Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/28/19924W Minutes of a Regular Meeting APPROVED Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, October 28,1992,7:30 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: %..assenes nio-vLW1 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE EGIANCE Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Comiso, Schreiner, Simmu, & Stutz Absent: Commissioners Cheng & Ellinger Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2, PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR None. 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. fR.}rM 4.1 LANDS OF YU,12000 Emerald Hill Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape and hardscape (continued from October 14,1992). Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that the application was reviewed by the Commission at their meetings of October 14, and September 9, 1992. It was continued to allow the applicant to return with a landscape plan that more clearly conformed to the landscape plan that was submitted for conceptual review at the Site Development approval stage for the dwelling unit, and that adequately screened the house from off - 4.r site. It was noted that there needed to be additional landscape added to the plan that would adequately screen the house from Prospect. It was recommended that the Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 Page 2 3 V applicant consider adding more scattered trees to the project, specifically along Prospect at the front of the lot. The applicant resubmitted a plan for the Planning Commission's review and approval showing the addition of live oak trees along Prospect. The orchard was changed from apple and pear trees to olive trees because the olive trees do not loose their leaves. The plan also indicated that additional pine trees were located closer to Prospect as requested by the Planning Commission. Ms. Niles provided the Planning Commission with a letter from the applicant's representative from the Purissima Hills Water District regarding water use and drip irrigation. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Dan Tuttle, 2687 McCallister Street, San Francisco, the applicant's representative, addressed the Commission stating that following the comments of the last meeting, they met with Ruth Buneman with the Environmental Design and Protection Committee and discussed amendments to the plan to achieve what they understood to be the goals of the Commission. The plan responded to the closeness of the oaks and they spaced them out along Prospect Avenue which provided additional screening at that edge. They have also brought down the pine trees further along Emerald Hill Lane and replaced the deciduous trees in the orchard with the green olive trees and they will be planting canary island pines which grow well and quickly. He discussed the letter from Purissima Hills Water District and the irrigation plan submitted to the Commission. Commissioner Schreiner asked about the request for the trees that would be shielding the house to also be evergreen. She asked if the sweet amber was deciduous and Mr. Tuttle responded yes. She felt that the sweet amber effectively shields the front of the house and they would shield it must faster, however, she was under the impression that he was to look at changing the deciduous to evergreen. Mr. Tuttle stated that it was not his recollection and he would have been happy to do that at the first hearing. It was his understanding that they were to resubmit the orchard with evergreen and add additional oaks along Prospect. Commissioner Schreiner asked about the different growth habits between fruit trees and olive trees and which he felt would be more effective. Mr. Tuttle stated that the olive trees were evergreen and drought tolerant and would grow at least 20' to 25in the areas he was familiar with, however, the soil could effect the growth as they are slow growing trees. He stated that the olive trees were slower growers than the pine and they were not a traditional fruit bearing orchard tree. 1J Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 4 Page 3 Commissioner Comiso stated that she was the one who originally asked at the first meeting if the trees were evergreen or deciduous. She also made the comment twice that she wanted to see this house screened in the winter time and well as the summer. She did not ask for the gum trees to be remove, she simply asked that the front of the house be screened, both summer and winter. She stated that she did not know how to be any more specific and she again stated that this house needed to be mitigated from January to January with something in front of it. This house has two very high peaks and when looking at the house from the road they need to be softened. The orchard was never intended to be used as a screen to mitigate this house; it should be used as an extension to the orchard across Emerald Hills and down Prospect to make this house look more rural and not so open and bare. Commissioner Comiso discussed her apple, pear and olive trees that are 20 years old in clay soil and they are not 25' high. Olive trees are very slow growing trees and even if they did reach 25' it would do little to screen the two large peaks. Commissioner Stutz stated that she thought the olive trees would do a good job on the slope as you are looking up at the house. She recommended that the olive trees be 24" boxes as they are slow growing and it would not be an unreasonable large size to plant. With regard to the live oak trees, she suggested a 24" box also. With the live oaks across the front and olive and canary island trees on the side, they would accomplish most of what the Commission was trying to do. Mr. Tuttle understood from previous hearings that the request for planting below the liquid amber was to facilitate screening of the house which was their objective. Their understanding was that because liquid ambers were deciduous, the Commission requested the additional trees. They have added 15 orchard trees and several live oaks which are also evergreen. He concurred with Commissioner Stutz regarding effective screening of the house from the road with the trees and he did not think it necessary that the olive trees reach their mature height in order to achieve that effect from Prospect. He felt that the trees at the height of 8' to 10' would achieve that end. