HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/14/199840 Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 1/28/98
Town of Los Altos Hills
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 14, 1998, 7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road
cc: Cassettes (4) #1-98
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 Gottlieb, Commissioners Schreiner, Cheng & Jinkerson
Staff: Jeff Peterson, City Manager; Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Sheryl
Proft, Assistant Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Planner; Lam Lonberger,
Planning Secretary
2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOGnone
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 LANDS OF GODINHO, 12250 Menalto Drive (115-97-ZP-SD); A request
for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool (continued
from September 10, 1997).
The Planning Director introduced this item noting a correction to the Assessors Parcel
Number, and the proposed height and width of one of the chimneys which the applicant
had already agreed to reduce.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Jeanine Unterleitner, the Residential Designer, discussed the changes to the plan from the
September 10' meeting which include the following: moved house approximately 25 feet
down the hill and slightly to the west, lowering the overall pad and height of the house
about three feet; garage shifted to the west side of the house and elimination of the
basement elevation; garage is now a two -car garage with two additional spaces provided
along with adequate turnaround in front of the house; decking around the pool and a
walkway from the pool to the house have been added; and they have agreed to delete the
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 2
4 basement below the garage to further minimize cut. There will be a glass block wall in the
master bedroom which will not impact any neighbor.
Walter Leach, 12475 Briones Way, questioned the location of the pool asking if it was any
closer to the property line. The Planning Director indicated no.
Peter Rip, 12220 Menalto Drive, discussed page 3 of the staff report which indicated that
the applicant has agreed with some of his neighbors to prune existing trees (Walnut tree in
particular) and remove some shrubs to restore views. Although this is not in writing, he
would like it a part of the record. Mr. Rip voiced support of the project.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Jinkerson voiced support of the project with the deletion of the basement
below the garage and with the reduction of height and width of one chimney.
Commissioner Cheng agreed. Commissioner Schreiner also agreed, suggesting
strengthening condition #2 to include wording that mature plantings (front and back) shall
be no higher than the new residence. Chairman Gottlieb would like patina added to the
cooper roof (reflective value), and requested additional wording be added to condition #16
to provide photographs of the entire cul-de-sac to assess road damage prior to final. Also,
it was noted that the standard skylight condition should be added.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Jinkerson and
seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to approve the Site Development Permit for a new
residence and pool, Lands of Godinho, with the following additions/changes to the
conditions of approval: add to condition #1 elimination of the basement area below the
garage, reduction of the chimney width to 3-4 feet maximum and reduction of the chimney
height to the minimum required by the Uniform Building Code; add to condition #2 stating
the front and back mature plantings shall not exceed the height of the roofline of the
structure; add standard skylight condition; add to condition #16 to provide photographs of
the entire cul-de-sac to better assess any damage caused by the construction; and the
cooper roofing shall be treated to enhance a weathered appearance.
AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Cheng, Jinkerson & Schreiner
NOES: None
This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar February 4, 1998.
3.2 LANDS OF SILVESTRI, 13935 La Paloma Road (144-97-ZP-SD); A
request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool.
This item was introduced by the Planning Director who acknowledged the receipt of two
kletters from neighbors (Tsui/Reed and Whitney).
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 3
The City Manager discussed the status of the La Paloma drainage improvements which
should be completed this summer. He further fielded questions regarding the area and the
number of houses in and out of the flood plain.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Bob Flury, 20 S. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, project designer, discussed the front
setback and the fact that this lot is more square in shape and does not have the depth of the
other lots with greater setbacks. If the applicants are required to set the house back more
than 50 feet, the rear yard would be reduced, making it difficult to have a usable outdoor
space which is not in the front of the house and visible from the street. They were in
agreement with the recommendation to reduce the height of the house for a maximum of
23 feet. They have taken extra (water) precautions for the basement to prevent water
intrusion, and the window wells will be the minimum required by the UBC. Chairman
Gottlieb asked if the house could be moved at more of an angle. Mr. Flury felt this would
be difficult.
