Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 B Minutes of a Regular Meeting DRAFT Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday,July 26, 1995,7:00 p.m. Council Chambers,26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes#16-95 (3 ) - -1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called toorder at 7:00 p.m.in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman McMahon,Commissioners Cheng,Gottlieb,Schreiner&Stutz Absent: Commissioners Doran&Finn -- Staff: Curtis Williams,Planning Director;Jeff Peterson,City Manager; Suzanne Davis,Planner;Susan Manca,Planner;Lani Lonberger,Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF GEERS,27435 Natoma Road,(88-95-ZP-SD);. A request for a Site Development Permit for a major addition. Ms. Manca introduced this item noting a correction to the staff report. The net lot area is 1.2 acres; average slope 11.4%, and lot unit factor 1.15. Staff had recommended that the 40 foot setback be counted from the front of the property as it was not clear from the application of the exact location where the 40 foot setback started and.ended. The , calculation was,explained by Ms. Manca (corner,to.corner). It was;clarified that the basement will be entered from within the house and will be used for storage. V- OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minute DRAFT . July 26, 1995 j t Page 2 Linda Scott, 1045 Sansome Stre t,San Francisco,applicant's representative,provided photos of the existing conditio ,agreed to comply with the conditions of approval and verified that theasement wo d be used for storage. Tom Griffiths,Pay way Co 'ttee,clarified the request from the Committee stating they are asking for the pathwa to be restored (compacted fines). CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner ques 'oned=William Cotton's,report as it related to the leach_ ._ _' field, asking if thil has been ad quately addressed? Mr.Williams assured her it would be handled unde , condition#7 It was clarified that removal of pavement is part of the plansand will be removed pri r to final.. Commissioner Gottlieb would like this noted ' as a condition of approval. MOTION SECONDED AND P SED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to approve the Site Development Permit for a major addition,expanding con itions#18 to include the pathway be restored to a IIB pathway, and removal of pave i ent is part of the plans which will be removed prior to final. (Staff will provide wordi g for both conditions.) AYES: Chairman McMahon,Commissioners Cheng,Stutz,Gottlieb &Schreiner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Doran&Finn 1 . . This item will be subject to a 21 day appeal period. j 4.2 LANDS OT KIM, 12005 inn Lane (114-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Developm nt Permit for a fence,lighting and landscape plan. . . Staff had nothing further to ad to the staff report. Commissioner Schreiner asked if there were any sp cific CC&R's on the Finn Subdivision relating to landscaping, lighting,fences or gates? Ms. Iv anca commented staff does not review CC&R's. The applicant was informed to cont.ct Steve Finn to review the'CC&R's. Commissioner Schreiner felt it would have be- very helpful to see the location of the pool even though it not a part of this ap•lication. The pool was approved with the new residence located in the back ar-a of the lawn. Commissioner Schreiner asked if the Kim landscaping was'coordina'ed with the Drumm landscaping? The landscaping appears to flow from one prop y to the other. It was felt the applicant could discuss this question. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING 1 Planning Commission Minutes • DRAFT July 26, 1995 Page 3 Kay Small; 171 N. Balsamina,Portola Valley;landscape architect,reported the Kim's will not be constructing the pool and will let the Site Development Permit expire.. They will work with the Drumrns regarding the 6 foot wooden fence they will be sharing. She discussed a change in plant material,using more drought tolerant,lower plantings on the property lines. She 'requested a change to the'fence on the La Loma side of the property which would involve a 6 foot chain link fence moving it in 10 feet towards the house from the trail.- She also requested consideration for planting in the right-of-way since the Kims are losing 10 feet between the easement and another 5 feet of path: Planting would make a nice buffer. The fernce'in the slope easement and the mature height of the trees (Olive and Cherry)were'discussed. Regarding fencing,she clarified there would be a wooden fence between the Kims and the Drumms right property line. On the other side,between the Hills and the Kims,there will be a chain link fence,for the most part. Commissioner Schreiner was concerned with so many fences. Commissioner Stutz asked Ms. Small if she was aware that the Town does not like front yard fences? Ms. Small responded;yes. However,the fence will be an open style,5 1/2 feet in height(black metal) as her clients have security concerns.' Commissioner Stutz commented that they have turned down applications prior for front yard fences: The emergency gate shared with the Hills was discussed. Commissioner Stutz also discussed the number of lights''being proposed noting the only-lights allowed are entrance lights,safety step lights and