Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/24/1995Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 6/5/95 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, May 24,1995,6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #11-95 (3 ) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDCE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng, Doran, Finn, Gottlieb, McMahon & Stutz Staff: Mike Porto, Acting Town Planner; Sheryl Kolf, Assistant Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Planner; Susan Manca, Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary �w 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR MOTION PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To add discussion regarding the Town Color Board under Old Business. 3. CONSENT CALEND R All items appearing on the consent calendar have been noticed for public hearing with a prepared staff report for public review. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Chairman Schreiner, seconded by Commissioner Stutz and passed by consensus to remove the Lands of Belden from the consent calendar for discussion. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb, seconded by Chairman Schreiner and passed by consensus to remove the Lands of Willis from the consent calendar for discussion. 3.1 LANDS OF BELDEN,12033 Green Hills Court (46-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a secondary dwelling unit. �41I Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Cheng could not view site as there were three dogs on site and could not gain access. She requested staff Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/5/95 May 24, 1995 Page 2 to inform applicants of the time span that the property would need to be available for viewing. It was noted that in the future, the Commission would be provided with the applicant's telephone numbers to be used when access does not appear to be available. Ms. Kolf addressed a question regarding condition #14. It was suggested that the wording state "All new public utility services shall be undergrounded:' Condition #16 was explained noting the requirement for a secondary unit to have a separate sewer connection from the main residence. Commissioner Stutz discussed annual sewer charges and sewer rates being based on total number of connections. She asked Ms. Kolf for a list of secondary units that have connected in the last three years. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Peter Duxbury, 545 Byron Street, Palo Alto, architect, questioned #16 as it was his understanding that they did not need to bring in a separate dedicated lateral from the guest house to the sewer line on Green Hills Court and that they could tie into the existing lateral. Ms. Kolf explained Town policy. Mr. Duxbury noted agreement with the conditions of approval. Commissioner Stutz suggested deletion of condition #7 which does not apply to this application. a CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Finn to approve the site development permit for a secondary dwelling with the following amendments/changes to the conditions of approval: deletion of #7 and adding the word "new" into #14. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Doran, McMahon, Stutz, Gottlieb & Finn NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cheng This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar June 21, 1995 3.2 LANDS OF WILLIS, 26970 Arastradero Road (58-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a second story addition. Commissioner Gottlieb noted a discrepancy on the front page and the last page of the plans regarding pavement figures. Mrs. Davis was not sure why there was a discrepancy noting the project is far below their development area figures. She will ask the applicant for a corrected worksheet. Commissioner Gottlieb questioned the lack of a fourth parking space. Mrs. Davis commented that this was a situation were there is an existing three car space. It is normal policy on this type of application to keep the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/5/95 May 24,1995 Page 3 parking as is. This application is considered a minor addition. If the Commission felt it was appropriate, they could request adding a fourth car space. It was noted that any addition over 900 square feet would require a fourth car space. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded by Commissioner Doran to approve the site development permit for a second story addition with the recommended conditions of approval. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Gottlieb, McMahon, Stutz, Finn, Cheng & Doran NOES: None. This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar June 21, 1995. 4.1 LANDS OF WARD, 11801 Francemont Avenue -Parcel 1 (202-94-ZP-SD- rr GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool (continued from April 26,1995). Commissioner McMahon stepped down from the hearing as she has a person (business) relationship with the applicant. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. It was noted that there were only four items requested by the Planning Commission to be brought back for discussion: driveway alternatives; pulling the house five feet from the conservation easement; showing the location of the pool equipment on the site plan; and provide specifications of the proposed exterior lighting. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Barksdale, 4151 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, summarized the changes to the plans. He did not recalculate the driveway figures because there are two alternative driveway designs. He was not sure which design would be approved. They prefer alternative "A" for the driveway design which would give them the ability to completely turn a car around with landscaping in the middle. Either driveway design is well under the development area previously proposed and way under the maximum development area. Mr. Barksdale provided a lighting catalog proposing down lighting. Approximately one third of the lights have been eliminated from the previous plan. Commissioner Stutz suggested the driveway width be 13 to 14 feet wide realizing it would require more pavement. Currently the driveway is proposed at 12 feet wide. ,wwI Mr. Barksdale commented that the 12 foot width does make it difficult for cars to pass one another. He further discussed the house being pushed back five feet by rotating the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/5/95 May 24, 1995 Page 4 house and reducing the center of the house by four feet. The pool equipment has been located in a hidden area next to the garage. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY The Commission discussed the two driveway designs. There was a consensus that "A" would be more attractive from the road. Further discussion involved allowing the applicant to widen the circular portion of the driveway to make it more functional. There was a consensus of the Commissioners to approve plan "A" as submitted. The plans will be redlined to indicate approval of driveway "A" plan. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve a site development permit for a new residence and pool for parcel 1 with approved driveway plan "A" as submitted and redlined and with the following changes/amendments to the conditions of approval: #15, wording will be expanded by staff and the pathway committee to clarify/expand the condition to include wording regarding that the path along Moody that is up against the road shall be IIB; where you go down to the toe of the slope, the path shall be native path. Also add to the condition that the location of the pathway will be to the satisfaction of the pathway committee and the City Engineer. #16, corrected wording: All subdivision improvements for the Bellucci Subdivision 40 (Parcel Map No. 608 M 31,32 & 33 and Tract Map No. 8207) shall be constructed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy certificate. No temporary certificates of occupancy shall be permitted. Worksheet #2 will be resubmitted prior to issuance of building permits. AYES Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Finn, Gottlieb, Cheng, Stutz & Doran NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar June 21, 1995. 4.2 LANDS OF WARD, 11881 Francemont Avenue -Parcel 3 (205-94-ZP-SD- GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool (continued from April 26, 1995). Commissioner McMahon stepped down from the hearing as she has a person (business) relationship with the applicant. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Barksdale, 4151 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA, architect, reported on the items *-` of concern discussed at the previous meeting which included: modifying the driveway Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/5/95 May 24,1995 Page 5 and turnaround to reduce some of the paving within the setbacks; revise wording for condition #16, pathway requirement; the location of the pool; and the exterior materials He noted that the new driveway design is a circular driveway with two accesses on Francemont Drive which requires less paving while still providing an adequate turnaround. He felt this was the direction of the Commission. He presented an alternate pool location although the alternate location does not work as well for the house design. They have changed the exterior of the house from stucco to wood siding The roof material was changed from a mission tile to a flat tile in response to the Commission's requests. Chairman Schreiner was not in full favor of a circular driveway with two street cuts. Commissioner Gottlieb and staff discussed the fire department's review and requirements. Les Earnest, Pathway Committee Chair, presented a topo map showing the exact location of the recommended pathway which would be a 12 foot easement going up the slope, then a 10 foot easement along two branches as they were not sure how the next lot would be developed (there were three possible building sites). They would prefer that the path to go in the opposite direction of the building sites. The path would go diagonally up the slope, about 30 feet from the garage; going off the property, coming back on at the upper part of the lot. The intent is to follow the existing path and road 4W with no real construction needed, just clearing or filling in some holes. Ms. Kolf reported on a site visit by Jeff Peterson, City Engineer and Ed Taylor, Public Works Manager, walking two sites. On the alternative path they found with the slope meter that the slope varies from 70-90% which would be very expensive to install as it would require up to a six foot high retaining wall, anywhere from 300-500 feet long. It would make more sense to go over the jeep road which is already graded. Bill Kull, civil engineer, was opposed to having a pathway easement so far onto the property. They were opposed to granting of an easement that comes so far onto the private property of parcel 3. He would prefer to have the path closer to the property lines as the owners are concerned with further encumbrances on their property. The pathway being discussed by Mr. Earnest comes 100 feet into the property which is much more than the 30 foot setback. Mr. Kull prepared an exhibit for review as he was the engineer on this project, meeting with the pathway committee on numerous occasions as the subdivision was created. At the time the subdivision was created they had no idea where the pathways would go, so they granted approximately 40 acres of this subdivision as pathway easements. Within the 40 acre pathway easement, there are areas that can be traversed that have