Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/27/1996k., Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 4/10/96 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, March 27,1996,6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: t-assettes in�w) ( z ) 1. ROLL CAI J. AND PLFQQF OF AT I EGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman McMahon, Commdssioners Cheng, Doran, Gottlieb, Stutz, Finn & Schreiner Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Sheryl Proft, Assistant Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Planner; Susan Manca, Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary =2= 2.1 Presentation by Dan Durdap, Fire Marshal, Los Altos Fire Department. Mr. Dunlap discussed the following: 1994 Uniform Fire Code (interpretation and how the Code is applied); plan review looking at access and water supply; change in required driveway access width from 12'to 14'wide; fire area definition and applicant's construction options; dealing with narrow Town roads; current wider and safer fire apparatus; assistance by neighboring jurisdictions and State wide, if needed, for major fires; suitable road surfaces; the water districts and service/water pressure; effectiveness of sprinklering; and the difference between commercial and residential requirements for sprinklering. The Planning Commission thanked Mr. Dunlap for his concern and his diligence. 3.1 LANDS OF PEIRCE, 12008 Emerald l-lill Lane (I 1-96-ZP-SD-GD-VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, and a Variance to allow grading closer than 10 feet from the property line. Ms. Davis introduced this item. She had provided the Commission with a memo regarding new wording for condition #11 which included the recommendations from William Cotton and Associates. The applicants provided a model of the project for Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/10/96 March 27,1996 Page 2 review. There were questions from the Commission regarding the Heritage Oak location, in-fieu fees, the location of the garage and driveway possibly impacting the neighbors, the number of skylights proposed, the amount of pavement encroaching into the 10 feet from the property line, and a request for a better map showing the current location and size of oak trees with trunk diameters of six -inches or greater. OPENED PU13UC HEARING Bob Peterson, 57 El Camino Real, Menlo Park, project architect, commented on the discrepancy in the tree sizes noting they had used a site plan dated 1992. The trees have grown since then and have larger trunk diameters than indicated on the site plan. He further discussed the garage and garage turnaround area as it relates to the neighboring property noting the neighbors living area is approximately 6-8 feet below the land at the property line. He did not feel there would be any impact on them. The placement of the project on the lot would provide the least amount of disturbance to the land. The project is on five different levels with minimal grading. He voiced agreement with the conditions of approval, and their compliance with Town guidelines. They have been working very hard to save every tree on the site. Mr. Peterson provided samples of the natural materials to be used in the construction. Chairman McMahon complimented the architect noting the design was very attractive and embraces the idea behind the design guidelines. Commissioner Schreiner asked Mr. Peterson how difficult would it be to move the house down the hill. Mr. Peterson responded they would probably have to remove three additional trees and they would lose the night fight view. In discussing the variance request, Mr. Peterson commented they were trying to save the Oak tree which provides a buffer between the two houses. However, they could remove the tree, move the driveway in, thus eliminating the need for the variance. Commissioner Schreiner asked if they could turn the garage because the garage doors are visible to their neighbors. She further noted that the neighbor is encroaching 5 feet already with the pool and the pavement from both the applicant and neighbor are very close to the property line. She would like to maintain the 30 foot setbacks on both properties which maintains the rural atmosphere and privacy everyone prizes. Mr. Peterson commented that the least desirable situation would be to have outdoor space to outdoor space because of the mixture of noise and intrusion. He felt a garage or an approach area adjacent to an outdoor area is more desirable as long as it is not visible or obb*wive. They plan to provide substantial landscaping in that area. Art Goldberg, 12012 Emerald Hill Lane, voiced support of the project as it fits the site well and will have minimal impact on their property. He discussed the grading for the driveway which will result in a "hump" between the two sites. He suggested grading that area in a more natural way. However, this would result in grading across property �w Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/10/96 March 27,1996 Page 3 lines. Mr. Peterson noted he would like to have an opportunity to look at the request for the best way to accomplish the request. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Corrunissioner Doran felt the house design was spectacular. She liked the use of the materials, how the house fits the site with grading minimized. If the house moved down the hill, the design would be disrupted, requiring more grading. She supported the variance request and noted that the neighbors on the south have not provided any screening on their side of the property. There should be minimal impact with at least 50 feet between the neighbor's patio (with an eight foot drop) and the applicant's garage. Commissioner Gottlieb did not agree. Although this is the best house design presented before the Commission in two years, it will impact the neighbors. She would rather see the tree removed and replaced by another than support the variance. Commissioner Finn felt the garage is a busy area. He would rather see the tree removed and replaced with a good buffer between the two properties. He would consider moving the driveway out of the 10 feet but within the 30 foot setback. Commissioner Stutz agreed. If the tree is removed she would require replacement with three 36 inch box live Oaks along the 10 foot strip. She requested a new (current) site plan showing 4W the location of all the heritage trees on the lot. She also requested clarification on the Arborist report regarding the three trees requiring periodic inspections by a qualified Arborist. She also asked that the turn around area (guest parking) by the front of the lot be reduced in size. She would like to see the overall coverage of asphalt be reduced on the property. Conunissioner Cheng liked the guest parking area which would be very convenient for the guests. Bob Peterson answered the concerns noting they would like to make efforts to save the tree while moving and/or narrowing the driveway at least 10 feet from the property line. He felt the guest parking was desirable, however they will try to reduce the area, if possible. The Assistant Engineer noted that a variance would be required if they were grading across the property line. However, grading closer than 10 feet to the property line just to allow the access of this driveway does not require a variance. Grading across the property line will require a variance and public hearing. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Chen& seconded by Commissioner Finn and amended to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, Lands of Peirce, with the following changes: variance request denied; the driveway will be a minimum of 10 feet from the property line; provide an updated map indicating the location of oak trees with trunk diameters of six -inches or greater; the length of the guest parking spaces shall be reduced to the minimum necessary for parking and turnaround; delete reference to the variance in the last �W sentence of condition #13; and require three 36 inch box live Oaks to replace the 12" Plani-iing Commission Minutes Approved 4/10/96 March 27,1996 Page 4 Oak, if removed. Due to the variance being denied, Finding #3 will be modified noting the variance would be injurious to the neighboring property to have the driveway located within 10 feet of the property line. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioner Doran, Gottlieb, Stutz, Finn, Cheng & Schreiner NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar April 17,1996. 3.2 LANDS OF FLOSS, 13349 La Cresta Drive (15-96-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR); A request for a Conditional Development Permit and a Site Development Permdt for a carport, and variances to allow the structure to encroach 15 feet into the front setback and to allow the maximum development area to be exceeded (continued from February 28, 1996). Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Schreiner asked if the carport could be placed in front of the area which appears to have been a previous garage without being in the setbacks. The question was directed to the applicant. Chairman McMahon questioned the height of the structure, the bulk of the structure, noting structurally, the building does not work. The Planning Director cornmented that t4w the Comrriission is considering a variance for a structure to be within the rear setback. If they feel that a less bulky structure is appropriate and they would like to have no more than a Vto 1.5'of roof thickness, staff can oversee the adherence to the Building Code. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Floss, 13349 La Cresta Drive, applicant, discussed the instructions given at the previous meeting. The previous drawing has been engineered to incorporate earthquake standards. He responded to a previous question regarding the carport being located in front of the area which appears to be the previous garage, stating there is not enough room in the location indicated. Commissioner Finn asked the applicant if he could minimize the bulk of the structure. Mr. Floss felt this design was aesthetically pleasing to him. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Schreiner noted that her suggestion to place the carport in front of the area which appears to be a previous garage would not work because, as staff has pointed out with a drawing, it would still be in a setback. She felt the Commission had given the applicant direction at the previous meeting which he has followed. Usually she is not in favor of expanding an encroachment. However, she felt the cars are unsightly and the addition of a roof would provide a more finished appearance. She Planning Commission Minutes Appmved 4/10/96 March 27,1996 Page 5 �W would be in favor of the project with some modification to this particular drawing (providing a structurally safe building). MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Finn to approve the Site Development Permit, Variance, and Conditional Development Permit for a new carport located within the rear setback, Lands of Floss, with the following changes/recommendations: redesign roof structure, reflecting a design that reduces the thickness (revised plans to be approved by the Planning Department, complying with Building Codes; and the carport shall be complimentary to the existing structure (not a flat roof). AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Cheng, Gottlieb, Stutz, Schreiner, Doran & Finn NOES: None This item will appear on the City Conceal consent calendar April 17,1996. 3.3 LANDS OF TENG, 25420 Crescent Lane (154-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a guest house. Ms. Manca introduced this item calling attention to a letter from the Cabrals (next door neighbors), a petition from neighbors opposing the construction, and a staff memo #6W requesting an additional condition, if the project is approved, requiring a deed restriction stating that the accessory building may not include kitchen facilities, etc. Commissioner Stutz stepped down from the public hearing as she is a neighbor within 500 feet of the project. It was noted that several Commissioners viewed the project from the neighbors living area. There was a concern for adequate parking on the property which was addressed by Ms. Manca. She had reviewed the old microfiche which shows the same garage configuration as currently exists. Two cars can be parked in the garage, however one space does not meet current code wl-dch requires car spaces to be 10x20. Also noted was the original direction given by the Planning Commission at the October 25, 1995 meeting to reduce the structure to a maximum 1,000 square feet or attach the structure to the residence. If this structure was considered to be a secondary unit, an additional parking space would be required. The Arborist report regarding the pine trees was also discussed. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Greg Benton, 5546 Harvard Drive, San Jose, project architect, discussed the Arborist report recommending the removal of the existing pine trees. He further discussed the changes in the current plan versus the previous plan (reduced grading, reduced height, kaw moved the structure away from Elena, reduced the size of the structure, reduced the Planning Conurdssion Minutes Approved 4/10/96 March 27,1996 Page 6 t4w number of rooms, reduced the number of windows facing the neighbors, removed the deck). They plan to replace the trees proposed to be removed and add any additional trees as needed along the neighbor's property line and along Elena Road to screen the project. Mr. Benton agreed with the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report with the additional condition as noted by Ms. Manca. Herbert Cabral, 25325 Elena Road, next door neighbor, noted that the Teng's back yard faces their front yard, discussing privacy issues. He read from the Municipal Code, Section 10.1-702. He requested they maximize landscaping. He would prefer the structure to be moved back with the removal of the Eucalyptus trees so it would keep the front area open. Dave Conrad, 25360 Becky Lane, did not feel this project fits into the land. Judy Conrad, 25360 Becky Lane, commented on the rural nature of the area. She did not feel it was appropriate to allow a large second house on the property. Commissioner Doran clarified that this property can support an accessory structure. Greg Benton was asked how they could reduce the structure to 1,000 square feet as previously requested. Commissioner Schreiner suggested the removal of one bedroom (llxl3) and moving the house back. This would help mitigate the appearance of bulk f 4W and lower the height by one foot. Mr. Benton responded that the current design was balancing the Commission and applicants requests. The applicants wanted the accessory building by the pool to enjoy that area. Commissioner Gottlieb commented on the current location of the structure being in a very obtrusive location. Moving the structure back would not impact the neighbors. Commissioner Doran noted, if standing in the Cabral's living room, because of the grade difference, they are impacted by the height of the roof as well as the bulk of the structure. The structure is in a primary location. Mr. Cabral noted they did not care if they see the pool. He would be happy with screening of the pool area. He also commented on the annoyance of a flood light glaring into their eating area. Mary Stutz, 25310 Elena Road, requested the arborist letter mentioned by the architect to be a part of the file for review. She objected to the additional 137 square feet over the 1,000 maximum for a secondary dwelling. She would like to see the structure moved back 80 feet from Elena Road. She would also like to see a swale installed at approximately the 371'elevation line and run over to within 20 feet of the Crescent Lane property line to drain off naturally across the bottom area of the lot. �W Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/10/96 March 27,1996 Page 7 CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Doran comanented on the project subn-dtted not meeting the criteria expressed at the previous meeting. Discussion ensued. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran, seconded by Commissioner Finn and amended to continue the application for a Site Development Permit for an accessory building for a redesign with the following instructions: the need for mitigating landscaping between the structure and the property line; the structure needs to be moved back to be parallel with the front of the neighbors house (moved 10'lengthwise), to reduce the size to 1,000 square feet or less; the pool equipment location shall not be located at the setback line; and the submittal of the Arborist report for the file. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Gottlieb, Schreiner, Cheng, Finn & Doran NOES: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Stutz The architect agreed with the continuance for redesign. This item will be re -noticed for a future public hearing. 4bW 3.4 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SERVICES, Lands of Savin, 12540 Roblecia Road (224 -95 -CUP); A request for a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a PCS (Personal Communications Services) wireless telecommunications facility, including a 37 foot high monopole with two 6'x 5' panel antennas. This item was introduced by the Planning Director. The applicant had submitted a letter to the Corrunission noting that after the review of the Staff report, they are requesting a postponement consideration of this proposal until it can be considered in concert with the other proposals currently being reviewed. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the application. This item will be re -noticed. Brief break at 9:20 p.m. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4.1 Planning Commission Representative for the March 20th meeting, Commissioner Schreiner, reported on the following: approval of the consent calendar; request for authorization to advertise the Town's Edgerton Road landslide mitigation Town project for competitive bids; the proposed revised pathway element of the General Plan, and �W the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/10/96 March 27,1996 Page 8 4W 4.2 Planning Commission Representative for April 3rd -meeting canceled. 5. 01 D BUSINESS 5.1 Report from subcommittees. Commissioner Doran reported on the Planning Issues subcommittee which is currently discussing grading issues. 6. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Stutz suggested the staff work on providing new wording (definition) for secondary dwelling units including discussion regarding living space versus habitable space. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the March 13,1996 minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the March 13,1996 minutes. ,,8. REPORT FROM THE SrrE DEVELOPMENT COMM=E MEFITNG 4ar None. 9. ADIOURNME The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Umi Lo rger Planning Secretary 46W