Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/1985PIANNING CaZUSSION TOWN OF LAS ALTOS HILI 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California Wednesday, November 13, 1985 Reel 120, Side I, Tract II - 000 -End; Side II, Tract II, 000-225 Chairmen Carico called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Hall Council Chambers. A. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present: Camiissioners Gottlieb, Iachenbruch, Siegel, Struthers, Yanez and Chairman Carico Absent: Omudssioner Kuranoff Staff: George Scarborough, City Manager; Michael W. Enright, City Engineer; Nancy Lytle, Town Planner; Leslie Mullins, Secretary B. CCNSENT CALENDAR: MOPLCN SEC(NDED AMID CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Gottlieb and passed unaniaously to cancel the Wednesday, November 27, 1985 Planning [ Cnnission meeting, as there are no public hearings and the night before ` Thanksgiving. MOPICN SEccNGED AND CARRIED: Moved by Gottlieb, seconded by Carico and passed unanhm sly to approve the minutes of October 23, 1985. (Commissioner Siegel abstained from approval as he was absent from the 10/23/85 meeting). C. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL KEEPING OF NOJEIBER 6, 1985: Commissioner Struthers informed Carmission the City Council approved Special Land Use Permits for Lot #5, Bentley ODurt,Bob Owen Hares; Christophers Lane, Walsh addition; received an appeal for Lot #6, Bentley Court from Bob agen Homes; adopted 1985 Uniform Building Code; continued the appeal of the Special Land Use Permit for Mozart for preparation of agreement between Town and Mozart; Site Development ordinance approved; set Study Session for S -Curve, Tuesday, November 26 at 8:30 A.M. at TOWn Hall Council Chambers. Cmnissioners discussed Councils actions on Mozart Appeal and the Lot #6, Bentley Court, Bob Owen Hares Appeal. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. LANDS OF PREDROPM, FILE #CUP 8-85, 14975 Page Mill Road, Request for approval of Conditional Use Permit for secondary dwelling unit Ms. Lytle referred to her Staff Report dated November 7, 1985 noting the C applicant received zoning approval on August 16, 1985, Site Development Permit on September 4, 1985 and the Special Land Use Permit on September 18, 1985. Ms. Lytle indicated the Special land Use Permit was granted based upon a condition that the structure not be finaled until a Conditional Use Permit is granted. Ms. Lytle gave Cmmission information regarding the Planning Commission Minutes - November 13, 1985 Page Two D. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Lands of Prodroum (continued) property in relation to zoning and subdivision ordinances. Ms. Lytle noted the findings in Municipal Code Section 9-5.1107 (a)(i-iv) necessary to grant a Conditional Use Permit could be met, thereby mcamiending that the Planning Cmuissim approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to recamended Conditions of Approval attached to the November 7, 1985 Staff Report. Commissioners Gottlieb, lachenbruch and Struthers expressed concern over the location of the proposed secondary dwelling an the site, noting the structure has been proposed too close to Page Mill Iniad, a local scenic highway and entrance to the Town, asking the applicant if there is an alternate location on the site less obtrusive. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Stan Prodromou, 14975 Page Mill Road, informed Cmydssim it is their intent to develop this property with the purpose of the scenic entrance to the 'Town, noting there is a very steep hillside behind the residence which makes it difficult to develop this property. Mr. Pxndranou noted it was his understanding that the Site Development Permit was already issued, and that the Conditional Use Permit would allow him to have 220v and/or gas, noting the proposed use for the building is an entertainment center and pool house. Cmedssioner Lachrenbruch referred to the Town's General Plan with regard L to scenic roadways, noting he would like to suggest that the structure hI proposed be turned about 908, thereby rowing it away frau Page hull Road and would be screened from roadway, noting this change world make a substantial difference and make the structure landscapable and consistent with the General Plan. The Public Hearing was than closed. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Gottlieb, seconded by Tachenbruch and passed unanimously to continue the public hearing for Lands of Prodmnou, File #CUP 8-85, 14975 Page Mill Road. The basis for continuation of this item is under hLuiicipal Code Section 9-5.1107 (a) (1) (i) , "Conditional Use Permits shall be granted by the Env ixommental Planning Conmission only when it is found that: (i) the proposed use or facility is properly located in relation to the community as a whole, land uses, and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity. The Planning Commission noted concern over the amount of development on the lot and the proposed structures close proximity to Page hull Road, a local scenic roadway and main entrance to the Roan of Ins Altos Hills, as indicated in the Town of Los Altos Hills General Plan. 2. LANDS OF KORPCLNTIN06, FILE #SA 4-83, Altamont Road (Nowack & Associates, Engineer), Request for approval of Site Approval Ms. Lytle referred to her Staff Report dated November 7, 1985, noting the subject site is 2.6 acres net and gross, vegetated with oak woodland and dense riparian brush, and bramble inhabit the creek areas. Ms. Lytle indicated the Oonditions of Approval for the Subdivision required that these trees be preserved, noting in the recomended Conditions of Approval a Conservation Easement be established as redlined on the Site Approval Map. Planning Commission Minutes - November 13, 1985 Page Three D. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Lands of Korpontinos (continued) Ms. Lytle gave Commission information regarding the site in terms of zoning and subdivision ordinances. Ms. Lytle noted issues related to this application are: 1) Geotechnical constraints; 2) Conservation Easement; 3) Pathways; and 9) Road Right -of -Way dedication. Staff recommends that Planning Commission recommend approval of the Site Approval to the City Council subject to the Conditions of Approval attached to the November 7, 1985 Staff Report. Commission and staff discussed the pathway easement requested and existing connections, if any; and the trees and recommended Conservation Easement with this application, noting the Subdivision Condition read "All Major trees shall be preserved". The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Tony Lagorio, Attorney representing the Owners, indicated they have no objections to the geotechnical constraints, however, we are concerned over the Conservation Easement and Pathway Basement requested. Mr. Lagorio indicated they strongly object to the pathway request. With regard to the Conservation Easement, Mr. Lagorio noted the easement cuts through most of the lot and is too restrictive. Mr. Goodwin Steinberg, 10030 W. Loyola Avenue, indicated there is a client very interested in purchasing this lot, noting however the proposed Conservation Fasement is much too restrictive, especially when there are geologic constraints on the lot as well. Mr. Steinberg asked that the Commission consider reducing the Conservation Fasemrent to not impact the property as much. Mrs. Mary Stutz, Chairman, Pathway Committee, gave Commission infor- mation regarding existing pathways and dedications made with past subdivisions. The Public Hearing was then closed, Commission began review of the Conditions of Approval. MOTION SExWIDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Gottlieb, seconded by Struthers and passed by the following roll call vote to amend Condition L.A. to read as follows: The owner shall dedicate a twenty foot (20') wide pathway easement along the northwesterly property line in the area of the Conservation Easement described in Condition 1.B. ROLL CALL: AYES.: Commissioners Gottlieb, Lachenbruch, Siegel, Struthers and Chairman Carico NOES: None ABSTAIN: CUmmissioner Yanez MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Nkrved by Siegel, seconded by Struthers and passed unanimously to amend Condition 1.B. to read as follows: The owner shall dedicate to the Town a Conservation Easement to include all of the lot ( as redlined on the Site Approval Map, dated September, 1985, and as amended �W by the Planning Commission at their November 13, 1985 meeting. Construction necessary for pathway described in Condition 1.A. shall be allowed within the Conservation Easement. No ,grading, clearing, tree removal or structures shall be allowed within the Conservation Fase,wnt. Landscaping will be permitted within the Conservation Easement only with approval of the Site Development Committee. n V Planning Cmuission Minutes - November 13, 1985 Page Four PUBLIC LLEARRiGS: 2. Lands of Rorpontinos (continued) MOTION SEOYNDED AMID CARRIED: Moved by Gottlieb, seconded by Yanez and passed unanimously to add Condition S.D. to read as follows: All major trees shall be preserved. MOTION SEIXPIDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Yanez, seconded by T rhenhn,rh and passed unanincusly to recommend approval of the Lands of Korpontinos, File #SA 4-83, to the City Council subject to theconditions of Approval attached to the November 7, 1985 and as amended by the Planning Commissim. The Commission passed by consensus to hear iters 1 and 2 of New Business prior to item 3, Zoning Ordinance Amendment under Public Hearings. E. NEW BUSINESS: 1. LANDS OF HANSEN, 26415 Anacapa Drive, Determination of Setback Ms. Lytle infcned Caamission