Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/23/1996L Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 11/13/96 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, October 23, 1996, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (3) #20-96 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:03 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; Lan/ Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF LAU/LIANG, 12894 La Cresta Drive (161-96-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a swimming pool (continued from October 9, 1996). Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Schreiner voiced appreciation to the applicants and their architect for all their efforts regarding the requested changes. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the Site Development Permit for a pool, Lands of Lau/Liang, with the recommended conditions of approval. AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Jinkerson, Schreiner, Gottlieb, Stutz, Cheng & Finn NOES: None Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1996 Page 2 Approved 11/13/96 3.2 LANDS OF WINDY HILL ASSOCIATES, 27200 Ohlone Lane (Parcel 2 of the Lands of Laub, Fremont Road and Arastradero Road) (139-96-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. Chairman Doran and Commissioner Gottlieb stepped down from the hearing due to a business conflict of interest. Commissioner Jinkerson disclosed that a distant relative is involved with this project whom he has not seen in many yews. Commissioner Schreiner will preside over the meeting. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the height of the retaining wall by the garage. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Barksdale, 4151 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, project architect, commented on the pie shaped lot, however due to the storm drain easement, the conservation easement, the flood plain and geologic considerations, the lot is now shaped more like an hour glass. He further discussed the significant oak trees, the placement of the bedrooms (noise consideration), and the proposed construction materials. 4/ Commissioner Stutz questioned why they did not access the property off the cul-de-sac. The proposed driveway is occupying much of the front setback by bringing the driveway in at the proposed narrow point. They are also impacting the lot line. Mr. Barksdale did not feel the change would pose a problem. The Assistant Engineer noted that the current driveway design does not interfere with drainage and/or the swale along the cul-de-sac bulb. Commissioner Schreiner asked if they had considered placing the garage in the area of the existing guest house and shed. Mr. Barksdale commented that the proposed location would have the least impact on setbacks and the buildable area. The suggested location would place the garage at a lower level which is not desirable as you would have to carry packages, etc. up. Commissioner Schreiner was concerned with the 16 inch oak tree next to the garage, asking that care be taken to preserve it. Mr. Barksdale agreed. Commissioner Schreiner further commented on the staff report, page 3, which suggests that the Commission may wish to consider adding a condition requiring that the residence be redesigned to step the house to reduce the extent of grading required (lowering the master bedroom). Mr. Barksdale noted a drainage concern relating to the suggestion. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY The Planning Director commented on the possibility of a redesign to step the house to reduce grading. He noted that the elevation is not exposed and there is some concern with water as �w mentioned by Mr. Barksdale, he did not feel a redesign would be necessary. Planning Commission Minutes - Approved I1/13/96 October 23, 1996 Page 3 Commissioner Schreiner suggested an additional condition for native (non invasive) landscaping to replace any shrubs or trees removed from the conservation easement to assure screening from Arastradero Road. Commissioner Stutz requested to shift the driveway access to the cul-de-sac at approximately the 143 foot contour which she felt was a better design and removes much of the driveway from the setback. The Assistant Engineer noted that moving the driveway would require a culvert. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, Lands of Windy Hill, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: native (non invasive) landscaping to replace any shrubs or trees removed from the conservation easement to assure screening from Arastradero Road; and to shift the driveway access to the cul-de-sac at approximately the 143 foot contour. AYES: Acting Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng, Finn, Jinkerson & Stutz NOES: None ABSTAIN: Chairman Doran & Commissioner Gottlieb This item is subject to a 21 day appeal period 3.3 LANDS OF CHAO/PANG, 25701 Lomita Linda Court (185-96-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and spa (continued from July 24, 1996). Ms. Manca introduced this item noting a suggestion by some Commissioners to add a condition requiring a conservation easement over the portions of the property with a slope greater than 30%. She provided wording for the additional condition for their review. Commissioner Stutz disclosed that she had viewed the property with the developer. Commissioner Jinkerson disclosed that he had viewed the property with the developer also and from the Fowler and Carrie properties. The Planning Director responded to comments regarding the 1-2 feet of fill material which will be spread over the existing concrete driveway along the wall which has not been reviewed by the Town Geologist. Condition 41 requires the applicant to submit revised plans showing fill and plantings over the rear patio/driveway for review and approval of the geotechnical consultant and the Planning Director. It was noted that the Town will not require Lomita Linda Court to be widened as requested by the Fire Department. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Gary Ahem, 1150 EI Camino Real, Menlo Park, noted that the basic foundation system for the house will be pier and grade beam. He further discussed the five items which were requested to be changed or modified at the last meeting. The deck has been reduced by 55 square feet. The Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/13/96 October 23, 1996 " Page 4 deck effective area is approximately 5 x 30. The deck is being used for a roof over the existing garage which sticks out in front of the lower area. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the fill which will be placed over the existing driveway. Mr. Ahern noted that they will be conducting their own evaluation of the structural integrity of the driveway and the retaining wall. They will be reviewing this with William Cotton and their geotechnical consultant. It was noted that the driveway supports the retaining wall. Commissioner Schreiner asked the Planning Director when the area is back filled, does this eliminate the development area. The Planning Director responded no, because 2 feet below it is concrete. It may be better to exclude it from the development area so, in the future, should there be a way to remove the concrete, the 2,000 square feet of development area cannot be used elsewhere on the lot. Commissioner Jinkerson noted that the retaining wall appears to be leaning. Mr. Ahern agreed that the retaining wall leans in the area directly off of the driveway. One of the site conditions they inherited with this property was the fact that there was some concern (geotechnical) with the wall. The geotechnical consultants wanted them to monitor the condition of the wall over the years. They are taking this opportunity, since this is the area where they will be excavating for the driveway and garage area to provide some stabilization to that wall. Mr. Ahern's letter indicates the maximum height of the structure is 24 feet above existing grade although it appears there are some areas actually 26 feet in height. The Planning Director explained the difference in measuring from the exterior grade and from the pad. Code requires measurements from the pad thus the difference in 2 feet. Mr. Ahem noted that the proposed house will actually sit lower than the previous house. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with the straight roof line and with a full two story facade as the southern portion of the structure is exposed on this very visible hilltop. She was also concerned with the view from Magdalena Road. Mr. Ahem provided a sketch of the roof indicating some offsets along the back with different roof elements so it is not a single line. Mr. Ahem commented that as you are facing the house from the street, on the right side of the house, there is a retaining wall that steps up quickly, so there will not be a clear view of a two story facade. Commissioner Jinkerson asked if there was any way to move the house to the east on downhill side towards the pool. Mr. Ahem responded no, as they were trying to keep the house as far away from the retaining wall as possible. Bob Owen, 445 San Antonio Road, Los Altos, project developer, addressed the questions regarding the retaining wall noting they would be making their investigations and the proper corrections. He further noted that as you approach the site you can visually see that the house cannot be moved any farther towards the street. The architect has accomplished a one story element from the street with a two story element from the back, digging in the second story. He did not feel the structure was fully visible. Also, the deck size has been reduced. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/13/96 October 23, 1996 Page 5 Brian Came, 25655 Fernhill Drive, west downhill neighbor, did not feel the changes addressed the concerns expressed at the previous meeting, noting the following: he is still looking at two stories; the negative impact with screening trees; the height only reduced to 26 feet rather than the requested 24 feet; he is still looking at a two story ridge top property; the deck on the west side was not removed but reduced; and the inaccuracy of the statement regarding visibility of the new structure from his property. He noted that the previous house had no major negative impact on his property. The new house footprint is closer to his property. He asked if the previous permits were ever investigated as he did not feel the grandfathered figures added up to the proposed figures. It was noted that Dr. Car:ie's property is 30 feet below the driveway of the proposed project. Jay Fowler, 25625 Fernhill Drive, neighbor, noted that the previous house was never a concern. He provided a letter which included a computerized photo indicating the view of the proposed house from his property. He further