varying degrees of steepness. The other pathway easements that were created as part of the subdivision are along Moody Road and along Abode Creek Lodge Road. He noted on this exhibit multiple locations in the steep areas which could be used for the pathway. He felt a better location for the path was further �.i up on the upper lot on the Gaither subdivision where you can traverse along the ridge which is an easier slope to traverse. The purpose of the exhibit was to show the Planning Cc mmission Minutes Approved 6/5/95 May 24,1995 Page 6 excessiveness of paths that already exist on this property. The owners are very concerned with further paths and further encumbrances, coming so far onto the lot. It was noted that there were three different easements on this property: pathway, open space, and conservation easements. Mr. Kull references the old subdivision map noting there was no open space conservation easement shown on parcel 3. Commissioner Finn felt encroaching 100 feet into the property was onerous (privacy and property rights issues). Chairman Schreiner asked Mr. Earnest if it would be possible to bring the pathway closer to the property lines in which he responded yes, at the southern boundary, if some construction was done. This would still be a 80 foot encroachment. Commissioner Doran noted a problem with trying to engineer a pathway this evening. This should be worked out with the Pathway Committee, Engineering and maybe a Planning Commissioner. She did not want them to design a path here. Commissioner Cheng asked if this proposed path was on the Master Pathway Plan which Mr. Earnest responded yes. Commissioner Stutz noted that at the time the Master Pathway Plan was drawn, this land was not being developed. The committee only showed an arrow off of Francement and here and there so they showed that they wanted access to the property. They did not show an arrow as to where the committee wanted a path Mr. Barksdale pointed out that the jeep road accesses the upper path. If an easement is granted where the Pathway Committee wants it, it will go through the only flat spot on the lot (other than the building site area). Bob Stutz, Pathway Committee, believes that a pathway can be accomplished without going through the property. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY The Commission discussed the pool location. There was a consensus to allow the applicant the option of choosing either pool location. The location can be reviewed with the landscape plan. Discussion ensued regarding the circular driveway. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested using the driveway coming in at the far end and just circle around the house instead of making it circular. This would only be cutting off the second driveway and making the driveway a few feet wider. The access closer to the garage would be eliminated. Discussion on ways to delete pavement included a suggestion to eliminate the parking space next to the garage. Commissioner Finn discussed the rules regarding the extra parking space being outside the setback. In this case, if they allowed the extra space to be shorter, they would have less pavement area (only the rear portion of a car would be within the setback area). Mrs. Davis discussed policy regarding a minimum of four off street parking facilities. The space is a minimum of 10 feet wide and 20 feet long. Parking in the setback appears to be a policy and not actually stated in the code. It does W�%W appear that the Commission has the discretion to modify the requirement. sy Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/5/95 May 24, 1995 Page 7 Mr. Barksdale noted that the problem with the elimination of the second access is that because of the hillside coming down, they are unable to back out of the last two parking spaces to tum around. He discussed the alternate driveway design as proposed at the previous meeting showing a separate backup space that is in the triangular space at the comer of the property. This allows the cars to back out of the garage and then turn around and head out through either of the driveway accesses. If they were to eliminate the space mentioned, the cars in the last two spaces would have to back all the way out onto the street to get out. Commissioners Finn, Doran, Stutz and Cheng all agreed that the design was a perfect example of where a circular driveway works well on a lot. It works especially well because of the constraints of the slope. They have done a wonderful job of hiding the garage. Ms. Koff pointed out that the backup area is being provided with the circular driveway. The objective of being able to enter the property going forward and leave the property driving forward is being met. Regarding the pathway, she noted that it can be engineered anywhere. However, the location affects the cost and type of construction needed. Commissioner Stutz felt it was very unethical to ask for more paths on a subdivision that has just completed the process. As indicated on her map, she suggested an irrevocable offer of dedication that would not be accepted at this time, but could be accepted at a later date when lots 3 and 4 (Adobe Creek Lodge Road) are developed and other links can be obtained. Ms. Kolf suggested wording to the effect that they were not asking for an easement at this time but can take an irrevocable offer of dedication, not accepted at this time, reserving the right to accept it at a later date. Commissioner Gottlieb would prefer to accept the easement but not to be used (activated) until the other two properties come in. Bill Kull noted that they have been discussing the path with Mr. Earnest and felt they had a consensus on the location of the pathway. They proposed to bring a pathway easement that would be 20 feet wide on the west property line, 30 feet wide on the south property line with a 10 foot width along the driveway (as redlined on the plan). Easements will be needed on lot 3 to complete the path. Staff will reword the condition. Conditions of approval were discussed. It was noted that the exterior materials would not have to be conditions as they are approving the new plans which indicate exterior materials. It was noted that the pathway easement would effect lot 3 which is not represented by this applicant. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to approve the site development permit for a new residence and pool for parcel 3, accepting an alternate pool location if the applicant so chooses, the driveway modification as shown on the plan with the following ,�I changes/amendments to the conditions of approval: Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/5/95 May 24, 1995 Page 8 #16 deleting "An additional 10 foot wide pathway easement shall be granted to the Town over the portion of the property where the jeep path is located, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." Replacement wording would state that a 20 foot wide pathway on the west property line, and a 30 foot wide pathway on the south property line with a 10 foot width along the driveway section as redlined on plan. #17, corrected wording, "All subdivision improvements for the Bellucci Subdivision (Parcel Map No. 608 M 31,32 & 33 and Tract Map No. 8207) shall be constructed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy certificate. No temporary certificates of occupancy shall be permitted." AYES Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Stutz, Finn, Cheng, Doran & Gottlieb NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar June 21, 1995. Brief break at 8:45 p.m. 4.3 LANDS OF WONG, 25879 Fremont Road (36-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a second story addition and remodel. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. A letter of support from a neighbor (corner of Fremont and Miranda) was provided to the Commission. Commissioner Stutz noted she had not visited the site consequently she would not be voting on the project. Condition #14 was discussed noting that this is a standard condition of approval and that the figures are exclusive of the 30 feet. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Brian Wong, 25879 Fremont Road, noted that the barn was only an accessory structure. He discussed reviewing the plans with his neighbors trying to maintain privacy for themselves and the neighbors. He further discussed condition #13 requiring upgrading of the path. He indicated that particular stretch of pathway is subject to flooding, washing away any materials used for the pathway. He asked that the engineering department be aware of this fact. The Commission suggested additional wording for #13 noting that the applicant will work with the City Engineer to assure that the path shall be free from inundation. Anthony Andrich, 393 Newcastle Drive, Redwood City, architect, commented on condition #14 noting the 30 feet had already been deducted from the figures. Eric Inman, 25885 Fremont Road, was in support of the project. He also indicated a problem with the pathway material washing out. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/5/95 May 24,1995 Page 9 Condition #9 was discussed noting fire retardant roofing is required for all new additions over 300 square feet. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner McMahon and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the site development permit for a second story addition with the additional wording to condition #13, "The applicant will work with the City Engineer to assure that the path shall be free from inundation." AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Gottlieb, Doran, Cheng, Finn & McMahon NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Stutz This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar June 21st 4.4 LANDS OF LLOYD, 26707 Tanglewood Lane (30-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a second story addition and remodel. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Ms. Manca noted that the actual changes to the exterior structure were limited to the lower floor (north section of the %r house). The majority of the changes will be in the style of the house and interior of the house as far as placement of rooms; rearranging interior walls. Commissioner Gottlieb felt the renderings gave the house a three story facade look, however it does not appear that way on site. Mr. Porto noted that the front elevation was only 20 feet. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Patrick Finnegan, 2142 University Avenue, Mt. View, project architect, discussed the design which is changing the facade of the house. The front of the house is really what changes, changing the style of the house. The applicants wanted a fire resistant house. This is a change from the original house purchased 14 years ago. The applicants choice of roofing material would be a terra-cotta roof, taupe in color (not red). Their intent was to make the house appear to be 50-60 years old. Commissioner Finn complimented the architect on a fine design. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with the visibility of the house from Chaparral Way, Deersprings and Byrne Park Lane. She felt the color of the house should be a dark color to blend into the surrounding areas. Mr. Finnegan noted the roof and house would be in a darker color. Katy Stella, Pathway Committee, noted an addition to the pathway condition (#17) requesting a pathway easement over Tanglewood Lane. �- CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/5/95 May 24, 1995 Page 10 Chairman Schreiner felt the house was very visible requesting a reflectivity value of 50% or below on the exterior and 40% or below on the roof. It was noted that the roof material proposed would be a brownish color. Commissioner Doran was not as concerned with reflectivity value as it was not the darkness but the color. Mr. Finnegan reviewed the color board indicating the color in mind for the roof and exterior would have reflectivity values of 50%. Commissioner Stutz was concerned with setting reflectivity values in light of the recent discussion by the City Council regarding the color board. She did not feel this house was a visible site. Commissioner Stutz commented that she would not consider voting for a path on Chaparral Way. The path should be on the uphill side of the road. Suggested wording for #17, changing the first sentence to read, "A 10 foot wide pathway easement shall be dedicated to the Town over Tanglewood." Condition #4 shall include wording noting the roof and exterior colors shall be 50% or less reflectivity value. Commissioner McMahon requested information regarding the cut and fill. Mr. Finnegan noted that there was less than 240 c.y. of export. He did not know the export figures pertaining to the garage retaining walls. She would like to know the export amount. Mr. Porto noted that a grading permit for anything over 50 c.y. of export would be required. Requirements for a sprinkler system was discussed noting projects are reviewed by the fire department as part of the building plan check process. Commissioner McMahon complimented the architect on the design, however it does not fit into the Town guidelines asking for a rural design, minimizing mass and bulk. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the site development permit for an addition and remodel with the following changes/amendments to the conditions of approval: 44, add "The roof and exterior colors shall be 50% or less reflectivity value." #17, change to the first sentence, "A 10 foot wide pathway easement shall be dedicated to the Town over Tanglewood." AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Stutz, Finn, Cheng & Doran NOES: Commissioners Gottlieb & McMahon This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar June 21st Planting Commission Minutes Approved 6/5/95 May 24, 1995 Page 11 5. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5.1 Planning Commission representative for May 17th meeting -Commissioner Doran reported the following: the Council's discussion regarding the color board and perhaps not having a color board requirement unless the site is highly visible or on a ridge line. Then it would be up the Commission to use their discretion regarding color. The conclusion regarding color valuation was that the Council would vote at the next meeting to perhaps accept the 50% reflectivity value on exterior and 40% on roofs, deleting the 100% reflectivity value for 10% of trim. Other items discussed were circular driveways, and the selling of produce on Dori Lane. 5.2 Planning Commission Representative for the June 7th meeting - Commissioner McMahon. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Discussion on materials used for tennis courts and possible development area exceptions. Chairman Schreiner noted that the City Attorney would be writing a code clarification on this subject, however the reason it will be returning to the Planning Commission was that the Council gave direction to the staff requesting appropriate wording to be used in the Design Guideline Handbook including an illustration. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Report from subcommittees. Commissioner Doran discussed the non -conforming ordinance and its interpretation. Staff has asked the City Attorney for an interpretation of the code, Section 10.14. The subcommittee will be reviewing this further with the new Planning Director. Commissioner Doran requested comments from the Commission regarding non- conforming structures (with examples) to be forwarded to her to present before the subcomm ttee. Discussion ensued regarding the Color Board noting that there should be a policy which would be easy to administer by staff and to include what types of houses shall be required the reflectivity value of 50% for exterior and 40% for roofs. It was felt that asking that 100% reflectivity value on 10% of trim was difficult to administer. Commissioner Cheng viewed the pink house on Voorhees noting that there was only one other house darker than the pink house. in that area. All the other houses on the street are lighter than the pink house. Is not a matter of whether the house is dark or light, but the color. It was suggested that the Chairman compose a letter to the City Council, signed by all Commissioners, suggesting that the Council return this item to the subcommittee with definite direction as to what they want to see brought back to them. The Commission felt there should be a definite standard of all new construction. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/5/95 May 24,1995 Page 12 If the applicant felt strongly enough that the site was hidden, the Commission could discuss. Discussion ensued regarding circular driveways requesting more time to review. Mr. Porto noted that most communities set up standards. The most common standard is 90 feet of lot frontage and 50 feet between access points. • : • u 1►t 1!Y 8.1 Approval of the May 10, 1995 Minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner McMahon, seconded by Commissioner Cheng and passed by consensus to approve the May 10th minutes correcting "June 5" on page 11 and correcting "parameters" on page 12. • t�tlsti4iiYl0Ri1uMY'.1�7t11711�rixll•Itlu1��M1[•Ii3uTiulMrY�tiui��Y ►[K•S;i�/�l 9.1 LANDS OF GARDNER, 24269 Dawnridge Drive; A request for a Site Development Permit for a tennis court. Approved with conditions. 10. The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lard Lonberger Planning Secretary