Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 sd1 DRAFT Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, December 14, 1994, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #23-94 (3 ) • 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to,order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners McMahon, Gottlieb & Stutz Absent: Commissioner Cheng & Doran Staff: Linda Niles, Planning Director; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Sheryl Kolf, Assistant Engineer; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR 3.1 LANDS OF CIMERA, 25601 Chapin Road (201-94-ZP-SD-MOD); A request for a Modification a previously approved Site Development Permit to allow a change in exterior materials for a major addition/remodel. Item removed from the consent calendar by Commissioner Stutz to specify colors of the materials. She requested the cement plaster siding be either a medium to dark gray or a medium to dark tan and the concrete tile roofing be either a dark gray or a dark brown. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT December 14, 1994 Page 2 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner McMahon to approve the change of material specifying the color of materials; cement plaster siding be either a medium to dark gray or a medium to dark tan and the concrete tile roofing be either a dark gray or a dark brown. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Gottlieb, Stutz & McMahon NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cheng & Doran 3.2 LANDS OF HORTON, 26030 Altamont Road, APN 182-25-001 and 182-25-008 Altamont Road (181-94-LLA); A request for a Lot Line Adjustment. This was continued to January 11th to allow additional information to be submitted. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue Lands of Horton to the January 11, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF BROCKWAY, 25525 Moody Road (88-94-TM); A request for a six lot subdivision and certification of a proposed Negative Declaration (continued from November 9, 19, and December 1, 1994). Ms. Niles noted that the applicant had provided the Commission with an exhibit showing all requested changes on one plan. It was also noted that the Commission received two letters from the Somekhs. The Commission reviewed the new exhibit. Commissioner Stutz disclosed that she had consulted with Mrs. Brockway regarding the conservation easement. They presently have a conceptual conservation easement map showing the general placement. In six months, the exact layout of the conservation easement would be put on the final map. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that she did not want to vote on a 6 lot subdivision without knowing the location of the conservation easement. She liked the easements as they are presently shown. Chairman Schreiner asked the assistant engineer if the Lot Unit Factor, MDA and MFA calculated by Lea & Sung Engineering were from a land survey. Ms. Kolf responded yes, these are firm figures. She discussed aerial surveys versus land surveys as far as accuracy was concerned. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT December 14, 1994 Page 3 Beverly Brockway, applicant, noted that she had met with Commissioner Stutz and on another.occasion met with Commissioner Doran. She discussed the conservation easement as shown on the map provided; a flowing conservation easement; the conservation easement not over cul-de-sacs; heritage trees already protected by ordinance; a request from Commissioner Doran recommending where the flow of the conservation easement runs into heritage trees, to include them in the conservation easement; trying to keep the conservation easement away from driveways; no shared driveways; and showing the new trees added for screening although she did not feel this was the appropriate time to ask for screening trees be planted preferring Site Development time. They could use the map to show conceptually how screening could be accomplished. The map shows the new screening trees proposed between lots 1 and 2, lots 1 and 5, lots 5 and 6, and lots 3 and 4. As noted previously by Barry Coate, arborist, it was recommended not to have a horse trail (native path) in the area of the cul-de-sac off of Moody Road to prevent disturbance of the drip line of the oak trees. Mrs. Brockway further discussed the staff report, negative declaration and conditions of approval. In the negative declaration, the barn is described as a historic landmark although there is no record of this fact. She would like this sentence deleted. Mrs. Brockway discussed condition of approval #26 requesting waived fees for parks and recreation due to the amount of conservation easements dedicated. Mr. Peterson noted that there are formulas in the code which explain that a certain amount of conservation easements need to be granted or fees paid. He will look into this when the conservation easements are dedicated. Mrs. Brockway discussed#31, specifically lots 1 and 5. She asked that the same wording used for lot 5 be used for lot 1 as both lots will be on the same type of topography and the condition for the houses should be the same. The Commission discussed the definition of a step down foundation, suggesting changing "foundation" to "contour" for condition#31, Lot 1. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that in the ordinance, it is referred to as "step on contour". Mr. Peterson noted step down elements are floors. Mrs. Brockway discussed Mr. Somekh's letter regarding drainage which she just received. She noted that there has only been one complaint received regarding this subdivision. She has worked with two neighbors, spending money to solve their drainage problems. She discussed engineering requirements noting Mr. Somekh's concerns may be valid. However he has built his own two story house on a one acre parcel, maxing the development area which should be taken into consideration when reviewing his complaints. Jean Struthers, 13690 Robleda Road, discussed parking on pathways and Barry Coate's recommendation. She suggested protecting the trees where they are overhanging the road right-of-way but not in the paved area, perhaps using wooden posts,boulders, redwood fence or logs to prevent parking on the root Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT • December 14, 1994 Page 4 structure of these oak trees. She noted that the planning by the applicant was very thoughtfully done. