Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/22/1986PLANNING COMMISSION TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California Wednesday, October 22, 1986 Reel 124, Side II, Tract II, 010 - End; Reel 125, Side I, Tract I, 000-150 Chairman Struthers called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order in the Town Hall Council Chambers at 7:35 P.M. A. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present: Commissioners Carico, Emling, Kaufman, and Chairman Struthers Absent: Commissioner Yanez Staff: Michael W. Enright, City Engineer; Nancy Lytle, Town Planner; Leslie Mullins, Secretary taw City Council Representative: Dronkert B. CONSENT CALENDAR: B.1. Removed (Struthers) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kaufman, seconded by Emling and passed unanimously to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar, specifically: 1. Lands of Pinewood Private School, Conditional Use Permit Annual Review 2. Lands of Bellucci, Conditional Use Permit, Secondary Dwelling Unit, Annual Review 3. Lands of Boyd, Robleda Road, Appeal of Administrative Decision 4. Lands of Del Monte Developers (formerly Lands of Bahr), Three Forks Lane, Preliminary Review of Proposed Subdivision Access 5. Lands of Currie, Tentative Map and Negative Declaration, O'Keefe Lane, (Re -submittal) 6. Lands of Zappettini, Tentative Map and Negative Declaration, Altamont Road, (Re -submittal) B.1. Struthers amended page five, last paragraph, last sentence, of the October 8, 1986 minutes "obstructive" should be LM "obtrusive". MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers, seconded by Kaufman, and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of October 8, 1986 as amended. C. REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 15, 1986: Commissioner Kaufman reported the City Council approved an Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for Lands of Scarff; the Appeal of Conditional Use Permit for Lands of Handley was removed from Agenda by Appiicant; discussed drainage concern (Chown) on Saddle Mountain Estates; De Anza Properties (Vidovich) has requested General Plan Amendment/Pre-Zoning and Annexation of the Neary quarry, noting there was no public presentation, item has been set for fee schedule on this agenda, Ms. Lytle presented Council with outline procedures for this application. Approved encroachment permit for Eastwick property; granted a change in filing fees for possible variance for Mr. Sturm for a fence; heard presentation for Lands of Lee, Saddle Mountain (Schwarz) by Alan Lambert with regard to height limitations, noting this application will be forwarded to Site Development Committee for review and report to City Council; Jarvis restoration plan was reviewed by Site Development Committee and referred to City Council, City Council required 30 days to complete restoration. City Council adopted plan for administration of nuisance complaints; will be holding interviews for 2 open seats on Planning Commission as well as seat on City Council on November 3rd at 4:OOp.m., appointments will be made at the regular meeting of November 5th. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1, 2 and 3• LANDS OF EASTERBROOKS, #CDP 2-86, #VAR 8-86, 25541 Fremont Road, Request or Approval of Conditional Development Permit, Variance and Site Development Permit for New Residence Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Reports dated October 2, 1986 16, 1986, informing Commission the applicant is required to obtain a Conditional Development Permit on the subject lot as the lot unit factor is .305, referring the Municipal Code Section 10-1.1107 (c) of necessary findings required to be made by the Commission. Ms. Lytle informed Commissin the Conditional Development Permit may be conditioned to include further reduction in the Maximum Development Area and Maximum Floor Area for the lot. With regard to the proposed variance to allow encroachment into the front yard setback by 10 feet, to encroach into the declining height envelope, and to exceed the allowed Maximum Development Area for the lot, staff recommends that the Commission approve the variance request `J to encroach into the front yard setback and declining height envelope, but to deny the variance to exceed the MDA for the lot, noting these recommendations are based on findings supported in Staff Report dated October 2, 1986. With regard to the Site Development Permit, Ms. Lytle indicated if the Commission were to decide to grant the site development permit for the subject application, that any conditions recommended by the City Engineer and Town Geologist shall be included as conditions of approval, also noting the standard conditions requiring a landscape plan and recommendation of fire retardant roofing should also be included. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. William Easterbrooks, Owner, informed Commission since the last public hearing he has redesigned the driveway to use turf block, as suggested, noting the development area to his calculations reduce from 5,516 sq.ft. to 4,900 sq.ft., thereby making a variance to exceed the development area no longer necessary. Mr. Eastebrooks informed commission he also after the last public hearing spoke with adjacent neighbors regarding locating the residence ten feet back more on the lot, informing Commission that neighbors would not be in favor of the change. Mr. Easterbrooks asked Commission to approve his conditional development permit and site development permit as he has done everything he could to meet ordinances and make the proposed residencee aesthetically pleasing, informing all neighbors have reviewed the proposal and have signed his variance