staff did not prepare a Staff Report on this iter, noting because of current decisions of setback determination and recent appeal of decision. Ms. Lytle indicated the Planning Commissions decision should be rade which would not be injurious to adjacent properties or the public interest as per YIl icipal Code Section 9-5.504 (c)(1). Ms. Lytle indicated there is a letter addressed to the Planning Condssion dated October 25, 1985 frau Samuel Sinnott, the applicants architect requesting that the forty foot setback be frau Anacapa Drive. Mr. Samuel Sinnott, Architect, infoned Cmmission we are far below the Urgency Ordinance guidelines with regard to height and to keep in compliance we would require the forty foot setback be taken frau Anacapa Drive. Commissioner Tancenhruch expressed concern over the applicants choice of setback, noting the forty foot setback should be frun the madway which has frontage. Commissioner Lachenbruch indicated a reduction of the setback should be handled through the variance procedure because of the difficulty with the subject lot. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed with Commissioner Lach- enbnuch, indicating if they wish to move closer to La Cresta they should apply for a variance. Mr. Isac Hasen, 301 Pope Street Menlo Park, infonTed Comtission he believes that access £ran la Cresta world be the most feasible, noting the present address is frau Anacapa Drive, which would much less of an impact to neighbors. MOTION SEIXAIDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Gottlieb, seconded by Yanez and failed by the following roll call vote that the forty foot setback shall be frau La Cresta Drive, (the major entrance) . ROLL CALL: AYES: Cminissioners Gottlieb and Struthers NOES: Cmmdssioners Iachenbruch, Siegel, Yanez and Chainvan Carico MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by lachenbruch, seconded by Siegel and passed by the following roll call vote that the forty foot setback be frau Anacapa Drive. ROLL CALL: AYES: Comissioners La hanhn,ch, Siegel, Struthers, Yanez and Chairmen Carico NOS: Commissioner Gottlieb Planning Commission Minutes - November 13, 1985 Page Five E. NEW BUSINESS; 1. Lands of Hansen (continued) Ccmnissjco Carico indicated her reasoning for voting against the forty foot setback on Is Cresta, noting the setback (40') should be taken from the more heavily travelled roadway, unless the Commission deems otherwise. commissioner Yanez noted after reviewing the applicants proposal and plans, he felt the proposal could be less obtrusive from Is Cresta. Commissioner Lachenbruch indicated Mr. Hansen has indicated there would be less of a visual impact upon the Ton at large if the thirty foot setback were from Ta Cresta. Iachebruch noted the general rule has been that when a lot (house) abuts two streets, the Camussion would normally desig- nate the street with access to forty foot setback, unless in their opinion the proximity of development to the second road would result in greater impact to the Town. Cmvtissioner Struthers indicated she agreed with Compissioner lachenbruch because of the steepness of the lot and the applicants choice would be much easier to landscape. 2. LANDS OF CHENG, 11651 Jessica lane, Determination of Setback Ms. Lytle informed Camussion the Cheng's applied for a zoning permit on October 17, 1985 for an addition and enclosure of an existing deck. Ms. Lytle noted, after staff review of the proposed addition it was found that the application could not be approved because of the following reasons: If,assuming the forty foot setback were from Jessica lane, the proposed addi- tion would exceed the allowable height by approximately six feet; and if, assuming the setback from Jessica Lane were thirty feet, the proposed addition would exceed the allowable height by approximately ane to two feet. Ms. Lytle indica*ed the applicant was informed the plans submitted would require revision, and in either case, the applicant must request the Planning Commission to approve their choice of forty foot setback as per Municipal Code Section 9-5.504 (c)(1). Ms. Lytle further informed Crnmission, the applicant's have submitted a new plan this evening, noting, staff has not reviewed this plan for compliance with ordinances. Comdssion and staff discussed the height: of the existing residence and proposed addition. Mrs. Cheng, 11651 Jessica lane, informed Commission presently the roof is flat and they have experienced a leak which must be fixed, noting they would very much like to change the style of the roof as shown on the plans presented this evening. Commissioner Lach anbruch questioned the appropriateness of this item on the Agenda, noting the issue of concern is the Building Height Envelope, noting in his opinion, the Planning Caumission did not intend when this subdivision was developed that the owners