The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/28/1986PLANNING COMMISSION TOM OF LOS ALTOS HILLS far 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California Wednesday, May 28, 1986 Reel 121, Side I, Tract II, 724 -End; Side II, Tract II, 000-524 Chairman Carico called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chamdbers. A. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLIANCE: Present: Commissioners Gottlieb, Kaufman, Siegel, Struthers, Yanez arl Chairman Carico Absent: CaTudssioner Lachenbruch Staff: Michael W. Enright, City Engineer; Nancy Lytle, Town Planner; Leslie Mullins, Secretary Item Reroved - B.1. Struthers ccmmussioner Struthers requested the minutes of May 14, 1986, be arr'nded. as follows: On Page Seven, Under New Business, Item #7, add "to be included within our Urban Service Area and along with other lots in unincorporated areas. !40IIO3 SECOMSO AND CARRIED: Moved by Gottlieb, second=_d by Carico and passed unanimously to approve the Consent Calendar, specifically: 1. Minutes of May 14, 1986 as amended 2. Public Hearings for June 11, 1986: a. Lands of Owen, File #PM 6-85, Int Line Adjustment (Old Trace Lane) b. Iands of Owen, File #CUP 10-85, Conditional Use Permit (Secondary Dwelling) c. Lands of Owen, Site Development Permit (Old Trace Lane), New Residence, Tennis Court, Swinming Pool, Stables, Cabana and (Best House d. Lands of Carnes, File #CUP 4-86, 14090 Tracy Court, Conditional Use Permit, (Secondary Dwelling Unit) e. Lands of Carnes, Site Development Permit (14090 Tracy Court), Secondary Duelling Unit, Swimming Pool, Bridge and Earth Berm f. Acceptance of Filing Tentative Nap: 1. Lands of Elmberg, File #7M 12-84, Taaffe Road, AIN: 182-13-007, 4 Lots Requested, Gross Area: 7.61 +; Net Area: 7.27 +, Average Slope: 20.18 { g. Lands of ELTberg, File #TM 12-84, Taaffe Road, Tentative Map and Negative !/ Declaration, 4 Lots Planning Connission Minutes -May 28, 1986 Page Two C. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 21, 1986: Chairman Carico to give report under Old Business 4 D. PUBLIC HEARINGS: E. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Request from John Demeter for Preliminary Review of a Variance to exceed the Gross Floor Area allowed for a Detached Secondary Dwelling Unit Ms. Lytle referred to her staff report dated May 22, 1986 informing commission, John Demeter the caretaker for the Scarff property is considering requesting a variance to allow remodeling of an existing non -conforming secondary dwelling unit which is the residence of Mr. Demeter and his family. Ms. Lytle noted the structure currently measures 1,572 square feet of gross floor area, and is proposed to increase it to approximately 2,434 square feet, which would be 1,434 square feet in excess of the maximnn allowed by ordinance. Ms. Lytle noted Mr. Demeter has provided staff and camission with his reasons for the request, noting staff has referred him to camtission for advice in making the variance application because staff was unable to find a precedent for.approving or denying a request of this type. Ms. Lytle informad Commission the property is subdividable, and could accomodate two residences of this type, noting if the structure creates zoning inconsistencies in any future subdivision the Town would have the right to request that the structure be reunved as a condition of approval, furtherm m, this type of structural expansion world necessitate a requirement for conditional use permit, although the existing unit is apparently a pre-existing use, thereby giving the Town further control over the future use of the structure. Ms. Lytle informed Oamdssion, to discuss the plan proposed by kow Mr. Demeter in terms of whether or not it appears, from information provided, to be a reasonable variance request. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. John Demeter, Caretaker, 26026 Scarff Way, informed Coanission he is repre- senting Mr. Scarff, noting Mr. Scarff would be applying for the formal variance application, noting at this time, Mr. Scarff has no intention to subdivide his property, noting we would be upgrading the house, informing Commission there would be no tree removal. Mr. Demeter informed Commission the house will be for the caretaker (himself) and his family, noting the size of Mr. Scarff's property requires a full time caretaker. The Public Hearing was then closed. Commissioners Gottlieb, Kaufman, Siegel, Strutters and Yanez noted that because of the size of the parcel and the need for a full time caretaker, they did not feel it would be a problem to approve a variance request for increase to the gross floor area for the secondary dwelling, noting however, at the time of subdivision, it would be necessary to remove the secondary dwelling if it did not meet the zoning ordinances at that tire, and that an agreement should be entered into between the Town and Mr. Scarff in such case. Cam¢ission discussed perhaps revising the Conditional Use