Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/1986PIANNING CQMIISSICN TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, January 22, 1986 Reel 121, Side I, Tract I, 475- End; Side II, Tract I, 000-129 Chairman Carico called the meeting to order at 7:40 P.M. in the Tbwn Hall Council Chambers. A. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present: Cmndssioners Gottlieb, Lachenhruch, Siegel, Struthers, Yanez and Chairman Carico Absent: Nate council Rep: Councilman Allison Staff: Michael W. Enright, City Engineer; Nancy Lytle, Tom Planner, Leslie Mullins, Secretary B. CONSENT CALENDAR: MOTIGN SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers, seconded by Gottlieb and passed unanimously to approve the Consent Calendar, specifically: 1. Approval of Minutes - January 8, 1986 2. Acceptance of Filing Tentative Map: a. Lands of Ugie, File #TM 5-85, 24970 O'Keefe Lane 3. Setting Public Hearings for February 26, 1986: a. Lands of Ugie, File #TM 5-85, Tentative Map and Negative Declaration b. Lands of Berry Hill Farms, File #CUP 8028-77, Annual Review c. Amencln t to Antenna Ordinance C. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 15, 1986: C=issioner Lachenbruch reported the City Council continued consideration for appointment of new Omnissioner to their next Agenda, noting there Here 6 applications for appointment; discussion over continuance of Urgency ordinance, guidelines to be updated at the next meeting; decision on alternate for S -Curve Project (Freront Boal); Jarvis pemit application forwarded to Site Development Cam ittee for their recamendation on uses allmed within Cmservation Easement; discussion over secondary dwelling definitions continued; Mr. Bellucci requested a waiver of fees for filing of application, request was denied. Planning Commission Minutes - January 22, 1986 Page Two C. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Mr. Enright informed Commissioners regarding the S -Curve Project that the City Council selected the pathway to be constructed at the same level as that of the roadway, if all goes according to schedule the project should begin in June and finish in September. Councilman Allison noted that the selection was made by two Councilmembers and may be reconsidered. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. LANDS OF BERRY HILL FARM, FILE #OUP 8028-77, 14250 Page Mill Rmad, Request for approval of Annual Review for Conditional Use Permit (Item continued at the request of the applicant to February 26, 1986) 2. LANDS OF FM4CNT HILLS COUNTRY CLUB, FILE #CUP 8010-76, 12889 Viscaino Court, Request for approval of Annual Review for Conditional Use Permit Commissioner Gottlieb stepped down from consideration on this item. Ms. Lytle referred to the Staff Report dated January 16, 1986, noting the previous Annual Review was conducted January 9, 1985, since that time there have been no additions or amendments to the Use Permit. Ms. Lytle informed Commission notification of the Use Permit was forwarded to commenting agencies, with no additional conditions. Ms. Lytle recamended that the Cammissian adopt a motion to approve the extension of the subject Condi- tional Use Permit. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Neal George, Manager, informed Commission there are presently 405 members at Fremont Hills Country Club. The Public Hearing was then closed. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Iachenbruch and passed maninwsly to approve the extension of the Use Permit for the Lands of Fremont Hills Country Club, File #CLIP 8010-76. 3. LANDS OF GERARD HOMES, ICT #1, GIGL.I COURT, Referral from Site DeVelopnent Committee for Site Development Permit for New Residence and reoemendation to City Council on Special Land Use Permit Mr. Enright referred to Staff Report dated January 16, 1986, informing the Commission, the Site Development Committee at their meeting on January 8, 1986 referred the application for a permit to construct a new residence to the full Planning Commission for review. Mr. Enright gave commissioners zoning information relating to the proposed structure and lot. Mr. Enright informed Commissioners if they determine that it is appropriate to issue a Site Develop- ment Permit, conditions as outlined in the January 8, 1986 Staff Report should be made part of the approval. Omnissioner Siegel indicated he was on the Site Development Committee and recamended that this application be forwarded to Commission for review as 4W this is a good exmmple as to what the Town is working on with the Urgency ordinance, noting the style of the proposed structure is inappropriate for the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes - January 22, 1986 Page Three D. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 3. lands of Gerard Camdssicn and staff discussed location of pathway on Gigli Court and "bulkiness" of proposed structure. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mrs. Irma Goldsmith,27330 Elena Poad, referred to several newspaper articles wherein the neighbors objected proposed developnent, asking the Ccamission to keep in mind the rural character of Ins Altos Hills and to preserve the rural lifestyle. Mrs. Kathy Perga, 12100 Dawn Lane, expressed concern over the style of the proposed residence, noting the developrent should be kept in the spanish style throughout the court. Mr. James Jensen, 27050 Elena Road, indicated that the design is much less offensive than what has already been approved, however, did not feel that this style did not fit in this neighborhood. Mr. Loren Nelson, Gerard Developrent, infonred Cmmission that this residence in comparison to existing residences in the area is mach less in develcpmnt area, noting the proposed structure is under current NIDA formrla, at 428. Mr. Nelsen further noted that under the proposed change in the fornrla, (currently in review with City Council) the proposed structure still complies. Mr. Nelson indicated they are proposing 508 of the allowed building coverage. Mr. Nelson provided staff and camAssion with photographs of building site, and surround- ing residences with their square footage noted for comparison purposes. Mr. Nelson inforned Cmvission that Mr. Gigli has full control over architectural review on his subdivision, noting he has approved the proposed residence. With regard to the Site Development Meeting, Mr. Nelson felt . height and bulkiness were not the objection, but the style of the residence was more of a concern. Mr. Frank Gigli, 12345 Gigli Court, informed Commission he concurs with Mr. Nelsons presentation, noting he agreed to the proposed house, as he will be the one to view the residence most. Mr. Gigli noted there is a Type I pathway. Mr. Hardy, 12101 pawn Lane, infonred Commission they do feel the size and bulk of the house is excessive, noting they would prefer it be a different style. Ms. Beverly Brockway, 23215 fibra Glen Drive, (Real Estate Agent), inforned Commission she has a client who has put a deposit on this site and world prefer this style of hoe. Mrs. lbsenary Wells, 27285 Elena Road, questioned why they need to coffpare the proposed house to the older houses in the neigbborhood? Mrs. Wells asked if it was true a stable and pool could not be built on this site? Ms. Lytle informed GcnrdSsion and public the property currently is allowed 15,000 sq.ft. of development area, noting they are proposing 1/2 of that with this proposal. `, Mr. Andy Perga, 12100 Dawn Lane, informed Camnission he did not like the architectural style of the proposed residence. planning Commission Minutes - January 22, 1486 Page Four D. PUBISC HEARINGS: (continued) t 3. lands of Gerard �r chainw� Carico informed audience that there are ordinances which builders in los Altos Hills mist conform to, noting currently we do not have archi- tectural control.. r?+a; **ran Carico indicated she was glad to hear there are citizens who are concerned with retaining the rural atmosphere we have. Commissioner Struthers noted the residence is not in the best siting (north - south) as it will have very little passive solar access. Ca ssicner Gottlieb indicated although the proposed residence falls within all guidelines, she did not feel should could vote in favor as the residence is not proper for the neighborhood. Cannissioner Yanez questioned if there was any legal way to deny this application? Councilman Allison informed Co:rdssion and public that the Urgency Ordinance gives the City Council a pretty wide latitute of discretion if the proposal meets intents of the ordinance and the Town, noting he could only recall the Council overriding a decision on me application. Mr. Enright noted the Site Development Pennit could be granted and the Special Iand Use Permit denied as the development is not in keeping with the existing neighborhood. Camussioner Tancenhruch informed (Yntnission and public in reviewing the site development checklist this proposal clearly meets the guidelines, noting there have been two types of objections: 1) Architectural Style is not acceptable; and 2) Bulk. Iachlaubruch indicated we are trying to care up with a solution to bulkiness, and this proposal comes just under the wire of our latest idea and this type of concern requires Architectural Review as we have also been discussing, however, we do not currently have an architec- tural review. lachenbruch noted the Town does have landscape policies to soften the impact of structures from off site to help mitigate the impact to adjoining properties and roadways. Camnissioner Siegel indicated that under the Special Land Use Permit Guidelines under paragraph #3, there is language in which he rec=ends the Comnission could not make favorable findings for this proposal in regard to the lot and neighborhood. Siegel informed public the Commission at their next Study Session will be discussing Architectural Review. Mr. Jenks, Elena Fuad, questioned the telephone pole which was in the muddle of Gigli Court, informing Commission that the wires have been removed. Camussim directed staff to speak to Mr. Jenks regarding this matter. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Gottlieb and passed by the following roll call vote to reco:mend to the City Council denial of the Special land Use Permit for Gerard Development, Lot #1, Gigli Court as Commission can not find the proposed development is appropriate to the loco- ` tion, lot and neighborhood. +�' ROLL CALL: AYES: Coamissioners Gottlieb, Siegel, Struthers and Yanez NOES: Conmissimer Lachenbruch and Chairman Carico ABSTAIN: None Planning Crnmission Minutes - January 22, 1986 Page Five D. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) k 3. Lands of Gerard MOTION SECONDED AND CAFMIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Struthers and passed unanimously to continue consideration of the Site Development Permit for the Lands of Gerard Developrent, lot #1, Gigli Court until a decision is reached on the Special Land Use Permit by the City Council. 