Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/24/19964 Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 8/28/96 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, July 24, 1996, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #(15-96) ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Gottlieb, Jinkerson, Finn, Cheng, Stutz & Schreiner Absent: None Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Sheryl Proft, Assistant Engineer; c Susan Manca, Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -None. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF SPECTOR, 27271 and 27283 Ursula Lane (102 -96 -LLA); A request for a Lot Line Adjustment. The Planning Director introduced this item. A letter from Dr. Fee (27299 Ursula Lane) was provided to the Commission for review. Mr. Williams had spoken to Dr. Fee and noted the concerns in the staff report on page 3. There was a correction to the staff report regarding lot 1 figures after the lot line adjustment would be in place. The corrections were as follows: Average slope, 33.6%; LUF, 1.04; MDA, 7,800; and MFA, 5,200. Commissioner Schreiner asked if the applicant realized that any hardscape improvements to lot I would be at the expense of the existing development area. Mr. Williams responded that the applicant was aware of this situation. She asked if there was any attempt to use one driveway for the two lots. Mr. Williams responded no. It was not a requirement of the subdivision. She further asked if the applicant was aware that certain portions of the property may be required to be placed into a conservation easement at the time of development due to the slope. Mr. Williams responded yes. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/28/96 July 24, 1996 Page 2 Commissioner Firm confirmed that after the lot line adjustment, any project will still adhere to all local zoning and building ordinances. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING David Mans, 1125 Ramona, Palo Alto, (husband of the applicant's daughter) commented that they will be moving to 27271 Ursula Lane (lot 1). He was available for questions. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to recommend approval of the lot line adjustment, Lands of Spector, to the City Council (grant deed not required). AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Gottlieb, Jinkerson, Schreiner, Finn, Cheng & Stutz NOES: None This item will be on the City Council consent calendar August 21, 1996. 3.2 LANDS OF SHEENE, 24017 Oak Knoll Circle (82-96-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. A letter from J. Lohr Properties was provided to the Commission. They are requesting the project not to exceed the elevations as shown on plan so the existing views of the Bay from the pool deck of lot 27 can be maintained. Commissioner Finn asked staff if there was any reason why the driveway needs to be 16 feet wide. Mr. Williams responded no, as the minimum currently is 14 feet wide. Chairman Doran asked if the project had been reviewed with staff prior to submittal, addressing some of the issues noted in the staff report. Mr. Williams responded yes. Commissioner Schreiner felt the sight distance from the first leg of the circular driveway was quite a blind curve. She asked if staff was aware that this may be a safety problem. Ms. Proft responded it was something that was reviewed. She suggested asking the architect. Commissioner Gottlieb questioned the height of the house as she felt it would be 6-7 feet higher than the next property. Mr. Williams commented that this was addressed in Mr. Lohr's letter. They are comfortable with the elevations. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 828/96 July 24, 1996 Page 3 Mark Godby, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, project architect, discussed the applicant's desire for a traditionally designed French style one story home even though they would be allowed a two story home. They tried to create a home that steps up the hill as it went across the site, with the floor line very close to grade on the front, as it steps up the hill. This creates a lower wall along the front of the house which helps to keep the mass minimized. He felt they have broken up the mass of the house very well, setting the house back significantly from the street, much further than required. The applicant requested a 16 foot width driveway so they could pass a parked car on the circle, if needed. The house height has been lowered two feet from their original application to help protect neighbor's views. The story poles were placed 2 feet higher than the current design indicates, as J. Lohr and the neighbor requested the house be lowered 2 feet. Regarding the sight line at the corner, he noted that there were some traffic safety regulations which would be followed. Certainly no trees or high shrubs would be allowed to be planted within a sight line radius. Also noted was the wall in the rear which helps to reduce grading near the back property line so they can still generate a lawn or yard area without having to grade too much toward the neighbor's property. Dark colors will be used on this site. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Finn felt the driveway was too wide and located within the setbacks. He �y felt there were other solutions to passing cars. Commissioner Schreiner suggested a turnout on the last leg so they could eliminate the second exit and just have a parking space to the left of the house. She also felt they should not set up a situation which creates a sight distance issue. A better solution would be to reduce the driveway to 14 feet in width, providing a turnout and carrying the driveway up a little further to provide parking in that area. Commissioner Stutz discussed the driveway noting the four parking spaces currently required does not seem to be enough. She would prefer requiring six parking spaces. She would accept a 16 foot wide driveway so the applicants could maneuver around parked cars and make the entire driveway available for parking. She did not feel two entrances onto Oak Knoll Court was a safety issue. Commissioner Cheng and Finn agreed with Commissioner Stutz regarding parking. Commissioner Gottlieb would like the safety issue investigated further. Commissioner Jinkerson preferred a 14 foot wide driveway whether it has one or two entrances, although he would be more in favor of a singular entrance. Ms. Proft noted that the applicant's engineer could provide an analysis for sight distance to determine whether the design meets the requirements. Chairman Doran would like to see the analysis of the sight distance, however, this was not an issue for her. She would like the driveway pulled out of the setbacks. Chairman Doran noted several items in the staff report which needed discussion: the first, the rear grading to create a flat pad. Commissioner Stutz felt the back area was too big. She would not want to see a cut up to 8 feet in depth and retaining walls up to 5 % feet in Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/28/96 July 24, 1996 Page 4 height. She suggested the back area be no more than 20-25 feet at the most. She was not concerned with the back area length. She also suggested requiring two retaining walls rather than one 6 foot retaining wall. She was also concerned with the amount of grading. Commissioner Cheng and Finn agreed that it would be better if the retaining walls were stepped. Commissioner Gottlieb made the following concems/suggestions: move/shift the house over 4-5 feet which would help with the driveway in the setbacks; a set-up patio area; disagreed with 9 foot retaining walls; and the house not being built on the contours. Chairman Doran commented on the letter from Steve Lohr who indicated their approval of the elevations as proposed. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND FAILED: Motion by Commissioner Finn, seconded by Commissioner Stutz and amended to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, Lands of Sheene, with the following changes: move the house to the left 4 feet; working with staff to reduce the driveway and back up area which is in the setbacks; and the retaining wall in the rem to be changed from one retaining wall, to two retaining walls; one 3 feet and one 4 feet in height. Discussion ensued with the Assistant Engineer noting that as they move the house toward the rear, if they want to keep the ridge at 501 foot elevation, they will be increasing the amount of cut. The Chairman asked the architect to respond to the discussion regarding moving the house. Mr. Godby responded that the Assistant Engineer was correct. An earlier submittal proposed the house 10-12 feet further left. They had revised the design to lessen the grading by pulling it to the right. He did not feel a 4 foot move would make much difference. However, anything beyond that amount would increase the cut. Chairman Doran asked the architect if he looked at ways not to encroach into the 30 foot side setback. Mr. Godby responded that he wanted to remove the hammer head but the owner wanted it for parking and turnaround. He further answered questions regarding the retaining wall within the right hand setback, noting it was a 2-3 foot retaining wall tapering down to zero. The walkway is decomposed granite. There is landscaping on all four comers of the circle. The driveway circle is decomposed granite also. Chairman Doran felt the driveway area in the front setback could be eliminated easily. Commissioner Smtz suggested a change to condition #2, requesting the landscape screening and erosion control plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Finn did not want this as a part of his motion. Commissioner Jinkerson could not support a 16 foot wide driveway or the two retaining walls (3 feet and 4 feet) as he could not support a retaining wall of more than 6 feet whether it is one or two walls. AYES: Commissioners Cheng, Stutz & Firm NOES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Schreiner, Gottlieb & Jinkerson kv Planning Commission Minutes Approved 828/96 July 24, 1996 Page 5 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman Doran and seconded by Commissioner Finn to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, Lands of Sheene, with the following changes/amendments to the conditions of approval: the width of the driveway shall be reduced to 14 feet where it encroaches into the front setback; the circular portion of the driveway shall be relocated so that it does not encroach into the front setback; grading in the rear yard shall be reduced so that cuts and a single retaining wall, not to exceed four (4) feet in height with the yard terraced up the slope; the location of the house shall be shifted at least four feet to the left; and site distance analysis shall be completed to determine that the driveway is not in an unsafe location, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department. AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Schreiner, Cheng, Stutz, Gottlieb, Jinkerson & Finn NOES: None This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. 3.3 LANDS OF WEN, 12228 Via Arline Road (72-96-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. ir Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Gottlieb questioned the slope easement over the swale asking if there was any consideration to place a bridge over the swale for the driveway. The Assistant Engineer noted it was not a requirement of the subdivision. Mr. Williams noted that they would need to make a determination of the basis for the request. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Buzz Bryan, 10070 Pasadena Avenue, Cupertino, project architect, noted that he had read the staff report, commenting on several meetings with staff, always endeavoring to make recommended changes. He thought most of the items of concern were resolved. He referred to A8 of the plan. They have made the building appear as though it was stepping down, adjusting to conform to the site. He addressed the following: substantial reduction in the grading plan; stepping the east bedroom wing (on the high side) 3 '/z feet above the main floor of the building; always trying to balance cut and fill; problems with vertical heights on the building; dropped the dinning room floor line one foot; working toward conforming to the Design Guidelines; 44 foot setback from Concepcion; the 14% slope; story poles do not indicate any cut; the appearance of bulk; and the circulation of the plans to the neighbors. Mr. Bryan provided signatures from all of the neighbors (except for one) who are in support of the project. 4 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/28/96 July 24, 1996 Page 6 Brenda Wen, 248 Delphi Circle, Los Altos, applicant, commented on sharing the plans with 12 of her neighbors. The neighbors are very happy with the project. This floor plan fits their family needs. Chairman Doran asked if Concepcion Road was on the list of Scenic Highways. The Planning Director responded no. Everett Bell, 26653 Birch Hill Way, was concerned with the height of the structure on Concepcion, the need for landscaping, the bulk of the house on Concepcion, the proposed red tile roof, drainage, and who is responsible for maintaining Via Arline Road which is a private road. Deanna Taaffe, 26645 Purissima Road, also owner of 12030 Elsie Way. She has viewed the story poles from the Elsie Way property and she did not believe the new structure will disturb views from the top of the knoll. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Gottlieb asked Ms. Manca if there was any discussion regarding building the house on contours (by shifting the house) rather than across contours. The Planning ( Director noted that they had discussed this with the applicants, suggesting that this was a 6I way to reduce the amount of grading and the amount of visibility of the structure. The owner indicated for their needs, this would not work for them. Staff indicated to the applicant that if they were going to pursue this avenue, they would need to step the structure down the hill which they did. The current design is much improved over the previous submittal. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if there was any thought to placing the garage at the other end whether it could be underground. The Planning Director responded no. Chairman Doran asked: was closing the attic space in the discussion in an attempt not to count that area as floor area? Ms. Manca responded yes. Commissioner Jinkerson was concerned with the culvert and Swale. He would like to see the Swale kept as natural as possible. He felt a bridge that was both aesthetically pleasing and engineered properly would be far superior and cause less problems as it relates to water velocity and erosion. He was of the opinion that the house will stand high on the property. He requested a maximum height of 24 feet and the house moved down the hill. He agreed with the staff report noting that the predominant slope of the roof should follow the predominant slope of the land. He could not support the project as proposed. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed with Commissioner Jinkerson. She would prefer a bridge as previously mentioned. The house should be set on contours and lowered in height. The house should not be any higher than the highest elevation of the property with the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/28/96 July 24, 1996 Page 7 garage under the house. Commissioner Finn agreed with the suggestion for a bridge. He thought the project was good with a few changes, including lowering of the house by 2 feet and change the placement of the garages so they are not facing the major street. Commissioner Cheng agreed with staff recommendation for lowering the roof line and she agreed with the suggestion for a bridge. Commissioner Schreiner felt the site was very visible, requesting the house be lowered and nested in. The roof line should be lowered by 2 feet (no higher than the highest elevation). Great care should be taken with regard to landscaping to make the structures blend into the site. Commissioner Stutz also agreed with the suggestions in the staff report (condition #10). She did not like the attic area not being counted as floor area, suggesting to reduce the area to below 5 feet rather than 7 feet as she does not approve of false ceilings. She also felt the house needed to be moved 30-35 feet towards Via Arlene and lowered (from the 350 foot contour line to 343 foot). There was a consensus for a redesign of the layout of the house on the site that shifts it 7 feet down Via Arline Road but not rotating the house on the site. There was a consensus (4-3) to rotate the house on the site (contours). Mr. Wen commented that they gave up views for privacy. Mr. Bryan commented that this may result in increased grading. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to continue the Site Development Permit for a new residence, Lands of Wen, for a redesign, with the following recommendations: reduce the overall height of the roof by 2 feet; move the residence down the hillside, toward Via Arline Road so that the comer of the living room which was proposed at the 350 foot contour, shifted to the 341 foot elevation; the elevation of the west wing should be reduced by a minimum of 2 feet and should be nested to minimize height; and investigate the use of a bridge to access the property over the drainage swale in lieu of the proposed culvert. AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Ankerson, Cheng, Stutz, Gottlieb, Schreiner & Finn NOES: None This item will be re -noticed for public hearing. Brief break at 9:00 p.m. 3.4 LANDS OF CHAO/PANG, 25701 Lomita Linda Court (185-95-ZP-SD- GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and spa. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 828/96 July 24, 1996 Page 8 A letter from a neighbor, Olga Wholey, was provided to the Commission. Ms. Manca provided a memo regarding an additional condition requiring a conservation easement over the portions of the property with slopes greater than 30"/0. She also provided a brief chronology of the "grandfathered" history of this site. Commissioner Jinkerson questioned the purpose of maintaining the 6 foot fence in the conservation easement. He suggested wording to the new condition (#15) that the tennis court and the area around it may be maintained but not the 6 foot fence. The Planning Director explained the history of the project noting that the Council had voted to allow all of the residences which had extensive earthquake damage to grandfather the existing floor and development areas. The Planning Director spoke with the City Attorney asking her opinion on how much discretion the Commission has to deal with the specifics of the design. Her feeling was that generally, within the parameters of the grandfathered numbers, if the Commission feels there is a way to work with the structure that better addresses their concerns or neighbors concerns, but still maintaining the grandfathered numbers, it is within their purview to revise the design to accommodate concerns. He also noted that the City Council made clear that the project could use the grandfathered MDA/MFA figures, however other aspects of the design most comply with Town codes in all other respects. Commissioner Schreiner asked if permits were obtained on all of the development area. Mr. Williams responded yes. The construction dates back to 1965. She further questioned the Fire Department requirements for the access to the proposed residence from Lomita Linda Lane to be a minimum width of 14 feet and this width shall be maintained for fire apparatus. She asked how they were going to widen the bulb without taking square footage. Ms. Manca commented the right-of-way for the bulb is a 40 foot radius so the widening could be completed within the radius. The applicant has provided an alternative design which would use less pavement. The Fire Department's main concern is to have a turnaround. Commissioner Gottlieb would like to make sure that the road dedication along Ravensbury Avenue on the Los Altos Hills side has been dedication to Los Altos Hills rather than the County of Santa Clara. The Assistant Engineer noted that the path is within the Town right-of-way. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Gary Ahem, 52 Jeter Street, Redwood City, project architect, noting that they inherited the site plan, and the retaining wall. He noted that they cannot remove the driveway without removing the retaining wall. The driveway actually holds up the structural retaining wall and the retaining wall holds up the rest of the hill. They have created a single story element from the front of the house and stepped down the living room to help break up the two story element in the back. They have tucked the garage underneath on Planning Commission Minutes Approved 828/96 July 24, 1996 Page 9 one side and some bedrooms on the other side. In between, to break up the area, they have lowered a terrace so they would not have one mass wall on the face of the project. They do have some terracing that is stepping up, trying to minimize and staying within the Design Guidelines relating to two story elements. Commissioner Jinkerson acknowledged that they can build up to 6,704 square feet. The question is what is the right way to do it. He realized that Mr. Ahem was not the original architect. He asked if there was a better way to design this property as he had concerns with the visibility of the back of the house. He asked if there was a way to lower the retaining wall, lower the driveway, and step the house down the back. Mr. Ahem responded that one of the issues they looked at earlier in the process was the possibility of removing the entire driveway area out back to be replaced with lawn, planting, etc. When the project engineer investigated the possibility he found that the driveway is holding the retaining wall from falling over. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the proposed 6 inch deep concrete swale asking if there was any thought to making it a natural swale in that area. Mr. Ahem responded that they are using the concrete only to maintain the swale as it comes down the hillside. They will be working with a landscape architect to provide a better visual appearance. Chairman Doran asked Mr. Ahern if the retaining wall was structurally re -engineered. Mr. Ahern commented on Terrmearch geotechnical investigation which noted an area opposite the garage doors that was experiencing some type of slippage or failure. Due to this information, they will be shoring up that small portion of the wall. It appears to all parties that the retaining wall is still stable. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested that they use a part of the house as a retaining wall against the slope to reduce bulk as viewed from Magdalena Avenue. Mr. Ahern's commented that the sewer will run on the property line (north side) because the house next door will be coming in soon for site development. They have spoken to the owner regarding an agreement for sharing the costs of the sewer connection. It was noted that the location of the sewer line could be changed with engineering approval. Richard Dixon, 25707 Lomita Linda Court, voiced concerns with access to his property during construction and with drainage. His concerns were answered by the Assistant Engineer. John Fowler, 25625 Fernhill Drive, west side neighbor, commented on the sewer, noting that some time ago when Frampton Court was developed and the sewer was extended up Magdalena Avenue, an easement was granted in connection with the lots on Frampton Court which runs from Magdalena Avenue to his property for purposes of future sewer. He thought it may be cheaper and better for the applicants to drop the sewer a shorter distance down the hill across his property and Dr. Carrie's property. He would like the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 828/96 July 24, 1996 Page 10 Commission and the developer to consider this alternative because this carries with it the potential of connecting a few more houses. He would be willing to grant the right to put a sewer across his line with appropriate conditions. This may be a better solution than the one proposed. They would, of course, need the approval of Dr. Came also. This change would require an amendment to condition #22. He further voiced the following concerns and objections: require a lower profile, less obtrusive design; consider views from Magdalena Avenue; privacy issues onto his property as seen from the proposed garage and upper deck; previous design not obtrusive; and the severe impacts on the west side which will not be mitigated by just planting trees. He suggested pushing the house back, planting trees along the driveway and not having a two story structure on his side. He suggested the following: 1) two story structure to be pushed back and reduced in height with a hip roof and no deck on the west side; 2) no exterior lights; 3) specific landscape plan to indicate the tree location at a higher elevation at the driveway level; 4) additional wording to condition #3, third sentence, "In addition, special attention should be given to planting along the top of the west driveway..."; 5) recommend an increase of the $5,000 landscape deposit, if possible; 6) condition #6, to include the west facing windows; 7) condition 910, no outdoor lighting along the driveway, the garage side, along the kitchen side (west elevation 3); and 8) no deck on the west side and use a hip roof on west side. Brian Carrie, 25655 Fernhill Drive, voiced the same concerns and suggestions as Mr. Fowler which included the following: seeing a huge expanse of light; prominent lot; the previous house design; placing the garage under the house; the new north west comer gable roof; bulk and mass; surface water runoff, sewer connection easement; impact on shrubbery relating to the widening of Lomita Lane; deck area surrounding the kitchen looking down into his master bedroom and bathroom; and the over expansive house. Bob Owen, 445 South San Antonio Road, Los Altos, noted the many good comments made by the Commission and neighbors. He appreciated the information relating to suggested sewer connection. He referred to the site plan, indicating the new house was approximately the same size as the previous house. He further discussed the west side elevation and design elements. He felt that landscaping is a very important especially on the west side, the rear of the house, and on both sides of the wall. Chairman Doran questioned the possibility of the retaining wall and driveway giving way. The Planning Director commented that the project geotechnical consultant and engineer do certify the accuracy in their report. Commissioner Jinkerson stated that when he looked at the property in December, it looked to him to be a ridgeline lot. A two story structure should not be allowed. The Planning Director did not feel there were many options in creating a one story structure on this site with the numbers available. As stated in the staff report, the proposed house Planning Commission Minutes Approved 828/96 July 24, 1996 Page 11 is an earthquake rebuild of a 28 foot high house. The floor area and development area was grandfathered by the City Council. Staff does recommend that the overall height be reduced. He did feel it was reasonable to request a modification of the second story to address the concerns of the neighbors. Gary Aherns, to answer Commissioner Gottlieb's question, responded that the area below the great room was crawl space. They have stepped the house down the hillside. He indicated that yes, the maximum height from the bottom of the pad to the top of the ridgeline is 27 feet. The 27 feet is actually buried back underneath the house. With the exception of the one gable, the maximum height of the structure in any one shear face is between 18-20 feet (west area). They are not opposed to lowering the gable to a hip to be continuance with the rest of the house. This would lower the peak from being 25 feet to 18 feet, traveling up to 25 feet back up the hillside. You do not see 27 straight feet of building in any one space. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the roofline could be dropped down 2 feet. Mr. Ahem noted that the current roof pitch is minimum. Commissioner Gottlieb compared the original house design to the proposed design asking what they can do to the proposed design to get the appearance of the original house. She was concerned with visibility. Discussion ensued regarding proposed lighting. Mr. Ahem noted that the exterior lighting placed on the house will be as required by code for safety and utility lighting. The skylight over the kitchen area will be tinted and no lighting will be placed within the well. He provided a sketch of the house design eliminating the gable. He noted the neighbors concerns with visibility, looking down onto their property. They have tried to minimize the amount of windows on the north west comer over the garage. The large window in the kitchen area