request (with the exception of Mr. Miller, who has concerns over drainage problems in this area). Mr. Easterbrooks informed Commission he has already received permit from Town and Water District to install a new culvert through the property. The Public Hearing was then closed. Ms. Lytle informed Commission on the process of counting turf block towards development area, noting it is based upon the manufacturer's specifications as to what percentage is counted. Mr. Enright informed Commission they should be aware of high maintenance responsibility with the use of turf block, due to settlement, etc., noting at a later date if the applicant becomes dissatisfied with the turf block, he would not be able to improve as his development area on the lot would have already been used. Mr. Enright also informed commission of the necessity of requiring additional road right-of-way on this lot, if the commission is to decide to approve the site development permit this should be made a condition of approval. Commissioners expressed concern over the size of the proposed structure in relation to the lot, indicating they would not be able meet the required findings to approve a variance with �4 this submittal. Commissioners also indicated the need to obtain additional road right-of-way on this property when the site development permit could be approved. Chairman Struthers suggested that Mr. Easterbrooks re -design the structure to meet the historic nature of the era the house and neighboring houses were constructed, and to be sensitive to the area noting the property is at the entrance to the Town, the closeness of the roadway, and height should be carefully considered, as well as landscape mitigation of the proposed structure. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kaufman, seconded by Carico and passed unanimously to Deny Without Prejudice the Lands of Easterbrooks, File #VAR 8-86, as the subject lot is small and would not result in practical difficulties and as the proposed variance involves impingement of structure at the entrance to the Town, that it would be detrimental to property and improvements in the vicinity, noting the proposed structure is not in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Chapter of the Municipal Code and General Plan. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kaufman, seconded by Carico and passed unanimously to continue the Lands of Easterbrooks, Conditional Development Permit, File #CDP 2-86, to allow the applicant to re -design the proposed structure to be in conformance with zoning ordinances. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kaufman, seconded by Carico and passed unanimously to continue the Lands of Easterbrooks, Site Development Permit, to allow the applicant to re -design the proposed structure to be in conformance with zoning ordinances. Mr. Easterbrooks expressed concern to the Commission, that he has tried to meet the guidelines, ordinances, and previously did try to design a house that would fit in the era; indicating the re -designs are expensive to keep going back to the architect. Commissioner Kaufman informed Mr. Easterbrooks that he did not object to a two story residence on this lot, just concerned over the size of the house on such a small lot at the entrance to the Town. Commissioner Carico indicated she is not concerned over the style of the residence, just of the size of the residence on this size lot, suggesting that the residence could be shifted around so that it would not be as much of an impact on such a busy street and the entrance to the Town. Ms. Lytle informed Mr. Easterbrooks of the procedure for appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. �I 4. LANDS OF ACCOLA, 27461 Sherlock Road, Request for Approval of 5 Site Development Permit for New Residence, Swimming Pool, various walls, patios and terraces, arbor, equipment enclosure, spa and walkways Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Report dated October 16, 1986, informing Commission in March of 1986 the Commission conducted a preliminary review of the Accola Plans, and the previous history of the application is described in the Staff Report for that meeting dated April 17, 1986, Ms. Lytle noted the applicant has now applied for lot consolidation, and have submitted a plan which complies with the zoning ordinance, and includes provisions for road right-of-way dedication along Sherlock Road. Ms. Lytle gave commissionn the properties zoning and site development information, once the lot consolidation is completed. Ms. Lytle indicated that if the Commission wishes to issue a site development permit, conditions of approval should include: 1) Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations; 2) Geotechnical Plan Review; 3) Geotechnical Field Inspection (per recommendation of Town Geologist); 4) Road Right-of-way Dedication; 5) Pathway Easement Dedication; 6) Oak tree preservation; and 7) conditions recommended by the City Engineer in his memo dated October 16, 1986. Commissioner Kaufman questioned location of pathway and where it would link up to existing? Kaufman also questioned why this development is before the Commission and not Site Development Committee? Ms. Lytle informed Commission the Pathway Committee's recommendation is shown on their memo to staff dated July 8, 1986; and indicated previous action taken by the Commission requested that all applications within this area be heard by the full Commission. Ms. Lytle noted this application is subject to consolidation of the lots, noting the map has not yet been recorded. Mr. Enright indicated the pathway should be modified to conform with the proposed right- of-way. The Public Hearing was the opened. Mr. Accola, 27461 Sherlock Road, expressed thanks to Staff for their help during this process, indicating they have hopefully conformed with new ordinance to the commissions satisfaction, asking the Commission grant approval of the Site Development Permit. Mr. Accola informed Commission of the materials they would be using on the residence, (i.e., Gilroy Field stone, brick and slate roof, the stucco will be taupe color), noting they are trying to make the structure unobtrusive and noted the structure is not visible from off-site due to existing mature trees. Mr. Eberz, 27421 Sherlock Road, informed Commission he has r reviewed the proposal of the Accola's and feels they have made a good effort to conform with new ordinances adopted. 