Katy Stella, Pathway Committee, noted the pathway location is not shown on the plan
although it is mentioned in condition #18.
`r Juanita Reed, 13940 La Paloma Road, discussed items as presented in a letter from Anita
Tsui and herself The letter touched on the site and architecture of the project, the request
for a 50 foot setback, the error in the table indicating the front setback for the Reed
property of 55 feet (setback is 65 feet); the driveway and parking; the grading and drainage
(storm drainage fee normally charged with building permits waved); and that when the new
pathway on the east side of the La Paloma Road is completed, the applicant should be
responsible for any and all damages done by contractors, or anyone going to his property
who uses the pathway for parking or as a tum around.
Dave Pefley, 26169 Maurer Lane, would like to make sure that the drainage system will
handle water in the area especially with new houses coming in. He asked how the water
drains from the Silvestri property which was answered by the City Manager.
Cary Hill, 13870 La Paloma Road, voiced support of the project as designed.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Cheng had not problem with the proposed front setback as only a small
portion of the house is closer than 50 feet. Commissioner Schreiner would prefer the
house moved back four feet. She also noted the Environmental Design Committee's
concern for a native riparian corridor and planting around it (non invasive species). Staff
4AW noted that fencing was permitted next to the storm drain easement, but not across it and
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 4
there is not a riparian corridor through the site since the channel will be off site and
drainage on the applicants property will be an underground pipe. Commissioner Jinkerson
felt it was a good idea to set the house back due to the view corridor. If the entire house is
set back four feet, it would help visually while not being a great impact to the applicants.
Staff suggested giving the applicant the option to either move the entire house back four
feet or angling the house to increase the front setback.
The Planning Director suggested revised plans indicating the northeast comer of the living
room portion of the house be no closer than 46 feet to the front property line, or the entire
house may be shifted 4 feet back. The applicant agreed with the options as stated.
Chairman Gottlieb expressed a concern regarding contractors parking on the path and
creating an unsafe situation for school children. She suggested strengthening the condition
for the construction operation plan requiring contractors to park on the project site.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded
by Commissioner Schreiner to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence
and pool, Lands of Silvestri, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of
approval: reduce the height to not exceed 23 feet; the house shall be moved so that the
northeast corner of the living room is no closer than 46 feet to the front property line; add
to condition #16 that construction parking shall be on-site with a single access to the site
for construction vehicles; and to condition #17 to include photographs of the street in front
of the Reed property (and pathway, if installed by that time).
AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Jinkerson, Schreiner & Cheng
NOES: None
This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar February 4, 1998.
3.3 LANDS OF RUINER, 28500 Matadero Creek Lane (151-97-ZP-SD-GD);
A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, second unit,
pool house and pool, and a modification to the Tentative Map Conditions of
Approval.
The Planning Director introduced this item by providing background information of the
Matadero Creek Subdivision. The difference from then and now is that the second floor
areas were not counted as development area. The original limitations did not count second
floor calculations. Staff felt the calculations should be consistent with the CC&R
definition. He further noted that several of the lots had been granted special treatment
regarding development area. The project before the Commission is completely consistent
with most of the lots before the Town changed the code. This is consistent with how the
Matedem Creek Subdivision has been built out. The Planning Director fielded questions
regarding total area minus conservation easements, and noted this project will not be very
460 visible from Matadero Creek Lane. Twenty of the 22 homes have been developed under
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 5
the assumption that second stories do not count toward development area. He asked if it
was appropriate to apply different standards to the last two lots than applied to the other
properties in the Matadero Creek Subdivision. Commissioner Cheng clarified if this house
was developed back in the early 1980's, these figures would not be a problem.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Dr. Ruiner, 10632 Magdalena Avenue, Los Altos Hills, applicant, discussed the history of
the project, the size to accommodate his large family (five children and a long time nanny
with three children), the low profile, setting house back, which will blend it into the
neighborhood.