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner stated that she would still like to see the liquid amber in front of the house evergreens because when you look at the elevations, the elevations of the finished floor is 543" or 544" and then added another 27' you would have 570' and 512' to 528" and adding a 30' tree you get 558' and you are still 20' below the peak of the house. Commissioner Sinunu had visited the house before the first hearing and went back again looking at the house from different angles. As everyone had commented, this house is very visible not only from the road but from a distance. He agreed that something that covered the house would be helpful and that something more needed to be done in the area near the house. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 Page 4 Commissioner Comiso stated that she did not feel that this house had been screened and she did not feel it had been shown to her that this house had been mitigated and requested it be denied. This was the fourth time this has come up and the Commission has said the plan is not right. She was willing to continue if the applicant asked, however, right now she would make a motion to deny this project. Chairman Pahl stated that he never felt this house was appropriate for the site and maintains that belief today. The Commission was sold, so to speak, a bill of goods when the house was approved as a body, although he did not vote for approving the project, and the Council went along with the approval. As some of the Commissioners knew, this house was the reason that the City Council reviewed every house. The orchard was proposed when the architecture first came into the Commission as a method of screening. He felt that 5 to 10 years from now when this project matures that this house will still dominate the landscape out on Prospect. He does not want to design this landscape and felt that it would be a very long time before the 15 gallon live oaks proposed would be large enough to effectively screen this house and certainly the orchard 6 months out of the year will not screen the property. He supported Commissioner Comiso's motion. Commissioner Sinunu felt that the orchard was appropriate because the house has to be screened from Prospect and he felt that the orchard does a good job of screening from Prospect, however, the house is so massive and so viewable from different spots nearby and needed to be screened from the far distance as well as the near distance. Commissioner Stutz discussed the orchard that was shown on the montage and stated that she was not present at the original site development meeting for the house . She felt that even deciduous trees add to the screening. Commissioner Comiso stated that she was the only one who was present when the house was approved and she still felt that the house could be mitigated. She felt that the orchard would do some mitigating but only to carry through from the house on Emerald Hill. Ms. Niles stated at this point the Planning Commission had three options, (1) Ask the applicant if he had any suggestions to solve the problem this evening, (2) Recommend denial at this point and the applicant would have the option to appeal, or (3) Continue for the applicant to return at another meeting. Dan Tuttle discussed the options and it was explained by Chairman Pahl that it was not felt that they could redesign this plan this evening. Mr. Tuttle stated he would prefer to appeal a denial. J Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 f Page 5 �r MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Chairman Pahl to deny the application. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Schreiner, Sinunu, and Comiso NOES: Commissioner Stutz ABSENT: Commissioners Ellinger and Cheng This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar on November 4,1992. The applicant has the option to appeal the decision within 10 days to the City Council and then would be scheduled for the next Public Hearing after the appeal. Commissioner Stutz asked if she could request that Staff make a notation that she requested 24" box trees on the lower area. 4.2 LANDS OF KLINE, 26629 Snell Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a major addition and remodel. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that the subject property is a .% acre lot with an average slope of 8.4%. The existing home is a one story structure with an attached three car garage. The application is for a remodel and additions to the first floor and the addition of a second story of approximately 1,227 sq. ft. The second floor will include a bedroom, guest room, bathrooms and sitting room, and will have both an interior and exterior entrance. The house will be added to and remodeled with only small extensions outside the existing footprint. The house size will be increased approximately 2,000 sq. ft. The maximum height of the two story section of the house will be 27 from existing grade. The one story portion of the house is at 19'6". The addition as designed will change the character of the existing home from a wood frame and shake roof house to a new stucco and file roof appearance. The property currently has parking for three cars in the garage and two or three additional parking spaces located on the existing driveway pavement area to the south side of the garage. The Zoning Code requires four parking spaces per single family dwelling unit. The property owner has requested that the Planning Commission consider allowing the fourth parking space to be located where it currently is, which is in the side yard setback on the existing driveway pavement. Photographs of the site were available at the meeting. The proposed project conforms to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that it meets the setbacks, height limits and the maximum floor area and development area standards, and it is in conformance with the Town's Site Development Ordinance. Commissioner Schreiner asked if the storage shed shown in the 30' setback would be removed and was it counted in the floor area. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 Page 6 Ms. Niles stated that anything that is covered is counted as floor area and she did not believe that the applicant had any plans to remove the shed since nothing is being done to it. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING David Kline, 26629 Snell Lane, applicant, stated that the conditions were acceptable, however, he asked for a clarification of Condition 4 stating "the property owner will repair any damage currently existing," etc. He was informed that the intent was for the purpose of any damage caused by construction. Ms. Niles noted that "currently existing or' would be removed from Condition 4. Commissioner Schreiner asked to see the photos showing the fourth parking space. Steve Osborn, 26627 Snell Lane, neighbor of Mr. Kline, asked for an explanation of the plan and stated that he lived below the Kline's and hoped that when construction started he would still be able to get in and out of his driveway. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner thought the house was very well screened from all sides and her only questions were concerning the fourth parking space and the placement of the shed. Commissioner Sinunu thought it all fit in well and did not think the addition would cause any problems and agreed with the parking space. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Sinunu to approve the application with the change to Condition #4 removing "currently existing or". AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Sinunu, Stutz, Comiso and Schreiner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cheng and Ellinger This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar on November 4,1992 4.3 LANDS OF MOVASSETE, 12620 Zappettini Court; A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that the proposal was for the construction of a new two story single family dwelling unit and pool on an existing 1.79 acre lot which is located on Zappettini Court. The average slope of the lot is 22.4% with a Lot Unit Factor Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 4 Page 7 of 1.31. The house is proposed to be sited at the highest location on the lot as close to the entrance driveway as possible. The project is proposed as close to the maximum floor area and development area allowed on the site. Currently there are approximately 80 existing eucalyptus trees on the site, a majority of which will be removed in order to accommodate the development as proposed. Staff is concerned that the Commission review the tree removal for determination of impact to the view of the site from surrounding areas, and for requiring adequate landscape screening of the house. There is a conservation easement over the lower portion of the site where the slope is 30% or greater. The house is located at the setback line and the driveway is located within the setback at the front of the lot. There are two front upstairs decks proposed in the setback that will need to be removed since they are not allowed in the setback. The maximum height of the structure will be 27' overall. No basement area is proposed. Grading will be minimal. The project has been planned to include all outdoor living area that the owner wishes on the lot which includes decking and a pool. No pool house is requested. Ms. Niles stated that although the house had been designed to meet the ordinance standards for grading, height limits, setbacks, MFA and MDA, the actual design of the house appears to be considerably massive and bulky. It was noted that the house is at 4W the end of a long driveway and is located below the adjacent lots in the subdivision A condition should be added specifying that care should be taken when reviewing the landscape plan to ensure that the house is adequately screened from surrounding properties. Commissioner Comiso questioned Condition 4, "The decks in the front yard setback shall be removed." Ms Niles indicated that the house would be moved back so they will not have to move the decks and would not encroach. Commissioner Comiso thought a better wording would be;'the decks and/or balconies in the front yard setback shall not encroach." Commissioner Schreiner stated that there was an off road path on this property that did not show on the map and it goes through the conservation easement. It was intended to eventually connect with another segment which the Pathway Committee had not obtained as yet going toward Westwind. She would like to have the off road path shown on the map. She also asked what the policy was regarding the replacement of trees since the project would remove 60 trees. Ms. Niles responded by stating that the Town's policies are regarding significant oak trees and some other significant trees, however, it was up to the Planning Commission to determine whether they felt that the eucalyptus fit into that category and there was not a specific ordinance that required replacement of eucalyptus trees. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 Page 8 Commissioner Schreiner asked if Ms. Niles was aware of the agreement that no trees would be cut down within 30' of the east property line which was mentioned in the letter from Mr. Montgomery and Ms. Niles responded no, she was not aware of the agreement. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Manou Movassate, 1161 Cherry Street, Suite G, San Carlos, did not have a problem with the discussion regarding Condition 4 or any of the Staff Recommended Conditions. Commissioner Stutz asked Mr. Movassate why he chose the 40' setback on the side where he has his garage instead of towards the front of the house on the southwest side. It was explained that usually you find 40' setback in the front of the house, however, on a lot like this he could choose what side he would like the 40' setback. She stated that if he had the 40' setback in the front of the house he would not have to move the house back. The Commission discussed the choices of the 40' setback with the applicant mentioning that if he changed the setback to the front of the house he would not have to move the house. He was asked if he would rather keep the house where it was or would he rather move it back 10'. Mr. Movassate stated that he wanted the house back 45'. Commissioner Stutz mentioned that she had a concern with the path at the lower side of the property and she thought that the house would be a little further away from the path and moving the house back moves it closer to the path area. Commissioner Sinunu asked if any of the houses in that area had been sold and the response was no. He also asked if Mr. Movassate had given any consideration to the closeness to this house to the one that was presented at the Planning Commission two weeks ago. Mr. Movassate stated that there was still ample room for landscaping to separate them. Chairman Pahl noted that when all the MDA and MFA is used, Staff usually puts a condition on the deed. It was his understanding that Mr. Movassate would not be living in this house but in the house approved two weeks ago. He would suggest putting a condition on the deed stating that it had been substantially built out which would be Condition 15, if approved. Mr. Movassate had no problem with that condition. Chairman Pahl asked about a pathway condition and Commissioner Stutz stated that Condition 1 addressed the pathway and she would add to the Condition, "offer of the path in the conservation easement must be shown on the map before building permits issued." Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 4 Page 9 Commissioner Sinunu asked Mr. Movassate if he had given any consideration to building a smaller house and he felt that a smaller house might fit in better with the surroundings. Mr. Movassate stated that to up come with a design takes a great deal of time and he felt that this design was best for the lot. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner felt this was the second very large, bulky house going into this area and a great deal of the charm of this area would be removed by the removal of all the trees even though people might feel the eucalyptus trees are not appropriate. She suggested that the Commission request extensive planting on this property, require a deeper color for the house so it will blend with the surroundings and she asked for a 10% reduction in allowed floor area to reduce the bulk and mass of this house to allow any buyer to perhaps put a pool house or other amenity on the site that they would like. She would also like to see the houses put farther apart. Commissioner Sinunu agreed with Commissioner Schreiner and discussed a one story house, moving the house farther from the other house and/or reducing the size which he felt would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. Commissioner Comiso stated that this house was close to her neighborhood and she felt that some of the Town would like this to be a smaller house, however, she could not find a reason and this house was different from the other two houses approved. Commissioner Comiso stated with regards to the Eucalyptus trees that she did not know how they could build without removing a significant number of Eucalyptus trees even if this was a one story or a smaller house. She liked the position of the garage facing the pool. Chairman Pahl stated that he did not like the idea of artificially reducing houses for no apparent reason. In discussing the bulk of the house, he felt no one would see this house except for a few deer. He discussed a deed restriction alerting potential buyers that the house was built out. With regards to the Eucalyptus trees, he felt that there would be proper screening of this house when it returned for landscaping. He felt that the conditions were fine with the addition of a deed restriction. Commissioner Stutz stated that Condition 4 needed to be removed. Chairman Pahl suggested changing Condition 4 to read "The decks and/or balconies shall not encroach in the front yard setbacks." After further discussion it was decided that Condition 4 was not needed. Commissioner Schreiner felt that a prospective buyer should be given the opportunity without having to come to Town and asking for a variance to put in something like a pool house, a shed or some other item. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 Page 10 Chairman Pahl stated that if you intellectually followed this to extreme; if he owned an existing residence and remodeled, taking it close to the maximum, then the theory should be that he should not take it up to the maximum because someday he will sell the house and the new owners may want to do something in addition to what he has done. He asked at what point do you allow the property to be built out to what the Commission felt would be an acceptable level. Discriminating against someone because they happen to be developing the property and selling it is not fair or correct. He stated that there were many houses in Town like the next application (Lands of Medina) that are in setbacks or over built and it would not be fair to say that because someone was going to sell, they could not build to the logical maximum. He stated that if there was a reason not to allow it that would be fine, however, he did not feel there was a reason on this application. Commissioner Sinunu felt that it if someone had lived in the house and then decided they wanted something different and built out, this would be different then having the builder maximizing the property. He understood what Mr. Movassate was doing and felt his plans were good, however, he did not feel there was a reason to build a house right up to the max especially when you have a three house subdivision, where they are all so close to each other. He felt it was not in accordance with the General Plan. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Comiso to accept the Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool with changes to the conditions as requested by the Planning Commission as follows: Change Condition 1 to add 'offer of the path in the conservation easement must be shown on the map"; removal of Condition 4; addition of Condition 15 requiring recorded restriction regarding property being maxed; Condition 9 to read, "If an QAk tree 6', etc. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Comiso & Stutz NOES: Commissioners Schreiner & Sinunu ABSENT Commissioners Cheng & Ellinger This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar on November 4,1992. LANDS OF MEDINA, 26501 Purissima Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a minor addition, guest house and variance to allow the guest house and a portion of the addition to encroach into the required side yard setbacks. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that the Site Development Permit and Variance are requested on a property of unusual size and shape. There is an existing one story single family dwelling and attached garage on the lot at present. The applicant is requesting to be allowed to add 295 sq. ft. to the existing residence and to construct a new detached guest house of 510 sq. ft. The existing house is currently constructed into Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 l Page 11 �r both side yard setbacks. The applicant will be adding two additional parking spaces in the front of the house in order to provide the required four parking spaces for the single family dwelling. The existing garage accommodates two cars. The desire of the applicant is to make the addition and guest house compatible with the design of the main house. It was Staff's opinion that the site is significantly constrained due to the long narrow triangular shape of the lot and the location of the existing house setback on the site where it begins to narrow considerably. A very small outdoor living area and an existing orchard. The applicant has looked into the possibility of connecting to sewer and has found that connecting to the closest available sewer would be a considerable expense since it is located at a considerable distance to the property. Therefore, the applicant has submitted a septic system and leach field design that has been approved and conditioned by the County Health Department. Ms. Niles noted that the location of the leach fields as shown on the plan has been designed to meet the County standards that require them to be a minimum of 10' above the water table on the site. The fields cannot be moved further to the north because the topography on site slopes down and the water table is closer to the surface in this area not allowing the required distance of 10' above the water table. In site plan A this could be accomplished which means the guest house does not move it further north. In order to move the guest house out of the setback it would either have to be placed at the front of the lot where you have to remove some of the parking and the existing vegetation or right at the back of the house fit in between the setbacks which would reduce the outdoor living area for the applicant 4v and also restrict his view and removal of some of the orchard. The applicant is proposing underneath the guest house a vineyard and that is the purpose of the wine cellar. Ms. Niles stated that the applicant had submitted findings that were in the Planning Commission Packet and the Staff had offered some other findings that she felt was appropriate to approve the variance. At this point the Planning Commission needed to discuss the options because there was a way that the guest house could be moved out of the setback, however, it would be more detrimental to and less desirable design to the existing lot for views and outdoor living area and the removal of the vineyard. It would also be less desirable for the property directly to the east because it will be moved further north on the lot enabling that property see it from the view windows of the house. Where it is proposed now at the same setback as the existing garage on the site its behind the detached garage of the adjacent property and not in their view corridor. Chairman Pahl suggested discussing only Site Plan A and B, the location of the guest house. Commissioner Schreiner asked Staff to explain what problems would there be with the positioning of the septic tank and the leach lines on Plan B. She asked if this would work. kw Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 Page 12 Jeff Peterson responded stating that, as proposed, the septic leach field moves down the slope and thus moving it to close to the water table as allowed by the Health Department. The County Health Department requires a 10' vertical separation between the leach field and water table. He was asked if it could be designed differently. Mr. Peterson stated that one of the Town's ordinances was that there be no grading within 10' of the property line. As far as wrapping it in any other place, looking at this plan, it does look quite constrained, however, the area with the existing leach field is taken up by the leach fields without taking down the slope. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Don Martin, P. O. Box 12331, Sausalito, Architect for the applicant, stated that they would agree with all the conditions. He stated that the existing leach field could not be abandoned. The new leach field has two additions because the lines are not allowed to run parallel to the slope. If they set the leach field in the front of the house they would not have proper distance to the well. He further discussed in detail Site Plan A. He stated that Mr. and Mrs. Medina have a visually impaired child and a second story would not be practical for them. Commissioner Stutz in discussing Plan B, thought the proposed guest house could be moved 10' closer to the existing concrete patio, however, Mr. Martin stated that the 1j Health Department felt that it was not appropriate and did not maintain the proper distances to the existing leach fields. Commissioner Stutz' suggestion on Plan B was to move the guest house up to the edge of the existing concrete patio. Mr. Martin stated if you move the guest house up you would block very large sliding glass doors that have the view down through the orchard. She further discussed the constraints of this lot. Mr. Martin stated that if you add the guest house as proposed in Plan A you are clustering the design so it has less impact. He stated that if they added to the front of the house they could not add much plumbing, if any, because of the leach lines being in the back and you do not achieve the proper amount of fall. He stated that when Mr. Medina purchased the property he was given information by the Realtor how much he could develop and how much he could add to the house and he had no idea that since this house was built that the side yard setbacks had been increased. He also stated that the neighbors were in favor of the design as they did not want a second story or building in the front of the property and prefer Plan A to Plan B. He felt a variance should be granted because of the lot being triangular shape. Chairman Pahl stated that to grant a variance he would have to believe that this lot was so unique, nearly unlike any other lot in Town and they have had countless discussions at the Planning Commission meetings where a particular individual had come before the Commission and tried to convey to them the uniqueness of their property. He felt that intellectually, Site Plan A was a better Plan then Site Plan B. Chairman Pahl stated J that what makes the Town special was the openness and when you start encroaching on Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28. 