take Magdalena as the forty foot setback, it was clearly the intention to keep the forty foot setback from L Jessica lane to keep it uncluttered around the cul-de-sac. Mr. Lachenbruch 4/ noted he felt the correct procedure for the Cheng's would be to apply for a variance, noting this would be a logical request based upon the Cheng's letter of October 29, 1985. Planning Com:ission Minutes - November 13, 1985 Page Six E. NEW BUSINESS: %W 2. Lands of Cheng (continued) Commissioner Yanez indicated he felt this application was keeping with the Ordinances and as Magdalena Road is a scenic roadway, the setback should be forty feet from Magdalena. MOTION SECGDIDID AND FAILED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Yanez and failed by the following roll call wte that the forty foot building setback be from Magdalena Road and thirty foot building setback from Jessica Lane. ROLL CALL: AYES; Comuissioners Siege'. and Yanez NOS: Ca:missioners Gottlieb, Iachenbruch, Struthers and Chairman Carico MOrIW SECOMED AND CARRIID: Moved by Iachenbzuch, seconded by Yanez and passed by the following roll call vote that the forty foot building setback line be established by Jessica Lane, because of the proximity of the building site to Jessica Lane and would thereby minimize the inpact to the caur pity at large. LULL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Gottlieb, Lachenbruch, Struthers and Chairman Carico NOES: Commissioners Siegel and Yanez Co .d.saicner Yanez left the meeting at 11:00 P.M. G D. PUBIJC H ARWGS: �/ 3. ZCtnW NIKER= - MJNICIPAL CCDE SECl'ICN 9-5.504 (c) (1) Setback Lines Ms. Lytle referred to her staff report dated November 8, 1985, informing Canmissim at their neeting of October 23, 1985, the Commission adopted a motion to revise Section 9-5.504 (c)(1). Ms. Lytle indicated this section of the Zoning ordinance requires a forty foot setback from vehicular access ease ants and mad right-of-ways, unless a property is located on more than one, noting in this case, the property owner may select, provided the choice, in the opinion of the a mmission will not be injurious to adjacent properties or the public interest. Ms. Lytle indicated the revision discussed at the meeting was suggested to eliminate the confusion and delays which result from this section. Ms. Lytle indicated staff recamends simplification whenever possible without jeaprd;zing our goals. Ms. Lytle noted perhaps in light of the recent appeal of the Commission's decision on 40' setback on Lot #6 Bentley Court, and the Council's overtuuning of the Commission's decision, that it may be beneficial to further discuss past and present policy on this section prior to making a revision. Cbmmissim and staff discussed the possibility of forty foot setback be established for all lines; suggested plotting of the setbacks on a base map; and recommended taking the choice away from the applicant. The Public Hearing was then opened. Planning Ca¢mission Minutes - November 13, 1985 Page. Seven D. PUBLIC BEARINGS: 3. Zoning Amendment (continued) Mrs. Mary Stutz, 25310 Elena Road, informed Commission that if the setbacks were detennined to be 40' from all sides that their property would lose 768 of area, noting it would be much more practical to be 30' on all sides. Commissioner Iarhenbr„ch indicated that after he had suggested the 40' on all sides at the 10/23/85 meeting, that he went here and thought about it more carefully, noting the idea of 40' was established for subdivisions such as Berger on Fremont Road, thereby keeping the front yards larger and houses back away from cul-de-sacs. Lache>bruch noted that generally the 40' setback designation is from the street with access. Commissioners and staff discussed several ideas for future reference on making a decision on the setback lines: 40' to be frau the street where the house has access, provided that such choice would not impact the camamity, with the final decisions being made by Commission or Site Development Caanittee; suggested to redefine exceptions, with regard to design aspects, safety issues, views and grading; remove the choice of setback from theapplicant; and define normal situations. There was some discussion as to holding a Study Session between Council and Commission for a better understanding of the intent of the setback determinations. Final decision was to have staff re-evaluate existing ordinances and proposed, and return for fiather discussion to the next meeting. %0 F. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Setting date of next Study Session for zoning Ordinance Pmendments Study Session to be held Monday, December 9, 1985 at 5:30 P.M. and to adjourn at 7:30 P.M. *****This item will be on the December 11, 1985 Planning Commission Agenda**** G. ADJOURV=: There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Leslie Mullins Irigineering/Planning