insidepool lights. She asked that the number of lights be reduced as she could not vote for a plan with this many lights. She suggested. the plan return with the suggested changes. Commissioner Gottlieb discussed the grading of the two lots and the height restriction of the houses,making sure that the views were preserved. She askedno trees be higher than the house so theviews would not be restricted. Commissioner Schreiner commented on theI garage doors being painted white: Bob Owen noted that the doors are primed white. -Appropriate colors will be submitted for staff approval. Shortly after they started the house design,the Kim's mother-in-law was involved in a burglary. They then changed a few design aspects which included changing the glass doors in the front for privacy 'and they pulled the fencing out to the front so there would be a buffer from the front yard to the house. Not allowing an access gate in the utilities easement along La Loma was discussed. Bill Siegel,24905 La Loma Court,felt the Town had an opportunity with the landscaping of these two homes to create one of the best pathway,landscape-plans in Town,running from La Loma Court along La Loma Drive.all.the way down Prospect • through the Finn subdivision,starting again at the Yu home with anicely landscaped path: He would like to see some uniformity-in this path. He was notsure this plan accomplishes'this; The uniformity he would like would be to seethe fence on Prospect parallel,the setback at the same depth as the fence on the Goese's property next door and that the fence be landscaped in way so it provides privacy for those homes that - i 1 Planning Commission Minute DRAFT . July 26, 1995 Page 4 back up on La Loma Drive. H- understood that the plan:at the request of the staff,not the applicant, does not includ: landscaping in the median between the pathway and the road...He felt thio should be st. dard policy in Town. He noted that the Goese's have landscaped very lavishly,whi.h looks beautiful. 'However,.they are not in.the process of requiring residents to lands ape this area except for trees as it is Town property. On Prospect,he felt the setback of the fence should parallel$4r. Finn's property so there would be some land of contin 'ty and unity with the pathway landscaping along Prospect and La Loma Drive.: a appreciated.the concern with tree height noting he felt that his property and the Goes 's property were elevated]enough so,that normal trees (not eucalyptus ees)would n t disturb;.them. He was..not sure of the.use of the utilities easemen along La Lo a Drive and did not feel agate:access.was desirable. John Russell, 1211 0 Edgecliff P ace,downhill from this project,commented on the berm along La Loma Avenue and th possible water flow. 1 Werner Goese,2 915 La Loma Court,reviewed the plans,asking ifthe height limitation of the roof line al6o.applied to he planting material? Chairman McMahon noted that the question had been raised p eviously.and would be addressed. Mr.Williams noted that code does not limit the tre s to the same height as the house,however the Commission can condition the height through the review' of the landscape plan. Jean Struthers,E vironmental esign Committee,discussed lighting,noting occasionally lights are incorpo ated in the building process where they put spotlights under eaves of the house. This should be reviewed. She lalso discussed native, drought tolerant planting,and using a x-ariety of shrubs in more informal arrangements so,they - would have several different types of shrubs. In case one shrub dies,they will not have a gapping hole. She would li..I4 oak trees planted between the Kim and Drumm, property. She would hope that they would require the street trees as she would like to see Oak trees pla ted.along:both of the two houses (Kim and Drumm). In discussing the proposed.tre s, she was concerned with the height of the redwood trees. She does like Olive trees. . ' . . Mr. Peterson,responded to comments noting that they had.researched the public utility easement which runs parallel t the right-of-way to La Loma and Prospect. Looking through all of the subdivision cords,-he could not find any reference to the public utility easement. On the front heet of the landscape plan,on the common lot line between lots 4 an 5,the plan hows planting on both sides of the property line. He understands that the applicant is workingwith the neighbor,however the Town cannot approvelandscaping which is of on;the_applicant's plan They can approve the - concept with the applicant wor 'ng it out with their neighbor. Mr. Peterson noted originally when this lot came ' forr site development,there was concern expressed regarding drainage going dow Finn Lane. .At.the time grading was reviewed,the applicant redesigned so that a' 'gh percentage of the drainage would flow towards La Loma with the remainder flowing towards Finn Lane. If a berm was placed along La Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 26, 1995 Page 5 Lorna Drive,it would intercept the drainage and either direct it in one direction or another and concentrate it or make it pond. A berm along there would not work well „ unless it was broken up in many places to allow the drainage to flow through.