Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/25/2018Approved August 2, 2018 1 Special Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 2018 Minutes of a Special Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, June 25, 2018, 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA, 94022 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Absent: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Tankha, Commissioner Couperus, Chair Partridge None Staff: Planning Director Suzanne Avila, Consultant Planner Steve Padovan, City Attorney Steve Mattas, Planning Technician Cody Einfalt 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Chair Partridge opened presentations from the floor. Seeing no one wishing to speak, Chair Partridge closed presentations from the floor. 3. ONGOING BUSINESS EX PARTE: None Chair Partridge spoke about the history of the items on the agenda and their involvement with the Planning Commission and City Council. The Commission discussed how to proceed with creating the findings of disapproval for the following projects. 3.1 LANDS OF LINEBARGER; 10728 Mora Drive (Formerly 10730 Mora Drive, Lot 1): A Conditional Development Permit and Site Development Permit for a new 2,679 square foot, two-story single-family dwelling with 2,881 square feet of basement area on two levels along with Variance requests for side yard building setbacks of fifteen (15) feet and 15.5 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) - construction of a new single-family residence in a residential zone district (Staff-Steve Padovan). Approved August 2, 2018 2 Special Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 2018 Chair Partridge opened agenda item 3.1 to comments from the public. Esther John, Los Altos Hills, urged the Commission to consider her letter she sent them while making the findings of approval. Seeing no more members from the public wishing to speaking, Chair Partridge closed public comment. The Commission discussed the findings of denial for the Conditional Development Permit (CDP) that staff provided in the memorandum. Chair Partridge presented edits to the findings of denial for the CDP. He expressed that his fellow Commissioners should weigh in on his edits. Based on comments from the Commission, staff edited the findings of denial for the CDP as follows The site for the proposed development is not adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate the proposed intensity of development, including all structures, yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping, walls and fences, and such other features as may be required by this chapter. The subject property is a narrow, substandard lot with a Lot Unit Factor under 0.5 and limitations on the maximum amount of floor area and development area. This results in a limited building envelope that does may not support the construction of the proposed residence, garage or required parking without the need for some form of a variances. However, the size and design of the proposed development would contain over 4,000 square feet of living area with 15-foot side yard setbacks for the majority of the structure. The size and shape of the site is not adequate for the proposed level of development within a neighborhood context where existing primary residences are sited on lots typically a factor of two or more wider and are not as densely developed as the proposed property. This is not consistent with the development patterns in the neighborhood because existing primary residences are spaced further apart and not as densely developed as the proposed property. The size and design of the proposed structures does not create a proper balance, unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape and topography of the site and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed residence is a large, two-story structure that would encroach up to 15 feet into the standard 30-foot side yard setbacks. The proposed floor area and footprint of the residence are excessive given based on the narrow lot width and substandard lot area, leading to a proposed development intensity that is lacking in balance, unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the surrounding Approved August 2, 2018 3 Special Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 2018 neighborhood. and the proposed residence would be more densely developed than surrounding properties. A design that would reduces the overall building footprint and the side yard setback encroachments would increase compatibility with surrounding residential development. be more compatible with surrounding residential development. This may would include greater articulation of the side elevations by utilizing recessed courtyards or decks or any other mechanism that would reduce the overall footprint of the home and make the home more harmonious with the neighborhood. by adding bunkers to bury additional portions of the living area. The rural character of the site has not been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing vegetation and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading and alteration of natural land forms. The home as proposed does not preserve the rural character of the site as much as feasible. The proposed grading creates a two-story basement on a narrow lot, which exceeds the amount needed to accommodate a reasonably sized residence on the property, puts at risk the existing established vegetation along the side property lines and may necessary to create the two-story basement and significantly inhibit the ability to provide landscape screening along the side property lines. In addition, the design does not adequately substantially incorporate integrate the house into the sloping topography of the site. into. In addition, the proposed floor area and footprint of the residence are excessive based on the narrow lot width and substandard lot area. Although the proposed development area contains no heritage or protected trees, and Chair Partridge explained the intent of his edits and why he framed statements the way he did. Commissioner Basiji