Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/08/1995APPROVED 2/22 /95 LMinutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, February 8,1995,7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes iiu i -YJ t L 1 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng, Doran, Finn, McMahon, Gottlieb & Stutz Staff: Linda Niles, Planning Director; Sheryl Kolf, Assistant Engineer; Susan Manca, Planner; Lam Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF HWONG,12813 Clausen Court (200 -94 -SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for grading for lawn and play area (continued from January 25, 1995). MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to continue the application to the February 22nd meeting at the request of the applicant. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng, Finn, Stutz, Doran, McMahon & Gottlieb NOES: None Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/22/95 February 8, 1995 Page 2 4.2 LANDS OF LANE, 10695 Magdalena Avenue (215-94-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a minor addition/ remodel and a driveway modification. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Gottlieb discussed a possible need for railings on the retaining wall. It was noted all UBC requirements are checked by the building official during the plan check and checked again at the time of inspections. Chairman Schreiner commented that the staff report did not include existing development area figures. Ms. Niles noted that the worksheet was not complete. The applicant is not exceeding the allowable figures for the lot. The staff report indicates the request for a complete worksheet. Normally, this type of project is approved administratively. Due to the new concerns with the driveway, it was scheduled for public hearing. The Commissioners indicated that they had all visited the site. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Roger Griffin, Paragon Design Group, applicant's representative, highlighted several items: no redwood trees to be removed from the property; grading will be away from the redwoods; retaining wall maximum height is 48 inches only in one area, going from zero to three feet (one area four feet), then sloping back down to three feet, then to two feet (mostly less than three feet); presented a rendering of the wall for review; suggested planting material to hide the wall; discussed the wall material (secure, sound, and low impact); eliminating the dual access onto Magdalena for safety; preserving the screen planting; garage placement is in accordance with Design Guideline; future plans for additional landscaping; undergrounding of the existing electrical which is currently overhead; 1% to 2% driveway slope; and correction to the current drain inlet which is presently higher than the entrance to the garage. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Chairman Schreiner asked Ms. Niles if a variance was needed for this much pavement into the setbacks. Ms. Niles responded no. There is an ordinance stating no grading within 10 feet of property line and driveways are allowed in the setback. Ms. Niles felt the pavement was necessary to maneuver into the garage. Commissioner Gottlieb felt the driveway was impacting the neighbor; the present garage does not. She could not vote for the project because it is increasing hardscape in the setback. The intent of driveways in setbacks was to cross the setbacks, not to stay in it. Commissioner Stutz felt the applicant had done a good job with the remodeling and the best possible design with the garage by turning it around to the side. She did not feel the paving in the setback would hurt anyone as there is a 30 foot easement running down along the side of the property line. She felt this was an isolated lot; she would approve this application. Commissioner McMahon discussed cut and fill, noting difficulty seeing contours. She did not feel there was enough information regarding existing and new 4 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/22/95 February 8, 1995 Page 3 ♦W contours to make an intelligent decision on this application. Commissioner Doran felt the applicant made a bad situation better by closing the driveway onto Magdalena as well as using the limited space available for additional floor area. She did not feel the driveway would impact the neighbors because the neighbor's house is so far below them. Commissioner Finn felt they did a nice job remodeling noting the Town encourages positioning garage doors not to face the street which sometimes takes more pavement into the setback. Commissioner Cheng felt the driveway was not bothering the neighbors or they would have attended the meeting. It was noted that the applicants did review other design options. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to approve the Site Development Permit for a minor addition/remodel and driveway modification, amending the conditions of approval to add the standard tree condition (If any trees on the site six inches in diameter or larger are damaged beyond repair or destroyed during construction they shall be replaced with a tree equal in size, as determined by the Planning Director.); redwood trees shall not be removed; and the shed shall be removed from the setback. AYES: Commissioners Cheng, Finn, Stutz & Doran NOES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners McMahon & Gottlieb This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar March 1, 1995. 