6 The Public Hearing was then closed. Commissioner Kaufman indicated he would vote in favor of this site development permit, however, he did not feel that this type of house is appropriate in the midst of a rural community. Chairman Struthers also indicated that this house is not appropriate in this neighborhood, asking that the Accolas be sensitive to neighbors during construction process. Struthers also noted that protection of trees during demolition of existing residence and during construction is necessary. Commissioner Emling indicated that he found the house appealing, noting the applicant has done their homework and presented us with an application which has carefully considered the ordinances. Commissioner Carico thanked the Accolas for working so carefully on this application. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Carico, seconded by Emling and passed unan mous y to approve Lands of Accola, Site Development Permit, 27461 Sherlock Road for New Residence and Swimming Pool and amenities, subject to conditions stated in October 16, 1986 Staff Report by Nancy Lytle and October 15, 1986 Memo from Michael Enright, with amendment to Condition #5 regarding pathway alignment shall be same as road right-of- way. Protection of trees during demolition of existing residence and construction of new residence is required. Landscape Plan review shall be heard by Site Development Committee. 5. LANDS OF SCHROEDER, File #VAR 10-86, 26991 Taaffe Road, Request or pproval of Variance to encroach into the declining height envelope; and to exceed the maximum height allowed; and to encroach into the side setback; and to exceed the Maximum Development Area (MDA) for an addition Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Report dated October 2, 1986 informing Commission this is for a variance to encroach into the declining height envelope by a maximum of 11', to exceed the maximum height allowed by a maximum of 6 1/4' for chimney, to encroach into the side setback by 40, and to exceed the maximum development area by 700 sq.ft. and 8' for the highest to lowest requirement. Ms. Lytle recommended that the Commission approve the variance request to exceed the height and height envelope regulations, but deny the variance to exceed the maximum development area for the lot, this recommendation is based on findings as supported in the October 2, 1986 Staff Report. Ms. Lytle gave Commission the 7 information relating to the subject property with regard to zoning ordinances. Ms. Lytle presented commission with findings required per variance regulations with regard to the height and setback intrusion. Ms. Lytle indicated the request to exceed the maximum development area is difficult to support with the findings for the height and setback intrusion, noting staff could not find evidence that there is an exceptional circumstance related to the property, due to which the literal enforcement of the MDA would result in practical difficulties. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Schroeder, 26991 Taaffe Road, reviewed his six different findings necessary for granting of a variance, and referred to presentation prepared regarding location of proposed addition in relation to existing structures, height and development area allowed for his lot. Mr. Schroeder explained to Commission that staff did not consider exceptional circumstances exist on his lot, informing commission that he believes there are, due to the roadway configuration it creates an extremely dangerous situation. Mr. Schroeder indicated he is willing to remove a portion of his deck to accomodate mda requirement. Mr. Schroeder felt that the new ordinances should apply to new residences, noting his house is modest in size and the addition will enhance the neighborhood, noting he has obtained signatures from neighbors, as well as neighbor who views his property from across the canyon. Mr. Schroeder referred to the Town's General Plan, noting his property nestles into the existing oak trees and our proposed addition would not interfere with vegetation or ground, asking that Commission approve his requested variance to allow them to improve their 17 year old home. Mr. Schroeder further noted that due to the high open beam ceiling in their home that they are being penalized and that makes our application over the allowed development area for our lot. Mr. Ted Morrow, 12133 Foothill Lane, informed commission he lives across canyon, noting that Mr. Schroeder's house now blends in and is unobtrusive and will still be if the addition is allowed to be constructed, asking that the commission approve Mr. Schroeder's request. The Public Hearing was then closed. Commissioners discussed the proposed addition and they effect it would have on the existing neighborhood, noting as the existing structure is screened by existing mature trees the addition would have much less of an impact as a second story than it would if the applicant had to