Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/27/1988PLANNING COMMISSION TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS `r 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California Wednesday, April 27, 1988 Reel 125, Side I, Tract II, 390 -End; Side II, Tract II, 000-150 Chairman Yanez called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Hall Coun- cil Chambers. A. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present: Commissioners Carico, Emling (arrived 8:45 p•m.), Patmore, Struthers, Stutz, and Chairman Yanez Absent: Commissioner Kaufman Staff: George Scarborough, City Manager, Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works, Sally Lyn Zeff, Planning Director; Leslie Mullins, Planning Technician Leslie Mullins, Secretary B. CONSENT CALENDAR: No items for approval on the Consent Calendar. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 20, 1988: Commissioner Stutz reported the City Council discussed the proposed flash- ing beacon lights on Fremont Road requesting the matter be reevaluated; discussion on the stop sign at Summerhill Road and Amigos Court noting no action taken; Councilman Siegel indicated a crime report for the Town should be included into local papers as are other communities; Councilman Siegel brought up concerns over the fees for minor variances, number of horses on lots in Town and requirements for obtaining water heater re- placement permits asking these items be looked into; Councilwoman van Tamelen noted an invitation to CHAC, raised concern over the newsletter information and regularity; and Mayor Tryon requested advance Agendas and brief action minutes be prepared for public review prior to and after Council meetings. D. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF APRIL 19 AND 26, 1988: Commissioner Struthers reported the Site Development Committee on April 26, 1988 approved a new residence for Murthy on Via Corita, noting discus- sion over drainage. Commissioner Stutz reported the Site Development Committee on April 19, 1988 on approved swimming pool on Ursula and Horseshoe Court; approved ad- dition/remodel on Purissima Road; and approved new residence and swimming pool on Christophers Lane, noting there was much neighborhood concern over the size of the proposed structure as this is a formal Italian Villa, noting however, this is proposed on a larger flat lot, well within the limits of MDA/MFA and well shielded with existing landscaping. Staff in- formed Commission letters of appeal of the approval for site development have been received, noting this item will be scheduled for next regular meeting for public hearing. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR: F. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. LANDS OF POOR CLARES, FILE #CUP 5-88, 28210 Natoma Road, Request for Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit to allow construc- tion of additional structures; a storage and maintenance accessory building (Staff requests continuance for further information) Commissioner Patmore questioned if there is a time line problem with this item. Staff responded there is no time concern as the application is in- complete. 2. LANDS OF WARNER, FILE #TM 5-87, 12335 Stonebrook Drive, Request for approval of Tentative Map, Negative Declaration for three lot subdivi- sion and Variance for existing improvements Ms. Zeff referred to Staff Report dated April 22, 1988 informing Commis- sion this is a public hearing to consider a request for approval of Tenta- tive Map and Negative Declaration for a three lot subdivision, and for a variance in the Maximum Floor Area, Maximum Development Area, and height regulations, noting the applicant has withdrawn his application for all variances requested on lot #1. Ms. Zeff reviewed the proposed variance application for lot #3, noting the subdivision would cause the existing development on the proposed lot to exceed maximum development area by 7,441 square feet, to exceed maximum floor area by 5,686 square feet, and cause the existing house to violate the lower height restrictions within 54 feet of the south property line. Ms. Zeff informed Commission the findings as required per Municipal Code Section 10-1.1107 (2)(b) can be supported as listed in the April 22, 1988 staff report. Ms. Zeff reviewed the subdivision application with regard to comments from reviewing agen- cies and Town committees, gross/net acreage, average slopes, lot unit fac- tors, maximum development and floor areas for the proposed lots. With regard to the proposed Staff Recommended Conditions of Approval, Ms. Zeff informed Commission Condition #1, should be revised to be at time of map, and #4, should be revised to be reflected on map. Ms. Zeff recommended the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they: 1) certi- fy the negative declaration; 2) approve a variance as requested, to allow existing development on Parcel #3, to exceed Maximum Development Area by 7,441 sq.ft. to exceed Maximum Floor Ara by 5,686 sq.ft. and to allow the existing house only to exceed the height limit, based on findings listed in the April 22, 1988 Staff Report; and 3) approve the Tentative Map as requested, and subject to the attached Staff recommended Conditions of Ap- proval as attached to the April 22, 1988 Staff Report. Commissioner Carico informed Commission she has spoke with Ms. Zeff regarding the historical structure, noting she would recommend a possible -2- deed restriction in place on the property for preservation of the struc- ture. %%` Commissioner Patmore indicated that she did not feel this application should be handled as a variance, noting it should be a conditional excep- tion. `oi Ms. Zeff informed Commission a conditional exception is for an exception under the subdivision ordinances, noting the exception is for zoning or- dinances and would therefore require a variance. Commissioner Yanez noted he was not convinced that this is a good design, noting concern over preserving the house, and agreed with Commissioner Patmore that this application should be for a conditional exception not a variance. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Jerry Clements, Civil Engineer, informed Commission when they received the letter from the Subdivision Committee, they made all recommended changes to the proposed tentative map, with most concerns relating to drainage as brought up at the Subdivision Committee meeting, noting they agree in concept with the proposed staff recommended conditions but re- quest revision to some of the wording: #6 to enter into agreement; #8 to be prior to acceptance of subdivision or issuance of building permit; #13 to remove during subdivision improvements; #3 to be in accordance with Mr. Nash's letter; and #5 noted they are not proposing any work over the Linn's property. Mr. Clements requested the Commission recommend approval of the Tentative Map and Negative Declaration to the City Council. Mr. Brent Warner, 12335 Stonebrook Court, questioned why it would be his responsibility to pay to pave 1/2 of a Town road, Stonebrook Court, noting it was his understanding that this portion was public and has been maintained by the Town for the last 10-15 years. Mr. Warner also noted it should not be his responsibility to correct existing drainage problems which occurred after a 4-5 lot subdivision created 10 years ago where they never installed the drainage system correctly. Commissioner Carico asked Mr. Warner if he would object to a Deed Restric- tion with regard to preservation of the historical structure. Mr. Warner informed Commission that would be redundant as the structure is already on the National Registry, therefore he could not alter the structure in any way. Mr. Powell, 12020 E1 Monte Avenue, raised concerns over the proposed ac- cess road with regard to its safety, aesthetics, drainage, erosion and location. Mr. Powell presented Commission with photographs of the proper- ty as viewed from off-site. Commissioner Stutz questioned Mr. Powell if the area on his property near the paddock has much erosion or sloughing off in this area, after they constructed the barn. Mr. Powell noted when the built the shed and corral they did not dig into the hillside. Mrs. Powell indicated they the hillside was re -constructed by the people below them, noting they just smoothed it out. -3- Commissioner Patmore questioned why the roadway was not designed to come in between lots 1 & 3. Mr. Clements informed Commission they designed the road in this location to keep the roadway away from the main house. The Public Hearing was then closed. Chairman Yanez stated this application for tentative map is not consistent with the General Plan and development existing on the property, referring the square footage of development and floor area mentioned in the variance application, noting again he feels this should not be handled as a vari- ance, but should be a conditional exception to the tentative map. Chairman Yanez reiterated the same concerns mentioned by Mr. Powell with regard to the access roadway, and concerns of William Cotton over the un - stability of the property, and referring to past slides and earth un - stability of neighboring properties. Commissioner Patmore noted she agrees with Chairman Yanez that the vari- ance is not appropriate and should be a conditional exception, further noting she could not vote in favor of this tentative map due to the road- way configuration. Commissioner Carico indicated a two lot subdivision on this property would be more appropriate, noting need for realignment of the roadway as this location is very steep (referring to William Cotton's comments of January 6, 1988) and objectionable to the neighbors due to safety, aesthetics, etc., requesting that a Deed Restriction be imposed on Mr. Warner for pro- tection and preservation of the historical structure. Le Commissioner Struthers commented she agrees with all comments made so far, noting the need for roadway realignment due to aesthetics, noise (due to canyon), safety, etc. Commissioner Stutz noted she has no problem with the driveway to parcel A2, noting her main concern is the objections raised when the Town Geolo- gist, Director of Public Works and City Engineer have recommended approval of the location of the proposed roadway, noting her concern over neighbors who should be trying to help create a good design for a subdivision of this property, rather than objecting to the use of the property as a school, and now suddivision. Mr. Clements noted the realignment of the roadway will create difficulties in the lot configurations due to lot unit factors, etc., noting again they made all the recommended changes as required by the Subdivision Committee, commenting he is very concerned and surprised over discussion tonight. Mr. Warner informed Commission he is very dissappointed with the discus- sion by the Commission this evening, noting he is not sure what his rights are, noting they have been working on this tentative map for over one year, have changed it based on discussions with staff and outcome of the Subdivision Committee, asking what is his next procedure. Mrs. Winifred Murray, 12335 Stonebrook Drive, informed Mr. Warner and Com- mission she would prefer the house to remain as is and not see the