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Chairman Schreiner discussed the Somekh's letter and their concerns. Ms. Niles noted that the procedure followed by the Planning Commission at the previous meeting was correct with all of the neighbors who expressed interest in the project called by staff (including the Somekhs) regarding the December 1st meeting. The meeting was continued to December 14th to allow staff to return with the changes that the Commission had requested to the conditions of approval and negative declaration and to see the changes on a map. Commissioner McMahon noted at the last meeting they reviewed the 6 lot design to see how it stood up to review and scrutiny. If they felt they could not find fault with 6 lots, it stood on its own merit. She asked if they were now continuing from that point, as they took no vote. Ms. Niles noted that they could discuss 5 lots although they need not go into a 5 lot discussion if they felt 6 lots were appropriate based on the conditions and on the redesign of the map before them. The application before them is for 6 lots. Chairman Schreiner provided an analysis for a 5 and a 6 lot subdivision for MDA and MFA figures, providing the Commission with a handout noting the figures were done equally: 6 lots, MDA 15,890 square feet, MFA 6,416 square feet; 5 lots, MDA 19,080 square feet, MFA 7,700. Commissioner Stutz felt that they should make it very clear that these lots will be very constrained. Commissioner Gottlieb would not like to see driveways pushed into the setbacks (no setback encroachment except for driveway crossing and a turn around). It was noted that any applicant could build a 4,000 square foot house,saving development area for a possible tennis court or a secondary dwelling. Chairman Schreiner asked-if 5 lots would have less of an impact on Moody Road; two lots coming off Moody and three lots coming off of Altamont. Commissioner McMahon commented since 5 lots have not been presented to them for their consideration, why are they considering it. Why not look at the merits of what is being presented. Commissioner Gottlieb noted_that with 5 lots there would still be the possibility of developing the properties to their fullest extent. Chairman Schreiner felt with 5 lots, there would be more physical room to put the extra MFA. Commissioner McMahon felt there would be more ground covered on the entire subdivision. Ms. Niles noted that the Commission would like to see as little development area as possible from the streets and no setback encroachments except for driveway crossing and a turn around. This would help mitigate a 6 lot development. Condition #8 will limit development. Commissioner Gottlieb does not want development built out so much that the Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT December 14, 1994 Page 5 setbacks are the only place for a driveway. Setbacks should be kept in a natural setting, keeping hardscape to a minimum. Ms. Niles noted they need to formulate wording so setbacks are not abused. This is really a Site Development issue. It would be helpful if the Commission could provide wording noting their intent is to limit the appearance of hardscape in setbacks. . The Commission preferred Ray Miller's conceptual plan. Commissioner McMahon asked when a prospective buyer becomes aware of the constraints placed on a piece of property. Ms. Niles responded that restrictions , would be recorded on the deed, would also be shown on the title report and the restrictions/constraints would be a part of the CC&R's. The name of the subdivision "Hidden Springs" was discussed with Commissioner McMahon noting she would be hesitant purchasing property with hidden springs. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested "Hidden Lane". Commissioner Stutz discussed condition#22. Ms. Niles noted that the only conservation easement with a fence restriction is the swale. Commissioner Stutz requested additional wording at the end of the first sentence of condition#20 "at Altamont and Moody Road". In discussing#35, it was clarified that "heritage tree" shall mean any tree that, due to age,size, location, visibility, ..." does not only pertain to oak trees. Ms. Niles will review the ordinance to make sure the wording for#35 is appropriate. Commissioner Gottlieb and McMahon felt Commissioner Doran and Stutz did an excellent job working with Mrs. Brockway on the placement of the conservation easements as presented on the December 14, 1994 map, commenting that it would be permissible to expand the easement a little,but not reduce it. Commissioner Gottlieb would like the wording in #35 also referenced under "Land and Use" and she would like the subcommittee (Doran, Stutz, Struthers and Staff) to meet and review the proposed thinning of the trees with Mrs. Brockway. The Commission agreed to accept the conservation easements as shown on the December 14, 1994 conceptual drawing noting it can be expanded- but not reduced. Discussion ensued regarding conditions of approval. Conditions 1 through 8, no change, keeping the second half of condition#8 highlighted, as shown; 9 through 10, no change;#11, the name "Hidden Springs Lane" to be left up to the applicant; 12 and 13, no change; #14, add "hydrant shall not be installed in the pathway" and add "final extent of the conservation easements will be determined by the subcommittee as shown on the December 14, 1994 map which may be expanded,but not reduced"; 14 through 18, no changes; #20, add to first sentence "at Altamont Road and Moody Road; #21, add to the end of the first sentence, "constructed to protect the root system" and i Tanning Commission Minutes DRA141 December 14, 1994 Page 6 "to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; #22, add to first sentence "to the satisfaction of the City Engineer"; #23, add "trees shall be added at the Site Development stage between lots ... for view mitigation (staggered on lots)"; 24 and 25, no change; #26, as per code, depending on the amount of conservation easements dedicated; 27 through 30, no change; #31, lot 1, "step down contour" and wording changed to be the same as for lot 5; 32 through 34, no change; #35, add "the conservation easements as shown on the December 14, 1994 conceptual drawing noting it can be expanded but not reduced" and reserve the possibility of keeping trees of 20" in circumference or over as a requirement of the subdivision. The Negative Declaration was discussed with reference to the barn not being a historic landmark and the environmental impacts that were checked for "YES" were adequately mitigated. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Stutz recommending certification of the Negative Declaration by the City Council. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioner Stutz, McMahon & Gottlieb NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cheng & Doran MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Commissioner McMahon and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to approve the subdivision with the previous changes to the conditions of approval made December 1st and amended. AYES: Commissioners McMahon & Gottlieb NOES: Chairman'Schreiner & Commissioner Stutz ABSENT: Commissioners Cheng & Doran MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to continue to the next meeting (January 11, 1995) to allow the presence of a full Planning Commission. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Stutz, McMahon & Gottlieb NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cheng & Doran Mrs. Brockway requested this item go directly to the City Council. • Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT December 14, 1994 Page 7 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to forward comments and the 2-2 vote to the City Council. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners McMahon & Stutz NOES: Commissioner Gottlieb ABSENT: Commissioners Cheng & Doran This item will appear on the City Council agenda January 18, 1995. Brief break at 9:00 p.m. 4.2 LANDS OF DRUMM, 12001 Finn Lane (lot 6), (168-94-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool (continued from November 30, 1994). Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the pool equipment pad was factored into the MFA.-Ms. Nile noted that it was not and should be shown on development area. Lot Unit Factors under one acre and aerial surveys were discussed. Chairman Schreiner asked who would be putting in the street trees since it was a condition of the subdivision. Mr. Peterson thought there were already street trees planted. Commissioner McMahon questioned the maximum height of the residence as listed on page 2, paragraph 2 of the staff report, the statement in the third paragraph regarding the additional (parking) space outweighing the impact of allowing a small amount of pavement within the setback, and the third paragraph on page three regarding the pathway being required to be shown on the final grading and drainage plan. OPENED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Gary Kohlsaat,501 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, architect, complimented Bob Owen for making this lot buildable and for carrying out the rough grading operations. Mr. Kohlsaat noted a few significant changes made, primarily raising the finished floor of the house 18 inches and on one end, brought up three feet. This significantly reduced the amount of grading, the amount of cut and fits better.with the contours. He noted that they would need approximately 20 square feet for the pool equipment which will be part of the MDA, not the MFA. The extra parking space is very important to the.applicant as the street is very narrow and if they do not provide two parking spaces someone will park on the street which would create a problem. They have split the entrance of the driveway between the entry and the garage. The location of the garage was a predetermined site because of the constraints of the lot. • Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT - December 14, 1994 Page 8 Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the parking space could be moved a little closer to the house to bring it out of the setback, perhaps by rotating it. Mr. Kohlsaat noted that they have about 15 feet between the parking space and the house which they intend to landscape. Mr. Kohlsaat noted that the parking space was arranged for ease and safety from a vehicular standpoint. He discussed their initial proposal, siting the house with a finished floor elevation (the main part of the house) at 560.0 and the entrance was 18 inches below that with the garage at 561, in the same location. They are limited by the contour line. They have raised the house up, leaving the ridge where it is, lowering the pitch of the roof in order to reduce grading. The west end has been raised another three steps which takes them to 563, working with the contours. The roof pitch is 6 1/2:12. Pam Swartz, 24941 Prospect, neighbor to the north, commented that the drainage concerns have been addressed. The junction box at the corner of Prospect and Finn Lane does not show on the site plan indicating drainage flows down onto their property. She would like this shown correctly. She liked the house, however she had two concerns: the roof slope (35 feet above the level of the road) which will block any visual quality she has from her lot and the need for street trees to be planted to soften the look. Jean McCandless, neighbor at the intersection of Prospect Avenue, La Lorna Drive and Edgecliff Place, also felt the roof would be prominent compared to the other portion of the house which is almost equal in height to the house itself. She concurred with Mrs. Swartz in that there is a need for planting of tall trees. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner McMahon proposed a lesser pitch than 6 1/2 :12 perhaps 6:12 or 5 1/2:12 would be even better. She felt the roof materials were fine. Because of the overall size of the house on this highly exposed corner, she would like some way to reduce the roof slope, lowering the wall height and lowering the pad. She was happy with the reduction in grading, hoping that they have not gone too far -- in the other direction. Commissioner Stutz agreed with the request to reduce the roof pitch, although she would not want them to reduce their nine foot walls inside the house. She did not have any problem with the plan, however she would agree with lowering the pad even though it would increase the export. Commissioner McMahon suggested using some of the export on site for some low berming of a foot to give the appearance of a much lower house. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed with the lowering of the pad. She liked the design as shown and requested a condition noting no formal stairs leading down to the street as this is a highly visible house. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT December 14, 1994 - Page 9 Chairman Schreiner agreed with the Commissioners. She requested that the landscaping plan return to the Planning Commission and the colors of the house be medium beige and dark charcoal. RE-OPENED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Gary Kohlstaat noted some confusion as the Commission previously requested less grading. He felt changing the roof pitch from 6 1/2 to 6 was acceptable. He agreed with the darker color roof, and having the landscape plan return to the Commission for approval. He noted that they can lower the roof pitch and if they grade more, they have to redo the entire grading plan. Commissioner Stutz suggested a model of the project, however Mr. Kohlsaat felt this was not in his budget. The Commission discussed ways of lowering the front of the house noting that almost any house that is put on this lot would be very visible. Mr. Kohlstaat indicated that a flat roof would not be desirable and they could bring the two elements in the front down. Chairman Schreiner asked the Commission if they wanted to give the applicant direction so he can work with staff or do they want the project to return. Ms. Niles noted for clarification, that the Commission would like the applicant to reduce the height from the 21 feet to something less than 21 feet in height. She also noted that if they looked at the project from the corner of Prospect and Finn Lane, the finished floor of the house is at 560. If the house is only 21 feet then you see the knoll rising behind the house because it is at 575. Mr. Kohlstaat noted that if they lower the pad, they will have more grading, asking if this is what the Commission is requesting. The Commission would like a little reduction in roof slope and pad,not damaging the integrity of the design but getting away from the bulk on the highly exposed corner of the property. Commissioner Gottlieb would like the roof line down half a foot to a foot. Mr. Kohlstaat would be very happy to work.with Ms. Niles to accomplish these goals. Commissioner Stutz noted that the applicant has come back twice at their direction, doing what they have asked him to do. The Commissioners liked the driveway design. Jean Struthers, 13690 Robleda Road, discussed shadowing, suggesting bringing the eaves down on the structure which would give a little more shade on the walls, giving an impression of a lower home. The Commission appreciated this suggestion. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING i'lanning Commission Minutes DRAFT = December 14, 1994 Page 10 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner McMahon to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool with the following changes/amendment: Condition #2, landscape planting plan to be approved by the Planning Commission...; and #7, Paint colors shall be as stipulated by the applicant to be a medium beige house and a dark gray roof. Also, the pool equipment shall be shown on plan; and the drawing plans will attempt to reduce the height of the house, working with staff. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Gottlieb, Stutz & McMahon NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cheng & Doran MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner McMahon requesting the application not be forwarded to the City Council consent calendar without requested modifications made to the plan. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Stutz, McMahon & Gottlieb NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cheng & Doran 4.3 LANDS OF HWONG, 12813 Clausen Court (200-94-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for grading for lawn and play area. This items was continued to the January 11th meeting at the request of the applicant. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue Lands of Hwong to the January 11, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. 5. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 1994 5.1 Chairman Schreiner reported the following items were discussed at the December 7th meeting: Lands of McNees and the Lands of Vucinich noting changes to the original approval. 5.2 Planning Commission Representative for January 4th will be Commissioner Gottlieb. 6. NEW BUSINESS • None. - ' Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT December 14, 1994 Page 11 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 General Plan Elements-Schedule for work sessions. Continued. 7.2 Procedures for enforcing the completion of landscape requirements and use of landscape deposits and landscape agreements. Continued. 7.3 Color Board. Continued. 7.4 Discussion of the In-Lieu pathway fee policy. Continued. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the November 30, 1994 Minutes. 8.2 Approval of the December 1, 1994 Minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner McMahon, seconded by Commissioner Stutz and passed by consensus to approve the minutes of November 30th and December 1st, as amended, with Commissioners Cheng and Doran absent. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS None. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Lonberger Planning Secretary