Pong Ng, 1513 Fairway Drive, Los Altos, project architect, stated lots 12, 14, 16, and the
old Davis property would have exceeded the MDA and/or MFA of the Matadero Creek
Subdivision (with the second story). In answering a question regarding if they allow this
property not to count the second floor, he provided an example: lot 16 has 3,800 square
feet on the second floor which did not count in the development area calculations. If they
have to count the 3,800 square feet towards the development area, they could not expand
any more. This amendment will not allow every resident in the Matadero Creek
Subdivision to gain footage as the footage is already within the buildings. The current
design has gone through the Matadero Creek Architectural Committee. This is a very big
lot, very low profile, with a berm on left hand side for screening to mitigate the home.
Commissioner Jinkerson asked how much of the cut is due to the basement and what
would be the effect if the nanny's quarters were raised two feet. Chairman Gottlieb
commented that over a third of the driveway is at a 16% slope. She also asked for the
reason for the placement of the garage. Mr. Ng noted the intent was to push the family
yard toward lot 5 to shield the view from lot 3. Chairman Gottlieb did not feel the garage
adheres to the Design Guidelines and the house does not step down (20% slope).
Katy Stella, 27975 Via Ventana Road, did not feel the house was well hidden or low
profile. It seriously impacts the Via Ventana area. She referred to the Design Guidelines,
pages 2, 13, 14, 19 and 22. This is a very large house with privacy and view impacts.
Ruann Ernst, 28525 Matadero Creek Lane, with the Matadero Creek Architectural Review
Committee and a neighbor, clarified that the committee did submit a report to staff
addressing several issues. There was an issue with consistency in how the rules and
regulations regarding this subdivision apply to MDA/MFA. The subdivision was more
restrictive and there are a number of people who bought for that reason. The Committee
has tried to be consistent with the set of numbers as guidelines. They do not consider
themselves the final approval body for numbers, fire, drainage, etc. They do make design
recommendations. The committee uses the Matadero Creek Lot Analysis Summary of
Allowable Numbers prepared by Town Hall staff dated 1990 (one page chart). There has
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 6
been an issue in the manner in which the numbers have been counted when viewing the
floor plan. In all the time she has been on the committee, they assumed the second floor
was counted. Her concern would be with consistency with the existing homeowners. She
went on record stating this project exceeds their chart, and any deviation would be made by
staff. She felt as a neighbor and committee member, it leaves them in a disastrous position
if the remaining two homes are treated differently and allowed a much larger MDA and
MFA in terms of retrofitting every other property in the area or at least considering the
possibility. It was noted that a "Summary of Committee Meeting of October 15, 1997"
was not a part of the record. Ms. Ernst provided staff with a copy. This report
recommended that the owners should submit a revised plan that meets the requirements for
MDA, MFA and the maximum building coverage as described in sections 1.1 and 1.2 of
the report. Any revised plan should adhere to the guidelines enumerated in 1.4 of the
report.
The Planning Director noted that the Town has development area limits in the conditions
of approval, and the CC&R's have development area limits and a review process. The
Town does not participate in the CC&R's and the committee's review process. The Town
does not have to wait for a recommendation from the committee although it is best to
receive their comments prior to Planning Commission review. He agreed that there does
need to be some consistency between staff and the committee. There appears to be a
difference of opinion as to whether or not the committee supports this project. He referred
to the staff report, Attachment 9, a letter from the Rutners, signed by a neighbor (not as a
committee member). The Town is not responsible for implementing the CC&R's per the
City Attorney's advice. The authority for the CC&R's and the enforcement lies with the
residents of the subdivision who those apply to. The Town is not a part of the CC&R's.