proper- ty subdivided, noting however she has no problems with the proposed sub- division. -4- Mr. Powell informed Commission at the Subdivision Committee meeting com- ments were made regarding the roadway, lot configurations and drainage, L noting he thought the Committee asked for re -design and in his opinion this has not yet been done. Mr. Ekern informed Commission with regard to the private driveway, the de- sign and location has been reviewed by the Town's Engineering Staff, and Town Geologist, noting it is felt by staff that it could potentially resolve some of the concerns raised earlier (of the unprotected bank), reminding Commission it is important to keep in mind that this is an engineering concern; if the concern is over the location then that is a different issue, noting further that drainage and safety issues have been addressed. With regard to realigning the roadway between lots N1 & 3, Mr. Ekern informed Commission this would create more non -conformity. Commissioner Stutz questioned Chairman Yanez where in Mr. Cotton's report does he indicate the property is unstable. Mr. Ekern again noted the engineering concerns raised have been met, referring to Mr. Nash's memo of April 1, 1988 and Mr. Cotton's memo of January 6, 1988 both recommending approval. Commissioner Carico indicated she would then withdraw her objections over the roadway, based on Mr. Ekerns discussion. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Patmore, seconded by Carico and passed by the following roll call vote to continue the Lands of Warner, File NTM 5-87, 12335 Stonebrook Drive for redesign, with the agreement of the applicant. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Carico, Patmore, Struthers and Chairman Yanez NOES: Commissioner Stutz ABSENT: Commissioners Emling and Kaufman Mr. Clements noted they would agree to continuance if the redesign submit- tal is handled swiftly. Commissioner Emling arrived - 8:45 p.m. G. NEW BUSINESS: County of Santa Clara General Plan Conformance and Con- tiguity/Annexation Statement; Harry Gossard, 24810 Prospect Avenue Ms. Zeff referred to Staff Report dated April 21, 1988 informing Commis- sion Mr. Gossard owns an 8 acre parcel of land at 24810 Prospect Avenue, adjacent to the City limits, as the lot is within the Town's Urban Service Area, the County requires that the Town indicate whether or not the Town intends to require annexation prior to development of the lot. Ms. Zeff informed Commission Mr. Gossard is preparing a tentative map for subdivi- sion of the property, and at this time is planning to construct a new residence on the property and is required by the County to have the Town t indicate whether the Town wishes to require annexation as a condition of -5- the development, noting Mr. Gossard has indicated he does not wish to an- nex to the Town until he applies for subdivision. Ms. Zeff recommended that as this lot is adjacent to the Town's limits and is within the Town's Urban Service Area, and it is the intention of Mr. Gossard to annex, recommends that the Town request annexation prior to any construction on the land. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Stutz, seconded by Carico and passed unanimously to approve the annexation for the Lands of Gossard, 24810 Prospect Avenue prior to any development on the property. 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Recommendation to schedule public hear- ing for May 11, 1988 Ms. Zeff referred to Staff Report dated April 21, 1988 informing Commis- sion the Zoning Review Committee recently presented recommendations to the City Council for several amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which would aid in making the process for certain kinds of applications simpler, and would remove some confusing provisions of the zoning ordinance which have not been effective in achieving the aims they were intended to achieve. Ms. Zeff noted the City Council after their review, accepted the recom- mendations and have referred the proposed amendments to the Planning Com- mission to initiate the amendment process. Ms. Zeff noted these amend- ments include: Section 10-1.504 Height, Declining Height Envelope; Sec- tion 10-1.504, Driveway Light Fixtures; Section 10-1.505, Setback Lines; Section 10-1.502, Development Area; Section 10-1.503, Floor Area; Section 10-1.1107 (2), Minor Variances, recommending that the Commission set a public hearing for May 11, 1988 on these amendments. Ms. Zeff further noted other items being reviewed by the Zoning Review Committee include: definition Development Area; definition of structures; and Matadero Creek Subdivision criteria. Commissioner Carico noted this is the first time she's ever heard of this committee, questioning who is on the Committee? Ms. Zeff informed Commission the committee consists of Councilwoman Dronkert (who now needs to be replaced); Mayor Tryon and staff. Mr. Scarborough informed Commission the Planning Commission is a recom- mending body to the City Council, noting the City Council adopts the or- dinances, if the commission feels changes are appropriate you would make that recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Patmore indicated that the City Council did not draft this ordinance, and feels there is a loophole in this document, noting she wants to hold a public hearing on a more reasonable document. Commis- sioner Patmore raised concern over the one time exemption mentioned in this report. Commissioner Patmore further noted she asked if she could attend the last meeting held by this Zoning Review Committee and was in- formed it was not open for attendance by any one other