Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 8.1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting DRAFT Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING.COMMISSION Wednesday, August 9, 1995,6:30 p.m. Council Chambers,26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #17-95 (2) 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 McMahon,Commissioners Cheng,Gottlieb,Schreiner, &Stutz Absent: Commissioner Finn& Doran Staff: Curtis Williams,Planning Director;Sheryl Proft,Assistant Engineer; Suzanne Davis,Planner;Susan Manca,Planner;Roberta Wolfe,Acting Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR-None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR-None. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF LOHR, 12101 Oak Park Court (lot 2) (120-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. This item has been continued to the September 13th meeting at the request of the applicant. 4.2 LANDS OF KIM, 12005 Finn Lane (114-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a fence,lighting and landscape plan(continued from July 26, 1995). Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report.. Commissioner Schreiner said the conditions'say there is still some question about abandoning a public utility easement on La Loma and Finn Lane and asked staff to let the Commission know when this has been decided. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING ' Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT • July 26, 1995 Page 2 Kay Small, 171 N. Balsamino,Portola Valley,landscape architect representing the Kims, said she was here to answer Commission's questions. She informed Commissioner Schreiner that the fence between the Kim and Drumm properties is solid. Commissioner Gottlieb thanked Ms. Small for listening to the Commission in regard to the height of trees. Pam Schwarz,24941 Prospect Avenue, said she was also representing the Russells who live on Edgecliff adjacent to her. She said she is really pleased with the trees; they will mot impact her view. However, she expressed concerns about drainage. The Russells have begun to have a problem. She said that runoff from the Finn property runs onto her property then beyond the Russells to their drain field. She is still concerned about what happens to runoff water when it leaves her property. She said there is no provision for it and it is increased every time Finn Waters. Both she and the Russells are concerned about the irrigation going into the Kim property. They would like to make sure it is adequate but not excessive. Commissioner Stutz said she thought the landscape architect had done a good job in giving;the Commission what they want to see on this property. She agreed with Ms. Schwarz that one of the major problems in town right now is irrigation of landscape plants. Reducing the amount of landscaping on the property and using a minimum of high water usage trees will go a long way toward reducing runoff: She said she thought the Kims have done a very good job by reducing the lighting and the trees, spreading out the trees and taking out the plants that Commission objected to along the fences. Ms. Proft answered Commissioner Schreiner's questions regarding condition 9 noting this was something that had come up in the site development hearings for the house and it was not written down as a specific condition but it was something Bob Owen agreed to at the meetings, so they were taking this opportunity to include it as a condition of approval. It deals with the ponding of the drainage along La Loma. Council had requested grading for positive flow and that still needs to be completed. Ms. Proft said she did not think this would solve any of the problems to which Ms. Schwarz referred but was more a localized problem with ponding on the road. Chairman McMahon asked if the Commission could condition approval in regard to trimming trees to maintain height so they do not grown higher than the roof. Mr. Williams-said no at this point. There is no permit requirement to plant trees, and there is no review process,so unless it is done as part of the conditions of approval for a subdivision, there is no opportunity at the time a landscaping plan comes in. Chairman McMahon asked about the catch basin design that was supposed to be improved. Ms. Proft said drainage initially goes off-site across Prospect, and then if there is a larger flow it goes down Prospect. What was required was some additional rock work and some lining, and that has taken place. She said Ms. Schwarz was talking about the problem being transferred downhill. Chairman McMahon asked what could be done Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 26, 1995 Page 3 about the problem. Ms. Proft said this is something about which the next owner would contact the town if they were having.a problem. Staff tries to deal with this on a case by case basis. She said the six different property owners have contributed to the storm • drain system because they are contributing.additional flow with their development. MOTION SECONDED AND,PASSED: Motion by,Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner.Gottlieb to approve the request for a site development permit for a fence,lighting and landscaping,plan,Lands of.Kim,with the stated conditions of approval. AYES: Chairman McMahon,Commissioners Stutz,Schreiner,Cheng&Gottlieb NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Doran&Finn 4.3 LANDS OF DRUMM, 12001 Finn Lane (112-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a fence,lighting and landscape plan(continued from July 26, 1995). Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Gottlieb asked about their request regarding tree height and why this hadnot been done. Mr. Williams said their direction was that trees should generally not be above the roof _height but should not block views. The applicants feel they can demonstrate that even though these are tall trees,they will not block views. The trees are low on the site and away from some of the other.properties. OPENED PUBLIC.HEARING 1794 The Alameda,San Jose, said he was Paul Swing, DeMattei Construction, representing the Drumms. Commissioner Schreiner expressed continuing concerns about the height and water needs of some of the trees,especially the ones on the perimeter. She felt that the deodoras and the redwoods will definitely block someone's view. Mr. Swing presented a drawing of the elevations of thelproperty. He asked that the Commission consider that there are 15redwoods across the street, and they would like to continue that look. Mr. Swing said they walked the property after the last meeting, considered all the viewpoints and had actually removed some of the trees they felt wouldblock the views. He said they were looking for a backdrop for the property;something that would give a three-dimensional value to the property with the surrounding trees: He said there are no existing trees on the.property,so what they are trying to do is give height to the backdrop and still allow for the view corridors of the other residents. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT • July 26, 1995 Page 4, Mr. Williams said it would be helpful to address the lighting situation unless they are in agreement with the staff's recommended changes. Mr. Swing said they were still looking for the up-lights in the trees, and he showed samples of the lights. Commissioner Stutz asked for a clarification of the location of the edge of the street and the property line. She asked if the applicant realized that they have the tallest trees on the tallest part of the property in the view corridor at that point. Mr. Swing asked the Commission to note the space between the trees and how much is left open. Discussion followed regarding how far the trees were to be from the property line and their spread. Mr. Swing said that Ms. Small strongly recommended that they plant those trees. Gary Kohlsaat,501 North Santa Cruz Avenue,Los Gatos,project architect, showed and described samples of pillar lights. Mr. Swing showed the lights proposed for the trees,paths and steps noting that lighting around the house was a safety factor. He further discussed the wattage and showed the Commission the protective tinted lens on the tree lights. Concerns were expressed regarding the cedars along the west and northwest corner and visibility from the road at the northwest corner., Ms. Schwarz said she thought the birches would frame the house nicely but between the birches there is no screening of the massive house. She said her house is directly across the street and below the proposed house. When they look at this house,it will look much taller than it actually is. She reiterated her concerns about drainage. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Williams said that given the comments that Ms. Schwarz had made at this meeting it would be appropriate for the Commission to direct that prior to the final approval of these homes,the staff engineer meet with her and the Russells to make sure staff understands all drainage issues because many of them might not have a relationship to the landscape plan. Chairman McMahon so directed. Commissioner Schreiner said she still had concerns regarding the heights of trees and she would like to see another species chosen instead of the ten deodoras. She said she did not think it would be difficult to pick one that grows lower and slower. In addition she questioned whether up lighting should be allowed, and had difficulty with the path lights but they might be all right if they are kept to 12 inches in height. She concurred that more of the drainage issue should be addressed. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 26, 1995 Page 5 Commissioner Gottlieb said they have spent so much time on the grading of the property and getting the elevations of the roof line to this point that the landscaping should match the elevations,making sure not to obstruct the view. She thought the redwoods should,also bechanged to something that would not grown higher than the roof line of the house.' . Commissioner Stutz said she thought the pillar lights can be improved on. The lights for the steps and path would be effective. She said there are more lights on this plan than on the one previously considered. She suggested removing the three path lights on the turn around for the garage. She said they had never given anyone permission to up-light a tree that she;could remember.. Commissioner Stutz commented on Condition 3 as follows: 3a-agreed with staff;3b-reduce the number of.deodoras to five. She described the ones she would eliminate and she .would require that they be set at least 40 feet into the property away from the fence. 3c-require seven live oaks,five on Prospect and two in addition to the two that are already existing on La Loma. They should be placed 40-45 feet apart or go back to the original plans on the Finn estate that note how many were to be,put in there. 3d-change it to require ground cover in areas where erosion is possible. 