Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/11/2018Approved March 1, 2018 1 Special Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2018 Minutes of a Special Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, January 11, 2018, 7:00 PM Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Tankha, Commissioner Couperus, Chair Partridge Absent: None Staff: Planning Director Suzanne Avila, Associate Planner Erin Horan, Consultant Planner Steve Padovan, Assistant City Attorney Ed Gruntzmacher, Building Technician Veronica Flores, Planning Technician Cody Einfalt 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Chair Partridge opened presentations from the floor. Seeing none, presentations from the floor were closed. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ex parte: Commissioner Couperus said he spoke with Ms. Winchell, Carol Gottlieb, and Kjell Karlsson. Commissioner Tankha spoke with Kjell Karlson. Commissioner Mandle spoke with Kjell Karlsson, Ann Duwe, Bud Crystal, Hal Feeney and Mary-Jo Feeney. Commissioner Basiji visited with 10 neighbors of Mora Drive, visited with Mindy Mclauhan, exchanged emails with Chair Partridge, and met with Pouran Azaad. Chair Partridge spoke with Ruth Winchell, Richard Minton, and exchanged emails with Commissioner Basiji 3.1 LANDS OF EMAD-VAEZ AND AAZAD; 27333 Ursula Lane; File #262-17-ZP- SD; Request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan for a previously approved two story residence. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304(b) (Staff: E. Horan) Associate Planner Erin Horan presented the staff report. The Commission asked questions of staff and received responses. Chair Partridge opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Approved March 1, 2018 2 Special Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2018 Jeff Heid, landscape architect, spoke on behalf of owner and project. The Commission asked questions and received responses. Carol Gottlieb, Environmental Design & Protection Committee, spoke about the pathway placement in the sanitary sewer easement which is a condition of approval. She added that any landscaping should be delayed until the location and construction of the pathway has been determined. Mr. Heid responded to public comments. Chair Partridge closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Mandle stated that she is hesitant to approve the landscape screening proposal before the pathway location is determined. She would like the landscape screening to wait. Staff responded to her concerns regarding pathway location and said it will be installed within the existing easement. Commissioner Tankha said she agreed with Commissioner Mandle’s concerns. She asked clarifying questions of staff regarding the location of several easements on the property and the location of the proposed pathway. Commissioner Basiji stated that the applicant may want to postpone landscaping the portion of the property that encroaches on the pathway. Commissioner Couperus stated that due to the existing wooded vegetation surrounding the property, the landscaping plan is not as crucial as it may seem. He said he would hate for expensive landscape to be planted on the property where a pathway may be placed in a later date. Limiting himself to the item on the agenda, he is happy with the proposed landscape plan. Commissioner Basiji said when he visited the site he was surprised with the amount of work completed on the property. He stated he is only concerned with screening the retaining wall. Chair Partridge concurred with Commissioner Basiji and spoke of his observations while on a site visit. He would like to increase the screening of the retaining wall, but acknowledges that the proposed plans will suffice. He added that the applicant should remove planting in the panhandle since that is an easement. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Basiji moved to approve the requested Site Development Permit, subject to the recommended conditions of approval in Attachment 1 with the added condition of reducing the size of the oak tree near the pathway to a 36 inch box and the correction on the drawings to reflect Approved March 1, 2018 3 Special Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2018 the removal of the planting in the panhandle. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tankha. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. AYES: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Tankha, Commissioner Mandle, Chair Partidge NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 3.2 LANDS OF LINEBARGER; 10728 Mora Drive (Formerly 10730 Mora Drive, Lot 1): Request for Conditional Development and Site Development Permits for a new 2,831 square foot, two-story single-family dwelling with 3,246 square feet of basement area on two levels and variance requests for side yard building setbacks of twelve (12) and fifteen (15) feet, uncovered parking in the front and side yard setbacks, and deck, hardscape and basement lightwells in the side yard setbacks on a .374 acre lot; (Maximum height of structure is 27’); File #415-14-ZP-SD-GD- CDP-VAR; CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(a) (Staff: S. Padovan) Chair Partridge suggested that agenda items 3.2 and 3.3 be presented and discussed separately. He then gave a brief background history of the project site and its involvement with the Town and Planning Commission. Consultant Planner Steve Padovan presented the staff report. The Commission asked questions of staff and received responses. Chair Partridge opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Forrest Linebarger, applicant, spoke regarding his project. He gave a brief history of the project and commented on the revisions made to the plan in responses to Commission and staff comments. The Commission asked questions and received responses. Chair Partridge opened item 3.2 to comments from the public. David Kehlet, Mora Drive, spoke regarding Mr. Linebarger's proposal and its proximity to the neighboring lot line. Mr. Kehlet displayed pictures of Mr. Linebarger's proposal and explained that approving the project would be granting the project a special privilege. Approved March 1, 2018 4 Special Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2018 Esther John, Mora Drive, urged the Commission to deny project. She