Permit ordinance to allow for this type of secondary dwelling unit. Chairman Carico noted concern over allowing an increase, noting she could not ka/ encourage the applicant to proceed with variance application, noting it could be allowed later during subdivision, noting concern over two primary dwelling units. Planning Commission Minutes - May 28, 1986 Page Three E. NEW BUSINESS: (continued) 2. letter frau Samuel Sinnott regarding an interpretation of Section 9-5.503 (c)(1) for retaining walls at Lands of Hansen, 26415 Anacapa Drive Ms. Lytle referred to her staff report dated May 22, 1986, informing Commission the applicant is proposing to locate three foot size retaining walls in the setback area along a roadway,noting the wall closest to the road is allowed a maximum of 4'', and the wall closest to the residence is allowed approximately 54' in height. Ms. Lytle informed Commission the applicant is requesting an interpretation that the proposed walls are not subject to the roadway inter- sections of Section 9-5.503 (c)(1), based on findings that they will not be seen frau the roadway, and conditioned upon their approval by the Site Develop- ment Committee at the time they review the plans for Site Development Permit. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Samuel Sinnott, brought a model of the proposed residence and retaining walls to show to Commission in scale, referring to retaining walls, noting they taper into the grade, so that they will not be highly visible from off- site and adjacent property. Mr. Sinnott noted the walls would be earth tones and will be planted with vines and plants to conceal the walls. The Public Hearing was then closed. Commission and staff discussed the necessity of the proposed retaining walls, the required heights, and locations. MOTION SECDNDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kaufman, seconded by Yanez and passed by the following roll call vote to interpret that the proposed walls are not subject to the roadway restrictions of Section 9-5.503 (c)(1), based on the findings that they will not be seen from the roadway, and conditioned upon their approval by the Site Development Committee at the time they review the plans for Site Development Permit. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Gottlieb, Kaufman, Siegel, Yanez and Chairman Carico NOES: Commissioner Struthers 3. Letter from Alan Coon requesting an interpretation of Section 9-5.503 (c)(1) for an existing wall at 27801 Saddle Court, Lands of Keenan Ms. Lytle referred to her staff report dated May 21, 1986, noting it has come to the attention of the Town Building Official that a wall under construction at the above subject address is in violation of Section 9-5.503 (c)(1), noting ttewall measures as high as 1615' within the setback area, and runs perpendicular to the road, noting the fence and wall ordinance allows these structures within setback areas, however, the maximum height allowed is 6' and is further restricted along roadways. Ms. Lytle noted that the Planning Commission should interpret that the requested wall is subject to provisions of Section 9-5.503 (c)(1), noting the wall as shown on the file plans, although constructed perpendicular to the roadway, world block views of the canyon when traveling west on Saddle Court and a scenic stand of trees when traveling east, and in no case should the wall exceed six feet in height without a variance. ( The Public Hearing was then opened. �l/ Mr. Alan Coon, Architect, Antos California, presented cacmission with several views of the proposed wall, explaning the need and use of the wall. Mr. Coon informed Commission on how well this project was received at the Site Develop- ment Permit Process. Planning Ommission Minutes - May 28, 1986 Page Four E. OLD BUSINESS: (continued) L3. Lands of Keenan Mrs. Keenan informed Cori ssion the house is well below road level and carefully designed into the hollow, noting at the time this went through the Site Development Permit process it was well received. Mr. Keenan informed Camission if the wall is not acceptable as it is now, we have given you some alternatives, asking Commission to please approve the wall as they world like to trove on with this project noting he did feel the Site Development Co mtittee had already approved the subject wall. Commission raised concern over this subject being placed on the agenda before them without legal interpretation from the City Attorney, (i.e., Building Official Stop Work Order on a permit previously issued by the zoning administrator, the purpose and function of the proposed wall, variance procedures). MOTION SBCaMED AND CnRRIM: Moved by Kaufman, seconded by Carico and passed unanimously to send the Lands of Keenan, regarding interpretation of Section 9-5.503 (c)(1) for an existing wall back to staff for clarifica- tion of existing permits and administrative decision on legality of stop work order and permits. 