Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/10/1996Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved4/24/% Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, April 10, 1996,7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #7-96 ( 3 ) The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Cheng, Doran, Gottlieb, Stutz, Finn & Schreiner Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Sheryl Proft, Assistant Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary 't. L1 : v0� 61 at9u 0 Y:.Im i K919it RINEW-WiFM2 4 3.1 LANDS OF BECKER,14271 Miranda Road (53-96-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a major addition and remodel. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Discussion ensued regarding the possibility of connecting to sewer although the Health Department has approved the septic system. The Beckers would like to connect to sewer when it is more cost effective. It was also noted that the pathway was installed two years ago when the pool plan was approved and constructed. The existing pathway will be maintained only. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Barton, 359 De Leon Avenue, Fremont, project architect, was available for questions noting that the roofing material for the additions will match the existing structure and the project includes an additional parking space which will not impact the tree in that location. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/24/96 April 10, 1996 Page 2 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to approve the Site Development Permit for a major addition/remodel, Lands of Becker, with the recommended conditions of approval. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Stutz, Gottlieb, Finn, Schreiner, Cheng & Doran NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar May 1, 1996. 3.2 LANDS OF SCORES, 26700 Palo Hills (44-96-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a detached guest house. Staff had nothing further to add to the report. Due to a previous application and a question regarding the definition of a secondary dwelling unit, the Planning Director spoke with the City Attorney indicating that the Planning Commission does have some latitude in determining if the proposed structure is in fact a secondary unit and/or should be reduced to a maximum 1,000 square feet. The Town Municipal Code allows cooking facilities in secondary units, however not in accessory buildings. A small addition was recently approved administratively. The development and floor area figures shown in the staff report include the minor addition figures. Further discussion ensued regarding how the lot was created at .93 acres. The Planning Director was asked how a disclosure statement (condition #10) is policed. Chairman McMahon questioned the minor addition which was administratively approved a week ago. Commissioner Stutz would have liked to have seen the staking of the area for the minor addition. She was concerned with the lack of eaves as she did not feel the guest house would be compatible in style with the main structure with the removal of the eaves. For clarification, it was noted that the Municipal Code allows an accessory building without kitchen facilities, and does not require an additional parking space. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Tom Sloan, 255 N. Market Street, San Jose, project architect, described the project as more of a pool house than a guest house. However, it will be used by the applicant's older children during school breaks and summer to live in when they are home from college. It will not be used as a rental. The bar area is only for gathering. He felt the design was compatible with the main residence which will maintain the ranch style design. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/24/96 April 10, 1996 ` Page 3 Chairman McMahon felt the roof design was quite contemporary, unique and distinguished. However, the design does not match the house. She asked for an explanation regarding the incompatibility. Mr. Sloan felt the design was almost a characterization of the whole facade. Commissioner Gottlieb commented that the roof design of the new structure will be obstructing the applicant's view of the hillside. Commissioner Schreiner noted that the wet bar area has a sink, refrigerator and a nook. All it needs is a microwave to have a kitchen type facility. Mr. Sloan noted that they are not planning to make that area into a kitchen. They can certainly barbecue food and bring it inside to eat. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Doran commented on a previous accessory building application and this project looks like a secondary unit. She suggested restricting the size of the structure to 1,000 square feet, altering the roof line and eaves to match that of the house, and eliminate the plumbing, nooks, and the wet bar so it is really an accessory building. The accessory structure should match the main residence. Commissioner Finn commented that many garages, barns and pool houses have bathrooms; many pool houses have changing rooms and a bar or at least a sink. The Planning Director clarified that a guest house does not necessarily have to meet the definition of a secondary dwelling unit (maximum 1,000 square feet and one additional parking space) although it does provide similar functions. He suggested deleting the wet bar and nook so the "kitchen" is eliminated. Commissioner Stutz noted that a pool house of approximately 600 square feet probably would be acceptable with the design to include eaves, one large room, a bathroom, a very small wet bar/kitchen area, with the roof design compatible with the main residence.. She could not support anything larger as she did not feel Town code allows living facilities in accessory buildings. This lot does not meet secondary dwelling unit requirements. Commissioners Gottlieb and Schreiner agreed. Commissioner Cheng felt there was something wrong with the