3e- was probably all right but she objected to 11 birch.trees. Commissioner Stutz said she would add a newcondition that the wood fence should be left to weather but if painted,would be painted a medium to dark brown,not white. Commissioner Schreiner said she thought they.should ask for what they want for mitigation with direction as to height,and that ground cover would not be required. She said she felt strongly about the path lights being only 12 inches tall., Commissioners Stutz and Gottlieb described pillar lights-they had:seen in town. , and their likes and dislikes regarding features. Chairman McMahon also felt that trees 90-100 feet are too high,and did not like up lighting or lights on top of pillars. Commissioner Schreiner requested Commissioner Stutz to redline the trees that she felt should be removed from the plan. Ms. Davis will summarize the motion to make sure it was accurate. Mr.Williams clarified for Commissioner Gottlieb that if the Commission makes the height of trees a condition,the trees planted will have to be kept at that height or changed to a species that will grow to that height. . . . Commissioner Gottlieb expressed concern regarding views being obstructed when trees matured. A 60 foot tree will impact a neighborhood. She said if you limit homes to protect view corridors, you must limit landscaping to dothe same. She would like the redwoods to be no taller than 20-30 feet. Mr. Swing said they would.investigate 'smaller-redwoods than those on the plan. Mr.Williams clarified that Commissioner.Stutz wanted the two redwoods . removed and suggested that if the Commission wanted to reduce the tree height, i I I I Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 26, 1995 Page 6 they should indicate that they want a species that does not exceed a specified height. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED:Motion by Commissioner Cheng and • seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to approve the request for a site development permit for a lighting,fencing,landscape plan with the following amendments to the conditions: 3a ,Reduce from 6 to 4 and choose a variety with a mature height lower than the ones on the plan. 3b Eliminate 5 of the cedars as red lined on the plan. (The 5 other cedars are okay.) 3c Require 7 live oaks instead of 4 for the street trees. - I Add or modify a condition to specify the following: path lights shall not exceed 12 inches,no up lights,the light fixtures on pillars shall be shielded, and the light source may not be visible. They should be on the side of the pillar unless they are up-lighted from the ground. - 1 The two deodaras on the northwest corner replaced with another species of tree to red! uce the impact of the view corridor. 1 The solid fencing between the Kim and Drumm properties be either natural wood or,if painted,be a Medium to dark brown. ' AYES: Chairman McMahon,Commissioners Stutz,Schreiner,Cheng& Gottlieb ' NOES: None ABSENT: Co missioners Doran&Finn V 4.4 LANDS OF LOHR,24025 Oak Knoll Circle (lot 24) (39-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development'Permit for a pool and spa (continued from June 5, 1995) and a circular driveway. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Ms. Proft answered Commissioner Schreiner's questions regarding roof height. She said it had been changed to accommodate the higher floor level without raising the roof line. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING ' Steve Lohr,J. Liu.Properties,1586 Lagunita,Stanford, addressed Commission's V concerns regarding pool height. He said they have raised it two feet. The applicant's concern is still with the height of the pool in relation to they height of the finished floor of the house because of possible flooding during an earthquake. Mr. Lohr described how they had raised the finished floor without raising the ridge line of the roof. Regarding the circular driveway,he had met with the tow and understands no policy has been Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 26, 1995 Page 7 adopted. He said they have met all the conditions the Commission would like to see on circular driveways. He noted that the retaining wall Commissioner.Schreiner was concerned with is a very low one, abut one foot high. They have removed one retaining wall completely so there is just one left on the east side which connects the upper wall with the lower one. Commissioner Stutz informed Mr. Lohr.that the City Council had turned them down on all circular driveway issues. She said she would like to see them widen the driveway in front of the house. She suggested that the Commission condition the property so fencing would be limited to leave the front unfenced so there is a more open feeling. Ms. Davis said she thought the Hart residence on Lot 23 had an open style fence approved in the front. Discussion followed regarding the color of the wall. Commissioner Gottlieb expressed a preference for dark gray keystone. Mr. Lohr explained why they had chosen tan. Mr. Williams suggested that the Commission specify that they want the developer to show staff the material for the retaining walls and,staff will choose the one that blends best. Mr. Lohr was informed that he cold speak to his clients about the.fence. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested that should they decide to bring the fence out to the property line, there only be two posts allowed.. , CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Regarding condition 4,the hardscape within the dripline of the oak trees on the south and east sides of the property,Mr. Williams said the condition should be modified to keep it limited,suggesting wording that other than the;minor retaining wall,no more than 12 or 18 inches in height. In.addition,Mr.Williams said condition 6 could be _. changed to read, "assure the protection of the existing oak trees at the site." Mr.Williams said that what was before the,Commission was the pool and retaining. walls. The house approval which was heard previously required certain landscaping plans. He also noted that standard pool conditions would be added to the conditions of approval and the location of the pool equipment would be shown on the plan. Drainage and the location of the,dissipaterr was discussed by Ms. Proft noting the reason this location was selected was that.the drainage should be at the bottom of the slope to protect the slope. .Generally they try to getias much water as possible back onto the land,but this property has some unique circumstances. . . MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commission Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the request for a site development permit for a pool, spa and circular driveway with conditions has amended. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 26, 1995 Page 8 AYES: Chairman McMahon,Commissioners Stutz,Schreiner,Cheng & Gottlieb NOES:; None ABSENT: Commissioners Doran&Finn This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. 4.5 LANDS OF MICKO,Kingsley Avenue and Altadena Drive (76-95-TM); A request for a lot line consolidation, lots 1 through 14. Mr. Williams said Condition 5a,improvements to be made,refers to widening of adjacentroadways to a minimum of 20 feet in width. It should be a minimum of 10 feet from the centerline toward this property. He also said the Commission had letters that had been received in the last few days from neighbors expressing concerns about this application. He clarified that what was before the Commission is different than the typical subdivision in that it is a consolidation of substandard lots into onelot rather than breaking down a big lot into smaller lots. As such, there are certain legalities set out by the State in the early 1900s regarding the existing lots. These legalities create a special circumstance which formed much of the basis for staff's recommendation to the Commission. He added that if they feel so inclined it may be appropriate for them to consider whether it is appropriate in this instance to limit the height of the house or the total amount of development area or floor area on this property given that there is an exception. He said he thought that exception gave them the discretion to talk about those types of isstLies that they might not have on a subdivision of this kind. Commissioner Schreiner commented that there is a Kingsley Way address and the front of the house faces Kingsley,but the 40 foot setback is taken from Altadena. She thought there was a policy that the setback should be taken from where the address is. Mr. Williams commented it was the code states it is up to the site development authority to determine where the setback should be taken. In this instance,Altadena is more of an entrance road. He cited a precedent. He also noted that he would find out about the need for dedication of easements for a path. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Eric Micko, 2203 Alpine Drive,Rescue,California,was available to answer questions from the Commission. He said the small lots were approved in 1913 for vacation cabins. Owners could build on them until after the town was incorporated. He • distributed a map that showed ownership of the land "then and now." He had been told the town owned the road. Mr. Williams said staff will determine if it is a city owned road and whether a dedication is necessary. • Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 26, 1995 Page 9 Erik Cleage,26140 Rancho Manuella Lane,referred to a his letter dated August 3 which was included in the.packet. He said the current proposal does include a request for exceptions to the subdivision code. He has'lived here for,four years. The goal is to preserve..the nearly rural character of the area. He had read the report and respects the opinion-of staff but questioned their recommendation for approval. He passed out photos showing the impact on views. He said Los Altos Hills is a unique residential community. Mr. Micko is a land speculator and,has no interest or concern in Los Altos Hills. His motive is profit. He said Mr.Micko had used implied threats and other techniques. He read a letter Mr. Micko wrote to him which was dated July 6, 1992. He said Mr.Micko has come before this group;before and the Commission must realize what is going on behind the scenes. He said he had offered a substantial sum for each of the lots but less than what Mr.Micko is offering. He was turned down because the owners felt they could get a bigger profit. Some owners were openly hostile.. Mr. Cleage said he did not begrudge the owners a profit but questioned what is full value. Land which can be legally built upon is usually worth more than land which cannot. By approving the application,the Town would essentially turn its back on its own residents. He said that the previous owner at.26260 Rancho Manuella had been . approached. Alex Mendez,26260 Rancho Manuella Lane,noted that he had moved to Los Altos Hills because of the open rural feeling. He owns one of the.picnic lots. No one approached him to be part of the consortium. Mr. Mendez summarized his feelings. He is strongly opposed to the proposal. He said that while technically they can consolidate,it would. be a disservice to existing residents. He said this is a substandard,,non-conforming lot and a home should not be built on it. - Mr. Micko was shocked to hear his letter quoted and was sorry he saw it as threatening. He explained the.reason he wrote the letter and said it was not meant to be a threat. He was in favor of Mr. Cleage buying the lots.. He had waited for this to happen but it did not and once he had his acre he came back to the Town. Mr. Cleagehadtime to buy the lots but did not Regarding the talk of_violation of the Town's sub division standards,by strict property liens that exist right now, an exception will have to be made to approve this building site but it possible to re-plat the four lotsand three surrounding ones and.end up with four conforming lots. Sufficient land is there. However, the boundary lines arenot drawn that way and heis not suggesting re platting. He indicated,on a crude sketch thearea were a house could be built. . Discussion followed regarding the requirement for a road dedication. Mr. Micko.said the 40 foot right of way which was dedicated in 1913 was held to be acceptable at the • time of the previous application. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 26, 1995 Page 10 Staff clarified for Commissioner Cheng that they were not aware of the Town's approving a building lot without the 160 foot circle since its incorporation. Commissioner Cheng asked what direction the applicant had received from the Town Council regarding his previous application. Mr. Micko responded, Barbara Tryon's directions were that there are many lots in the Town that do not accept a 160 foot circle, and she could see approving a lot that did not have a 160 foot circle. She could not see approving a parcel which had a net area of less than an acre. Mr. Williams said the Council minutes from the September 9, 1990 meeting were included in the packet. They include statements.from Councilmembers Johnson and Tryon which indicate that their reason for denial was"that they would not approve a lot that was less than an acre in size. They made no reference to the 160 foot circle. He noted that in recommending approval, staff's feeling was that,based on the law that establishes these properties as legal lots,the owners have consolidated as much as they can. There are some physical constraints given the configuration of the lot but it seems to fit the exception process. It is a unique circumstance. He said if the Commission believes that allowing full potential development on the site is overly impacting to neighbors, it may be appropriate to condition it such that you reduce that by some percentage that reflects the fact that the 160 foot circle is not 112 or some other number. He said there is some risk that the applicant could go to court and argue that these are legal lots and there is a right to build something there. In this case, there is the question - . when you denysomething like this and there is no alternative for enlarging other than buyinglexisting properties (which are already developed) you may be prohibiting legal use. These are serious legal questions. Staffs feeling was that perhaps with conditions on house size, etc.,it would be more appropriate to approve the consolidation. There was a unique circumstance given this is not common in the community. Chairman McMahon asked about the contention that if this is denied because of not having the 160 foot circle, it would then close that avenue and the picnic lots would be absorbed by the neighbors. Mr. Williams replied there is no assurance that would happen;and they cannot force it to happen. That would be the ideal situation. Further;discussion ensued regarding: setting conditioning the building envelope site; reducing the MFA/MDA; and possibly sending this to Council since they had never dealt with this type of situation before. However,most were not in favor of this suggestion. Other areas discussed included drainage, tennis court,house size and height, siting to maintain views,moving the house forward, and dedication of a path inside the property. Discussion ensued regarding the Findings for the variance. It was noted that there were other lots not having the 160 foot building circle,but they are already existing and the Commission is not creating them. Also, they were not depriving the applicant of a reasonable use of the land (owner knew when he purchased the land that he could not build a house on if). Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 26, 1995 Page 11 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman McMahon and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to deny themerger of the Lands of Micko on the basis that findings for approval cannot be made for the following reasons: Finding 1A-the configuration of the lot does not by virtue of its shape justify not having the 160 foot building circle;Finding 1B-because of constraints on the lot,the full MDA and MFA would impose a hardship on the neighbors. AYES: Chairman McMahon,Commissioners Stutz,Schreiner,Cheng & Gottlieb NOES: None ‘_ ABSENT: Commissioners Doran&Finn This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar. Brief break at 9:25 p.m. 4.6 LANDS OF LEFEVRE (95-94-TM-IS-ND-GD); Review of Draft Negative Declaration and Tentative Map for the proposed four lot subdivision of 9.45 acres,located on the south side of Altamont Road,between the intersections of Altamont Road/ Taaffe Road/Byrne Park Lane and Altamont Road/Altamont Lane. This item was continued by the request of:the applicant to the September 13th meeting. 5. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5.1 Planning Commission Representative for the August 2nd meeting-Commissioner Schreiner reported the following items were discussed: Lands of Ham approved; Lands of Hwong pulled and will be scheduled for public hearing September 6; drainage study on Robleda Road and La Paloma Road;short term remodel of Town Hall was approved; allowed Ray Rooker to place a real estate sign at Page Mill;policy regarding circular double access driveways; discussion of changes to conditions of approval regarding landscaping, colors,required certifications and outdoor lighting;discussion of yard waste operation rules; and the Lands of Vidovich upcoming Planning Commission meeting. 5.2 Planning Commission Representative for the September 6th meeting- Commissioner Schreiner. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 26, 1995 Page 12 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 :Appointment of Planning Commissioner liaison to the Site Development Committee. Chairman McMahon suggested waiting until after the September 17th joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the City Council meeting. 6.2 Scheduling of a special meeting for the Lands of Vidovich. PASSED BY COi SENSUS: To add a special meeting September 7th_at 7:00 p.m. for the Lands of Vidovich. 7. OLD BUSINESS l 7.1 Report from subcommittees. None. 8. APPROVL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the July 26, 1995 minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the July 26th minutes with changes as follows: Page 6,lunder Item 4.3, correct spelling is Schwarz;page 9,second paragraph,line six, replace"the Dawsons"with "on the Dawson subdivision." 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT CQMMITTEE MEETING None. 10. ADJOURNMENT l The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Roberta:Wolfe Acting Planning Secretary . I I I '