They were originally, up to the time the 20°i lot was sold. If the committee had told staff
they did not want the applicants to build, there would have been a different
recommendation. His impression has been that the committee liked the design of the house
although there seems to be confusion regarding numbers. Staff had met with a few
committee members for review and the joint suggestion was that the best way to proceed
with the house, since the committee did like the design, was to request an amendment to
the numbers and because it seems to fit in this location, it appeared appropriate to move
forward in this manner. He concluded that the committee can always review the proposed
numbers per CC&R's.
Commissioner Jinkerson stated it was his interpretation that the CC&R's run with the land.
Anyone within that subdivision can sue to enforce those provisions. He requested a
clarification by reviewing the October 16, 1997 Matadero Creek Architectural Review
Committee Summary of their October 15' meeting before voting on this project. He
would not want to vote on a project that could result in a law suit. He would ask that the
City Attorney advise the Commission regarding this issue as there appears to be a
misunderstanding.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 7
kar Bob Lelkowits, 28515 Matadero Creek Lane, stated when he bought his house which was
one of the first houses built in the subdivision, it was built with the less restrictive "second
floor does not count" rule. When he applied for the swimming pool 18 months ago, second
floor numbers counted. If the second floor does not count, then there is no issue with the
Ratner project.
Ann Ward, 27947 Via Ventana, stated their house is directly across from the proposed lot.
They were in the house when the property was subdivided. She discussed the history of
the property, the limitations of the lot, the Town's limitations regarding development, and
the CC&R's which are legally restrictive on the property. She felt the more restrictive
numbers should be adhered to. She was at the October 15, 1997 meeting when the
committee discussed the design. At that time she commented that the house should not be
any higher up the hill due to the sight line of the crest of the hill. At that time, she did not
review the plans. Her concems were the CC&R's issue, and their future view of bulk.
Gerald Thomas, 27933 Via Ventana, who has full view of the lot does not feel it can be
mitigated at the street level. He requested the project meet the CC&R's without exception.
Dr. Brian Vickery, 27977 Via Ventana, felt the view of this property cannot be mitigated
from his house. He will be viewing this property from living room, dining room and
kitchen. The house is not hidden, or low profile from Via Ventana. Commissioner
Jinkerson disclosed he had an opportunity to view the project from Dr. Vickory's property.
Larry Bridgman, applicant's building representative, stated, after much review, they were
under the assumption they were within the guidelines. However, there was concern by
staff and the committee. They have demonstrated that they can come in under rules that
have been applied and meet the guidelines (not counting second story). The problem is
inconsistency. They were trying to come up with a method that would apply to this lot
only. They volunteered to come in as a resolution which would only pertain to this lot.
The resolution would go before the City Council to become a recorded document against
this lot. They were presenting the project in this way to simplify the concem regarding
setting a precedence if they were approved under the guidelines first presented. Regarding
the Via Ventana neighbors, there is only a small area on this property allowed to be built
on. Anything put on this property will be seen. He asked that they remember that this site
is almost five acres with only a small building circle. There is almost four acres of open
space. He felt they have listened to and implemented appropriate changes. After much
review of records, he felt there was a very inconsistent interpretation of the CC&R's. He
was only asking for the same interpretation used prior.
Commissioner Jinkerson was concerned with the CC&R's issue. Chairman Gottlieb
agreed.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 8
Dr. Meridith Vorsha, 27977 Via Ventura, voiced concern with the views from Via
Ventana, the bulk and massive structure. The house is beautifully designed, however she
requested a lower and smaller structure.
Nick Ward, 27947 Via Ventana, stated no one ever solicited their input. He further
discussed the size of the lot which was created to preserve the crest of the hill. The
footprint is restricted. He asked for consistency with the other Matadero Creek properties.
Pong Ng, discussed the proposed resolution which was discussed with the committee and
staff. He felt the proposed resolution was proposed in the spirit of cooperation, a solution
that both the committee and staff thought would work. He discussed a similar resolution
on lot 16 regarding the design.
Commissioner Schreiner asked Mr. Ng if they have to meet the CC&R's figures of 9,340
development area figure, would they have to reduce the house to 6,000 or 7,000 square
feet?