1992 f Page 13 ` the openness while intellectually he could except it for this particular lot, other people would see this as an opening to setbacks. He understood that the Medina's have a constrained lot, however, he believed that there must be an alternative. He could personally live with increasing'the size of the setback on the main house, however, they now want to create a new structure separate and apart from the main house encroaching the side yard setback and felt that not every lot could support a secondary dwelling even though the ordinance states you could have one. Mr. Martin stated that of the people who would be affected, 19 people were notified, and they have signatures of all 19 residents. He presented two letters from neighbors who were in favor of Plan A. Chairman Pahl stated that there were an additional 2,700 more people who would be affected as this would affect everyone in Town. He further discussed the Variance Evaluation and Findings in the Staff Report. Commissioner Schreiner stated that she would like to work with the applicant to try to fit within the Town's ordinances and yet give them what they wanted. She would like the applicant to consider Plan B and try to come up with an acceptable leach field and septic system. She thought the problem was that the house was originally placed width wise on the lot. If the house had actually been placed length wise you could easily get 4 the 5,000 sq. ft. that they were allowed. She felt that the guest house would fit perfectly behind the patio area. The people who would be immediately affected would be the residence and she felt that everyone around the property could be adequately screened. Mr. Martin in discussing Plan B stated that the west corner of the proposed guest house was right on the edge of the leach field and it would need to be 15' from the leach line so no matter where you put it in that location you would not maintain the 15'. He proceeded to show the Commission the encroachment on Plan B stating that it would not function. Commissioner Sinunu stated that he liked Plan A and asked if Mr. Martin consider putting something in the front yard. Mr. Martin replied that they had, however, if they put the guest house in the front they would still be required a septic tank and leaching system. A septic tank or a leaching system could not be installed within 100' of your water source. Chairman Pahl stated that as much as the Commission disliked pumping, he asked Mr. Martin if he hooked up to the sewer system, many of the concerns would be eliminated. Mr. Martin stated that the cost would be approximately $175,000. Commissioner Schreiner discussed different variances that have appeared before the f Commission. The Commission was very concerned with keeping the privacy the fir' neighborhood and maintaining the rural feeling in Town. If they start granting Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 Page 14 variances of this size which is a very large request being a 14' encroachment of almost 600 sq. ft., the Commission would need to think about this very carefully. Commissioner Comiso stated that they look at each piece of property on its own merit and cannot keep going back on what was done previously. Carol March, 13101 La Paloma, neighbor, was in favor of Plan A. Kenneth Daniel, 26481, to the east, also prefers Plan A. Frank Medina, applicant, discussed the small house and his visually impaired daughter. They are trying (after moving from a 5 bedroom, 3 1/2 bath house) to add space so they have normal living area. Proposing a two story house would not be practical because of his daughter. He stated that most of the neighbors liked the plan which maintained the aesthetics and the country feeling. Ms. Niles stated that she had received a letter from Mrs. Sandman, the neighbor to the west in support of Plan A. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING This part of the discussion was for either Site Plan A or Site Plan B. Commissioner Sinunu stated that the map that showed the setbacks on the lot are striking showing the buildable area. He felt there were two things unique about the house; the triangular shape and showing the highest elevation in the middle of the lot and both allow uniqueness and allow something like this to be built. He was in agreement with Plan A. Commissioner Comiso discussed both Plans and felt because of the Health Department restrictions, Plan B was not feasible. All were in agreement. She was not in favor of adding a new structure into the setback, however, she did feel this was unlike almost any other lot in Town. There are very few lots in Town who have the setback problems that this does. She did feel this was unusual in topography and in shape, everything the variance process states you must have. She felt that they could not deny them living space. Commissioner Schreiner discussed the possibilities of the front area or using the existing non conforming garage for the guest house and relocating the garage. Chairman Pahl suggested that if they did not like the concept and would like Mr. Medina to look at other alternatives, they should ask him to continue the hearing. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 ` Page 15 ` The Planning Commission further discussed the constraints and the second building. They discussed an addition rather than a guest house. They discussed the difference between creating a whole new structure in a setback and continuing an on-going setback breach. Staff was asked the difference between a guest house and a secondary dwelling and what was the ordinance regarding a secondary dwelling. Staff responded by stating that a secondary dwelling has kitchen facilities and this guest house was not proposing a kitchen. The Commission's obligation regarding a secondary dwelling was to review whatever design was proposed and deny or approve the application. They further discussed inappropriate setbacks and possible deed restriction to prevent the guest house from becoming a secondary dwelling. The Planning Commission would like to see other alternatives. They appreciated the fact that the applicant had support from his neighbors. The applicant was asked if he would request a continuance to look at other alternatives. Mr. Martin agreed with the continuance. Commissioner Schreiner asked Staff if a 10' road right-of-way dedication was not required on Purissima and did not think there was a 30' half road there and she wanted the applicant to know this even though it would not affect their MDA or MFA. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to continue for re -design. 4 AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Schreiner, Sinunu, Stutz & Comiso NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Cheng & Ellinger The application will return November 24,1992. 5.1 LANDS OF OWEN, 13040 Alta Lane North; Miscellaneous discussion of letter to the City Council dated 10/21/92. The Staff report was requesting the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the right-of-way dedication of a 30 foot half street width on Alta Lane South remain as conditioned by the City Council. The Planning Commission took a brief break to read the letter submitted by Mr. James F. Flack, 13070 Alta Lane South. The Planning Commission heard from Joe Sabo, 13831 Alta Lane South, discussed Bob Owen's letter of October 21, 1992 and he did not object to the proposal as there was a turn around and he felt that it would eliminate one driveway to Alta Lane South. Also discussed was the width of Alta Lane South being 14' wide and the road being perhaps 18' wide width so large vehicles such as fire safety vehicles would have access. e Dana Finney, 13040 Alta Lane North, owner of the property and supported comments � r by Jim Flack. In regards to widening the road, she stated that it looked like it would be Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 Page 16 y very difficult as it goes straight up one side in a very dense bank and drops off on their property and even though the proposal will change the usage of the property, you are looking at a lot of fill. She stated that safety was discussed at a previous meeting, however, this property had been this way for 50+ years with no problems. She felt that this was a difficult and unnecessary thing to require. She also stated that as a resident she was in support of Mr. Flack's letter. Commissioner Schreiner thanked Jeff Peterson for his very comprehensive report produced in a very short amount of time. She asked what dedication was needed for Alta Lane North and Alta Lane South and also requested he answer Mrs. Finney's concerns regarding whether this could be constructed safely. Mr. Peterson stated that as far as the right-of-way dedication and what would be necessary to construct the turn around, the Town's Planning Consultant had completed calculations checking MDA and MFA as well as dedicated area and stated that if there were a dedication taken as conditioned by the City Council of 15' on Alta Lane North and Alta Lane South, the additional right -of way that would need to be dedicated for the cul-de-sac turn around would be around 450 sq. ft. as calculated by the applicant's engineers. If the cul-de-sac itself was dedicated, the MDA figure would be 18,077 sq. ft. and 8,610 sq. ft. of MFA. Mr. Peterson stated that if a 15' dedication was made on both Alta Lane North and Alta Lane South it would take up a lot of the corner in the fork between Alta Lane North and Alta Lane South so the additional right-of-way that Ij would need to be dedication was roughly 450 sq. ft. Mr. Peterson further stated that the night of the City Council meeting Mr. Owen stated that they were considering relocating the driveway to the cul-de-sac turn around. Bill Kull stated that the proposed turn around shown on the picture which was part of Mr. Kull's letter dated October 23, 1992, was the engineer drawing of how the bulb turn around would work and meet fire department standards. The second picture was the architect's version of how the driveway would change to incorporate this bulb into his plan. The applicant's desire was to provide the turn around bulb to meet fire safety standards, to not do any additional dedication beyond the turn around, to leave Alta Lane North and South together as a private road. The driveway access would come off as shown by the architect. Mr. Kull stated that in the dedication from the existing property line to the 15dedication line he measured it to be approximately 6'. He stated that there would be minimum grading and only grade in accordance to the slope that is there which is about a 15% slope. He stated that the City Council's concern when they went to do the site visit was that they had difficulty turning around and had to use driveways and they were looking at providing adequate turnaround at the intersection. Stu Farwell from the Los Altos Fire Department had reviewed the grade and commented that anything was better than the existing condition. Ij Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 r Page 17 ` The Commission discussed the "Approved Road Right of Way Policy' dated 2/15/89 and how to extend the road. Commissioner Schreiner stated that there was a benefit by requiring the road right-of-ways on these small private roads and that was to preserve the open space and the rural character by having a much wider setback on these roads. If you have road right-of-ways of only 50', the houses would be much closer to the road. They are requiring this on all public roads and she felt it should be required on private roads also. This does not mean that the Town had to pave it. They further discussed a conservation easement and the requirements. Mr. Peterson stated that it was his understanding that the City Council did request a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The request by the applicant was to eliminate the condition for the dedication on Alta Lane South and that was the only request made and he believed that was the issue on the floor. Commissioner Comiso asked what would happen to this house if 15" of dedication was given on both sides as it does push it further back down the hill. It was stated that according to Bob Owen, the only way a sewer would work would be if they would pump it. She asked if the house had to be moved if they took the 15dedication on each side and Staff indicated yes, with the same footprint. Commissioner Comiso stated that she had approved the original design with the second 4W driveway coming out further, however, she felt that 15% slope for a driveway was very steep. She asked if the house could be back further or positioned differently and the response was that it would push the setback back. Mr. Peterson stated that