construct on the ground level. With regard to the requested chimney height, the commission noted it should be in conformance with the �' requirements of the Building Code and no higher. Commissioners questioned if the development area could 8 possibly be reduced any further? Ms. Lytle informed Commission that no further development area could be removed except for width of front driveway and possibly some decking, but that would have to be left up to the applicant if he were willing to do so. Mrs. Fran Stevenson, Chairman Pathway Committee, informed Commission there is a connection to this property, noting this property is a great opportunity to continue, although it is not shown on the Master Pathway Plan, but has been indicated on subdivision on the downhillside. Ms. Lytle informed Commission the Pathway request should be handled at the time of Site Development Permit. Mr. Schroeder informed Commission with regard to further reducing development area, that he would rather not remove anything more, noting he is not adding to the development area with this request. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kaufman, seconded by Emling and passe unan mousy to approve Lands of Schroeder, File #VAR 10-86, subject to applicant reducing deck area thereby minimizing the requested Maximum Development Area increase; and reducing the chimney height to that permitted by the Building Code. Commission noted there are exceptional circumstances due to the original development (leaving no choice other than to encroach into setback and encroach into the height envelope (at the time originally developed no height envelope restrictions)), leaving no room for parking along Taaffe Road; and literal enforcement of the code would result in practical difficulties , and strict application of the provisions of variance chapter would deprive the property of privleges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity; the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity; granting of the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized; and the granting of this variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Variance Chapter and the Los Altos Hills' General Plan. The Commission noted that the City Engineer's comments shall be forwarded to the Site Development Committee when this application is before them. 6,7,8. LANDS OF HANSEN, FILE #CDP 1-86; VAR 13-86,13020 La Cresta Drive Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Reports dated October 16, 1986 informing Commission this application requires a Conditional Development Permit as the lot has a Lot Unit Facot of .42, noting prior to granting of the permit the commission must make the necessary findings of Section 10-1.1107 (c), also the ♦/ conditional develoment permit may be conditioned to include a Mr. Samuel Sinnott, Architect, informed commission we were in conformance with mda until the new zoning ordinance was adopted and have had to re -design trying to keep our view open. Mr. Sinnott noted they have lowered the profile of the structure and have decreased the amount of fill proposed, noting more specific design plans will be submitted with the structural plans for building permit issuance, noting he felt that any design they make will exceed some part of the current ordinances. Mr. Isak Hansen, Owner, informed Commission that due to the steepness of the lot and the difficulty in obtaining access, thereby creating a long driveway which counts towards his development area allowed he feels he is not allowed the necessary development area for the residence he desires. Mr. Enright informed commission the amount of £111 has been reduced by approximately 800 cubic yards. The Public Hearing was then closed. BYO Commission discussed with Mr. Hansen and Mr. Sinnott their proposal, expressing much concern over the excess in maximum further reduction in maximum development area and maximum With to the variance, Ms. Lytle informed floor area. regard commission this is a request to exceed the maximum height allowed per Section 10-1.504 by a maximum of three feet for a roof and chimney, and to exceed the maximum development area by 2,737 sq.ft. and to exceed the maximum floor area by 1,045 sq.ft. for purpose of constructing a new residence, informing commission staff recommends denial of the variance request to exceed the height, mda and mfa regulations, based on an inability to support the necessary findings as supported in Staff Report dated October 16, 1986. Ms. Lytle gave Commission a description of the property with regard to zoning ordinances allowed and proposed. With regard to the Site Development Permit, staff recommends denial of the permit for the new residence, per recommendation of Michael Enright, City Engineer in his memo dated October 16, 1986. Ms. Lytle noted if Commission wishes to approve the permit, the conditions of site approval should become conditions of the final site development permit, in addition to pathway committee request. Mr. Enright informed Commission there are three major issues related to this application: 1) Grading; 2) Building Siting; 3) Driveway. Mr. Enright informed Commission staff met with applicant yesterday to review these concerns as well as drainage system provided for this lot, and concerns raised over the slide areas that shall be subject to approval by City Engineer and Town Geologist. Mr. Enright noted as a recommendation, staff would suggest a condition that would require an update geology report for review prior to issuance of permits. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Samuel Sinnott, Architect, informed commission we were in conformance with mda until the new zoning ordinance was adopted and have had to re -design trying to keep our view open. Mr. Sinnott noted they have lowered the profile of the structure and have decreased the amount of fill proposed, noting more specific design plans will be submitted with the structural plans for building permit issuance, noting he felt that any design they make will exceed some part of the current ordinances. Mr. Isak Hansen, Owner, informed Commission that due to the steepness of the lot and the difficulty in obtaining access, thereby creating a long driveway which counts towards his development area allowed he feels he is not allowed the necessary development area for the residence he desires. Mr. Enright informed commission the amount of £111 has been reduced by approximately 800 cubic yards. The Public Hearing was then closed. BYO Commission discussed with Mr. Hansen and Mr. Sinnott their proposal, expressing much concern over the excess in maximum 10 l development area and floor area on such a steep lot, and the �/ necessity of the applicant in needing a yard on this type of lot. Commission also expressed concern over the retaining walls crossing pathways, indicating they should be interefere with the pathway system. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Carico, seconded by Kaufman and passed unanimously to Deny Without Prejudice, Lands of Hansen, File #VAR 12-86, Variance to exceed maximum height allowed, to exceed maximum development area and to exceed maximum floor area as Commission could not favorably meet the required findings per Municipal Code Section 10- 1.1107. Applicant advised to resubmit an application which does not exceed floor area and development area as much as this proposal does. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers, seconded by Kaufman and passed unanimously to continue the Conditional Development Permit and Site Development Permit for the Lands of Hansen, 13020 La Cresta Drive for a new residence, to allow applicant to re -submit with a proposal which does not exceed the allowed coverage as much as does this proposal. Ms. Lytle informed Mr. Hansen of the procedure of appealing the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. %I E. NEW BUSINESS: Request from Peter Shubart for a Preliminary Review of Variance request to exceed allowable MDA for a new residence Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Report dated October 16, 1986, informing Commission that Mr. Shubart requested a preliminary review by the Commission of his plans for a new residence, which currently would require a variance to exceed MDA, which the applicant maintains is necessary in order to allow for the minimum driveway, parking and turn -around area, while maintaining the size house he requires and a small studio which already exists on the property. Commission and staff discussed the possibility of obtaining further road right-of-way with this application. Mr. Enright informed Commission a major portion is on another property, and it is considered a private driveway. Mr. Peter Shubart, 1211 Wildberry Avenue, Los Gatos, informed Commission he has been working on plans since May under the Urgency Ordinance Guidelines, and now that the new ordinance has come into effect, we are much more constrained, informing Commission they would very much like to keep the existing studio on the property, asking if this application is in the ballpark? and should they proceed along these lines? Mr. Shubert indicated qv"� they have reduced the driveway and parking area, and have removed the pool and pool decking. 11 ♦r Ms. Lytle informed Commission, staff has not done a review of the most recent submittal. Mr. David MacKenzie, 24621 Olive Tree Lane, described briefly the background information on the subject property, with regard to his previous applications for Site Approval and Lot consolidation. Commission and Mr. Shubert discussed orientation of the proposed residence, noting some concern over the excessive amount of development area and possible problems with the approval of the septic leachfield by the Santa Clara County Health Department. Commission indicated perhaps a case for mda variance could be made because of the excessive driveway necessary for the subject lot. Commission suggested that the floor area be reduced to the allowed 4,000 sq.ft. including the studio, and reducing the development area to be more in line with that allowed. F. OLD BUSINESS: 1. State Requirements for Family Day Care Facilities Commissioner Kaufman reported after Commission took action on interpretation for Day Care Facilities, that he has received telephone calls from concerned Council Members and would like Commission to re -consider their motion of September 10, 1986, as %, follows: MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kaufman, seconded by Carico and passed unanimously to interpret that Town Ordinances do not provide for pre-school programs for more than ten (10) children. Thereby rescinding previous action taken at their September 10, 1986 meeting. Commission and staff discussed the State Requirements and the Town Ordinances, suggesting that the Chairman Draft a letter to the City Attorney for review and recommendation. 2. Study Session - Draft Housing Element is scheduled for 4:00 P.M. on Thursday, October 23, 1986. 3. Informational Note: At last Commission meeting Commissioner Yanez provided commissionn with information provided by the City Engineer on the Yoshida application, the information provided was incorrect and the correct information will be forwarded to the City Council in their packet for their review. G. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 P.M. it Respectfully submitted, Leslie Mullins Planning Technician