4.3 LANDS OF HONG, 26370 Ginny Lane (211-94-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and secondary unit. Chairman Schreiner noted that Mr. Hong had contacted her regarding hearing the application although the story poles had not been in place as he was not aware that this was a requirement. It was noted that all Commissioners had visited the site at which time Chairman Schreiner and Commissioner Gottlieb had spoken to the applicants. Commissioner Doran asked what were the Town standards regarding sound walls. Ms. Niles responded stating the Town standards for fences or walls apply to any walls. The Town also has the opportunity to grant a variance for the height of a wall when there are findings of special unique circumstances due to size, shape, topography, location or surroundjngs. The recommendations noted in the noise report were discussed. Ms. Niles noted it has been the Town's experience in the past to try to find an alternative solution to noise attenuation other than 15 foot high walls. The first option would be to find something with a combination of walls, berms, re-siting the house, turning the house, relocation of the outdoor living area or a combination that would eliminate the need for a 15 foot wall all the way around three sides of this project. Ms. Niles discussed the secondary unit noting that under the non -conforming section of the code, unless the applicant is adding to or increasing a non -conformity, they are not Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/22/95 February 8, 1995 Page 4 required to make the existing non -conformity conform. In this case, the unit is already a residential unit being used as the primary unit, located in the setback. Since the applicant wants to construct a new primary unit and would like to retain the smaller unit as a secondary unit. This does not change the use. The applicant is reducing the size of the unit to meet the Town standard for a secondary unit. The reduction can be in any area. Ms. Niles also noted that the applicant was notified some time ago regarding the storage shed being illegally constructed in the setback and needed to be removed. Since it has not been removed, the requirement is part of the conditions of approval. The incompatibility of materials for the new residence and secondary unit was discussed. The standards for secondary units require the two architectural styles be compatible, appearing to be one single family residence complex with one driveway for both. In this case, this is an existing structure. The applicant is not proposing to upgrade but to comply with the square footage and construction of a secondary unit. It was felt that it would be inappropriate to ask the applicant to change the architectural style of the existing non -conforming structure. They could possibly ask the applicant to paint the two structures the same color. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Dick Fang, architect for the applicant, discussed the entrance for the driveway, presenting a rendering showing a reduction in the driveway paving from the 40 foot setback area. Discussion ensued regarding future plans for the outdoor living area (possibly a tennis court or a pool); the landscape plan to be submitted at a later date; and the freeway noise. Mr. Stanley Hong, 26370 Ginny Lane, was asked what he would propose if he could minimize the freeway noise in any way. Mr. Hong would like Cal Trans to build a 15 foot wall, however the Town has turned this down previously. He noted that the sound study indicated that building a 14 foot high berm would only reduce the noise level by 4%. Why bother? He suggested planting more trees to block the view of the freeway. He only spends two hours outside which is 5% of his time. The freeway is already there and no one can change it. He asked why they were bothered with the noise when he was not concerned. He will mitigate the noise from the interior. Mr. Hong asked if he could keep the shed until after construction to use for storage. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Discussion ensued regarding interior and exterior noise, non -conforming structure, siting of the house, outdoor living area, and the shed to remain until after construction. Commissioner Doran requested a redesign of the layout of the lot for noise mitigation as there is ample room to place the house in another area on the lot. She would also like to see a plan showing outdoor living areas which would impact the placement of the 1 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/22/95 February 8, 1995 Page 5 �W septic system and the placement of the driveway. She also discussed setting back the second story so there is some architectural relief for the bulk and mass which can also be worked into the plan. Commissioner Finn did not feel they should ask someone to re-site their house for noise mitigation if the noise is not an issue for the resident. The bulk and mass at the back of the house does not bother him although the driveway should be minimized as shown on the rendering provided by the architect. He did not believe it was their responsibility to ask an applicant to submit a full plan including pool or tennis court. This could be done with multiple applications. Commissioner Cheng did not want to design the house. The siting of the house was fine with her. She agreed that the shed could remain until after construction was completed; she would like the secondary unit to be more compatible with the main residence, at least in paint color; she preferred the new driveway design presented at the meeting; and felt the landscape plan could come in at a later date. Commissioner Cheng asked if they could connect to sewer, however it was noted that the project was farther than 400 feet from a connection. Commissioner Stutz was under the impression that the new septic system was already in. It was noted that one system was in. She felt minimizing the driveway was very important. She would like to see the present driveway going to the secondary unit moved 10 feet from the property line along the front of the house and perhaps a wall between a tennis court and house would be less obtrusive for noise mitigation. Regarding noise mitigation, they can provide some area for outdoor use, not the entire yard. Regarding the design of the house, she would like it better with eaves and off setting of the second story. Commissioner Gottlieb would like to see the house placed in such a way that the secondary unit and the garage be served off the same driveway, not a Y off the driveway. She did not like two driveways so close to the setbacks nor the gravel driveway to the secondary driveway. She further discussed the design of a house, suggesting turning the house, putting the two wings out which would possibly allow room for a pool in the center with landscaping which would help mitigate some of the sound and add to