if the recommendation was for a 20' half street right-of-way, there should be findings that would accompany that recommendation. Council member Dauber stated that the Council was very sensitive to the fact that a great deal of this information came up after the Planning Commission had discussed this house and they knew that the Planning Commission was unhappy with all this information coming after their discussion. The Council wanted to give the Commission an opportunity to look at the whole project again and that was the reason for sending it back to the Commission. It was not just to look at the setbacks or the turn around, it was for a discussion of the entire project. Mr. Peterson stated that the options as he understood the policy would be to either recommend an additional 5' dedication which brings it up to a 20' half street right-of- way width and for a 10' dedication that would give a 25' half street right-of-way thus the Planning Commission would not have to have findings associated with that particular recommendation. The 30' half street width dedication would be the largest amount to be dedication per policy and in considering that the Planning Commission t would need to look at as discussed, the possible uses of that right-of-way and the Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 Page 18 number of lots that could be served off of Alta Lane South, a possible 5 lots being served off of Alta Lane South. Commissioner Schreiner questioned page 4, #5 of the Staff Report and asked Mr. Peterson if technically they have to take 60'. Mr. Peterson responded that in reading the polity, it allowed that for short cul-de-sacs (no more than 4 lots) that a short cul-de-sac could have a 50' right-of-way. In this particular case, since it accesses 5 lots with the potential of 6 lots, it may be appropriate to have a 30' width according to the approved policy. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to recommend to the City Council that the right-of-way dedication of the 30' half street width on Alta Lane South remain as conditioned by the City Council. AYES: Commissioners Schreiner, Simmu & Stutz NOES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioner Comiso ABSENT: Commissioners Cheng & Ellinger 5. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Comiso discussed sewers and 4" line serves one house, 6" line serves two to ten houses. She discussed the initial cost between installing a 6" line versus a 4" line which would only be an additional $2.00 a running foot. The Commission asked Staff to make a recommendation to them so they can send a recommendation to Council to modify the building standards to require 6" fines. Mr. Peterson presented the background on Lands of Owen, Alta Lane North regarding the sewer. 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 This item will be discussed at a special meeting 10/29/92. 6.2 This item will be discussed at a special workshop meeting to be scheduled in the near future. 6.3 a. Review of Element assignments and due date. Ms. Niles stated that they were trying to get some kind of discussion on the entire General Plan this fiscal year so they could determine if they needed to budget for 1993 the need for a consultant to help with the update of the General Plan. Chairman Pahl stated that there was a Public Planning Department at San Jose State that is always looking for projects for their students and instead of paying a consultant he suggested hiring a student. VJ Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 Page 19 Ms. Niles thought this was a good suggestion, however, the request from Council was to get some direction from the Planning Commission on whether the whole General Plan was in need or just portions. Chairman Pahl felt that the General Plan needed to be cleaned up as it had only been corrected. He thought the last comprehensive review was in 1970. 6.4 Standard 5th Wednesday joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council was scheduled for November 17, 1992 at 4:30 p.m. Due to conflicting schedules the meeting will be rescheduled for a later date. The suggestion was to schedule the meeting at 5:30 p.m. Ms. Niles stated that the Design Guidelines contract for the consultant had been signed and the City Council named Bob Johnson and Elayne Dauber for the sub committee. The City Council requested one representative from Environmental Design and Protection Committee, Pathways and two from the Planning Commission which will be Commissions Comico and Schreiner. Ms. Niles also needed a representative for CBGD and Commissioner Sinunu volunteered. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9,1992 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and Seconded by Commissioner Comiso and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of September 9, 1992 with changes to page 9, paragraph 5, to read, "Commissioner Stutz asked if he would be willing to write a statement to the effect that he would consider in the future giving an easement if there was a possibility of connecting paths,' etc. and page 4, paragraph 4, last line to read, "view consideration and the house steps down the hill." 8. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 21,1992 Commissioner Schreiner discussed the safety committee and continued for more input; the Environmental Design Committee recommended designation of two Heritage Oak trees and they were accepted, one being on Roger Burnell's property; there was a discussion regarding Bob Owens letter and a recommendation that the Planning Commission review it for dedications and forwarded for the November 4th meeting; joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting scheduled for November 17th; excessive Real Estate signs throughout Town. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 27,1992 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 28, 1992 Page 20 i 9.1 LANDS OF HANSEN, 25431 Adobe Lane; A request for a Site J Development Permit for lighting. A night meeting will be scheduled to view the lighting and it will be returned to the Planning Commission The Planning Commission all agreed that they appreciated the Pathway Committee Recommendations hand out provided for this meeting. 10. ADJOURNMENT MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Comiso and passed by consensus to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, LaniLonberger Planning Secretary J