the following items: Town Hall buildings inspection report; Community Relations Committee status report on Town Picnic; and Lands of Burger (continued to June 3, 1999). 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for June 3rd - Commissioner Gottlieb 4 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/9/99 May 26, 1999 Page 8 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the May 12, 1999 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the May 12, 1999 minutes 8. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS FOR MAY 25, 1999 8.1 LANDS OF BORNS CONSTRUCTION, 25625 O'Keefe Lane (60-99-ZP- SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a fence and landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions May 25, 1999. 8.2 LANDS OF KUNG, 24036 Oak Knoll Circle (100-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions May 25, 1999. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Smith Planning Secretary N