Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/25/1996Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 10/9/96 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, September 25, 1996, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (3) #18-96 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall, Present: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Gottlieb, Stutz, Cheng, Schreiner, Finn & Jinkerson Absent: None Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Sheryl Proft, Assistant Engineer; Susan ` Manca, Planner; Lam Lonberger, Planning Secretary ` 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -None. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF RUTNER, 28500 Matadero Creek Lane (138 -96 -FM); A request for an amendment to the final map to relocate the access to the property. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Schreiner referred to the Matadero Creek Architectural Review Committee letter. It was noted that the application was only to relocate vehicular access to lot 7. Any concerns noted in the letter could be addressed when an application was submitted. Commissioner Jinkerson commented on the Caltrans Highway Design Manual and Standards, discussing sight distance issues. For clarification, it was noted that the lot cannot be subdivided due to the conditions placed on the subdivision approval. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/9/96 September 25, 1996 Page 2 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Finn to recommend approval of the requested Final Map Amendment to the City Council, subject to the conditions of approval. AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Jinkerson, Gottlieb, Cheng, Stutz, Finn & Schreiner NOES: None This item will be scheduled for the City Council agenda October 16, 1996. 3.2 LANDS OF WEN, 12228 Via Arline Road (72-96-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence (continued from July 24, 1996). The Planning Director noted on page 2, #3, in the staff report that the height has actually been reduced 3 feet rather than 1 foot as noted. There was a correction to #2, third sentence; 343 foot contour, not 348. Discussion of the staff recommendations ensued. Commissioner Gottlieb commented on the drainage swale voicing concern regarding the path. The Assistant Engineer noted that the water should be flowing over the driveway and into the drainage swale that runs along Concepcion Road and not disrupting the pathway. She noted condition #18 which requires the pathway along Concepcion Road to be rehabilitated by bringing it up in grade when they do the improvements. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned that when the properties were developed, if bringing the water over a road without a culvert under it, was a satisfactory solution. The Assistant Engineer noted that she had discussed this project with the City Engineer who determined it would not be appropriate to do subdivision level improvements for a single residence. Commissioner Stutz noticed that the turnaround circle was originally 40 feet in diameter. The new turnaround indicates a turnaround circle of 50 feet in diameter which makes it difficult to move the house towards Via Arline Road. Commissioner Finn asked staff if the size of the turnaround is changed, how much can the house be moved without dramatically changing the design. The Planning Director replied probably an additional 15 feet from where it is (a total of 30 feet). Commissioner Gottlieb noted that the house does not step down the hill. She suggested lowering the elevation of the entryway and dining room by one foot (345' elevation). OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Dick Hunt, 388 Market Street, San Francisco, project architect, noted that there was some confusion regarding the issue of moving the house and how far it was to go (was the intention 7 feet horizontally or vertically). They took the approach of what was feasible and reasonable. He further discussed the following: substantially reworked the roof plan (2.5 foot difference from the previous submittal); moved the house down the hill resulting in a 2 foot change in the height of the house. To push it down farther creates a few Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/9/96 September 25, 1996 Page 3 problems. This is why they changed in the tumaround circle. On-site parking is critical and the drainage swale pushes the developable portion of the land and the house itself considerably back. They felt it was important to provide a turnaround on the site as they did not feel it was reasonable to back cars down the site. He further noted the following: cut the house 2 feet further into the hill; 80% of the footprint of the house is below the point of natural grade; attempt to keep the dining room in a vertical relationship with the kitchen; the west elevation primarily a single story elevation; the garage at sub -grade; and landscaping on the street level will have a substantial impact. Mr. Hunt was asked if they plan to use a culvert or a bridge across the swale. They would prefer a culvert. Mr. Hunt referred to his letter dated August 23, 1996 which explains changes to the size of pipes to 24 inches which will decrease the velocity of water flow. They have also added a rip -rap energy dissipater at the outlet of the pipes to prevent erosion and breakdown of the creek bed. These measures are less intrusive than the construction of the bridge and should address the concerns of the Town. Commissioner Stutz discussed the 50 foot tumaround circle asking what they plan for the center. She suggested a 40 foot turnaround circle with brick pavers in the center may be a solution. It was noted that if a pool is proposed in the future, it would be proposed in the courtyard area. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Items discussed: the size of the interior cul-de-sac changed from 40 feet to 50 feet; and the second story area not nested into the garage level. However, the applicants have revised the roof element over the game room patio to be less formal, which helps mitigate the massing along the west elevation. Commissioner Doran asked staff if they were to move the house down the hill and bring the west elevation wall down, what type of retaining wall situation will be required. The Planning Director was not sure that the garage would necessarily need to be lowered in order to lower the other portion of the west wing. Commissioner Stutz felt the Wens have done a good job accomplishing the height requested on the west wing. She would like to add a condition to avoid seeing a bare foundation on the west wing. She suggested bringing it out, a wall put in and dropped down to the lower level. She would prefer not to see a 50 foot turnaround and would like the circle moved at least 10 feet closer to the drainage ditch. Commissioner Jinkerson agreed with the previous statements. However, he felt the house needs to be moved an additional 5 feet toward Via Arline Road and the west wing be reduced a minimum of one foot which would help with the appearance of bulkiness. Commissioner Cheng felt that the applicants have made many changes since the last meeting. She did not feel they needed to reduce the west wing another foot. Regarding the puking circle, she felt they should keep the proposed size and make the center turlblock or some other type of material so it will have a good appearance. She accepted the City Engineer's recommendation for the culvert. Commissioner Finn agreed with the staff �, recommendation #1. Regarding the turnaround, he would leave the radius alone and Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/9/96 September 25, 1996 Page 4 require a percentage of the middle of the driveway to be in grasscell. He agreed with the suggestion regarding working with staff to reduce the vertical feeling along Concepcion Road by adding a retaining wall of 2-3 feet for a terrace appearance. Commissioner Schreiner would like the radius of the driveway reduced as the site is visible. She agreed with the comments from the other Commissioners and the recommendations by staff. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed with staff to move the residence 5 feet which is necessary as the house has not been stepped down the hill. She also felt the radius of the driveway should be as shown on the previous plan. Chairman Doran also agreed with the staff recommendations. She would like to see the mass of pavement in the driveway area mitigated with extensive landscaping in the center. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Jinkerson, seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb and amended to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, Lands of Wen, with the staff recommendation #1; the radius of the parking/turnaround circle shall be reduced by 5 feet; the area of the west wing to the southwest of the game room, below, shall be backfilled and retaining walls may be used to step the grade down to the natural grade; and the plantings in the storm drain easement shall be non -evasive. The Planning Commission suggested using some type of decorative feature in the middle of the turnaround circle to avoid a solid asphalt or concrete surface. AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Cheng, Schreiner, Finn, Stutz, Gottlieb & Jinkerson NOES: None This item will be scheduled for the City Council consent calendar October 16, 1996. 3.3 LANDS OF LOHR, 12100 Oak Park Court (lot 9) (130-96-ZP-SD-GD- VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, and a variance to allow grading within 10 feet of the property line (continued from August 28, 1996). It was disclosed that Commissioners Finn and Cheng had listened to the tapes of the August 28' meeting. The Assistant Engineer noted that the proposed storm drain line at the end of the driveway encroaches onto the neighboring property. Staff will, sometime in the future, require the applicant to obtain an easement from the neighboring property for a storm drain structure in addition to the grading for the driveway. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/9/96 September 25, 1996 Page 5 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Steve Lohr, 586 Lagunita Drive, Stanford, applicant, discussed lowering the overall height of the house by 1 foot and the garage by 1.5 feet, by lowering the pad elevation for each. The maximum height of the structure would be 24' 6"; shifting the garage 90 degrees to the west; reducing the size of the garage; and relocating the driveway and backup area so most of the backup area would be situated out of the front setback. Commissioner Finn asked what percentage of the house would be stucco. Mr. Lohr noted that the only areas to be stucco would be the south and east, which are basically not visible. Commissioner Finn asked if the easterly exposure could also be brick. Mr. Lohr commented it would be a possibility, although he would rather not He felt the area could be screened with trees. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with bulk. She suggested an cave along the middle part of the house, bringing it around over the door. This would break up the bulk of the house, giving a feeling that the second floor sets back. Commissioner Jinkerson thanked the applicant for making the requested changes from the last meeting and for working with staff. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Schreiner was very pleased with the changes made by the applicant. She agreed with Commissioner Gottlieb's suggested for the eave. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, and a variance to allow grading within 10 feet of the property line, Lands of Lehr, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: submit revised plans showing an cave line to break up the roof across the front elevation; and showing brick facing on the east elevation of the house. AYES: Commissioners Schreiner, Gottlieb, Cheng, Jinkerson & Finn NOES: Chairman Doran and Commissioner Stutz Chairman Doran and Commissioner Stutz did not agree with the added condition regarding brick on the east elevation. This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar October 16, 1996. Brief break at 8:10 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/9/96 September 25, 1996 Page 6 3.4 LANDS OF CARSTEN, 13761 La Paloma Road (141-96-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a secondary dwelling unit. A letter from the applicant was provided to the Commission requesting a continuance to the October 9" at 6:30 p.m. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the application to the October 9" meeting. It was agreed that the meeting will start at the regular scheduled time of 7:00 p.m. 3.5 LANDS OF VIDOVICH, Lot 11, Quarry Hills (107-96-ZP-SD-GD- VAR); A request for a Site Development Pemtit for a new residence, pool, and a variance to allow a tennis court to encroach into the setback. Disclosure: The Commissioners had either viewed the project from Dr. Walker's property, and/or had spoken to Dr. Walker on the telephone. The Planning Director, in response to previous questions from the Commissioners, explained height measurement and the submitted variance findings for the tennis court. He noted that the tennis court area is part of the lot line adjustment that was approved between Mr. Wise and Mr. Vidovich. Santa Clara County and Los Altos Hills were involved in the review process of the lot line adjustment . As a part of the process, both applicants had agreed to a conservation easement placed over the property until such time as Quarry Hills was annexed to the Town. The actual language of the conservation easement states `no buildings, structures, improvements or further development of any kind shall be allowed on that property until either the date of the annexation of that lot or the Lands of Vidovich are annexed to the Town." The second half of the issued regarding the restrictions on that land is that Mr. Wise, in grading that land, did obtain a site development permit and a variance. Those approvals contain some restrictions that any building be measured from the original grade, not from the filled grade. Also, the MDA, MFA, and Lot Unit Factor are to be measured on the original grade. The Planning Director would like to be sure that the measurements were calculated correctly. A sample of colors of the stone, walls and pillars, stucco, and roof material were provided for review. He felt the color on this house is very important due to its visibility. He felt the color submitted for the stucco is on the light side of the color board. He further noted that it was unlikely that the property would be subdivided due to the location of the proposed project. He further discussed access to the sewer. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Vidovich, 920 W. Fremont Avenue, Sunnyvale, applicant, would be happy to comply with the Town color board, however the stone color cannot be changed. He is importing the stone from Croatia. He is using this particular type of stone to blend in with the quarry cliffs. He further discussed the size of the lot, the available numbers for `' development, and the desire to build a house to set off the subdivision. The house is Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/9/96 September 25, 1996 Page 7 predominately one story, moving in three different directions. To meet the Town guidelines, he has taken 5,000 square feet placing it underground (basement area). From a design standpoint, this is an expensive way to build. However, it puts much of the house out of view. The one second floor area was added to make the house more interesting. He felt that the basement meets code although it has an 9 foot ceiling. He discussed the difference between raising the floor one foot or stepping it down one foot. He felt there were no visual difference. He commented on the unique location for the tennis court on the lower plateau (10 feet lower). The variance is to make the tennis court less visible from the neighbors. He suggested that if the variance is acceptable, that the Commission allow them the variance and the ability to do any additional appropriate lot line adjustment to move the tennis court away from the neighbor's view as much as possible without having to come back to the Commission. Mr. Vidovich discussed the conditions of approval. Condition #3a, to eliminate the westerly facing wall to the north of the house along the turnaround area noting that the wall is to shield cars so they do not have the feeling of driving down the hill and also to shield car lights. He suggested conditioning the maximum height of the wall to be 2.5 to 3 feet. He did not feel the wall needed to go beyond the `joint trench" area. The wall is in keeping with the design of the house. Condition #3b, is a matter of interpretation. Condition 47, asking if this was standard condition, and if not, he requested standard reflectivity value be applied to this project. He did not feel Condition #21 was applicable. He further discussed the stone wall facade and the solid color of the roof. Regarding the staffs recommendation for a redesign to relocate or delete the pool so that no portion of the pool, patios or decking exceeds 3 feet above the existing grade, he felt this aspect was consistent with the design of the house. He noted that the variance was to improve the design of the tennis court from the standpoint of his neighbors. The intent is to use the same variance wherever the lot line is placed. Mike Wise, 24301 Elise Court, neighbor, was concerned with the tennis court in Dr. Walker's view. They have looked at the possibility of a further lot line adjustment although he would not want to drop the size of his property below 3.0 acres. Samuel Walker, 24245 Elise Court, neighbor, does not want to see the tennis court. He asked if the court could be smaller or adjusted, pushing it north around the hill so it is out of his view. He would prefer not to look at a wall of trees or a black fence. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Chairman Doran discussed the intent of the basement ordinance, measuring from finished grade, not from subterranean grade. The Planning Director indicated that the basement ordinance is not the concern; it is the height ordinance. The code states that you measure height from either the natural grade, the existing grade (finished grade), or the proposed %W building pad if excavated below natural grade, whichever of those three is at the lowest. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/9/96 September 25, 1996 Page 8 It comes down to what their definition is of the building pad, if that is really a pad that daylights or if it includes a pad for a basement. In this case, this is not a basement under Town definition because one side of it is exposed except for one foot. The applicant has indicated that the one foot is below the exterior finish or natural grade and therefore should not count. He felt the applicant was correct in that it would not make a difference if they either lowered the roof pitch to get the height down or they raise the lower level up to an 8 foot ceiling height rather than a 9 foot ceiling height. Commissioner Finn commented on the large lot, the abundance of floor and development area, and the color of the stucco expressing a desire that the remainder of the subdivision not be white stucco houses. His one concem was the gray area concerning the height of the basement. He would leave this to staff to determine the interpretation of code. He did not feel this was a ridgeline, so he was not concerned with the height. The wall on the circular driveway (2.5 feet) was not an issue. He felt the tennis court fit into the area proposed. Commissioner Jinkerson was concerned that a tennis court could not be fitted onto a 9.2 acre lot without a variance. He was also concerned with the pool, patio and decking noting this was not a basement but another story to the property. This property will be very visible. This does not meet the guidelines of the community. A one story structure would be preferable. The bulk and mass in the back area in the location of the pool does not appear to fit into the community. The color is of a concern but not as much of a concern as the mass of this project. This is a prominent location and the structure should be one story. He agreed with staff regarding the basement interpretation. It was noted that the basement is counted in the MDA/MFA calculations. Commissioner Stutz discussed the wall on the lower side of the pool noting that it does have some design to it. She does not consider the area a third story facade just because they have decorated the area some. She cannot vote for a variance for a tennis court within the 30 foot setback with so much available property. She suggested placing the tennis court in the flat area to the right of the driveway and turnaround. Commissioner Schreiner did not agree with variance findings #1 and especially #3. The height of the pool area was definitely a three story element which will be facing 25 houses eventually. She would prefer the pool to be relocated to reduce bulk. Landscaping will be very important. She felt the design of the house was well placed on the lot. She was not as concerned with the light color of the stucco as with the red roof suggesting a darker color or a combination of colors. Commissioner Cheng did not agree with granting a variance as this is not an exceptional project. She agreed with staff recommendation regarding reducing the height one foot. She liked the design of the house. She felt the pool retaining wall should be reduced to 3 feet in height as recommended by staff. The roof and stone were expectable, however the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/9/96 September 25, 1996 Page 9 applicant should adhere to the Town color board regarding the color of the stucco. It was noted that staff recommendation was to relocate the pool so that no portion of the pool, patios or decking exceeds 3 feet above the existing grade. Brief break at 9:25 p.m. Commissioner Gottlieb discussed the following: not supporting a variance with other areas available for the tennis court; geotechnical review as it relates to the house being less than 5 feet away from the edge of the bank asking if the house should be moved back; prefers the pool area to be more natural look with grading; and she could support the house but not the 6 Yz foot retaining wall or the variance for the tennis court. She suggested a varied color for the tile roof. Commissioner Stutz commented on the pool wall asking if there would be a possibility to allow the applicant to backfill up against the wall so they would have 3 feet below the deck level of the pool and the fence above it. The Planning Director commented there was a possibility, however he was not sure it could be accomplished with one 3 foot wall at the pool. Perhaps with one 3 foot wall at the pool with some slope down with another 3 foot wall below. Commissioner Stutz noted another possibility would be to bring the pool a little closer to the house. Chairman Doran would not want to see a 35,000 square foot ranch house on this lot. She felt the applicant has done a good job with the design.. The roof color on the rendering appears red although the sample is not red. She did not feel this was a ridgeline lot although it is a visible lot. She suggested deleting condition #12 regarding skylights when there are no skylights being proposed. She would like the Commissioners to consider Commissioner's Stutz proposal for shorter walls to soften the look. The wall in front of the house was a thoughtful feature. There is no hardship related to the location for the tennis court. She does understand the reasoning presented by the applicant, however there are other areas available. It was preferred that the height of the house and the overall structure stay the same. John Vidovich commented that the wall, as designed ( 6 Y: feet), with a flat area in front of it, provides space for plantings and a path. He was willing to have two 4 foot walls. Commissioner Jinkerson asked if it would be simpler to move the house in a north or northeasterly direction so the pool would be at a higher grade, not needing as much of a wall. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Firm, seconded by Commissioner Stutz, and amended to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool, denying the variance for a tennis court, Lands of Vidovich, with the following additions/changes to the approved conditions as stated in the staff report: delete the tennis court and associated grading; show two retaining walls below the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/9/96 September 25, 1996 Page 10 pool and patio areas, with the intent of creating a more natural appearance by minimizing wall height as much as possible, but not to exceed a maximum of four feet (4') for each wall; and reduce the extent and height of the wall adjacent to the front of the house such that it does not extend north of the `joint trench line" and does not exceed a maximum height of 2.5-3 feet above grade. There was a consensus to maintain condition #3d) reduce the height of the structure to meet the 27' and 3' maximum height limitations, #7, paint colors, and #12, skylights. Commissioner Jinkerson expressed concern noting the house would be less prominent if it were to be moved north and the east to bring the back yard and the pool up to a higher contour so a 6 foot wall would not be needed. This would also shorten the driveway. AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Gottlieb, Cheng, Schreiner, Finn & Stutz NOES: Commissioner Jinkerson This item will be scheduled for the City Council consent calendar October 16, 1996. 3.6 LANDS OF SHERLOCK, 27261 Sherlock Road (96-96-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a major addition and reconstruction of a fire damaged residence. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. The Commission was provided with the Environmental Design Committee recommendations. Chairman Doran felt Sherlock Road and Moody Court should be signed. It was noted that the sign for the roads have been removed four times. In June of 1996, the applicant presented a proposed plan to the Commission for site analysis, particularly relative to whether a partial second story would be appropriate at this location at the top of the hill. The Commission indicated that the second story was reasonable given the limited visibility of the structure (4-2 vote). OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Joan Sherlock, 27261 Sherlock Road, Los Altos, applicant, discussed the fire damage and the current project. Desmond Mascarenhas, 27223 Sherlock Road, neighbor, voiced support of the project. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Discussion ensued. Commissioners Schreiner and Gottlieb voiced the same concerns as expressed at the site analysis meeting regarding the 29' height and the ridgeline. Planning Commission Minutes September 25, 1996 Page 11 Approved 10/9/96 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Finn to approve the Site Development Permit for a major addition and reconstruction of a fire damaged residence with the recommended conditions of approval. AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Cheng, Finn & Stutz NOES: Commissioners Schreiner, Gottlieb & Jinkerson This item will be scheduled for the City Council consent calendar October 16, 1996. 4. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4.1 Planning Commission Representative for the September 18' meeting, Commissioner Finn, reported on the following items: approval of annexation of Quarry Hills area; Site Development Ordinance Amendments regarding revisions to the Site Development review process; solid waste services; and the Town's share of the County's Community Development Block Grant Funds allocation. It was noted that a joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting has been scheduled for November 14, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. 4.2 Planning Commission Representative for the October 2"d meeting - Commissioner Jinkerson. 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Report from subcommittees: Commissioner Jinkerson reported on the Subcommittee meeting which discussed better communications with public notices, dial an agenda, the Town Crier, public announcements, etc. They are looking at ways to keep the community informed. Commissioner Gottlieb noted height, floor area, and lighting were discussed at the "Planning Issues" Subcommittee. 5.2 Draft letter to J. Lohr regarding exterior materials. The Commission will provide any additional comments to the letter to the Planning Director, if needed. The Planning Director will provide a final draft letter for review at the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS None. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/9/96 September 25, 1996 Page 12 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the August 28, 1996 minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the August 28, 1996 minutes with the addition of the following paragraph after FAILED MOTION, Lands of Tan: Discussion ensued with the applicant and their architect regarding changes requested by some of the Planning Commissioners. The "approved, denied, continued, and appeal' process was discussed. The applicant and their architect felt they could return with the requested changes for the September 11 " meeting. There was a consensus to start the meeting at 6:45 p.m. to review the revised plans prior to voting on the project; and a correction on page 3, first paragraph, deleting the word "not'. 7.2 Approval of the September 11, 1996 minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the September 11,1996 minutes with a change on page 3, second paragraph, third sentence to read as follows: The Design Guidelines addresses such issues as bulk and mass, referencing code regulations. 8. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 17 1996 8.1 LANDS OF TAAFFE. 12308 Concepcion Road A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan. Approved with conditions. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:48 p.m. Respectful `''�Submitted, onberger� Planning Secretary l7