- Since he, did not know the intent of the public utility easement,in the future,when reviewing subdivisions,they need to look.at requesting easements_very carefully because if they do condition them,.they should keep them clear. A public utility easement is a generic easement. A sewer easement is a sewer easement. This PUE is shown on the inside of the property line. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY _ Commissioner Stutz noted an easement should be kept clear. She encourages planting in the road ways which helps preserve the rural atmosphere. She felt that the required subdivision_trees which have died or in poor condition should be replanted. She did feelthe height of the trees should be restr-icte4 so theywill.not.impact the view corridor. Mr. Peterson suggested if they will not be restricting planting especially of trees in the public utility easement,consider allowing the applicant to abandon the easement because this becomes an encumbrance on the property which is.unusable. There was a consensus that the front pillars-and fence be moved back so they,are not in the slope easement. All agreed that the lighting proposed should be reduced and down lighted including the pillar lanterns with visible bulbs. Commissioner.Stutz would like to know what will be replacing the wax myrtle prior to voting on the project. There was a consensus on the elimination of the berm for drainage. Tree heights.at maturity should not:restrict the view.corridor. Jean Struthers suggested rather:than berms, planting islands to raise the soil up in a fewdecorative areas so that the headlights coming down La Loma would not shine into the house and the view of the back side of the house would not be so visible from the back street. Mr.Williams felt they were getting into re-designing the details of a landscape plan: Staff has heard the concerns and would work with the Environmental Design Committee and the applicant to address the Commission's concerns. Bob Owen noted that prior to the meeting,their concern was that there were no planting between La. : Loma and the house,because there was no planting allowed in the easement area. They. would preferred planting in that area for privacy. Commissioner Stutz requested information from staff regarding how many and what type of problems there has,been with planting in a public utility easement. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner.Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to continue the Site Development Permit for landscaping,returning September 13th,.addressing the concerns of the Commission including:. mature tree height not restricting;.view corridors;.clear slope easement;.. lighting reduced with down.lighting;planting on left side of property line;what will Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT. . ' July 26, 1995 Page 6 replace the wax myrtle;elimina 'ng the berm for drainage;reconsider the redwood trees with live oaks;tre height to hi a pole;show contour lines the location of thelence; what would be allowed in the ublic utility easement;:try to develop a'coordinated landscape,pathway,fence plan along La Loma,Prospect and Finn Lane; and' coordinate planting and fence plan with the Drumms. Staff will research the public utility easement. If they return With a valid reason for the easement,the Commissioner can base a decision on that. If ey"cannot find a need for the easement,the issue would be mute. At that time,the Co 'ssion can decide on the location of the fence. - AYES: Chairman McMa on,Commissioners Stutz,Schreiner,Cheng&Gottlieb NOES: None ABSENT: '> Commissioners D ran&Finn I , k . 4.3 LANDS O DRUMM, 12 01 Finn Lane (112-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for lighting and landscape plan. 1 Staff had nothing further to ad to the staff report. Chairman McMahon noted that the neighbors,the Swartz, asked th t the lighting and the mitigating screening be reviewed as it will have a major impact on their home which is directly across the-street. Commissioner Schreiner commentedonthe lot unit factor being.99. Mrs. Davis - clarified that the original numb rs were based on an aerial survey indicating a lot unit factor of 1. However,when the of was re-surveyed the lot unit factor came out to be .99 LUF. The numbers are based o the lot prior to when the grading occurred. Mrs. Davis noted that the cobble stones in the right-of-way area are not permitted and would need to be removed;condition dition#1, (c)and (d)would need to be reviewed;and the plan shows 19 trees in the public utility eas ment currently. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Russell, 1212' Edgecliff, q estioned the pool drainage asking that it not drain down hill. Paul Swing, 1794 The Alameda,IiSan Jose,applicants representative,was available for questions. He noted that they have reviewed the conditions of approval. He was asked if they had any suggestions for lternate plantings in place of the redwoods in the front? He commented that the redwoo s actually protect the entry from pedestrians and cars, providing privacy as the properis very low Compared to the height of the house, sitting up higher Mian the grade for the trees planted. Mr.Swing further discussed the proposed lights,choosing lights which would not be seen;placed on specific areas to • avoid accidents (step lights) an avoid trip hazards. Commissioner Goitlieb asked t at the cobble stones on both sides-of the path be pulled a few feet away as they create a otential problem. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 26, 1995 Page 7 Commissioner:Stutz discussed the different,types of trees proposed. She felt the number and size of trees should be reduced and only plant the mitigation trees at this time. The trees should not be up lighted. She further discussed the number of lights proposed. Gary Kohlsaat,Los Gatos,project architect,requested a few decorative trees be allowed. He further addressed the light issue noting that they have not submitted the exterior house lighting plan at this time. They will bie having a preliminary meeting with Mrs. Davis regarding the lighting and the house color. There are many doors in the back of - the property needing a light to conform with UBC. Commissioner,Stutz commented that the lighting plan is usually a part of the landscape plan. Paul Swing, addressed the lights noting they have chosen.lights which would not be seen;placed on specific areas to avoid accidents (step lights) and trip hazards for safety only;will not be seen off-site;no lights are proposed in the setbacks;up-lights will have filtered lens so airplanes would not see the lights. The back of thehouse is not visible and their back neighbors,the Kims,will have a 6 foot high solid fence. He further discussed the lighting around the pool area. It was noted that the flagstone patio would have to be eliminated or moved 25 feet from the property line. Code does allow walkways and paths (not wider than 4-feet).rywithin setbacks. Jean Struthers,Environmental Design Committee,made the following comments: the 4 foot path was-in-the setback;the liquid amber would not,survive as it requires too much water;the wall of redwood trees in the front of the house would not be appropriate,' suggesting shrubs or Chinese pistachio;and suggested oak trees to be planted as street trees. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING . . ., Discussion ensued regarding: staff recommendation needed regarding the public utility easement;height of trees,especially the Redwood trees in the front area;reducing the lighting especially any proposedup lights;the need for:more'detail relating to the common property line,showing the type of fencing and plantings;removal of cobble stones;no planting or'irrigation within 5 feet of the path;the number of trees;request to show the street trees along La Loma and Prspect;and a coordinated plan along the road ways. The City Engineer will determine if the public utility easement is not needed,then fencing to the outside of:the POE will be permitted. Mr. Kohlsaat would prefer the changes be handled by:staff.- MOTION taff.MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and. _ seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to continue the Site Development Permit for a landscape plan for redesign, addressing the issues discussed,returning August 9th at 6:30 p.m. The Commission requested Lands of Kimalso be returned on the same date, contingent on the applicants meeting with staff and being able to submit revised plans Planning Commission Minute• ,. DRAFT July 26, 1995 Page 8 in the time allowed. The Land. of Kim will be re-noticed for public hearing to indicate the change in pul6lic hearing d:tes. . AYES: Commissioners `tutz,Gottlieb &Schreiner _ NOES: Chairman McMa on&Cheng ABSENT: Co 'ssioners Foran&Finn . Brief break-at 9:30 p.m. 4.4 LANDS O SHUM/TE G,24028 Oak Knoll Circle_(lot 17) (98-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request fo a Site Devel.pment Permit for a new residence. . . Mrs. Davis intr uced this ite noting'a correction to the"Site Data"information: average slope 8:7 %;lot unit f.ctor 1.11. A condition of approval should be added regarding the pathway being upgraded to a Type IIB path as needed,to the satisfaction of the Engineering Departmen I prior to final inspection. IThe Commission was provided with a 8 1/2 X 11 site plan whic is a revisionto the original plan. The architect has changed the plant proposing to shift the house slightly closer to the front property line.. She further commented that D i. Saah, a neighbor,had a concern with view obstruction. He met with stafil and the ar ' ect and agreed with the new house location as long as the height of the house is brou ht down slightly. Dr. Saah had provided a copy of his grant deed indicating a restrict on of the placement of the house so his view corridor- would be kept oen. 'It was clay ified that the pond andfence were not apart of this application OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Ron Harris, 10091 Streeter Roa ,Auburn,project architect,discussed the change in the plan, the applicant's desire to , ove the house forward slightly without added grading for consideration lof Dr. Saah's' iew easement,lowering the pad two feet and changing the roof pitch to reduce the hei ht three feet(531 to 528'+vation). Commissioner Gottlieb commented that theyre grading for what appears to be a slope design on a flat lot with the garage tucked 1 . She would prefer they maintain the natural contours.. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMO Discussion erisuell. Commissi ner-Gottlieb commented on altering the natural slope of the property;the relatively flat ot;digging into the slope 5 to 6 feet for the lower element; and reqUesting a sing e story on this flat lot. She would prefer the natural contours of the lo be maintain d.' Chairman McMahon comment "d on the 6,500 square foot=house lowered two feet requiring extra materials to be emove from thesite (approximately 50 trucks of dirt). She felt the'heighi was excessiv for a'one story and much excavation needed for a . Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 26, 1995 Page 9 relatively-flat lot. She rioted a problem with no grades;on elevations shown and the fact that from the pad to:the:roof,the height;for a one story was 24 feet. The original_grade is not showing the elevations or a cross section. She felt the drawings were incomplete. A putting green requiring minimal:grading will be located in the flat pad area shown on the plan. Commissioner Cheng felt the design was fine,however she felt a two story house would not be appropriate. Commissioner Stutz asked if the applicant would consider anything else besides a stucco and:red file roof. Mr.Harris responded no. Commissioner Schreiner was pleased that the house was being moved up as she previously had a concern for the neighbors,the Dawsons. Mt Williams suggested setting parameters as far as utilizing the location presented, staying under the 528 elevation,not increasing the cut and'fill'by more then perhaps 20%. If the applicant cannot meet parameters,they will have to redesign and:return to the Planning Commission: Chairman McMahon did not mind if the pad was cut,however she was concerned with the garage under the house on a fairly flat lot., The drawings should show existing grade and finished grade. If they had the drawings,it would showthat the house was going contrary to the land. She felt the garage should:be one story. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Stutz.to continue the Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool for redesign requiring no two story.elements. . • Discussion-ensued. Commissioner Stutz asked if Chairman McMahon would be. satisfied with a garage that was set down half a story rather than a whole_story. :She responded yes,with a maximum of five feet. AYES: Chairman McMahon&-Commissioner Gottlieb- NOES: Commissioners Stutz,;Cheng.&Schreiner ABSENT: '. Commissioners Doran&Finn The conditions of approval were discussed noting that the pond and fence were not a part of this application and the pathway shall be upgraded to a Type IIB path as needed,to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. It was noted that the only lighting in the pool area would be the inside pool lighting. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the Site Development:Permit for a new residence and pool with the amended conditions as follows,with direction to staff to work with the applicant to meet the requirements of the height limitations.as explained by Dr. Saah and agreed to by the applicant;accepting the new location shown on the revised site plan with the height limitation of 528 elevation: Changes and additions to the conditions of approval: the pathway shall be upgraded to a Type IIB path as needed,to:the satisfaction of the.Engineering Department prior to final inspection;the Planning Commission Minute- DRAFT July 26, 1995 Page 10 only lighting in e pool area` ould be the underwater pool lighting with ceilingarea down lighting,a ding to con. tion#13,"line"after theword "property". AYES: Coilmissioners tutz,Schreiner&Cheng NOES: Chairman McMa on&Commissioner:Gottlieb ABSENT: ' CoiJnmissioners loran&Finn ,. This approval is ubject to a 21 day appeal-period. .- 5. Z.-. • s t.o ki Owl SO >• A. I__ LA V1., 5.1 Planning Commission epresentative for the July 18h meeting-Commissioner Doran: Mi.Williams re orted the following items were discussed: Lands of Goldberg;interpretatio on measurement of height for property in.the Bellucci Subdivision with requir d fill,Lands of La Joie;Lands of Wise/Vidovich lot line , adjustment;status of Vi ovich applications with Santa Clara County;'joint meeting S ptember'19t •Nextel Communications;and a request for approval of. a Certificate of Correcti n amending the final map to remove the building setback li es-Tract#128 . 5.2 PlanningI ommission presentative for the August 2nd meeting-Chairman.:; McMahon 6. NEW BUS SS I 6.1 Study sess{on regarding subdivisions and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Pla ng Director presented information, discussing and explaining the subdivision and CEQA review process:' - 6.2 Rotating schedule for a ,endance of City Council meetings-1995/1996. 6.3. Joint City 1 ouncil/Pla • g Commission meeting Tuesday,September 19th from 5:00 to 7:0 p.m. 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Report from subcommi ,ees. None. 8. APPR• AL OF M lIES :`- . 8:1 Ap'royal of the J ly 12, 1995 minutes. PASSED BY CO SENSUS: To .pprove the July 12th minutes with minor changes.' Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 26, 1995 Page 11 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 9.1 LANDS OF SYKES,26932 Beatrice Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool. Approved with conditions. 9.2 LANDS OF ZATPARVAR,26010 Torello Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan. Approved with conditions. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus Jt 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Lonberger Planning Secretary •