Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/13/1993APPROVED Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 13,1993, 7:30 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #1-93 (1) 1. ROLL CALJ. AND 11EDGE OF AUEGIANICE Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner & Stutz Absent: Commissioner Sinunu Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Persons wishing to address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda are invited to do so now. Please note, however, that the Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion or take action tonight on non-agendized items. Suoh items will be referred to Staff or placed on the agenda for a future meeting. None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be adopted in one motion, except for any item removed for separate consideration elsewhere on the agenda. The Chairman will ask the Commission and the audience for requests to remove these items. None 4.1 LANDS OF SAAH-MACAR LAND CO., 12000 Stonebrook, Tract 8331, Lot 17; A request for a Lot Line Adjustment. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 13, 1993 Page 2 Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that at the time Phase II (Tract 8331) of the McCullouch Subdivision was in design, an agreement was signed between the subdividers (Carter/Lohr) and an existing resident (Saah) to establish how Dr. Saah's existing access rights would be handled. At the time Dr. Saah had an existing 30 foot ingress/egress easement over the property to be subdivided which conflicted with the development plans of the subdividers. In exchange for the ability to extinguish the existing 30 foot easement the subdividers agreed to convey approximately one-half of an acre of property to Dr. Saah from one of the proposed subdivision lots by way of a lot line adjustment. Other stipulations were agreed to and were discussed in the Staff Report. Ms. Niles stated that the City Engineer had reviewed the proposed lot line adjustment for conformance with local zoning and building codes as well as the Subdivision Map Act and recommended approval. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Russ Carter, 940 Saratoga Avenue, San Jose, the applicant's representative, was asked where the fire road would be and he responded that it was between Lot 15 and Lot 16. t CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to recommend to the City Council approval of the lot line adjustment. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner & Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Sinunu This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar January 20, 1993 4.2 LANDS OF RAFINEJAD, 26650 Ascension Drive; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Second Unit. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that the proposal was for the expansion of an existing smaller structure to a larger one story detached secondary dwelling unit on an existing 1.04 net acre lot. The applicant has taken care to design the project to match the existing dwelling unit as much as possible and to design within the setbacks and height limits of the Town. An additional parking space outside the setback is required and is proposed to be located on the north east side of the existing garage which is on the other side of an existing fence. His proposal is to allow for a 9' wide opening in the fence with a gate. It was Staff's recommendation that the fence be relocated on the far (east) side of Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 13, 1993 Page 3 the proposed parking space in order to allow easier access to the parking space. It was felt that it would be difficult to maneuver into the parking space if the opening was only 9' wide, and having to open a gate in order to gain access to the parking space may discourage the use of the space. Commissioner Schreiner asked Ms. Niles if she wanted the applicant to take down the fence and put it in back of the new parking space. Ms. Niles responded, stating that was correct, on the east side of the new parking space or she would welcome any suggestion the Planning Commission or the applicant's representative would have for easier access. Ms. Niles would like the space to be open and available and not fenced in by a gate that would require getting out of your car to open. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Al Larkin, 26342 Ginny Lane, Los Altos Hills, the applicant's representative, in answer to Commissioner Comiso's question regarding where the existing structure is, he stated that the structure was on the property, however, he misunderstood the procedure and thought this was going to be an over the counter permit and a time ago when the weather was dry he knocked down the structure. He also stated that he did not think it would be a problem to move the fence as previously discussed. (, Mr. Larkin stated that he did not have a problem with the recommended conditions, v however, it was his impression that #6 regarding a survey would be waived. Chairman Pahl explained that the survey was necessary because the project was so close to the lot lines in terms of the setback and in the past the Commission has had problems where structures were built. Mr. Larkin agreed with the explanation. Ms. Niles, for clarification, stated that this would be surveying the foundation and it was not a whole lot topo survey which was waived. The survey is just to make sure the foundation is in the location shown on the plans. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Comiso discussed the parking space and possibly a bigger fence opening. Commissioner Ellinger stated that he was not too concerned with where they put the fence but he felt that the principle of having a parking space be easily accessible, so it is used, was really what should be the guide. He would suggest leaving this item open to Staff and let them manage this. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 13, 1993 Page 4 Chairman Pahl suggested adding a condition stating "the fence shall be located on the final construction drawings as per an agreement between Staff and the applicant, consistent with Staff's stated principles." MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Ellinger to approve the application with the amendment, "The fence shall be located on the final construction drawings as per an agreement between Staff and the applicant, consistent with Staff's stated principles." AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Schreiner, Stutz, Cheng, Comiso & Ellinger NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Sinunu This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar January 20,1993 4.3 LANDS OF ABRAHAM, 12831 Viscaino Road; A request for Site Development Permit for Hardscape and Variance for patios and a trellis to encroach into required setbacks (continued from December 22, 1992). Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that in response to a nuisance complaint, the Town sent a Notice of Violation to the property owner in January of 1991 informing him �a/ that there were some structures on his property that were incorrectly located in the setback areas. The property owner was also informed that this was in violation of the setback regulations. The property owner informed the Town that the structures in question had been in place for approximately 5 years and were minor landscaping amenities that did not cause any negative impacts on adjoining properties and were not totally visible from off-site. The Town has been working with the property owner since the original nuisance complaint to resolve the situation. The Site Development Permit and Variance are requested for two concrete slab patios (one with an open trellis cover structure), and for four decorative stone walkway light pillars that have been in their present location for approximately 6 years to date. Additionally, it has been determined that the property without the subject patios already exceeds the allowed MDA for the site by 3,575 sq. ft. After adding the already existing patios that are identified in the variance request, the project will exceed the allowed MDA by 4,722 sq. ft. The property also has an existing 70 sq. ft. greenhouse structure that is located within the rear setback at approximately 6' from the rear property line. This has been determined to be an existing legal non -conforming structural situation since the greenhouse has been in that location since 1972 or 1973, approximately 20 years. It appears as though there were no Town restrictions that prohibited minor accessory structures, such as greenhouses in the setback area. There are retaining walls around three sides of both patio slabs. Walls and fences are allowed Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 13, 1993 Page 5 within setbacks if they are 6' in height or less. The applicant's representative has submitted findings for the Commission's review. The specifics of the variance request are to allow an open slab patio in the south west corner of the property to encroach 12' into the side yard setback and 13' into the rear yard setback; to allow a slab patio and trellis cover in the south center portion of the rear yard to encroach to within 2' of the rear lot line; and for four decorative light pillars to be located adjacent to the existing stairs and walkway at both ends of the stretch of stairs leading directly uphill and to the west of the trellis covered patio. The four light pillars may be able to be determined to be decorative landscape features and, therefore, are permitted within the setback at a maximum of 6' in height. The pillars are constructed at approximately 4' in height currently and would be 5' in height after installation of the lights. The lot is just one acre in size and is not of unusual size. However, the average slope is greater than 29%. There are other locations on the site outside the setbacks that could have accommodated the two patios. At this time to relocate the patios outside the setback would involve breaking up the concrete, removing the trellis and relocating these features to an alternate location. The applicant is requesting that the encroachments be allowed to remain since they have been in place for approximately 6 years, the complainant was aware of the features when they were constructed, and only L in the last couple of years did the neighbor decide to raise issue with the situation. It fir'' was also the applicant's opinion that the patios and light pillars could not be seen from off-site view windows or outdoor living area. Ms. Niles stated that since the Town had been made aware of the violations to the setback regulations, the applicant has been informed that his options were to remove the non -conforming structures or apply for a Variance to the setback regulations through the Planning Commission. The applicant was also advised that the Staff may not be able to support the findings to grant a variance. She further discussed the variance evaluation and findings as presented in the Staff Report and stated that Staff was recommending denial of the variance since all the findings as set forth in the report could not be made to grant the variance. Commissioner Ellinger asked Staff if the patios were not constructed of concrete and impervious surface but were grass crete or redwood bark if this sort of use would be permitted in this area. She stated that bark and grass were acceptable, however, gravel, if it is wider than 4' is counted as development area, and grass crete was counted 50% and the trellis would not be allowed. Commissioner Comiso discussed the 5' easement stating that when this subdivision was apparently put in there was a general purpose easement, a 5' easement around three f sides of the property. She also asked if Ms. Niles knew what was allowed to be done in a general purpose easement. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 13, 1993 Page 6 Ms. Niles stated that the general purpose easement was to allow for such things as utilities and for pathways and according to the Master Pathway Plan, the Town was not requiring a path in the easement. She also stated that part of the Staff Report included the "Owner's Certificate' for the subdivision that does state that no structures were to go into the general purpose easement. At the time the Town was using the general purpose easements for the benefit of the utilities and for the benefit of the Town for paths or anything else the Town might need, structures were prohibited in the easement. It was stated that this was a easement dedication and it was assumed that it was accepted. Commissioner Schreiner asked Ms. Niles what were the rules or policy governing Grandfathering, development and floor area. Ms. Niles stated that the Town will allow an existing non -conforming structure to remain if it can be shown through evidence that it had been permitted at the time it was constructed before the zoning changed or if there were not standards that prohibited the location of the structure in the setback area when the structure was constructed. In the case of the greenhouse, there were no restriction on accessory structures in the setbacks and building permits were not required for some of those. Now and 5 to 8 years ago these kinds of structures were not allowed in the setback. Even though these structures have been on the property 5 to 6 years they cannot be Grandfathered because they were not permitted nor according to the code. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Don Wolfe, 707 Bradford Street, Redwood City, the applicant's representative, stated that the Staff Report was thorough and accurate and they did not have a problem with the report. There were 3 items in question, the 2 patio slabs and the trellis . The rest of the items that are in the setback are permitted. The greenhouse was prefabricated redwood that was installed sometime between 1972 and 1973 about 5 years before Mr. Abraham purchased the property. Mr. Abraham did construct the patio slabs in ignorance. Mr. Wolfe, in his experience, did not remember any other towns or cities doing planning work on the Peninsula that restrict on grade slabs in the setbacks. He stated that most towns and cities do allow them. He also noted that none of the improvements were visible from anywhere with the exception of part of the trellis on the lower patio. Mr. Wolfe discussed the variance evaluation and findings and stated that the size and topography were unusual because they both constrain the property, therefore, because of these two physical factors it was their belief that they do qualify for the requested variance findings pursuant to State law. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 13, 1993 ` Page 7 bo Chairman Pahl discussed the findings that the Planning Commission must make in order to grant a variance. They must find the property to be unique, so unlike almost any other property in Town and he asked what made this property so unique that it was so unlike any other property in Town. Mr. Wolfe stated that he appreciated the remarks, however, felt the interpretation of State laws that if you have a piece of property of size, shape, topography or other physical features cause a hardship in the development of that property which is not of the applicant's own making and that the use proposed by the applicant is enjoyed by other properties similarly situated, then you have a reasonable case for a variance. He also stated that there was one item in the Staff's findings that they disagreed with which was granting of a special privilege in #2 to the property owner that is not enjoyed by the surrounding properties, since the surrounding properties would not be able to locate patios and trellises within the setback is begging the question. He felt the issues were, do you have other properties similarly situated that are enjoying these property rights. In other words, are there other patios, trellises, etc., built within the setbacks and if there are that is precedent. It is not that others cannot do it. Chairman Pahl asked Mr. Wolfe if he was indicating to the Commission that if they went around town and found other properties that built in the setback, if that would be the basis to allow the applicant to build in the setback. Mr. Wolfe stated that he was not saying that but saying if there are other properties in this area that are enjoying property rights that are being denied to an applicant, that the applicant may be entitled to similar property rights. He felt that there was precedent in the community for building structures within setbacks. Commissioner Comiso after hearing the word precedent three or four times stated that each property stands on its own and by law this was the way she was to look at this. This property does not set a precedent for someone coming in with an application in two weeks nor does an application two weeks ago set a precedent. She would like to stay on this piece of property and the uniqueness of this piece of property. Mr. Wolfe discussed the lower covered patio and the fact that there had been a storage shed on the property, approximately 8X10, that was removed. Had Mr. Abraham left that shed there he would have probably had the shed Grandfathered in but he choose to remove it and replace it with a much less imposing patio cover. He stated that they felt that they had a case for a variance and they would prevail upon the Commission to find SO. Commissioner Ellinger questioned the retaining wall and Ms. Niles stated that retaining walls are allowed in the setback if they are less than 6' in height. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 13, 1993 Page 8 Mr. Jim Abraham, 12831 Viscaino Road, the applicant, stated that when he was doing the work in question, it was in conjunction with coming off a septic system and connecting to the sewer which was done with a permit. He stated that during this project the previous Building Inspector and the Director of Public Works, Bill Ekern, were out to see the work being done for the sewer connection. At that same time they were digging all the forms for all of the work in question. There was never an attempt to hide the work from the City. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Stutz, commenting on the 4 light pillars, stated that she agreed with Staff in that the pillars would not exceed the height allowed, however, the light pillars are 4' with a light on top. She felt that this was not acceptable lighting because this could be seen from off site. Commissioner Schreiner stated that this application has to be allowed a certain amount of development area over what the maximum is in order to get the driveway in and to get the concrete patio in the back which she believed comes to around 3,500 sq. ft. However, the addition of two extra patios in the setbacks infringing on the neighbors privacy was excessive. She stated that the Town has become extremely protective of its setbacks because the General Plan is trying to maintain the open space and rural feeling. She felt it was difficult to vote for this application and difficult to make the findings. Commissioner Comiso confirmed with Ms. Niles that only the first 100' of the driveway was including in the development area and that the extra driveway was not included so it was not a hardship on the development area of this piece of property. Commissioner Stutz, in reading the plan, further discussed the four patios and she felt there was no reason to allow the two higher patios when there was ample space, if they needed more patios, to put them below. Commissioner Comiso stated that after studying this project for the last two days did not know how they could possibly make a finding. She discussed the applications being submitted for approval and that the Commission makes sure that there is outdoor living area and that an applicant can use their property. She felt that what makes this application worse was the applicant going into the general public utility easement. She also could not support the application. Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 1993 Page 9 APPROVED Chairman Pahl stated that this property was way over development area and enjoying privileges other people do not have, however, the development area could be corrected by using approved materials to keep the patios. His real concern was in the setbacks and while the existing neighbors may not have a problem with the setbacks, future neighbors might. The Planning Commission's job is to be protective of future neighbors as well as existing neighbors. He stated that he also could not support the variance. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to deny the Site Development Permit and Variance. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner & Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Sinunu The appeal process was explained to the applicant and his representative. It was suggested that they work with Staff regarding other alternatives that may be available. 5. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Discussion of the Housing Element of the General Plan (continued from the December 22nd meeting and the special study session held at 5:30 p.m. prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting of January 13, 1993). Discussion will continue after adjournment of the regular Planning Commission meeting. It was also decided to have another study session January 27th at 5:30 p.m., prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting. The City Council will be informed that a draft of the Housing Element will be provided after the February 4th special study session meeting. Lands of Chiu, 28530 Matadero Creek, the Site Development Permit clarification of the previous Site Development approval of landscape plantings, fence and driveway modification remains continued from the canceled December 15, 1992 meeting and has not been rescheduled by the applicant. Commissioner Ellinger stated that there was an additional hardship involving this property. There was a piece of heavy equipment parked in the road next to the fire hydrant and the space was not wide enough to take a fire truck through. IM Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 13, 1993 Page 10 7. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 22,1992 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to approve the Minutes of December 22,1992. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Schreiner & Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Sinunu ABSTAIN: Commissioners Cheng, Comiso & Ellinger 8. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 6,1993 Lands of Viso was discussed at the City Council meeting asking for a redesign that would reduce the development area proposed on the lot so that there would still be some development area for the future. The Council also felt that if the grass crete on the driveway would fail the owners could use cement which would take them over the development area. The Council did not want to set up a situation that could require a variance. It was also noted that there were not sufficient step downs from the doors. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 29,1992 9.1 LANDS OF BURGER, 25325 La Loma Drive; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Landscape Plan. Approved with conditions. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:20 p.m. to a committee meeting for the continued discussion of the Housing Element. Respectfully submitted, Lard Lonberger Planning Secretary