secondary dwelling unit ordinance as written. Chairman McMahon felt the roof design was not compatible with the main residence. M011ON SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Finn to approved the Site Development Permit for a detached guest house, Lands of Scifres, with the following changes: eliminate square footage over 1,000 square feet; eliminate the wet bar and nook area; and bring the roof line in compliance with the main house. AYES: Commissioners Cheng, Finn & Doran ` NOES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Stutz, Schreiner & Gottlieb Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/24/96 April 10, 1996 Page 4 Discussion ensued. The Commission asked the applicant if they would consider a reduction in floor area. Mrs. Scifres would not care to reduce the square footage to 600 square feet. She has a large family and would like to maintain two bedrooms, a bathroom, a conversation room and the wet bar. Commissioner Schreiner noted that the reduction in square footage for the accessory building does not mean that they cannot add on to the main residence with an attachment or a second story. Mrs. Scifres preferred having the two bedrooms in a separate unit to give the parents privacy. Further discussion ensued regarding a motion for continuance of the project versus a denial motion. The applicant stated that they would prefer a motion to deny the application so they would have the option to appeal the decision to the City Council. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb, seconded by Commissioner Schreiner and amended to deny the Site Development Permit for a detached guest house, Lands of Scifres. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Stutz, Schreiner & Gottlieb NOES: Commissioners Cheng, Finn & Doran To appeal the decision of the Planning Commission, it must be made in writing no later than May 1, 1996. 3.3 LANDS OF SHIDELER (JONES), 27994 Via Ventana Way (13-96-ZP- SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. Chairman McMahon stepped down from the public hearing as she is a neighbor but not within 500 feet. Vice -Chair Doran noted additional correspondence from the neighbors and letter from the real estate broker, Beate Dayem. Vice -Chair Doran apologized to Chairman McMahon for the contents of the letter from the real estate broker as she felt it was inappropriate. Commissioner Schreiner asked who was noticed regarding the project and the median cut as it affects more people than just the close neighbors. Ms. Davis responded that neighbors within 500 feet were noticed in addition to any residents who voiced interest in the application. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Jay Shideler, 250 Silvia Court, Los Altos, applicant, gave a presentation on new information regarding the proposed driveway, the fire department requirements, the restrictions on the lot, the removal of the proposed center oak tree in the median, possible turning movements, and maneuvering through the median. He discussed the Arborist, Barrie Coate, recommendations regarding the road and retaining wall construction as it relates to the health of the affected trees. He went Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/24/56 April 10, 1996 Page 5 on to discuss the proposed road design versus the southern easement road approach which would be through the conservation easement. Also, meeting the fire department requirements. Barrie Coate, arborist, Los Gatos, commented on a letter from Mr. McClenahan, arboriculturists. He noted that parts of the tree in question were still alive, however there will not be normal branches, limbs, etc. produced by the tree. Mr. Shideler continued with his presentation discussing geoblock, and demonstrating on a diagram that a large car approaching and driving through the median should not be a safety issue. Tom McNair, 460 Willis Lane, Mountain View, project architect, discussed the design process, goal to retain as may trees as possible, maintaining the character of the site., and to minimize the impact of the building. He went through the "Guidelines for Residential Design and Land Use" goals as applied to their project. He commented on the following: the existing trees screening the bulk of the house; the natural environment maintained; minimizing the cut of the driveway wherever possible; the placement of house to minimize the impact to the trees; very little views of the house from off-site; the building has been cut into the hill to minimize the bulk of the building; and the use of organic materials in the design which are compatible with the environment. The house was not stepped down due to the �r number of existing trees. Minimizing the footprint, going up, using more of a two story structure, they can maintain the environment and use the existing trees to screen the project. He further discussed retaining the visual openness by increasing the setback from Via Ventana Way noting the building has been pulled well into the site. The design does follow the existing contours with a linear design following the length of the contours and the building does not obstruct any views. He continued noting that the front elevation has some stepped portions (one story portico, bay windows, cantilevered second floor which will create shadow lines). The garage will not be seen from the street and they are using dark, natural colors to blend with the surroundings. He felt the applicants have worked very hard to preserve the natural environment. He further discussed the staff report, noting objection to the reference to "the somewhat bulky appearance with a two story facade above a six foot high terrace wall on the front elevation." The suggestion for the second story to be set back at least six feet behind the first story facade would result in a redesign which would require increasing the footprint of the building which would increase the number of trees to be removed which would result in destroying