Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/12/1996Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 6/26/96 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, June 12, 1996, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Gottlieb, Finn, Cheng, Stutz & Schreiner Absent: Commissioner Doran Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Sheryl Proft, Assistant Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Planner; Lani Lonbergeq Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -None. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF LAU/LIANG, 12894 La Cresta Drive (204-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence (continued from May 8, 1996). Disclosure: Commissioners Finn and Cheng have listened to the tapes of the previous meeting. Ms. Davis introduced this item. A letter from the Fire Marshal was provided to the Commission indicating no apparent fire hazard from the Eucalyptus trees to the rear of the property. He did suggest that the existing dry grass and weeds be either cut, disked or removed prior to moving forward with the project. She further commented on the existing utility line located under the driveway noting care would be taken during construction. Also, this project is slightly under the maximum development and floor area figures established for this property. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Tom Sloan, 255 N. Market Street, San Jose, project architect, discussed the previous design relating to the basement and garage. The new design shows a separation and level change between the basement and garage. They do not plan to removed any trees and the large oak tree will provide screening. He further discussed the driveway design noting the previous driveway location would result in less landscape area and the entire driveway would be visible. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the height of the two retaining walls. Commissioner Gottlieb preferred the use of the old driveway access. Mr. Sloan was not opposed to looking at ways of removing some of the retaining walls and/or using keystone. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 626/96 June 12, 1996 Page 2 %W Jack Forbes, 12866 La Cresta, neighbor, noted three property owners currently use the private road. There is a 4 inch drain pipe and two water lines which need protection during construction. He felt the Eucalyptus trees located on the common property line were a fire hazard, suggesting they be removed or at least cut back to 10 feet in height. Mr. Sloan responded they would not be opposed to the removal of the trees, replacing them with 24 -inch box trees. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioners Finn and Cheng felt the applicant had addressed all concerns indicated at the previous meeting. The driveway would not be more of an impact in the proposed location. Commissioner Schreiner was concerned with the driveway design suggesting working with staff to look for ways to reduce the retaining walls. She would like the pool design to return to the Planning Commission for approval. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with the height of the house, the retaining walls, and the excessive driveway in the setbacks. Commissioner Stutz was in favor of the driveway design. She corrected condition #21 as the path shall be installed along the "north westerly" boundary of the property. Chairman McMahon suggested adding to the landscape condition that the Eucalyptus trees shall be replaced with appropriate trees, when removed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, Lands of Lau & Liang, with the following changes/amendments to the conditions of approval: add to condition #3 that the Eucalyptus trees shall be replaced with appropriate trees (24 - inch box), when removed; the applicant shall work with staff to reduce the retaining walls, if feasible, condition #21 shall be corrected indicating the correct placement of the pathway (north westerly boundary); the pool shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; and adding a condition for the protection of the utilities within the access easement. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Stutz„ Schreiner, Finn & Cheng NOES: Commissioner Gottlieb ABSENT: Commissioner Doran This item will be on the City Council consent calendar July 3, 1996. 3.2 LANDS OF SHIDELER, 27994 Via Ventana Way (13-96-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, and an exception to a conservation easement to allow grading and construction of a driveway. Disclosure: The Shidelers conducted separate meetings with the Commissioners. Chairman McMahon stepped down from the public hearing as she is a neighbor but not within 500 feet. Commissioner Schreiner chaired the public hearing. The Planning Director added information regarding the pathway easement over a private easement. He had previously spoken to the City Attorney who indicated that, if the Commission agrees, it should be a condition of approval although the path would be on a steep slope and not practical to use. They could accept a dedication for future use. Commissioner Schreiner clarified for the public that the driveway through the 1160 conservation easement is an exception, not a variance request, and will be discussed and Planning Commission Minutes Approved 626/96 June 12, 1996 Page 3 approved by the City Council. The Commission agreed that it was not necessary for the applicant to discuss alternate driveway accesses at this time. The Planning Director noted the three items of concern raised at the previous meeting: 1) change the access to the site from the lower to the upper Via Ventana Way; 2) reduce the height of the terrace wall; and 3) step the house or make other adjustments to reduce bulk. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Jay Shideler, 27994 Via Ventana Way, applicant, was available for questions. Viole McMahon, 27975 Via Ventana Way, neighbor, requested protection of the island trees during construction. Katy Stella, 27975 Via Ventana Way, neighbor, opposed any lower road access, requesting that the driveway not be paved from the site to the lower Via Ventana Way. Robin Knutson, 27999 Via Ventana Way, thanked the Shidelers for all the changes made to the plan. She asked for public notice if ever a proposal was received to pave the lower portion of the access easement as she was concerned with construction vehicle access. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the amount of paving going towards the lower Via Ventana Way. Mr. Shideler responded that they are only requesting paving to extend 10- 20 feet beyond the "elbow" at this time. Commissioner Schreiner suggested adding a condition to require construction personnel to use the upper access only. Eric Gilbert, 27990 Via Ventana Way, neighbor, does not want construction vehicles puked on his easement. He questioned the placement of the Shideler's mail box, and he did not understand the need for any paving below the driveway elbow. He also welcomed the applicants to the neighborhood. Kathleen Kells, 27990 Via Ventana Way, voiced concerns regarding the mailbox being placed at the lower point of the property as this would imply access to the site. She asked that condition 45 be expanded to include the island trees and their oak tree, and restrict construction vehicles on the easement. She also reiterated Mr. Gilbert's concerns. Edwina Comiso, 27933 Briones, neighbor, voiced support of the project and welcomed the Shidelers to the neighborhood. Mary Compton, 27855 Via Ventana Way, neighbor, welcomed the Shidelers to the neighborhood and voiced support of the project. She discussed the Planning Commission's role in not only enforcing the code but to remind everyone that the applicants we new neighbors and they all need to live together. She felt the Shidelers have bent over backwards to meet codes and design a project that will benefit the neighborhood. Vicky Thomas, 27993 Via Cerro Gordo, neighbor, voiced support of the project. Gordon & Nancy McClintock, 27724 Via Cerro Gordo, neighbors, supported the project and welcomed the Shidelers to the neighborhood. Jay Shideler, applicant, responded they would protect the median and they do not plan to tbw use the northern part of the access road for construction vehicles. When possible, they will access through the southern part of the access road where the fire road will be Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/26/96 Jane 12, 1996 Page 4 `. constructed. He can chain the gate to insure no access of construction vehicles. He further explained that paving on the southern portion was only to provide backup and to prevent erosion where minor grading occurs (20 feet). CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Schreiner asked if the bonus room was counted in the floor area calculations. Ms. Davis responded no. Town code or UBC does not recognize the area as floor area. The bonus room is considered an attic as it is a non -habitable area. Discussion ensued regarding the pathway easement noting it could be dedicated but not used. Commissioner Stutz objected to the location of this pathway as there is already a path on the other side of Via Ventana Way. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that the pathway easement is not on the Master Path Plan, although it would be nice if the Shidelers would dedicate the path, although it is not required. Commissioner Finn felt the pathway easement should not be a part of this application. Commissioner Cheng agreed. Further discussion ensued regarding the following: limiting the pavement to 20 feet on the curve and setting the gates back 10-15 feet to provide a tum around; the location of the mailbox and/or lights should be on the upper area; restricting construction vehicles from accessing from the lower Via Ventana Way and from parking on the lower easement area; and to provide protective fencing around the median for the oak trees and within the access easement, to be approved by the City Engineer and the Public Works Manager. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with the retaining walls asking if some could be naturally sloped. She asked if the applicants could work with staff to obtain this request (more natural in the area of the oak trees). It was suggested to make the findings regarding the exception to the conservation easement wording stronger by way of explanation that if the driveway was not this configuration, it would have invaded the 10 foot grading setback and there would have been a 6 foot retaining wall for the driveway at the property line. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Firm and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, and detached garage with the exception to allow grading and construction of a driveway within a conservation easement, Lands of Shideler, with the following changes/amendments to the conditions of approval: the northern extension of paving within the access easement shall be limited to 20 feet; the restriction of construction vehicles from accessing from lower Via Ventana Way and from parking on the lower easement area; the mailbox shall be located at upper Via Ventana Way; protective fencing shall be placed around the median and within the access easement for oak tree protection; and to accept the recommended findings for an exception to the conservation easement, allowing grading and construction of a driveway. AYES: Commissioners Cheng, Stutz, Gottlieb, Schreiner & Firm NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Doran ABSTAIN: Chairman McMahon This item will be on the City Council consent calendar July 3, 1996 Brief break at 8:40 p.m. f7 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/26/96 June 12, 1996 Page 5 ( 3.3 LANDS OF GERENA/ROACH, 24020 Oak Knoll Circle (Lot 18) (45-96- ♦/ ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and spa, pool house, and detached garage/living quarters (continued from May 8, 1996). Disclosure: Commissioners Finn and Cheng have listened to the tapes of the previous meeting. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Staff fielded questions regarding the six foot fence (explained code for fence heights), the retaining wall by the three car garage which is actually a curb, and the circle in the front of the house which provides the applicants with circulation to the front entry. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Stewart, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, project architect, discussed the stepping of the main level of the house two feet, lowering the height of the garages, and combining them into one structure and/or attaching the garage to the house, reducing the amount of pavement within the setbacks, and lowering the height of the retaining wall for the stairway leading to the pool area although they would prefer keeping this element. The alternate design actually adds to the fill. Mr. Stewart provided a rendering of the project. Kim Ledford, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, project architect, discussed the circle in the front of the house which has the minimal inside radius to make the tum. Making the circle oval would elongate the circle requiring more development area, going further into the setback. She noted that the applicants prefer the previous stairway to the revised version. Commissioner Gottlieb felt they needed to mitigate the vertical look. She did not like the balustrade around the pool area, the massive appearance, and the formal look. Ms. Ledford discussed screening of the property. She did not feel the retaining wall was high enough to cause a problem. She further discussed the current design in relationship to the previous design, noting changes made. Mr. Stewart felt they have addressed all the concerns raised at the previous meeting which included dropping the house down two feet. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Gottlieb discussed the impact of the rear exposure, and the house not dropping down on both sides. Commissioner Finn felt this was the first house in the Lohr subdivision that will be unique (beautiful design). Commissioner Cheng agreed, noting there is not a specific design for any house in Los Altos Hills. What makes the Hills interesting is that all the houses we different.. Commissioner Stutz was concerned with the tum around in the front only being 10 foot wide, as it is not practical. She suggested widening it to 12 feet. The project architect noted that they could use a different type of paving such as a more open grasscrete type of material as they are the maximum development figures. Commissioner Schreiner felt they were setting a precedent by allowing all of this encroachment from two separate driveway. Commissioner Stutz disagreed. Ms. Ledford responded explaining the reason for two driveways. The lot is essentially a flag lot which means the house and the garages can only be located as shown. In order to approach the house they have to have a driveway continue beyond the garages and in order to get the cars back to the garages, they need an area to turn around. The distance from the street to the house is too far to expect a guest to walk. It is a unique t situation defined by the lot. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/26/96 June 12, 1996 Page 6 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, detached garage/living quarters, pool, spa and pool house, Lands of Gerena & Roach, with the recommended conditions of approval. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Stutz, Finn & Cheng NOES: Commissioners Gottlieb & Schreiner ABSENT: Commissioner Doran This item will be on the City Council consent calendar July 3, 1996. 3.4 LANDS OF PARIICH, 26875 Elena Road (194-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request for an amendment of a Site Development Permit for a new residence, secondary dwelling unit, pool and gazebo, to reflect corrected grading quantities. The Planning Director introduced this item clarifying that the request is for an amendment to an already approved Site Development Permit for the new residence, secondary dwelling, pool and gazebo. The amendment relates to the correction of the grading quantities and very minor changes to the Site Plan. The basement does meet Town code. He asked that the Commission review only the changes (grading quantities). He further stated that the change in grading will not raise the pool house or affect the neighbor's view. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Dumont, 7203 St. George Lane, San Jose, builder, discovered the difference in grading numbers after the approval. He voluntarily disclosed the error to staff as the discrepancy was large. The building, elevations, siting or the positioning has not changed. Only the original calculations were in error. He verified the error with the civil engineer. Jerry Clements, 4966 EI Camino Real, Los Altos, project civil engineer, was contacted after the project was approved to implement the drainage and grading plan for construction and also to verify the grading quantities. He only made two changes to the plan for drainage consideration: 1) lowered the carport and garage by 1 foot; 2) raised the pool and the flat area around the pool which reduces the height of the retaining walls. He was also able to lower the height of the retaining was along the driveway. He felt there had been an honest mistake made to the previous grading calculations. Bob Hall, 12140 Foothill Lane, neighbor, was concerned with the driveway coming around with the lights shining into his living areas. Mr. Dumont clarified that this area has not changed. Mr. Hall will not be impacted. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Planning Commission Minutes Approved 626/96 June 12, 1996 Page 7 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded by Commissioner Finn to approve the amendment to the Site Development Permit for a new residence, secondary dwelling unit, pool and gazebo, to reflect corrected grading quantities, Lands of Parikh, subject to all of the original conditions of approval. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Stutz, Firm & Cheng NOES: Commissioners Schreiner & Gottlieb ABSENT: Commissioner Doran 3.5 LANDS OF FONG, 26756 Palo Hills Drive (66-96-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and pool house. Ms. Davis introduced this item noting the property is not in a flood plain except for a small area new the creek. The flood plain is confined to the Barron Creek area. She further clarified the following: some of the fencing is not on property lines; the tennis court was approved in 1972 with the granting of a variance; and there had been some tree removal in the creek area prior to the applicant's purchasing the property which will be replaced. She felt it was important to retain some of the trees in the front of the property for screening especially for the house directly across the street, and in the creek area. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the road right-of-way on Palo Hills. Ms. Davis noted it was 50 feet on Palo Hills. The Assistant Engineer explained why no additional right-of- way was requested. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested setting the garage in 10 feet to allow at least 20 feet division between properties. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Brian Peters, 747 Temescal Way, Redwood City, discussed the history of project and the placement of the house and garage, trying to separate development from the creek. They have placed the garage at the highest elevation since it is one story, following the Design Guidelines regarding the placement of the garage. He provided a model of the project noting the highest point of the house is not at the highest point of the topography. They have adhered to the Design Guidelines and minimized pavement in the setbacks in the front area. Mel Mickeletti, 26724 Palo Hills Drive, adjacent neighbor and owner of the creek, noted some of the screening in the creek area had been removed. He requested the replacement of screening in the vicinity of the creek. When questioned about flooding, he commented that the creek has risen to the lawn only occasionally, although it has never been a problem. Greg Meyers, 26763 Palo Hills Drive, neighbor, requested some trees to be retained in the front of the property for screening. Bill Scharfm, neighbor to the west, commented that the old pine tree in the front is on the decline. He did not feel the project would be an impact to his property. Mrs. Fong, applicant, indicated the tree stumps will be removed. She discussed the Birch trees and their shallow root structure. They will try to save them or replace them. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Planning Commission Minutes Approved 626/96 June 12, 1996 Page 8 Discussion ensued. Drainage questions were answered by the Assistant Engineer. It was noted that the applicant plans to replace the existing retaining wall by the tennis court. Commissioner Gottlieb would like the garage to come in approximately 5 feet as she was concerned with the impact on the neighbors. Commissioner Finn felt it was refreshing having the applicants working with their neighbors. The neighbors are here in support of the project which meets all of the Town guidelines. Commissioner Gottlieb requested that the pool house be 5 feet from the conservation easement. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn, seconded by Commissioner Cheng, and amended to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool house and pool, Lands of Fong, with following changes/amendments to the conditions of approval: work with staff to provide screening for neighbors; transition the old and new landscaping; larger box trees will be used for replacement trees in the front of the property; and correct the staff report to reflect 200 square feet of floor area remains. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Gottlieb, Stutz, Schreiner, Cheng, & Finn NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Doran This item will be on the City Council consent calendar July 3, 1996. 4. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4.1 Chairman McMahon reported the following items were discussed at the June 5th City Council meeting: homeless dinners; compliments to the maintenance crew for pathway maintenance; the horseback ride; Palo Alto School District fees; Palo Alto school closure; Town Hall computers; and the Lands of Lahr appeal regarding exterior materials. 4.2 Planning Commission Representative for the June 19th meeting - Commissioner Finn. 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Report from subcommittees. None. 5.2 Review policy for secondary dwelling units and accessory structures (continued). 6. NEW BUSINESS The Planning Director requested an additional meeting be scheduled for the Lands of Rogez (formerly the Lands of Hau) three lot subdivision. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To schedule an additional public hearing meeting July 2, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. on site, reconvening in Council Chambers. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/26196 June 12, 1996 Page 9 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the May 22, 1996 minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the May 22, 1996 minutes. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1996 8.1 LANDS OF UNITED STATES MERCHANT MARILNE ACADEMY ALUMNI ASSOCIATION, INC., 10703 Magdalena Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a new driveway. Approved with conditions. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:50 p.m. (/RRe'ssppeecctfully submitted, "Cant Lonberger Planning Secretary