was made high to try to direct the view up out towards the ridgeline and hillside. The deck is to prevent any views down onto the neighbors property. Mr. Fowler did not feel the deck was adequate for his privacy purposes. He agreed with Commissioner Gottlieb in that he would like the design similar to the original house design with the pool in the front area. He asked that the Commission make the developer design the house properly. Bob Owen, reiterated that they did not design this house. The house was designed by the person who previously owned the house who wanted something entirely different and new for her. Brian Carrie, for clarification, noted that the new owners and developers do not have the discretion to change the plans significantly unless the plans are rejected by the Commission. He recommended rejection requesting that the redesign better suit the community and the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 12 CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Approved 828/96 Commissioner Finn asked staff if the Commission rejected the application, keeping within the MDA/MFA, could staff and the applicant rework the design, having more latitude to provide a better design for all. The Planning Director replied yes, with the Commission providing direction. A consensus was not reached regarding whether this lot was a ridgeline lot or to the suggestion to have the applicants consider reducing the amount of development area. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson to continue the Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and spa, Lands of Chao/Pang, for a redesign with the following recommendations: redesign the west side of the building to reduce the second story impacts from living area which could be obtrusive to the immediate neighbors to the south; the maximum height of the two story areas should be reduced to 24 feet; the rear elevation should be revised to reduce massing of the residence as viewed from Magdalena Road; the deck along the west side, over the garage, should be removed; the west elevation should be redesigned to eliminate or strictly limit any need for outdoor lighting on the second story; direct the architect to prepare an analysis of the feasibility of limiting the structure to one story, a limited two story element, and/or shifting the second story emphasis to the east side of the lot, to address questions raised by the Commission; and include new wording for condition #15 that the tennis court and the area around it may be maintained but not the 6 foot fence. AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Finn, Stutz, Schreiner, Cheng, Gottlieb & Jinkerson NOES: None This item will be re -noticed for public hearing. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. 3.5 AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTERS 10-1 (ZONING) AND 10-2 (SITE DEVELOPMENT) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE regarding revisions to the Site Development Review process, and proposed Negative Declaration (continued from June 26"). The Planning Director introduced this item noting the revisions made as directed at the pTnous meeting. Discussion ensued with a recommendation that all items approved by '*aff with notice" appear on the Planning Commission agenda as a consent item with the exception of landscape plans. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 13 Approved 8/28/96 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cheng and passed by consensus to recommend to the City Council adoption of the proposed Negative Declaration and adoption of the ordinance amendments, as revised by the Commission. This item will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing. 4. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4.1 Planning Commission Representative for July 17 meeting Chairman Doran, reported on the following items: Lands of D'Amour; Lands of Yen; and the exception to allow a driveway in a conservation easement, Land of Shideler. 4.2 Planning Commission Representative for the August 7th meeting - canceled. 4.3 Planning Commission Representative for the August 21" meeting - Commissioner Gottlieb. 5. OLD BUSINESS G� 5.1 Report from subcommittees. There will be a Planning Issues Subcommittee meeting July 30' to continue the discuss regarding non- conforming structures. None. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the June 26'" minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the June 26' minutes with Commissioner Jinkerson abstaining. 7.2 Approval of the July 2" minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the July 2, 1996 minutes. 7.3 Approval of the July 10' minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the July 10" minutes with clarifications to pages 4, 5, and 9. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 1996 Page 14 Approved 8/28/96 8. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 16 AND 23, 1996 8.1 LANDS OF TATARSKY, 25325 La Loma Drive (116--96-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool and landscape plan. Approved with conditions. 8.2 LANDS OF LOHR, 24048 Oak Knoll Circle (lot 11) (122-96-ZP-SD); A request for a Site development Permit for a landscape plan. Approved with conditions. Discussion ensued regarding the Lands of Lohr. It was requested to continue the item to the following meeting for a review of the plan and the conditions of approval. Further discussion ensued with all Commissioners in favor of a landscape/lighting plan submitted with the residence plan on future projects. It was suggested to have the next representative from the Planning Commission (Gottlieb) express the concerns of the Commission and request that landscape plans be included with an application submittal. 9. ADJOURNMENT 4W The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Secretary