4. los Altos City Attorney's recent opinion regarding the Power of Cities to reduce in bulk, height or scope uses otherwise permitted under the zoning designation Ms. Lytle referred to her report dated May 22, 1986, noting as requested by the Planning Cmmission she has forwarded information provided by the City of Los Altos' City Attorney recent opinion as reported in the Mercury News, regarding the power of cities to reduce in bulk, height or scope uses otherwise permitted under the zoning designation, Ms. Lytle indicated this opinion can serve as a basis of further discussion in our scheduled study session on the Site Development Ordinance. 5. Planning Commissioner's Institute, Saturday, June 14, 1986 Ms. Lytle infonmed Cmmission staff (Leslie and Nancy) would like to attend this one day course, asking if a couple members of the Commission w ld also like to attend to please advise staff so that we can make a request to the City Manager. Cmmissioners Carico, Gottlieb, Lachenbruch and Struthers indicated they would like to attend, although three =fibers are up for re -appointment in June. 6. Landscape Brand knndrent Mr. Enright referred to his staff report dated May 22, 1986 informing Cc mussion of the need to revise Resolution #1256 so that the Landscape Bond atmunt is tiered, to base the amount of landscaping mitigation required for a given structure, i.e., Minor mitigation: $1,000; Average mitigation: $2,500; and Major mitigation: $5,000. Mr. Enright infor ad Commission the Site Development Ordinance conflicts with the policy for landscape bond arou nt as stated in Resolution #1256; and City Council has requested that the present amount of Landscape Bond be reconsidered. Staff recotmends that the Planning Camnission Planning Commission Minutes - May 28, 1986 Page Five 6. Landscape Bond Amount (continued) L concur with the City Engineer's recommendation to revise the amount of the Landscape Bond. MOTION SECCvDED AM CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Kaufman and passed unanimously to concur with City Engineer's recommendation to revise landscape bond amounts as follows: Minor mitigation: $1,000; Average mitigation: $2,500; and Major mitigation: $5,000. F. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Study Session on the Site Developrent Ordinance InOemrentation Ms. Lytle referred to memo dated May 22, 1986, noting at the May 19, 1986 meeting ocnvdssion requested staff agendize a continuance of cur previous study session on Site Development Ordinance implementation, noting the purpose of this study session is to answer questions about the new ordinance and to receive feedback fon the Ccmmaussion as to haw to improve the process. Commission discussed the need and usefulness of the zoning information work- sheets at the Site Development Permit processing, noting the information will not be used as a decision maker, for information only, to help gain more knowledge of the property and proposed project. There was discussion between staff and commission regarding formalizing the site development committee meetings, i.e., moving than into Council Chambers, use of tape recorder, need to use site development permit checklist and keep discussion only involved around those items, ccnmission and staff should sit at one side and applicants at other to clearly define who is on the committee. Co mission and staff indicated a need to move siting to the beginning of discussion at the committee meeting, and grading and drainage to be a recommendation frau the City Engineer as he is the expert. Commission informed staff a need for study session on the required 60' right of way, as there seems to be some need for clarification on certain applications. Agendize for the June 25th Agenda. There was discussion ever when to hold the site development meetings, it was a consensus to leave as is, Wednesday mmornings from 9:00 a.m. to usually 11:00. 2. Ms. Mullins informed Commission of Westwind Barns scheduled events for the simmer of 1986, noting in accordance with the Conditional Use Permit, written notification has been received for their first horse show to be held on Sunday, June 1st, noting the show will not run past 5:00 p.m. and will not involve a P.A. system. Other shows scheduled are July 13th and August 3rd, and a fund raiser for the handicapped 9-H program on September 7th. 3. Chairman Carico informed Commission the City Council at their May 21, 1986 meeting denied encroachment permit for [men's on Elena Road for walkway; approved cycl ing tour for american lung association; discussed willow Pond/Rhus Ridge Lam; discussion over abatement of underground fuel tanks; and informed commission that members of Commission in attendance as representatives to City Council meetings should address items only if they relate to Planning, if you would like to discuss C other items, please step down and address from podium. G. ADJCUF0R7ENf: These being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Leslie Mullins Engineering/Planning