the environment even further. In conclusion, he requested approval of the project as submitted. Commissioner Finn commented on the applicant's suggestion that one of the reasons for the proposed driveway design was due to a PG&E power box in the L way. He asked if it could be moved. Mr. McNair responded, this was certainly one Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/24/96 April 10, 1996 Page 6 of the reasons for the driveway design along with the required turning radius for the fire department apparatus. Robin Knutson, 27999 Via Ventana Way, voiced the following concerns: the previous 14 foot cut is now a 20 foot cut through the median, impact on the soil; the impact on the two remaining trees having paving on all four sides; the proposed geoblock installation and the root structure of the trees; safety issues with daily speeding drivers coming down Via Ventana Way (suggested an official traffic study); cars staying on the road not on the pathway; school bus travel; moving the power box; a cut through the conservation easement; and the negative impact on a large oak tree at 27990 Via Ventana Way located by the proposed driveway. Viole McMahon, 27975 Via Ventana Way, presented exhibits on the proposed driveway and median cut proposing an alternate route preserving the median. She noted that the fire department has no preference to driveway access although she would prefer following the contours and avoiding the need for retaining walls. Further exhibits and comments included the following: diagram of the median area; the age of the oak trees; canopy of the trees extending farther than previously indicated; 31 neighbors signed a petition opposing the median cut versus four neighbors in support; and the disruption created by geoblock. She felt the alternate route through the conservation easement was less damaging and preferred by the L neighbors. She asked that the median be preserved and safety maintained Jeanine Knutson, 27999 Via Ventana Way, read a portion of the CC&Rs of the original subdivision. She voiced opposition to the project. Kathleen Kells, 27990 Via Ventana Way, adjacent neighbor, noted that a fair portion of the driveway was on her property (in access easement). Her concerns included drainage, traffic safety, and the impact of the driveway to her property. Bud Babbit, 27911 Via Ventana Way, felt it was unfortunate there was a disagreement between neighbors on an item which was decided three years ago. He had reviewed all the records at Town Hall. He felt the Shidelers should be supported as they were at least trying to save as many trees as possible. He did not believe in granting a variance to go through the conservation easement. Jim Wood, 27888 Via Ventana Way, neighbor, discussed the arborist report (preferred to accept the arborist report rather than people who are not experts), the Jones property access, and the new buyers willing to care for the property. He supported the applicants. Bill Groechel, 27985 Via Ventana Way, neighbor, commented on the traffic safety issues on Page Mill. He did not support the project noting that the median cut was N i Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/24/96 April 10, 1996 Page 7 not settled in 1993 but postponed until an application was submitted. He preferred the upper driveway access. Katy Stella, 27975 Via Ventana Way, noted that over the last several months the neighbors have collected a fund to care for the trees in the median. Victoria Gilbert, 27990 Via Ventana Way, neighbor, noting flooding in her house over the past two years. She was not opposed to the site being developed, however she opposed the proposed driveway. Guy Jinkerson, Environmental Design Committee, preferred the upper access. The Committee felt there should not be a cut through the median for just one resident when there is an alternative driveway access. He also noted that if the middle oak tree does die, it could be replaced. He felt the median should be preserved since there is another access and from a safety standpoint. Tom McNair, project architect, further discussed the alternate upper driveway access noting that even though it is following the contours, there is still a differential of over five feet between the high point and low point over a slope of 14 feet. It will still require a retaining wall which will be in the conservation easement with a fill situation on the down hill side. Jay Shideler, clarified the following: the installation and material of the geoblock; the cutting of a few oak tree branches for fire truck clearance; road safety issues (school bus does not stop in that area); and the road not changing the grade. Mr. Shideler also apologized for the letter from his Realtor. Commissioner Cheng asked if he had any objection to coming onto the property by the upper access. Mr. Shideler preferred the access as proposed. Adolf Kratz, 27789 Via Ventana Way, objected to what is essentially adding another road for one property owner. Water flow from the driveway should also be considered. He disagreed with the comments regarding the upper access driveway still needing retaining walls. Bill Groechel, 27985 Via Ventana, discussed problems with drainage and the septic system in that area. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY The Planning Director clarified a few points. The geoblock material will be under two oak trees and with the traffic crossing the road, you will not see grass in that area. He also noted that the issue of the median cut has not been decided. It was decided at one time in the 1980s with the approval of the subdivision but no action was taken. Now it is open to discussion and a decision. Mr. Williams went on to Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/24/96 April 10, 1996 Page 8 note that the fire department has looked at both access designs and they are comfortable that both accesses would work. The fire department does not have a preference. The alternative design from the top of the property through the conservation easement could be done with a gentler tum/curve although staff has not seen any of the engineering details that would clearly require cut and fill with perhaps small walls associated with that alignment. The length and amount of pavement will be similar with either access. Regarding conservation easements in general, he noted that the way conservation easements are written, it allows the Council to make an exception to the easement, finding that the proposed construction would not conflict with the intent or purposes of that easement. He read from the conservation easement document. Findings would need to be made very clear as they would be setting a precedence. Drainage with either access would be similar. Commissioner Stutz asked for clarification regarding the fire department requirement for a 14 foot wide road asking why the fire department did not require turnouts. This was answered by the Planning Director. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if a traffic study was every requested at the time of the subdivision. Ms. Proft responded she had not found that any specific traffic study was done at the time of the subdivision although this is a standard item to be review by the City Engineer. Brief break at 9:45 p.m Commissioner Finn commented that he would prefer the upper driveway access. The house was bulky and gorgeous but because of the vegetation the house would not be seen. Commissioner Gottlieb preferred the upper access also due to safety issue on Via Ventana Way with a minimum of cut and less loss of trees. She felt the house was bulky, not designed on contours. She did not like the six foot porch around the house, not fitting into the environment. She would prefer a redesign with the elimination of the six foot wall for the porch and stepping the house to comply with the Design Guidelines. She would also prefer the see the garage placed towards Via Ventana Way. Commissioner Stutz agreed with changing the driveway to the upper level. She also agreed that the house is bulky. She felt the house would be visible after built. She also noted the nice visual approach to Via Ventana Way which she would prefer maintained. Commissioner Cheng would prefer to preserve the median and use the upper access. The house is bulky and has in some areas a two and a half story facade. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/24/96 April 10, 1996 Page 9 Commissioner Schreiner agreed with all comments. There is a safety issue and she would prefer the upper access with strong findings to preclude other similar encroachments into a conservation easement. She felt the house design does not follow the Design Guidelines as shown on page 14. She felt the house has a three story element. She would like to see some modification to the house. Vice -Chair Doran agreed that there was a way to change the front story of the house to have it sit better into the hillside and not reflect almost a three story facade. She also agreed with the upper driveway access. The applicant was asked if they preferred a continuance for a redesign addressing the driveway design and the three story facade issues or would they rather have the Commission take their vote to deny the project before them so the applicant would have an opportunity to appeal the decision to the City Council. The applicant noted that they would prefer the Commission proceed with their vote on the application as submitted. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to deny the request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and detached garage, and a variance to allow driveway ( improvements and grading within 10 feet of a property line. AYES: Vice -Chair Doran, Commissioners Finn, Schreiner, Cheng, Stutz & Gottlieb NOES: None ABSTAIN: Chairman McMahon To appeal the decision of the Planning Commission, it must be made in writing no later than May 1, 1996. 4. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4.1 Planning Commission Representative for April 3 -meeting canceled. 4.2 Planning Commission Representative for the April 17th meeting - Commissioner Gottlieb. �i7 fo] S11Yto 5.1 Report from subcommittees. Commissioner Doran reported the on Non -Conforming Issues Subcommittee and their discussion regarding grading. L Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/24/96 April 10, 1996 Page 10 4 6. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Doran noted that she had received several comments from people in the community regarding comments made by Guy Jinkerson representing the Environmental Design Committee noting the extensive comments regarding applicants home designs. The applicants realize that the Environmental Design Committee plays a significant part in the environment surrounding the land. However, many people felt statements regarding objections to the house design itself were inappropriate. It is the Planning Commission who makes the decision regarding the design of a house. It was felt the Environmental Design Committee should deal with outside issues, leaving the house design to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Stutz preferred hearing from as many people as possible regarding an application (Environmental Design Committee, the Pathway Committee, etc.). She would also like input from the Environmental Design Committee regarding lighting plans. It was suggested that if a committee member wishes to make comments on a personal level, they should do so as a resident, not as a committee member. ' t• • ull�l lY 7.1 Approval of the March 27,1996 minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the March 27,1996 minutes with a small correction to page 2 "Commissioner Schreiner asked if they could turn the garage because the garage doors are visible to their neighbors". 8. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING None. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, * Lani Lonberger Planning Secretary 7