asked the City Attorney if the Commission was making their findings based off the floor area above ground or the entire development including the basement. He made the point that the Zoning Code for Los Altos Hills does not count basements in a floor area calculation. Steve Mattas, City Attorney, said that the findings should speak to the level of intensity of development on the lot. Commissioner Basiji asked the City Attorney about the precedence that would be set by the Commission with the findings of denial. Mr. Mattas explained that the Commission will always have the discretion to determine the allowable size of development of a lot. He added that owning a particular sized lot does not guarantee a certain sized house. Commissioner Basiji mentioned that understanding the history of the lots is important in drafting the findings. Approved August 2, 2018 4 Special Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 2018 Commissioner Couperus agreed and added that the goal of the past Commission meetings was to reduce the footprint and increase the setbacks for the house. Commission discussion ensued regarding whether the findings of denial for 10728 Mora Drive could support the decision on 10758 Mora Drive. The Commission agreed that the same situation is present for the second lot under consideration that evening. Mr. Mattas explained that their findings of denial for the CDP and variance requests could apply to both lots. The Commission edited the findings for denial for the variance requests as follows: Although subject property is substandard in size, the applicant’s current variance requests exceed what is necessary for reasonable development and thus, the strict application of the provisions of this title would not deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The proposed development is a 32.5 foot wide, 2,679 square foot, two-story residence with a 2,881 square foot basement. It is proposed to be built on a narrow .374-acre lot, which, at its widest point, is 68 feet wide and has an average width of just 63.5 feet. If the requested variances were granted, the proposed residence would encroach into the standard 30-foot side yard setbacks by 15 feet, the light wells for the basement would encroach 18 feet into the side yard setback, and the required parking would encroach to within ten (10) feet of the front and side property lines. Further, if the variances were granted, the building’s location could inhibit the owner’s ability to provide adequate landscape screening along the side property lines. The applicant was made aware of design concerns at the January 11, 2018 Planning Commission hearing and was urged to reduce the footprint of the house to lessen the impact of the development on the neighboring lots and allow for a development with less substantial variance requirements. However, the applicant declined to make substantive changes to the design. There have been variances granted in the past that relate to previously developed properties where the variances have recognized prior development. The extraordinary circumstances applicable to this development result not from the property itself, but in the applicant’s decision to not make a substantive reduction in the floor area and footprint of the proposed design to reduce the scale of the variance requests. There are several available design changes that would lessen the impact of the development on the neighboring lots and allow for a development with less substantial variance requirements. Some of these possible design changes include reducing the footprint of the house, increased wall articulation through the use of a courtyard, recessed patios and/or decks, or stepping back portions of the upper floor level. The applicant was made aware of design concerns at the January 11, 2018 Approved August 2, 2018 5 Special Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 2018 Planning Commission hearing. However, the applicant declined to make substantive changes to the design. Therefore, the number and scale of the variances requested are not consistent with the privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity, even for those who have developed similarly-sized lots. The extraordinary circumstances applicable to this development result not from the property itself, of which there are parcels of similar size and dimension in the Town where residences have been approved and built, but in the applicant’s decision to not reduce the floor area and footprint of the proposed design so that the scale of the variance requests can be reduced. That upon the granting of the requested variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of this title will not be served and the recipient of the variance will be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners. Section 10-1.1007(2)(a) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code provides that “the purpose of the variance is to resolve practical difficulties or undue hardships, not of the applicant’s own making, which may result from the exceptional size, shape, topography, location, or other physical site conditions.” Although the lot where the development is proposed to be constructed i s narrow, it is not exceptionally so, and the applicant has declined to amend the proposed design of the development to adjust to the constraints of this property. In addition, the requested setback encroachments exceed what is necessary to develop this property, are not consistent with the rural character of Los Altos Hills and the proposed home is too large for the lot. The request for a 15 -foot side yard building setback variance could be reduced through the design use of a smaller structure, and thereby reduce the discrepancy between the development density proposed and that of neighboring residences. There are several design options that can be incorporated into the project that would reduce the amount of encroachment necessary to develop the lot including use of a courtyard, recessed balconies and patios, and other design features that break up the structure and better utilizes the existing grade of