Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/10/1987PLANNING COMMISSION TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California Wednesday, June 10, 1987 Reel 129, Side I, Tract I, 000 -End Acting Chairman Yanez called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers. A. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present: Commissioners Carico, Emling, Kaufman, Patmore and Acting Chairman Yanez Absent: Commissioner Stutz and Chairman Struthers Staff: Michael W. Enright, City Engineer; Nancy Lytle, Town Planner, Lori J. Scott, Planning Consultant, Leslie Mullins, Secretary City Council Representative: Councilman William Siegel B. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item Removed - B.I. & B.2. (Patmore) Commissioner Patmore requested that the minutes of May 27, 1987 be amended as follows: On page Four, first paragraph, add: "...signs affixed to the directional signs..." On page Seven, last paragraph, add "...however, as the applicant was encouraged to redesign and reapply for variance, she did not feel that she could approve the variance. Commissioner Patmore indicated she did not feel that the findings..." Commissioner Patmore requested that the Resolutions for Adoption by the Planning Commission for setting public hearings be continued until after "New Business" is discussed. Passed by Consensus to continue until after discussion of Study Session items to determine if Public Hearings should be set for June 24, 1987• MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kaufman, seconded by Patmore and passed by the following roll call vote to approve the minutes of May 27, 1987 as amended. ROLL CALL' AYES: Commissioners Emling, Kaufman, Patmore and Acting Chairman Yanez NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Carico ABSENT: Commissioner Stutz and Chairman Struthers ( Planning Commission Minutes - June 10. 1987 Page Two C. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF.JUNE 3, 1987: Acting Chairman Yanez requested this item be placed on next agenda when Commissioner Stutz is present to make report. D. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JUNE 2, 1987 AND JUNE 9 1987: Commissioner Patmore reported the Site Development Committee on June 2, 1987, approved grading modification for swimming pool on Alto Verde; approved landscape plan for new residence on Moody Road with discussion of landscape lighting; approved landscape plan, swimming pool and barn on Lupine Road also with discussion over landscaping lighting; approved Hu new residence which also had variance approved by Commission; and approved Rueter for cabana and addition which also had variance approved by Commission. noting the Commissioners at Site Development felt much more comfortable with these items appearing on the Site Development Committee rather than the full Commission. Commissioner Emling reported the Site Development Committee on June 9, 1987, approved swimming pool and deck on Wild Plum Lane; approved Swimming Pool and driveway modification on Hill Way; approved driveway and parking area modification and removal of game court on Old Trace Lane; continued new residence on Ursula Lane for redesign, plans shall be referred back to the City Engineer for approval: continued new residence on Via Corita for redesign, plans shall be referred back to Site Development for approval. E. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR: Mr. Joseph Docnahl, 27980 Central Drive, stressed the importance of screening of landscape lighting so as not to directly shine on adjacent properties or off-site views. F. PUBLIC HEARINGS' 1. Lands of Cook, 11471 Page Mill Road, Request for reconsideration of request to relocate a portion of Buena Vista Drive Item requested to be continued to the July 8, 1987 Planning Commission Agenda to allow applicant and architect to be in attendance. Commission requested comments received by reviewing agencies be included for the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes - June 10, 1987 Page Three Lands of Boyd, File #VAR 9-87, 13300 Robleda Road, Request for approval of Variance and Site Development Permit for addition, solarium, spa and deck Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Report dated June 4, 1987, informing Commission the subject property is steep and landscaped with mature landscaping, noting the existing residence utilizes natural wood siding and blends well with its surroundings, also noting that the proposed additions should also blend well, and will create only minor visual changes from off-site. Ms. Lytle indicated that some, but not all of the findings required by Municipal Code Section 10-1.1107 (b) can be made, findings 1, 4, 5 and 6. Ms. Lylte informed Commission should the Planning Commission find that the MFA minimum is unnecessarily low for properties with residential designs which blend well with their surroundings, then staff recommends that the Commission pursue an ordinance revision which allows a "good design bonus". Ms. Lytle recommended that the Planning Commission deny the requested variance based on an inability to make the required findings as supported in the Staff Report dated June 4, 1987. The Public Hearing was then opened. �r Mr. and Mrs. David Boyd, 13300 Robleda Road, reviewed the required Municipal Code Section 10-1.1107 (b) findings and gave Commission a brief history of their property, existing residence and their application process, noting ordinances have been revised during their application process and have spent much time and money to get their application as much in conformance with current zoning ordinances as possible. asking commission to grant