than the Committee members. Commissioner Emling questioned how long ago this committee was formed? Commissioner Emling further noted that he would like the Commission to SS make a recommendation to the City Council that the members of this Commit- tee should be City Council members who have Planning Commission experi- t ence. � / Commissioner Carico indicated that she thought she was a member of this committee and questioned why she was removed? Mr. Scarborough informed Commission the Committee was formed about 1 1/2 years ago by the City Council and will investigate who the members are. Commissioner Struthers suggested a Study Session be held in the afternoon by the Commission to discuss these amendments and then hold the public hearing. Commissioner Patmore added the Study Session should produce a document at the same meeting for alternatives to this document presented this evening. Mr. Ekern noted it is important to keep the Study Session on this issues relating to this document, and then at a later date move on to new proposals. Ms. Zeff suggested that the Commission set the public hearing for discus- sion of this document and call it a study session for discussion. Ms. Zeff further informed Commission she is going to bring back the Work Pro- gram for review by the Commission at the next meeting so that we can all see what items are to be addressed in the future. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers, seconded by Carico and passed unanimously that the Planning Commission write a letter to the City Council addressing the Commissions concerns over why a Planning Commission was not represented at the Zoning Review Committee meetings. (Letter may address Mr. Emlings comment that the City Council members in attendance be previous Commissioners; and include why Commissioners are not welcome in attendance at the meetings). The Commission also appointed the following Commissioners as listed in priority to be members of this Zoning Review Committee: Carico, Stutz and Yanez. MOTION SECONDED AND WITHDRAWN: Moved by Patmore, seconded by Struthers and then withdrawn to hold a Study Session to produce a document at the same meeting as the proposed Zoning Review Committee ordinance amendments is discussed for different alternatives. PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was passed unanimously by the Commission to hold a Study Session for discussion of the Zoning Review Committees recommended Ordinance Amendments for May 11, 1988 - to be noticed as a Study Session - Public Hearing. 3. Planning Commission Interpretation - Staff request for interpretation of definition of Secondary Dwelling Unit Ms. Zeff referred to Staff Report dated April 22, 1988 informing Commis- sion Mr. and Mrs. Kushner have applied for a Site Development Permit at 13620 Hill Way for a new residence and wish to convert an existing 800 CW sq.ft. house into an accessory structure. Ms. Zeff noted they are unable -7- to apply for a secondary dwelling unit as the lot is less than one acre in size, noting further the Commission has indicated that they would not ap- prove a variance in the lot size required for a secondary dwelling unit on 44W this subject lot. Ms. Zeff referred Commission to the administrative definition of a secondary dwelling unit, noting under this definition the applicant can remove the kitchen and plumbing for toilet from the house and then qualify this house as an accessory structure. Ms. Zeff informed Commission staff is requesting the Commission affirm this interpretation ob both the ordinance and administrative definition of a secondary dwell- ing unit. Commissioner Patmore noted this would be reasonable as an accessory struc- ture, but not secondary dwelling unit. Commissioner Carico concurred. Commissioner Stutz commented that under our new Housing Element we en- courage secondary dwelling units, noting she did not feel this would be a problem to keep the house as a secondary dwelling unit. Commissioner Struthers noted this property is adjacent to Los Altos Shoupe Park, noting there are exceptions which could be made. Mr. Scarborough noted the commission should reenforce the literal inter- pretation. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Patmore, seconded by Emling and passed by the following roll call vote that the existing 800 square foot house at 13620 Hill Way as modified would not be considered a secondary dwelling unit, but an accessory structure. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Carico, Emling, Patmore, Struthers and Stutz NOES: Chairman Yanez ABSENT: Commissioner Kaufman OLD BUSINESS: Letter from Planning Commission to Department of Resources Staff informed Commission the letter prepared by Commission will be placed on the May 4, 1988 Agenda for City Council approval. Commission suggested that the Commission representative at the meeting may wish to ask Council about the requirement for letters for reviewed by the City Council written by the Commission. Mr. Ekern informed Commission he has been in contact with the Water Quali- ty Board with regard to permits and complaints, noting they have already received an official complaint regarding the impoundment of water at the Quarry, noting they will be examining this complaint. Mr. Ekern informed Commission the Water Quality Board indicated no permits have yet been ap- plied for. Regional Leadership Forum Commission asked status of this conference, noting Commissioner Carico and Chairman Yanez would very much like to attend. SE There being no further new or old lusiness, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Leslie Mullins Planning Technician -9-