the property. Alternatively, the applicant could request one or more variances from a different section of the municipal code that is more compatible with the neighborhood (e.g., request a variance to build a bunker in the setback which is less visually imposing than an above-grade structure and can be more easily screened). In sum, The Town’s purpose for granting variances would not be served by granting the applicant’s variance requests for an exceptional development on this property, especially in-light-of the applicant declining to substantively address the Town’s request for concerns with the proposed design, such that fewer and or less substantial variance requests. s would be required. Here, Granting the requested variances would result in the grant of a special privilege to the applicant because the totality of the proposed amount of setback encroachments/variances significantly exceeds what is enjoyed by surrounding property owners and the level of encroachment could be reduced while still allowing for the construction of a new residence on the property. being requested are more than that enjoyed by surrounding property Approved August 2, 2018 6 Special Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 2018 owners and these design features could be reduced while still allowing for the construction of a new residence on the property. That the granting of such variances may be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district. The granting of such variances for the proposed development of the property may be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to surrounding properties as the development is proposed to encroach within 15 feet of the property lines of the adjacent lots and is not designed in a way that is compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. The 2,201 square-foot footprint of the proposed home, would stretch 32.5 feet across the 63.5 foot wide property (average width). The neighborhood in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project contains a mixture of residential structures with varying setback distances and separation between the main residential buildings of adjacent properties, as well as frequent demonstrated articulation, all of which lessens the visual impact of high structure walls on the neighboring properties. Here, the applicant has declined to make further design alterations that would lessen the impact of the development on the neighboring properties as well as the existing character of the neighborhood and granting the requested variances would be materially detrimental to the public welfare and neighboring properties. Therefore, the applicant’s request for a 15-foot side yard setback for the residence is not consistent with the development patterns in the neighborhood. Chair Partridge stated that the variance requests that the applicant is seeking are beyond what is needed to have a house on the lot. The Commission agreed. Discussion ensued regarding that the findings need to show that they are not condemning the property. If the applicant made more positive changes to the development, the project could have been acceptable. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Mandle moved to approve the findings of denial for the Conditional Development Permit as amended by the Commission in relation to 10728 Mora Drive. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tankha. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 AYES: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Tankha, Commissioner Couperus, Chair Partridge NOES: None ABSENT: None Approved August 2, 2018 7 Special Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 2018 ABSTAIN: None MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Mandle moved to approve the findings of denial for the variance request as amended by the Commission in relation to 10728 Mora Drive The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tankha. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 AYES: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Tankha, Commissioner Couperus, Chair Partridge NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 3.2 LANDS OF LINEBARGER; 10758 Mora Drive (Formerly 10730 Mora Drive, Lot 3): A Conditional Development Permit and Site Development Permit for a new 2,508 square foot, two-story single-family dwelling with 2,797 square feet of basement area on two levels and Variance requests for side yard building setbacks of 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) - construction of a new single-family residence in a residential zone district (Staff- Steve Padovan). The Commission discussed how to address the second item. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Basiji moved to approve the findings of denial for the Conditional Development Permit for 10758 Mora Drive with direction to incorporate the changes as amended by the Commission specifically relating to 10728 More Drive. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Couperus. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 AYES: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Tankha, Commissioner Couperus, Chair Partridge NOES: None ABSENT: None Approved August 2, 2018 8 Special Planning Commission Meeting June 25, 2018 ABSTAIN: None MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Basiji moved to approve the findings of denial for the variance request for 10758 Mora Drive with direction to incorporate the changes as amended by the Commission specifically relating to 10728 More Drive. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Couperus. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 AYES: Commissioner Basiji, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Tankha, Commissioner Couperus, Chair Partridge NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 4. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:31 P.M. Respectfully Submitted, Cody Einfalt Planning Technician The minutes of the June 25, 2018 Special Planning Commission Meeting were approved as presented at the August 2, 2018 Regular Planning Commission Meeting.