approval of their requested variance. The Public Hearing was then closed. Commissioners questioned the previous application filed for zoning and site development. Ms. Lytle informed Commission the previous application submitted in the fall was denied as the property under the ordinances at that time was over the allowed coverage, noting the applicant appealed the decision to the Planning Commission and was informed by Commission at that time the procedure to follow would be to apply for variance. Commissioner Patmore indicated that she had requested the secretary to listen to the tape from that meeting, noting Ms. Mullins indicated a motion was made to uphold the staff decision to deny the application, and recommended that the applicant apply for a variance. Acting Chairman Yanez raised concern over the driveway slippage, and removal of large pine tree which may endanger the hillside in location of proposed addition. Commissioner Emling indicated that tree should be removed as it is a fire hazard and possible safety hazard if it were to remain. Commissioner Carico questioned if with this proposal would there be any soil disturbance. Planning Commission Minutes - June 10, 1987 kw Page Four Ms. Lytle indicated the proposed addition is over an existing deck and there will be no disturbance to soil. Mr. Enright noted that he has addressed the proposed addition only, noting as there is no grading involved with the application he did not feel it necessary to address the removal of pine tree or existing driveway. MOTION _SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Carico, seconded by Emling and passed by the following roll call vote to approve the Lands of Boyd, File #VAR 9-87, 13300 Robleda Road to exceed the existing non -conforming development area by 114 sq.ft. and the existing non -conforming floor area by 610 sq.ft. for the purpose of constructing a family room addition, solarium, spa and deck, as all findings per Municipal Code Section 10- 1.1107 (b) can be met, as the existing residence including the addition is a good design, low in profile and blends well with surroundings, and will not affect the surrounding properties and is unobtrusive in nature. ROLL CALL_ AYES: Commissioners Carico, Emling and Acting Chairman Yanez NOES: Commissioners Kaufman and Patmore ABSENT Commissioner Stutz and Chairman Struthers Mr. Enright referred to Staff Report dated June 5, 1987 with regard to the Site Development Permit for the proposed family room addition, solarium, spa and deck, recommending that the conditions of approval as listed in ,ar the staff report be incorporated as approval of the site development permit. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Boyd. 13300 Robleda Road, questioned Condition #1 of the June 5, 1987 Staff Report. Acting Chairman Yanez questioned if the site should be looked at by the Town Geologist, or a Soils Engineer for evaluation of driveway and proposed addition. Mr. Enright informed Commission and Mr. Boyd that the copy of the Title Report received by the Town does not contain references to deed to the City for Chapin Road and that it is not complete for adjacent properties. Mr. Enright suggested that Mr. Boyd drop by the Office during his office hours and discuss this matter. With regard to the request by the Acting Chairman, Mr. Enright indicated that the Building Official requires a Soils Engineer to review the foundation work as part of the construction process, also indicating the request for a soils engineer or the Town Geologist to review the existing driveway could be rather costly to the applicant and not a requirement of the Town for this proposal. t Planning Commission Minutes - June 10, 1987 %r Page Five MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED Moved by Carico, seconded by Emling and passed unanimously by those members present to approve the Lands of Boyd, 13300 Robleda Road, Site Development Permit subject to Conditions of Approval as listed in the June 5, 1987 Staff Report. Acting Chairman Yanez recommended that the applicant hire a Soils Engineer to review the location of the proposed addition and existing driveway slippage. (Please note: this is not a requirement of the Site Development Permit) STUDY—SESSION Zoning Overlay - R -A-1 Zoning District Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Report dated June 4, 1987, regarding the Draft Ordinance recommendation from the Subcommittee for RA -1 Zoning Overlay District informing Commission staff does not recommend that the ordinance revision prepared by the Subcommittee be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission to the City Council. Ms. Lytle noted it is not recommended that an additional set of formulas be introduced into our existing complicated zoning ordinance. noting it is staff's perception of the neighborhoods request for overlay zoning has more to do with a desire for "good design", and less to do with the size of structures. Ms. Lytle recommended that since the existing Site Development Ordinance grants the authority to require "good design" at the committee's discretion it may be advisable to supplement the existing ordinance with residential design guidelines, referring to an article titled "Nuts and Bolts - Preparing Urban Design Guidelines" by Mark J. Brodeur, noting staff is interested in discussing this article with the Commission this evening, and if Commission wishes to pursue this recommendation, it should be prioritized through a review of the Work Program. Commissioner Patmore expressed concern over the staff report, (with regard to comment over square footage allowed - 4,000 sq.ft. vs. 6,000 sq.ft., referring to request made