Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/1997Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 10/22/97 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, September 10, 1997, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (3) #16-97 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Schreiner, Cheng, Stutz & 7inkerson Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Sheryl Proft, Assistant Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Planner 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR - none 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF SHUKOV, 14400 DeBell Drive (79-97-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and spa (continued from August 27, 1997). Bill Maston, 384 Castro Street, Mountain View, the project architect, stated that the applicants are in agreement with the conditions of approval and summarized the changes that had been made to the plans since the August 27, 1997 meeting: the two-story element and overall massing in the comer were addressed; the front entry was moved eight feet closer to the comer of the house and five feet back (uphill); the structure was moved uphill; the second floor was off set more from the first floor creating a banding effect with the roof; the garage was moved forward two feet providing a greater setback for the second floor; and the basement exiting was minimized by eliminating the planter from the stairway. Two small oaks will now have to be removed, but they will be replaced. He and the applicants were very pleased with the end result of the project, voicing appreciation for the suggestions from the Planning Commission Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design & Protection Committee representative, asked whether the redwood trees at the rear comer of the property would be saved? Mr. Maston answered that the trees would be retained. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1022/97 September 10, 1997 Page 2 Commissioner Schreiner asked whether the basement door near the garage could be eliminated and what the width of the door would be? Mr. Maston stated that it was not their intent to remove the door and that the width would be three feet for the door and four feet for the corridor. Commissioner Jinkerson wanted to make sure that the basement conforms to the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Williams commented that it appears to be the minimum required, but that the front window well may be able to be reduced, and asked if the large pines trees behind the pool were to be removed? Mr. Maston stated that some of the trees were not in good health and may need to be removed. Commissioner Stutz commented that it should be clear which trees are to be removed. Mr. Maston stated that the trees propose for removal are noted on the plans. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schreiner commended the applicants on listening so intently, and that a few changes can make a big difference. Commissioner Gottlieb said that she liked the plan changes and the architect did a nice job setting the house back. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner (seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson) to approve the application with an addition to condition #1 stating that the applicant shall work with staff to reduce the size of the window wells as much as possible. AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Cheng, Stutz, Schreiner & Jinkerson NOES: None This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. 3.2 LANDS OF CHAN, 12129 Oak Park Court (lot 8b) (111-97-ZP-SD-GD-VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and sport court, and a Variance to allow grading within 10 feet of a property line. Commissioner Schreiner asked if other property owners are advised to discuss their project with the Lohrs? Ms. Davis stated that yes they are. Because J. Lohr Properties is the Architectural Committee for the subdivision, other applicants are required to present their plans for review by Jerry & Steve Lohr. fAW Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/22/97 September 10, 1997 Page 3 Ervin Haws, 2027 Colusa Way, San Jose, the project designer, commented on the variance to correct a grading problem that occurred on the lot and on the adjacent lot 8a, before the applicant purchased it. He usually tries to avoid variances. Discussion on the grading took place and staff clarified that the plan does not show grading beyond the subject lot and the variance has been presented to the Commission for this lot only as a result. Commissioner Jinkerson commented that this is one of the worst lots in terns of noise. He noted that the outdoor areas have been located between the house and the sound fence, and the noise will bounce off the walls of the house. A court yard would provide a better buffer and that the house design could be used to provide a better outdoor area. Mr. Haws stated that the house has been located as far from the freeway as possible. Commissioner Jinkerson asked whether the proposed outdoor lights we acceptable? Staff noted that any lights visible from off the site would be required to be down shielded or to have white or other translucent glass. The pillar lights would be required to be down shielded fixtures. Commissioner Schreiner expressed concern about the comments made by the Lohrs and asked if some other material such as stone be used to break up the stucco. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that the front entry is two -stories and that the Commission usually tries to bring the height down on high entries. Commissioner Schreiner asked if the front door is wood from top to bottom? Mr. Haws stated that the door would have glass above. The public hewing was closed. Commissioner Cheng would like to see more detailing added to break up the two-story vertical elements. Commissioner Jinkerson stated that the Commission has required Jerry Lohr to make changes on projects. His comments on this application are well taken. The second floor should be nested in and the house should be redesigned. Commissioner Stutz was disappointed with the site plan. It is difficult to read and interpret. It was difficult to relate the floor plans to one another and to the site plan. There is sharp grading between the house and the sport court, the wing walls shown on sheet 2 are not on the site plan and walkways are not shown except to the front of the house from the driveway. She asked how high the wing walls and the carriage lights on top would be, why were no step lights