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
The Planning Director, to answer Commissioner Schreiner's question, stated one option
would be to lose 3,500 square feet from the house. Another option would be to remove the
swimming pool or cabana. It was mentioned by Commissioner Schreiner that she had a
chart which indicated that no one has exceeded the development area numbers. The
Planning Director responded that the chart reflects the development area numbers allowed
today; they are not the same which were originally approved with the subdivision. He also
explained that they have heard from a number of neighbors from Via Ventana, and
regardless of the numbers, there is still an issue of visibility, bulk, and design. The
Commission has every discretion to reduce the size of the house, revise the design of the
house to address those issues. At the same time, they have no obligation to approve the
exceptions to go over 9,340 square feet of development area. As he had mentioned, the
Commission does not have to enforce the CC&R's. It was staff s understanding that the
architectural committee did not object to the increase in the development area as it affected
the CC&R's. He did not feel just coming back with information in two weeks would not be
beneficial at this point.
Commissioner Jinkerson noted issues with bulk, stepping it down the hill, and 16.5% grade
on portions of the driveway. He would also like to study the October 16 committee report
before making ajudgment.
Dr. Ruiner stated when they purchased the property, they were aware of the rules, and of
the homes where the second floor counted. Who needs to decide this issue, the City
Council or the Planning Commission? We need a guideline. Regarding the Via Ventana
`, property owners, they will see a structure no matter. As it is, they are building this house
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 9
20-30 feet lower than the recommended CC&R's. If it is in fact the City Council who will
be making this interpretation, he would prefer going directly to them. He does not want to
build a house everyone dislikes. He would like clear direction.
Chairman Gottlieb asked the Planning Director if it would be appropriate to send this
application to the City Council to determine the numbers only (amendment request), then
return the project to the Planning Commission to review the design? Commissioner Cheng
felt the numbers are within Town code. The only problem appears to be the CC&R's. The
Planning Director stated the Town is not bound to uphold the CC&R's. Commissioner
Jinkerson stated, after reading the committee report, it indicates that the project exceeds the
allowable MDA by 38%, and the maximum building coverage by 25%, and requesting that
the applicant come back with a better plan. The Planning Director noted the applicant did
come back to the committee as noted in the November 17" report. He further stated that
the numbers that are in the CC&R's are the same numbers that are in the conditions of
approval for the Town; 9,340. The only way the applicant can get this project approved is
to amend those numbers. They have heard from some committee members and some
neighbors that they clearly will not support this project. The Commission can send this to
Council for interpretation as requested by Dr. Romer. Commissioner Schreiner voiced
difficulty granting any lot in this Town a free basement and a free second story.
MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner
Jinkerson, seconded by Commissioner Schreiner, and amended to continue the Site
Development Permit for a new residence, second unit, pool house and pool, and to deny
the modification to the Tentative Map Conditions of approval, Lands of Romer, to a later
date. Recommend compliance with the original development area and building coverage
numbers for this lot, counting the second floor as development area. Based on the
application, it is not properly before them due to the committee has not approved the
application per CC&R's. Secondly, there are considerable design concerns regarding the
bulk and mass, not stepped down the hill; the orientation and visibility of the garage
(visible position), cut and fill at the garage and for the basement, the high visibility of the
lot particularly from Via V entana, and the 16.5% grade on portions of the driveway.
AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Cheng, Schreiner, & Ankerson
NOES: None
This item will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing.
Brief break at 10:30 p.m.
3.4 LANDS OF WYTHE & VITU, 13824 Moon Lane (lot 3) (Page Mill Road)
(46-96-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new
residence and pool, and variance to allow grading over a property line.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 14, 1998
Page 10
Approved 1/28/98
3.5 LANDS OF WYTHE & VITU, 13826 Moon Lane (lot 2) (Page Mill Road)
(47-96-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new
residence and pool, and variance to allow grading over a property line.