discussed possible vegetation for screening. He requested a weeks postponement to allow him to complete his review of the plans and to discuss them with other homeowners who may be impacted by this development. He noted that the full bulk of the project is being pushed toward his property. When the MDA/MDA figures were grandfathered, the development should have been replaced in the same location, not changed. He further discussed the driveway which he described as a structure. The design on the west side should be measured from the 10 foot wall. He requested that the Commission reject the plan as submitted so appropriate design conditions can be adopted which deal with the neighbor's concerns. He requested adequate screening and for the applicant to adhere to the requests made at the previous meeting. A discussion regarding the history of the earthquake damaged project and the grandfathered floor and development area figures as approved by the City Council ensued. The Planning Director clarified that the 28 foot height was not grandfathered. The height must comply with Town ordinance. Bob Owen, project developer, discussed the computerized photo presented by Mr. Fowler and the screening trees. He suggested planting trees (10 feet in height) on the side of wall nearest Mr. Fowler to provide him the privacy he is requesting. He and Commissioner Jinkerson had previously discussed building another wall like a planter, in the area of the wall which curves around to the west, which can be used to plant trees. Judith Fowler, 25625 Fernhill Drive, commented on the impact of the deck onto her privacy. Their views will be facing the new construction. She could not see the previous house from her patio. She requested that the new structure use the previous footprint. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/13/96 October 23, 1996 Page 6 Discussion ensued regarding the grandfathered MDA/MFA numbers allowed without the specification to use the old footprint, and the mitigation landscaping on the northwest side of the property. Commissioner Finn did not see the concern expressed by the neighbors. He agreed with the suggestion for an added retaining wall to provide an area for landscaping. He asked that the applicant work with staff to mitigate the northwest side of the property. Commissioner Jinkerson was concerned with the view of the structure from the Carrie and Fowler property. Screening can be provided with the additional wall area. However, this is a ridgeline property and the structure should be one story. He was concerned with any structure over 24 feet and two story. Also, the rear area will dominate which is contrary to the Design Guidelines. It was noted that the applicants can have a single story structure of 27 feet. Commissioner Schreiner agreed with the concerns with the height on a ridgetop, the impact to the neighbors, asking that the applicants be considerate of their neighbors. Commissioner Stutz was pleased with the sketch provided by the architect. She felt the applicants have tried to comply with all requests. She was not concerned with the deck and felt the project could be mitigated with the extra planting area below the wall. The City Council has directed the numbers on a lot which previously had a two story home on the site. Commissioner Cheng felt the applicant has done much to reduce the size and the bulk of the house and they have reduced the size of the deck area. The floor and development areas have been established by the City Council. She would like to see the added wall to provide a landscape area. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that this house is on a ridgeline. She would prefer a low profile house. She suggested adding an eave in the balcony area, bringing the roofline down, and digging in the second story on the south side. There are ways to mitigate the house by burying it in on the downhill side (the Lomita Linda Court side) without changing the house. She could not support the project as presented. Chairman Doran felt that they have addressed mitigating measures to help with the neighbor's concerns. The view (bulk) of the rear of the house can be mitigated with landscaping. The deck should not be an issue as the windows will still be there and there is no roof overhang for lighting. The outdoor lighting will be minimum per code. She did not feel the conservation easement over the areas of the lot with a slope of 30% or greater was necessary as the property was already so limited. Consensus: to add the recommended condition requiring a conservation easement. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Firm and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and spa, Lands of Chao/Pang, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: add a condition as presented by staff for the dedication of a conservation easement over the areas of the lot that have a slope of 30% or greater; and a second wall shall be constructed along the west of the existing retaining wall to provide a planting area for trees and other landscaping which will screen the west elevation from the neighboring properties. AYES: Chairman Doran, Commissioners Cheng, Stutz & Firm NOES: Commissioners Gottlieb, Schreiner & Jinkerson This item is subject to a 21 day appeal period. Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 1996 Page 7 Brief break at 9:10 p.m. Approved 11/13/96 3.4 LANDS OF WEN, 27860 Fawn Creek Court (105-96-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. A letter from Mrs. Basiji was provided to the Commission. It was also noted that the Commission received calls from Mr. Noghrey, a neighbor, regarding this project. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Gil Garcia, 1998 The Alameda, San Jose, project architect, noted surprise regarding the recommendation requiring the second story and deck be set in five feet from the first floor wall, along the west elevation and that the west facing windows be reduced by at least 50% in size. A redesign of the project would not be acceptable to the applicants as it would min the design. He further discussed the history of the project and the driveway turnaround issues. He noted there also seemed to be privacy concerns from neighbors and they could reduce windows on the west elevation, eye level. The existing trees will provide screening for the neighbors. He would agree to moving the deck in 5 feet but keeping the sun room as is. Jitze Couperus, 13680 Page Mill Road, neighbor, gave a brief history of the original subdivision and this project. He discussed the original massive design which was required to be stepped back which would be defeated with the approval of the new development. He did not feel the lower trees would provide the needed screening. The use of grasscrete is only due to the development area being maxed out. He agreed with the staff recommendation #1. He also noted that the applicant never shared the plans with the neighbors. Jim Noghrey, 27870 Fawn Creek Court, lower neighbor, discussed the project, objecting to the addition as he will be heavily impacted, losing all of his privacy. Also, he will be impacted by the driveway moving 10 feet closer to his property. He felt the applicant should not build in the proposed area. This will create a house 180 feet long. He suggested they build in another area on the lot. He also noted some drainage concerns. Mr. Basiji, 27880 Fawn Creek Court, read a letter from Donna Leanhurt at 27885 Fawn Creek Court, noting many concerns with the proposed project. Mr. Basiji also voiced concern with the impact to his property and to Fawn Creek Court. The new construction would overlook almost his entire house which could not be mitigated by screening. From his viewpoint, he currently sees a mass of windows. The new addition would be too imposing. Grace Wen, sister of the applicant, addressed some of the concerns of the neighbors. She noted a problem with the current driveway design, the need for additional space for family needs, and the pine trees which will provide screening for the neighbors. N Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/13/96 October 23, 1996 Page 8 Su Min Lin, sister of the applicant, also commented on the project expressing concern that no mater what they do, it will not please the neighbors. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Jinkerson asked staff if the prior staff report of the original project was available and/or the tapes of that meeting. Since there was an issue of stepping the house originally and now the house is being pushed out, the previous report may be helpful. It was noted that the information was probably available, however, the Commissioners were not in favor of reviewing the prior reports. Commissioner Schreiner felt the issue was the bulky two story design. If the applicants are concerned with adding more bedrooms, she recommended building in the back area of the house. There was a consensus that this project is not neighbor friendly and needs to be redesigned. The Commission provided guidelines for the applicants and their architect. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb, seconded by Commissioner Schreiner and passed by consensus to continue the request for the Site Development Permit for a major addition and remodel, Lands of Wen, for a redesign, with the following recommendations by the Planning Commission: the addition should be relocated to the rear of the existing residence, limited to a one story element, if possible, and should be sensitive to the neighbors' privacy; possibility of a secondary unit which would require a 5" parking space located out of the required setbacks, with adequate turnaround; and any proposed changes to the driveway (widening or turnarounds) should be kept out of the required setbacks. This item will he re -noticed for public hearing 4. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4.1 Planning Commission Representative for the October 16" -meeting canceled. 4.2 Planning Commission Representative for November 6' meeting -Commissioner Gottlieb. 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Report from subcommittees. None. 5.2 Joint Study Session with City Council -Thursday, November 14, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. Three Planning Commissioners will be unable to attend the meeting due to schedule conflicts. The Planning Director will discuss this with the Mayor, suggesting November 21". Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/13/96 October 23, 1996 Page 9 6. NEW BUSINESS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the October 9, 1996 minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the October 9, 1996 minutes. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING None. 01 The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:40 p.m. jRectully submitted, Lonberger Planning Secretary