shown, and Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/22/97 September 10, 1997 Page 4 how would one get from the terrace to the parking area? She would not vote in favor of the wing walls. She also commented that the freeway fence would not hide the house and that the rear elevation is very up and down. Commissioner Schreiner stated that the sport court could be relocated if the house were shifted and the garages could be moved so they would not face the street. She was concerned about an all stucco exterior two-story vertical elements and the garages facing the street. Commissioner Gottlieb stated that the house could be better designed to make the outdoor areas more usable. She would like the front entry reduced and the garage doors should not face the street. Mr. Williams commented that the walkways and hardscape are not required to be shown on the floor plans. The site plan is most appropriate to show this. He noted that the condition on lighting which requires changes to the plan. Step lights are usually reviewed with the landscape plan, and the lights on the wing walls and pillars should be down shielded. Commissioner Stutz stated that she did not mention the stucco issue earlier, and that if the applicant comes in with another house, she would like to see something different. Also, the front entry should be lowered. Commissioner Schreiner asked the applicant if changes could be made? Mr. Haws stated yes, #40 but their concern is getting the house built this year and they would prefer to work with staff to make changes. Commissioner Jinkerson asked if the applicant would like to have the application continued so he can come back with a redesign, or would he like to have the Commission vote on it tonight? Mr. Haws indicated a willingness to redesign. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Jinkerson (seconded by Commissioner Schreiner) to continue the application for redesign as discussed. AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Stutz, Cheng, Schreiner & Jinkerson NOES: None. 3.3 LANDS OF LIU, 25861 Estacada Way (152-97-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR); A request for a Site Development and Conditional Development Permits for a minor addition, and Variance to exceed the allowable development and floor area and to encroach into the rear and side yard setbacks. Mr. Williams discussed the floor and development area numbers, and noted that even though there was not an impact on neighbors the numbers are high relative to the size of the lot. The t conditional development permit process should take into account the characteristics of the lot. �/ He noted that the Thomas project on the comer of DeBell & Estacada that has a net lot area and Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/22/97 September 10, 1997 Page 5 lot unit factor of .47 was approved with 3,095 square feet of floor area and 6,371 square feet of development area (7,000 allowed). The applicant's lot size was reduced due to land being taken for Foothill Expressway and it is a relatively flat site. Commissioner Jinkerson commented that the present owners purchased the lot in its present form and that the limitations were known. Norm Burdick. project architect, stated that the owners purchased the property 10 years ago and that the present rules may not have been the same at that time. They did not know the restrictions or they might not have purchased the lot. Leo Furtwangler, 25871 Estacada Way, lives next door, and in support of the project. Commissioner Schreiner asked the size of his home. Mr. Furtwangler answered that it is 2,500 square feet and that his lot is .78 acre. Commissioner Schreiner stated that she is sympathetic to the applicants and what they are trying to do, but does not want to set a precedent. This is a 'IA acre lot and if the proposed amount of floor area is multiplied by four it would not be relative to what is allowed on a one acre site. The density is far in excess of what should be allowed for a lot of this size. The loft over the garage is already there and is being used, so she would support approval of the second story over the garage. However, she had difficulty with approving the extension at the rear of the house because the numbers are too high, and can't make the findings to support this expansion. Commissioner Cheng felt that the additions are proposed over areas that are already development and that they would not be seen. There are not many '/. acre lots in the Town and this lot is unique because of its size. She did not agree with Commissioner Schreiner's analogy of multiplying the numbers by four. The second floor over the garage is a minimal change. Commissioner Jinkerson did not think this is a unique situation. The lot is V. acre, not a one acre lot. He agreed that the second story over the garage could be approved. There are an increasing number of challenged lots in the Town and the ordinances need to be enforced. The more floor area on a lot the more crowded it becomes and he did not support any increase in floor area. Commissioner Stutz thought the second story was fine and that the other additions are minor. She said that lots should be looked at individually and she does not like to hear all of the discussion about precedence which is not a rationale for approval of a project. Commissioner Gottlieb asked whether the porch area counted as floor area? Mr. Williams answered that if it has three sides and a solid roof that it is counted as floor area. Commissioner Gottlieb said if the porch is already counted as floor area she would agree to an L addition in that area. She also supported the second story over the garage. The addition to the i+ bedroom was not OK. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/22/97 September 10, 1997 Page 6 Commissioner Schreiner asked how much large the covered porch is? Staff estimated the size to be 100 square feet (177 square foot addition proposed in this location). MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner (seconded by Chairman Gottlieb) to approve the site development and conditional development permits and variance for the second story over the garage and that portion of the first floor that already counts as floor area, with a modification to condition 41 to state that the application is only approved to this extent, and changing the findings to state that these areas are already considered floor area and adding a condition requiring a disclosure statement. The variance should emphasize that the variance is being approved for floor area because of the existing conditions. AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Stutz & Schreiner NOES: Commissioners Cheng & Jinkerson This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period 3.4 LANDS OF LYMAN, 13770 Wildflower Court (157-97-ZP-SD); A request for a Site development Permit for a secondary dwelling unit with a basement. `. Mr. Williams noted that the condition requiring construction of a native pathway doe not require an easement to be granted. If it is a pedestrian easement only, a pathway easement should be granted so that the path is multi-purpose. Commissioner Schreiner asked for clarification on attic space and whether it has been counted as floor area. Brad Lyman, the property owner and applicant, answered that the proposed second unit would be single story and there is not an attic above. The floor to ceiling height would be 16 feet, there are dormers to let in light and the roof pitch and height would be the same as that of the existing house. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the patio area is to be changed so that it is not considered floor area? Mr. Lyman stated that it could be changed if necessary for approval of the project Commissioner Schreiner asked what the height of the main residence is? Mr. Lyman stated that it is 16 feet high in the living room and the other portion is higher where there is an open beam ceiling. He asked questions about the installation of the native path and 4. clarified that the condition for a grading and construction operations plan should read Wildflower �/ Court, not Westwind Way. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1997 Page 7 M Approved 10/22/97 Mr. Williams stated that the existing easement is only a pedestrian easement at this time. Katy Stella, Pathway Committee representative, stated that the path is usable and that it connects to Newbridge Drive. The Committee would like it to be a multi-purpose path. Commissioner Stutz provided some history of the pathways in the area and commented that the path may be usable, but that horses cant's use it at this time. Ms. Stella commented that they would like to make the path accessible to horses. Staff clarified that the five foot wide pathway easement is within the 10 foot sanitary sewer easement. The public hearing was closed Commissioner Stutz suggested changing condition #13 to require a pathway easement to be granted, but not to require the path to be cleared at this time. Commissioner Schreiner's main issue was with the basement. This is the first application that the Commission has seen with a full basement in addition to a 1,000 square foot secondary unit. Even though the basement would be underground, it would mean approving a 2,000 square foot house. Expanding the square footage of secondary units could take the Town out of qualifying for affordable housing for the Housing Element. Also, it would not meet the Town's grading policy since a basement under an accessory structure would make it exceed the allowable four feet of cut. Mr. Williams said that there is not a provision in the grading policy relative to basements under accessory buildings because it wasn't addressed. The Commission can make an interpretation that this is contrary to the grading policy. Commissioner Cheng did not have any problems with the proposal. She commented that there is no ordinance prohibiting a basement. Commissioner Jinkerson stated that the basement is minimal in terms of exiting and light wells. Without the basement the project would be 500 square feet over the allowable floor area. There is nothing in the Code prohibiting a basement under an accessory building. Commissioner Gottlieb had no problem with the accessory dwelling, but she did with the basement. The second dwelling is supposed to be subordinate to the main residence. The proposed unit is getting towards the size of a home and she did not want to set a precedence of allowing basements under second dwellings. M Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/22/97 September 10, 1997 Page 8 4W MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng to approve the site development permit with a change to condition #13 to require a pathway easement to be granted (seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson with acceptance of a friendly amendment to require the light wells be the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code). AYES: Commissioners Cheng, Jinkerson & Stutz NOES: Chairman Gottlieb & Commissioner Schreiner This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. 3.5 LANDS OF GODINHO, 12250 Menalto Drive (115-97-ZP-SD); A request for a Site development Permit for a new residence and pool. Nomtan Godinho, property owner and applicant, stated that he is present and available to answer any questions. He had read the staff report and is in agreement with the staff recommendation. His designer is also present. Chairman Jinkerson asked whether the area under the house where cars can be parked was counted as floor area since it is essentially enclosed on three sides with a terrace over it? Discussion ensued on the garage and its relationship to the basement. Peter Rip, 12220 Menalto Drive, lives adjacent to the site. The story poles really helped he and his wife visualize the proposed project. Their home has glass and windows overlooking the property and he is concerned about the visual impact. He submitted a letter from the Penns, another adjacent neighbor stating their concerns about the project. He felt that the guidelines are not being met relative to maintaining a natural open view of the hills and that the house is fairly obtrusive in its design. The house is much larger than any others on the street, it doesn't fit into the neighborhood, it is three stories and it would entirely block their bay view. They would like to have the house moved down the slope. Thomas MacDonald, Briones Way, owns the property that abuts the applicant's lot on the northeast comer. He and his wife prefer not to see closed fencing on the eastern boundary a it would block their view. The trees in the lower comer should be lower growing species so as to not block views when they mature. The upper part of their lot where it abuts the subject property has had drainage problems in the past. Much of the slope of the applicant's lot is toward their property and they do not want increased run-off. Ingrid MacDonald reiterated her husband's concerns about drainage. Their deed includes a provision that requires trees and vegetation to not block views of neighboring properties. Staff noted that the applicant's lot is part of a different subdivision that the MacDonald's lot. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/22/97 September 10, 1997 Page 9 Roy Rogers, 27279 Briones Way, accesses his property from a private road called Westridge Court. He is also concerned about drainage. He asked who would be responsible for maintenance if the storm system is installed in Westridge Court? Ms. Proft clarified that it is a sanitary sewer not a storm sewer. She noted that there is a condition requiring the dissipaters to be moved away from the property line (uphill) so the water is dispersed on the applicant's lot. Walter Leach, 12475 Briones Way, lives downhill of the site. He asked if the sewer could be installed alongside the driveway (Westridge Court). He is sympathetic to the Rips regarding their view and believes that a resident who has lived there for 10 years should be accommodated. He commented that many of the neighbors had moved there for the views. He also questioned the proximity of the pool to Westridge Court rather than being closer to the proposed house. Peter Campagna, 12233 Menalto Drive, lives across the street from the lot. Any movement north would help his view and would help the Rip's view. He is here to support the Rips. Norman Godinho stated that he shared his plans with his neighbors from the early stages of design. He has tried to minimize the impact on the neighbors. He would be willing to remove or trim the walnut tree to open up a view corridor for the Rips. He lost all of the views from his current home on Via Corita due to later development of surrounding properties. He doesn't plan to plant trees that will block views of neighbors. He would like to have a chain link fence to keep his dogs in. He is willing to put the sewer line in a different location if it can be done. The basement and garage below grade do not impact the height of the house, and he does not believe that the house would be viewed as three stories from off the site. Also, he would like to move the pool closer to the house. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schreiner read an excerpt from the Site Development Policy that states that buildings should not dominate the natural landscape, and that consideration should be given to impacts on neighbors. She could see the story poles from her property on Saddle Mountain. Many homes in this area are very visible. The proposed house would be very visible to dozens of homes. She would like the applicant to consider moving the house down and the three story affect should be minimized. The house should be two -stories as viewed from all areas. She is concerned that there is only a one -car garage and that the basement is not a true basement since there is three feet of fill. Moving the house down would help the neighbor's view and would make it less obtrusive visually. Commissioner Cheng agreed that more than a one -car garage is needed, and asked if moving the house down would help the neighbor's view? Mr. Williams answered that yes it would lower the profile of the house, and it could be moved down the hill 20 feet or so. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/22/97 September 10, 1997 Page 10 Commissioner Jinkerson said if the house is moved down, the pool will also need to be moved. The retaining wall might not be necessary if the house is moved. The impact on the neighbor would be reduced while giving the applicant what he wants. The garage and underground area is essentially a three -car garage and should count as floor area. Commissioner Stutz agreed with Commissioner Jinkerson. She feels very strongly that the garage should be for more than one car. Chairman Gottlieb concurred with what has been said. The house isn't really being built on the contours, and it should be a stepped down house on this lot. The pool could be relocated to facilitate a redesign of the house. There is no reason for the backup area to be within the setback. She also questioned whether the basement meets the Code definition. Mr. Godinho stated that the house does step down. Chairman Gottlieb commented that the Commission could request a one-story house since it is on a knoll and while they can't promise the neighbor an unobstructed view, the situation can be improved. Mr. Godinho said that the house could probably be moved down 20 to 30 feet and that it could be lowered by grading down further. 4 Commissioner Schreiner said they don't want Mr. Godinho to dig a hole for the house. The Commission would like to have the design changed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner (seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson) to continue the application for redesign with the direction given by the Commission. AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Cheng, Jinkerson, Stutz & Schreiner NOES: None 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees -none. 4.2 A special meeting will be held on Tuesday September 16, 1997, to review the Housing Element and there is a joint work session with the City Council on October 29,1997. 5. The Commission requested that basement window wells should be shown more clearly on plans (the depth and window area). Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1997 Page 11 Approved 10/22/97 The grading for the Rose project on Vinedo Lane appears to be different than shown on the plans. Staff noted that a revised grading plan was approved after the project began. The Environmental Design Committee recommends spraying for star thistle. This will be passed on to the Public Works Manager and City Manager. An update on the former Melchor property on East Sunset was provided. The property has been condemned by the Health Department due to failure of the septic system. The hillside will be re- graded and the previous plans have been abandoned. An entirely new proposal will be coming in for review. Commissioner Jinkerson noted that some development plans we very unclear and clarification is needed. Staff will work with applicants to try to present better plans. Commissioner Schreiner would like to revisit the secondary dwelling unit provisions. 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Mr. Williams reported on the September 3, 1997 City Council meeting. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for September 17, 1997 - Commissioner Jinkerson. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the August 27, 1997 minutes continued to September 24, 1997. 8. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS None. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne Davis, Acting Planning Secretary