by the neighborhood for a zoning overlay district with regard to size and character of new structures. The neighborhood has submitted a petition and map (of proposed district) to the Town for review of a zoning overlay, to preserve the neighborhood and amenities as presently exist, and restrictions of siting, ridgelines, construction, materials. and colors as well as house size and coverage stricter than than imposed by current ordinances. kw Planning Commission Minutes - June 10, 1987 L Page Six Mr. Donald Spencer, 27490 Sherlock Road, informed Commission of the necessity of a zoning overlay within their neighborhood noting there is room for a different type of zoning, as there are different areas within the Town which have different needs. (i.e., steep canyons, ridgelines), noting he feels as does Commissioner Patmore that a 6,000 sq.ft. house within this area is too large, noting size is of the essence and should be controlled. Mr. Spencer informed Commission he is speaking also for Mr. Roland VonHuene on South Fork Lane as he had to leave the meeting early. Commissioner Emling questioned how a neighborhood is established? Mr. Boissevain- Sherlock Road, informed Commission he lives within the MMCP area, referring to the recent survey passed out at the last study session by Art Lachenbruch informing Commission that the houses in Los Altos Hills currently being constructed are too large and the Town needs to reduce the amount of square footage allowed. Commissioner Kaufman informed public and commission that the previous zoning ordinance allowed 3,080 sq.ft. of building coverage as a minimum, and the current ordinance allows 4,000 sq.ft. minimum floor area, which is any structure with walls and roof (i.e., house & garage, 2nd story included), indicating that the Town has successfully and continually reduced the development area allowed on lots, noting we would have to look back to the founders of the Town as they allowed the one acre establishment. Commissioner Carico indicated she agrees with public and Commissioner Patmore that there are areas within the Town which have special needs and should be reviewed very carefully. Commissioner Carico questioned if we are taking action on this item this evening. Carico further indicated that she would very much like to remove the MMCP area from review, as she feels this area needs more than zoning overlay, we need to review roadways, drainage, etc. Carico expressed concern over the proposed zoning overlay, noting difficulty in defining a neighborhood- should it be for the whole Town; or should be re -define ordinances, noting the latest zoning and site development ordinances are just starting to take affect, indicating the Site Development Committee at a review of two new residences yesterday continued them both for redesign, suggesting that we give the newly adopted ordinances a chance to see how they work. Carico requested a Study Session with the City Attorney present to address the Commissioners questions. Planning Commission Minutes - June 10, 1987 f4► Page Seven Commissioner Patmore indicated that regarding Commissioner Kaufman's comment on the Founders of the Town, at that time the houses under construction and existing were much smaller on larger lots, and very well landscaped for mitigation of views. Commissioner Patmore indicated that this evening she would like: 1) Schedule the Draf t Ordinance prepared by the Subcommittee for public hearing on June 24, 9 7; ) Pe staff reevaluate their comments and come up with another Staff Report; and 3) staff is recommending that a picture book go along with the Site Development Ordinance handouts, identifying types of designs we should deny and types of designs we should encourage noting this is an excellent idea to show types of designs, preferred on ridgelines, flat lots, etc, further indicating that a booklet of this type will take some time to gather together, and the zoning overlay is something we need to get moving on. Commissioner Patmore noted it is not only the MMCP area we should be concerned over, but also the Neary Quarry property, etc., those neighborhoods which feel unique can request an overlay. Acting Chairman Yanez also indicated the booklet is a good idea, but still felt it doesn't have enough teeth in it, especially for areas within the MMCP study. Councilman Siegel informed Commission that the City Council has initiated an ordinance and the City Council expects a recommendation from the Planning Commission, noting it is the intent of the City Council for Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on this and then the Planning Commission can make a recommendation to either recommend approval or denial of the proposed draft ordinance. Ms. Lytle informed Commission, the City Council has placed the zoning overlay on the top of the Commissions Work Program, suggesting the Commission set the public hearing and staff will get together with the City Attorney to evaluate: 1) how does Town define areas?; 2) how does the recent Supreme Court decision relate to zoning overlay districts? Ms. Lytle further indicated the Planning Commission should set on the next Agenda the Work Program to discuss: 1) booklet and guidelines- and 2) MMCP areas, study of roads and safety (minimum standards). MOTION MADEAND FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND: Moved by Patmore, and Tailed due_ to lack of second to direct the City Attorney to Draft Ordinance regarding Zoning Overlay District - R -A-1 - and set public hearing for June 24, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting. MOTION SECONDED AND WITHDRAWN: Moved by Yanez, seconded by Patmore and withdrawn to set public hearing for June 24, 1987 regarding R -A-1 Zoning Overlay; and that questions be addressed with regard to defining areas and how it can be handled lJ t Planning Commission Minutes - June 10, 1987 Page Eight PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Passed by Consensus by those members present to continue the Zoning Overlay Study Session to allow the City Attorney to address concerns raised at this meeting; and when after these concerns are addressed then schedule the Public Hearing. 