said that the new revisions to the proposed plans have not met the 30 foot setback requirement by Town code. Mary-Joe Feeney, Mora Drive, agreed with other public comments. She said that the responsibility of the Town is the well-being of its residents through the enforcement of its regulations. Karen Kehlet, Mora Drive, said this type of variance requested would impact many residents in the neighborhood. She is not in agreement with side setback variances. Aart De Geus, Mora Drive, said the time has come to end discussing this project. The setback rules are critical and should be enforced 100% of the time. The proposed development would collide with Town regulations. Hal Feeney, Mora Drive, said all new construction should be built to follow rules in place at the time. Setbacks are important for safety and health of community. He gave example of the fire safety and how close the development would be to structures on neighboring lots. Joe Vanen, Mora Drive, stated that the pictures submitted by the applicant included in his presentation were distorted in terms of setbacks. The proposal requests large setback variances that no other property in the neighborhood exhibits. The proposed building is not in the spirit of the neighborhood. Bridget Morgan, Los Altos Hills, said that she walks the Mora Drive neighborhood everyday and thinks this proposed structure would stand out. She thinks it would degrade the entire neighborhood and urged the Commission to reject the request for extreme variances. Camas Steinmetz, partner at a law firm representing neighbors of Mora Drive, urged this proposal to be put to an end. She further stated that any further requests for design revision should not be permitted. Judy Klein, Mora Drive, asked the Commission to keep the 30 foot setback requirement and wondered why the Commission is looking at something that has less than the required setbacks in the first place. Eloise Bodine, Mora Drive, recognized the Town's rules regarding setback requirements and urged the Planning Commission to stick to them. Mr. Linebarger, Applicant, responded to public comments and concerns. He said he has tried to work with the neighbors but they are united on the setback requirement which is impossible to implement on this property. He added the point Approved March 1, 2018 5 Special Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2018 that he did not create the lots himself, the lots have been in existence since the 1940s. Chair Partridge closed the PUBLIC HEARING. Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Couperus stated that he wants an understanding to be made between that of parcel and lot. He explains that a parcel can be multiple lots but not vice versa. The parcel in question used to be one parcel with three lots. He spoke of a previous study session about grandfathering and when grandfathering can be applied. He made the point that because these lots came into existence in reality when the middle lot was sold, which was after the incorporation into the Town, there is nothing to grandfather in this case. With that said, he made the point that new buildings cannot increase the degree of nonconformity. Commissioner Tankha said that prior to incorporation into the Town, homes were subject to County rules. When the area was incorporated into the Town, all new development became subject to Town rules. Any construction that had already taken place was grandfathered. Going forward, the Commission decided to allow development that was currently built but any new construction could not increase the degree of non-conformity. She feels that they cannot go back and point at neighbors who have certain nonconformities as justification for the variance request. She sees some improvement in the new submitted plans and acknowledges that the mass has been reduced from previous renderings. She expressed that this submission is a step in the right direction but the improvement has to go significantly further. Commissioner Mandle commented that the staff reports were detailed and very useful. She acknowledged that there have been significant improvements in the plans from previous submissions. The most significant piece of new information was that these lots are considered legal by the Town’s standards. However, she recognized that the arguments against development on this lot are also legal. Further, if the self-inflicted hardship argument prevails, she believes discussion about development on this lot is wasting everyone's time, but if the legal lot argument prevails the project is going in the right direction although very slowly. She believes that any proposed building needs to have a smaller footprint to solve the problems associated with this lot. She commented that if anything gets approved, it will most likely be very small. Commissioner Basiji, after receiving the meaning of certificate if compliance, said he sees that staff issued these certificates for both lots so he thinks that at some level these lots are legal and buildable. However, he does not think that this feeling is shared by the Mora Drive neighborhood. He made the point that there is no way an 80 feet wide structure is possible. He acknowledged the fact that the City Council wants the Planning Commission to entertain a viable plan, however, the Commission cannot do much until it has been determined that the lots are buildable. Approved March 1, 2018 6 Special Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2018 He acknowledged that applicant has done a good job trying to reduce the visual impact of the building. Chair Partridge said that the Planning Commission serves to advise Town Council. The way that he sees it, Town council could have rejected the plans from the start, but did not. The Council asked the Planning Commission to help manifest a viable plan for this lot. In this effect, the Planning Commission should take Council decision as guidance and not reject the proposal all together. He appreciated that the setbacks were reduced but was shocked by the increase in the size of the residence. That it is the opposite direction of where he wants the plans to go. He suggested the Commission provide guidance on footprint, specifically telling the applicant what they want changed on the plans. He asked the City Attorney to comment on two issues: self-induced hardship and granting