4 IRCS OF CMC, FILE #VAR 5-85, 11651 Jessica Lane, Request for approval Of variance to encroach into the height envelope by three feet for an addition Ms. Lytle referred to her staff report dated January 17, 1986, informing the Commission the applicant proposes to enclose an existing deck, and change the pitch and type of roof Over the Master Bedroan and proposed sitting man. The roof change will create an encroachment into the height envelope by a maximrmn of three feet on the northwest side of the new roof. Ms. Lytle indicated the proposals will have no effect on building coverage or development area for the lot and is in conformance with the setback requiraTents. Ms. Lytle did note that the property is currently in excess of the allowable MDA, and any building additions mist take place aver existing development area. Ms. Lytle infonred connission, staff was unable to support, and the applicant has not provided evidence supporting findings 1, 2, 3 and 6 of Municipal code Section 9-5.1107 (b). Ms. Lytle noted finding 4 can be supported by the fact that the sitting roan addition is minor and should not be materially detrimental or injurious to surrounding properties or the public, Finding 5 is supported by the fact that the sitting roan addition is consistent with single family uses and activities expressly authorized by the Zoning Crdinance• Ms. Lytle infonred Coamssion, staff recmTnends that the Planning comiission deny the variance request to encroach into the height envelope by three feet. Should the ;mission be able to support the necessary findings, staff recamwnds the Commission, after discussion break or continue the item to allow staff to draft then. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mrs. Cheng, 11651 Jessica Lane, As recrnmended by staff we first applied for a setback deternination from the Conadssion and Council and that request was denied; I was informed that I may apply for a variance in order to repair an existing problem with my roof, asking Commission to grant approval of the subject variance application. The Public Hearing was then closed. MOTIQQ SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Lachenbruch and passed unanimously to approve the Lands of Oheng, File #VAR 5-85, 11651 Jessica Lane based on the following findings relating to Municipal Code Section 9-5.1107 (b) : 1) Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist relating to improvarents as thre is a conforming solution not injurious to public interest; 2) The Literal enforanent of the provisions of this chapter would result in practical difficulties, making the residence not aesthectically pleasing; 3) The strict application world deprive the property Owners of an aesthetically pleasing residence; 4) The grating of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare; 5) The variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning district regulations, only three feet encroachnent; and 6) The granting of such variance will be in han=y with the general purpose and intent of this chapter and General Plan. Planning Comission Minutes - January 22, 1986 Page Six t E. OLD BUSINESS: ` Oamiissicner Gottlieb questioned if Santa Clara County has received a copy of our new Site Development Ordinance for their review in those properties which border the Town. Staff informed Commission they would be happy to send on the ordinance once received in final form £ran the Attorney. Comnissicner Struthers informed Commissioners of Ins Altos Planning Commission meeting tomorrow evening on El Retiro property. Struthers noted Mary Stutz and herself met with Ins Altos Planner re: paths and development. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Request from Mr. and Mrs. Wright for interpretation of Section 9-5.504 (a) Ms. Lytle referred to memo of January 17, 1986, noting the Wright's are requesting a parking area located within a setback, according to Section 9-5.504 (a), the only structure allowed in setbacks are driveways, walks, minor ornamental garden structures, fences sod underground utility facilities. Ms. Lytle indicated staff in past has interpreted driveway turn out, such as that included in the Wright's driveway design to be a portion of a driveway and acceptable. Ms. Lytle asked if the Commission would want to include parking areas such as this in the definition of "driveway"? Commissioner Struthers indicated there are some problems in Town with parking, noting this application is well thought out, questioning if it could be adequately screened to mitigate parked cars. Commissioner Tachenhruch noted this is an isolated parking area, indicating we generally treated this areas as driveways, as long as it could be adequately landscaped and not obtrusive, noting special attention should be made at the Site Development meeting. Mrs. Wright, 14185 Miranda Iniad, informmmed Camussion they are trying to meet the guidelines the Town is proposing, toping the development is sesthectically pleasing as possible. Mr. Lhright and Ms. Lytle asked if the Site Development Committee could have the discretion to approve or deny such parking areas on their own merits and adequate landscaping. Passed by Consensus that the Site Development Committee will have the authority to review parking areas on an individual basis, reviewing the site for offsite views and adequate mitigation measures if appropriate. 2. Staff questioned Commission if a grass court would be considered under develogmmt area? Comission indicated yes it would be. G. ADJQIRPZ=: There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Leslie Mullins Engineering/Planning