2 Minor Variance Procedures and Variance Findings Ms. Scott referred to Staff Report dated June 3, 1987 with regard to minor variance procedures- informing Commission staff is proposing to restructure the way we review all variance applications, i.e., using the same three level thresholds idea that is used for Site Development, noting all variances would still have a public hearing, (levels would be: 1) Administrative Level Review; 2) Site Development Committee Level Review; and 3) Planning Commission Level Review). Ms. Scott referred to thresholds given in the Staff Report, noting staff is comfortable with the proposed threshold numbers even though it establishes a new set of thresholds for everyone to deal with, noting the Zoning Administrator will refer applications to the Site Develpment Committee falling under her review, but requiring second level of site development review, to avoid the necessity of two public hearings. Ms. Scott noted that with regard to existing non -conformities the thresholds would relate to the current proposal only, noting applications can always be ref=_rred to the next level if an existing non -conformity warrants higher review. Commissioner Carico indicated that if the property is already non- conforming the application should be reviewed by the whole Planning Commission. Commissioner Patmore felt that this should only apply to existing residences and if for a new residence the application should come to the full Planning Commission for review, also noting concern over the threshold numbers, noting they are too high. Councilman Siegel indicated he was surprised to see that the Staff Report does not indicate a reduction in fees for the three levels of variances. Ms. Scott and Ms. Lytle informed Commission and Councilman Siegel that the fees would be appropriate per the level of review and will be addressed by the City Manager to the City Council. Commissioner Kaufman expressed concern over lowering fees to a minimum, noting there would be a larger amount of variances requested; and recommended if a level of review were to be at Site Development, that it be a priority to keep Committee Members the same if an item is to return for further review. L Planning Commission Minutes - June 10. 1987 Page Nine Commissioners questioned what percentage of variances would be handled administratively? By Site Development Committee? and By Planning Commission? Ms. Scott indicated a rough estimate: 10% administrative level review; 70% Site Development Review; and remainder Planning Commission. Ms. Lytle indicated that the Site Development Level of review would be more formal than the present Site Development Committee process, indicating there would be a Chairman to run the hearings, open and close public hearings, etc. Ms. Scott suggested that the administrative level remain as shown in the June 3 1987 Staff Report. with amendment to setbacks: shall be increased from one foot (1') to two feet (2'); and the remainder of variances go to the full Planning Commission, thereby eliminating the review by the Site Development Committee MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Patmore, seconded by Carico and passed unanimously by those members present: to Adopt Resolution Setting Public Hearing for June 24, 1987, and request that the City Attorney prepare a Draft Ordinance for review and recommendation to the City Council. Ms. Scott referred to Staff Report dated June 3, 1987, with regard to variance findings, informing Commission that in an attempt to clarify and simplify the variance findings and the purpose of variances. staff is proposing a revision to the variance findings section, i.e., a new opening paragraph; and revision of findings, reducing to only four as shown in the Staff Report Ms Scott indicated that based on action just taken on variance thresholds, the opening paragraph must be revised to remove the first sentence, and Site Development Committee in the third sentence. Commission and staff discussed the proposed purpose statement and amendment per action taken on variance procedures and the State Law requiremens for granting of variances. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Carico, seconded by Emling and Passed unanimously by those 1987,members andrequestthe Attorney prepare Present o Adopt e Setting a Public Hearing for June 24, 9 7, 4 Draft Ordinance for review and recommendation to the City Council. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Ms. Lytle informed Commission of two building permit requests which have been routed to the Town for review by the Santa Clara County Central Permit Office, which are within our Urban Service Area, noting Commission can stop by and review the applications at any time. V Planning Commission Minutes - June 10, 1987 Ar" Page Ten 2. Ms. Lytle informed Commission that the reclamation plan has returned for the Neary Quarry property, noting they have indicated they will not be filling up the quarry with water due to some concerns raised during the review process I. OLD BUSINESS: J. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p•m. Respectfully submitted, Leslie Mullins Planning Technician