variances that increase the non-conformity. Commissioner Couperus clarified that a general rule for the Planning Commission is to not grant an encroachment variance on setbacks; to do so would be grandfathering. He reiterated the point that the restrictions of the setbacks on the three lots only became instantiated when the middle lot was sold, and this instantiation took place after the Town annexed the property. For this reason, there is nothing to grandfather. Assistant City Attorney Ed Gruntzmacher began by answering Chair Partridge’s two questions. First he spoke in terms of how grandfathering works. He explained that grandfathering allows existing non-conforming uses to continue operating as they are. He made this point because there is no current use on Mr. Linebarger’s lot so the act of grandfathering does not apply. He also clarified of how to justify granting a variance. The best course of action he can recommend tonight is to look at the plans and provide guidance to the applicant on what the Commission finds acceptable. To the Town, this is now a legal lot. The Commission asked questions of staff and the attorney and received responses. Commissioner Couperus noted that either way the Planning Commission decides, someone is going to appeal it. He does not want to spend more time on this proposal if nothing concrete will come from the decision. He expressed his belief that Mr. Linebarger has not done enough to satisfy the Commission. Commissioner Mandle answered and said she would like input from the attorney so that the Planning Commission can present the findings to the concerned neighbors. Commissioner Tankha asked what are the metrics that the Planning Commission uses to grant a variance. Staff responded that the Commission has the discretion to make decisions and grant variances. Commissioner Tanka requested data on what the Commission has done in the past in similar situations. Approved March 1, 2018 7 Special Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2018 Chair Partridge would like to work with the applicant to try find some type of building that would work better on this lot. Commissioner Mandle spoke about searching for a legal analysis while at the same time trying to move the project in a more desired direction with applicant knowing his proposal may get denied in the end. Staff and Commission discussed what they would entertain when considering setback encroachment. Commissioner Couperus said there is still a legal problem but the new design is a good improvement. He adds that he is still concerned about the above ground footprint. Commissioner Mandle has confidence in staff and their recommendations and acknowledged that the staff report has great suggestions. She still advises for a house closer to a 1,000 square foot measurable floor area. Commissioner Basiji wanted to think of the end product being livable and more suitable to the lot. He acknowledged that the home has been reduced in its visual impact and thinks it is good start, but wants to make it better. Commissioner Mandle doesn't agree with the side setbacks, she thinks the homes are way too close. She referenced the Moody Road lot and points out that in that situation smaller setbacks were allowed because it was next to open space. Commissioner Tankha think the larger issue is more improvement in terms of a smaller floor area. She believes the Council should decide on the legality of the lot and give the applicant direction on how much to trim down the building. Chair Partridge cannot see allowing more than half of the required side setbacks. In trying to narrow down quantitative estimates, he states that maybe 2/3 or 3/4 of the side setback allowance could work better on the side with a neighbor. Commissioner Mandle agreed with Chair Partridge that a minimum side- setback where the open space is 15 feet. Commissioner Tankha also thinks the size of house on the lot is too large. The house needs to be scaled down and that reduction will get them to the setbacks the Town wants. Commissioner Couperus said underground floor area does have an impact on neighbors. He acknowledged that this is retracting an earlier comment he made. He does care about total square footage of house below ground, not just the above- ground footprint. Large homes will bring large families which in turn will bring more cars, trash, and activity on the lot. Approved March 1, 2018 8 Special Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2018 Commissioner Tankha said building underground affects the overall quality of life of the residents that inhabit the house. She does not want to see the Town go underground. She reiterated her main point that the major issues with this property is about scale. Mr. Linebarger addressed the Commission’s opinion and guidance. He stated that under California law, he has right to build a reasonable house even though it does not meet Town rules. He wants the Commission to keep in mind that he is building on a downward slope. He would like to get to a common ground but the only feedback he gets from neighborhood is the obligatory 30 feet setback. He wants to find a solution but does not know how to do it and all he is hearing is no. The 1,000 square feet footprint does not sound reasonable. The Commission and applicant further discussed square footage and footprint and what is reasonable as opposed to luxury. The Commission understood that the applicant is a business man and wants to receive a return on his investments, but the Commission's decisi on is not going to be based on making him a profit. Chair Partridge talked about bringing in a consulting architect to advise the applicant. Commissioner Couperus stated that he is having problems clarifying exactly what he does not like about the most recent design beyond generalities. Commissioner Mandle responded that she thinks the problem with this most recent design is still the overall scale of the house. Commissioner Basiji said the house is too big, however he would not like to see daylight sacrificed to save space through the removal of the lightwells. Commissioner Mandle said whoever buys the home chooses to live in what they buy. The responsibility of the Commission is to protect the building laws of Los Altos Hills. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Basiji moved to continue the project to a future date that will be noticed in order to allow the applicant an opportunity to re-design the residence as necessary. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mandle. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. AYES: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Tankha, Commissioner Mandle, Chair Partidge NOES: None ABSENT: None Approved March 1, 2018 9 Special Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2018 ABSTAIN: None 3.3 LANDS OF LINEBARGER; 10758 Mora Drive (Formerly 10730 Mora Drive, Lot 3): Request for Conditional Development and Site Development Permits for a new 2,627 square foot, two-story single-family dwelling with 3,141 square feet of basement area on two levels and variance requests for side yard building setbacks of 11.5 feet and fifteen (15) feet, uncovered parking in the front and side yard setbacks, and deck, hardscape and basement lightwells in the side yard setbacks on a .398 acre lot; (Maximum height of structure is 27’); File #413-14-ZP-SD-GD- CDP-VAR; CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(a) (Staff: S. Padovan) Chair Partridge stated that he wanted to hear what the applicant and public have to say regarding the second lot and hold all Commission discussion for a later date. Mr. Padovan presented the staff report and discussed the difference between the previous plans and new set of plans. Chair Partridge opened the PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Linebarger briefly referenced the staff report and was open to questions. Chair Partridge made a comment regarding the property site and its close vicinity to the next door neighbor. David Kehlet, Mora Drive, said Mr. Linebarger has shown no evidence of wanting to work with neighbors. He referenced the staff report regarding setbacks and how the applicant has not taken any of the recommendations from staff. Edward Cristal, Mora Drive, endorsed all of the neighborhood comments made this evening and he is opposed to the proposed structure. Esther John, Mora Drive, requested that the Commission to visualize this proposal as a high-density development. She made the point that this property would have only 15 feet in between houses, when Town laws require 60 feet. Aart De Geus, Mora Drive, said he appreciates the discussion. He noted that there are two separate conversations happening: legal issues and neighborhood issues. He believes the applicant is proposing a dramatic change in density to the neighborhood. Karen Kehlet, Mora Drive, suggested that the applicant could sell the lots to neighbors or donate the land to open space. Charles Boiden, Los Altos Hills, said that he wants the applicant to follow the rules. He made the point that this land was never intended to be buildable. Approved March 1, 2018 10 Special Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2018 Hal Feeney, Mora Drive, agreed that these are half lots that were never intended for building. He added that the applicant never listened to the neighbors’ input. An unidentified man commented that the Commission is losing site of the big picture: Los Altos Hills requires one acre per lot. He asked how it is possible to address these problems when no one knows what problems exist? He stated that it is impossible to build on 0.3 acres. Carol Gottlieb, Environmental Design & Protection Committee, asked for the open space easement to be extended. She commented that the reflectivity of the metal roof is concerning. The Committee wants the oak trees to be protected during construction and that no fences shall be in the open space easement. Mr. Linebarger stated that he was in the county when he purchased the property and that he met the county rules at the time. He points out that the neighbors petitioned for annexation while he was going through the process. Chair Partridge closed the PUBLIC HEARING MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Mandle moved to continue the project to a future date to be re noticed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tankha. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. AYES: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Tankha, Commissioner Mandle, Chair Partidge NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 4. OLD BUSINESS – None 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.1 February meeting date. 6. REPORTS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for December 14 – Commissioner Mandle Approved March 1, 2018 11 Special Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2018 Commissioner Mandle shared observations of December 2017 City Council meeting. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for January 18 – Commissioner Basiji 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for February 15 – Commissioner Couperus 6.4 Planning Commission Representative for March 15 – Chair Partridge 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of September 7, 2017 minutes. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Mandle moves to approve the September 7, 2017 minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Couperus. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. AYES: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Tankha, Commissioner Mandle, Chair Partidge NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 7.2 Approval of November 2, 2017 minutes. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Mandle moves to approve the November 7, 2017 minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Couperus. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. AYES: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Tankha, Commissioner Mandle, Chair Partidge NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Approved March 1, 2018 12 Special Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2018 8. REPORTS FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS – None 9. REPORTS FROM FAST TRACK MEETINGS – None Planning Director Suzanne Avila introduced the new Planning Technician for the Town Cody Einfalt 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:18 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Cody Einfalt Cody Einfalt Planning Technician The minutes of the January 11th, 2017 special Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented at the March 1, 2018 regular Planning Commission meeting.