the outdoor area with reduced freeway noise. She would favor the house sited more towards the front of the cul-de-sac with reduced driveways. Commissioner McMahon was very pleased with the design of the house on this lot. She did not feel there was a bulk and mass issue. She suggested lessening the driveway by looking at the radius needed for negotiating the turns. She felt the cottage had a significant architectural merit and should be capitalized on by fresh paint and general maintenance to accentuate the character. She had no problem with the shed staying until after construction. kw Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/22/95 February 8, 1995 Page 6 Chairman Schreiner noted a legal obligation to mitigate the noise for future owners. Ms. Niles noted that the noise ordinance is limited. The applicant has indicated he has no problem with the noise. She would like to ask the City attorney if there is an option for the Town not to require a noise wall or if they need to require some type of noise mitigation. Chairman Schreiner would like the applicant to work with staff regarding noise (outdoor living area), reduction of excessive pavement, driveway in front of the house, one driveway servicing the new residence and secondary unit, greater eaves, and a redesign. Commissioner Finn asked if they could build a berm within the setback area on the lot which would require a variance as they would be grading within the setback area. The grading could start at the property line as it appears it may go up 10 feet. It was noted that the Commission would consider waiving fees for a variance request. It was suggested keeping the gravel driveway to the cottage, moving the driveway 10 feet from the property line a condition of approval. Chairman Schreiner asked if the proposed driveway configuration was acceptable according to the Town's secondary unit ordinances. Ms. Niles commented that the Commission would need to make an interpretation of the ordinance regarding two entrances onto a property. Other concerns included reducing the pavement and the paving, working with staff to accomplish the reduction and looking at increasing the eaves MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner McMahon to continue the application to February 22, to allow time for the placement of the story poles, and a redesign to include the following: reduction of hardscape; the possibility of a common driveway and its interpretation; need for outdoor living area (decibel range) (the Planning Director will discuss with the City Attorney); a possible slight reduction in bulk; the gravel driveway moved 10 feet from the property line; and making the cottage blend with the new structure. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Doran, McMahon & Gottlieb NOES: Commissioners Cheng, Finn & Stutz New plans were requested to be submitted by February 13th showing more of a reduction in the driveway than shown on the rendering provided at the meeting. The Commission agreed to look at a berm; the possibility of a variance allowing grading within 10 feet of the property line; and variance fees waived. A 14 foot wall on three sides of the property was not acceptable. Mr. Hong noted that he was not in favor of building berms along the south side of the property or along the freeway as this will shrink his property. For clarification, Ms. Niles commented that the noise attenuation may not be required. She will discuss this with the City Attorney. If the City Attorney states that the Town does need to consider noise attenuation measures, there are many alternatives that can be proposed. It was suggested in the staff report that the applicant discuss with his noise consultant alternatives other than 15 foot walls on the property line unless this is the only solution. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/22/95 February 8, 1995 Page 7 Brief break at 9:05 p.m. 5. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 1995 5.1 Commissioner Cheng reported the following items were discussed at the February 1st meeting: concept of a farmers market; and a presentation by PG&E regarding power outages during the last major storm. 5.2 The City Council meeting on February 15th was canceled. The Planning Commission representative for March 1st will be Commissioner Doran. 6. NEW BUSINESS None. OLD BUSINESS Future agendas will include "Report from subcommittees" under old business. Commissioner McMahon discussed the Communications Subcommittee (other suggested names were the Development Process Subcommittee or the Streamlining ` Permit Process subcommittee) (members McMahon, Cheng, Dauber, Casey). Chairman Schreiner discussed the "Housing subcommittee (members Schreiner, Johnson, Dauber, Stutz). 7.1 General Plan -scheduling of work sessions. The Land Use Element will be discussed at a work session meeting February 15th at 5:30 p.m. 7.2 Lands of Vidovich informal presentation is scheduled for February 9th at 6:00 p.m. and site visit February 25th at 10:00 a.m. The Commission discussed the scheduling of the Vidovich subdivision for public hearings and scheduling of regular applications. 7.3 General Plan -Final discussion of Scenic Highways and Open Space Elements. Scenic Highways discussion ensued. Commissioner Stutz and Jean Struthers had met and discussed additions to the element. It was suggested attaching their write-up to the scenic highways element, forwarding it to the City Council for their direction. Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Doran and Gottlieb will review the Open Space Element, bringing it back to the Planning Commission February 22nd and requesting that it be placed on the City Council March 1st agenda. 01 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/22/95 February 8, 1995 Page 8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES J 8.1 Approval of the January 25, 1995 Minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner McMahon, seconded by Commissioner Doran and passed by consensus to approved the minutes of January 25,1995. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING None. 10. ADiOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lanberger V Planning Secretary