Staff had nothing further to add to the report. Both projects will be discussed jointly. It
was clarified that the subdivision improvements which appeared on the January 7"' City
Council agenda is a separate issue from this application. Commissioner Schreiner stepped
down from the public hearing due to the proximity of her residence to the proposed project.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Glenn Cahoon, 445 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, project designer, summarized the
comments from the City Council and what changes have been made to the plans. These
are steep properties and do not meet strict interpretation of the grading policy as a result.
He presented grading quantities (cut and fill) for the garage and motor court, the footprint
of the residence, the rear yard/access around the residence, patio/front yard, and the
basement. He further explained the 3:1 slope per geologist's recommendation (behind the
house, the terraced retaining walls, the basement to provide an area for recreational uses
since outdoor space is limited, the reduced size of the structures, stepping homes up the
hill, stepped roof lines, setting structures into the hillside, and the reduced bulk. He further
commented on the need for the variance since there will be a single driveway for both lots,
cutting the garages down creates a mound between the two sites that they would like to
grade down. The requested variance will enable them to soften that area. Lot 2 has 55% of
the floor area under the natural grade. Lot 3 has 80% of the floor area under natural grade.
He provided prior and current profile sections of both lots, and prior and current design
changes. Mr. Cahoon continued with a discussion regarding the Town grading policy as
noted on page five of the staff report.
Tim Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, supported the Town's Site Development Policy and
Design Guidelines, voicing concerns with the nature of the neighborhood (rural/wood), and
the need to fit into the nature of the neighborhood. He did not feel the grading was
justified due to the steepness of the lots. There have been some improvements, but more is
needed.
Nancy Bavor, 13816 Page Mill Road, read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Ewald (13830 Page
Mill Road), who were unable to attend the meeting. Their letter stated concerns with the
design which they felt had not changed from the previous meeting, with the addition of
livable basements and a second pool. Speaking for herself, she did not like the exterior
materials or the basements (subterranean family rooms).
Dru Anderson, 27820 Saddle Court, will be looking down on the roofs, and is concerned
with color and materials to be used. She is concerned with the lighting and the light wells
in the basement. She asked for screening that grows in 2-5 years rather than 5-10 years.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 11
She also stated an interest in the grading and soils engineer review, and concerned with the
process and how long it takes.
Commissioner Jinkerson stated prior and reiterated his position of not approving anything
over 4,500 square feet of floor area.
Janet Vitu, 13826 Page Mill Road, applicant, felt they have done their best to redesign the
homes. They could put wood on the lot 3 house (on the Chown side). She felt the
neighborhood had mixed designs.
Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, did not feel the revised plans meet the Town
requirements. They have reduced the projects by 10%, but have added a basement with
new complications. The cut is also a concern to her and staff. This is one of the last rural
area. The house on lot 3 appears to be in a bowl. She asked that the Commission take the
staff recommendation and preserve the beautiful setting for the neighbors.
Ramona Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, supported the owner's right to develop as long as
they follow the Town guidelines and Site Development Policy. The Town should enforce
the rules. She read a letter from Anneka Bredo who noted concerns with the project being
too big, too high, and not in keeping with the simpler style of houses in the neighborhood,
asking to follow the Town's own guidelines.
Valerie Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, provided history of the previous applications, and
the Town code and policies. She felt the applicants have a right to develop the property
but it is critical how it is done. She reviewed the Design Guidelines as it pertained to the
projects. She further discussed the following: not conforming with the grading policy;
basements and retaining walls (cut & fill); the pools and decks; and the 457 truck loads of
export. She asked that the basements be eliminated and the footprints made smaller. Also,
she does not want the emergency road to be used by construction trucks. She provided an
example of the size of a cubic yard of dirt, and expressed concern about the amount of
material that would need to be hauled off the site and the potential impact to Moon Lane.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Cheng felt the applicants have done much to improve the design and the
size of the homes although she was concerned with the grading. Los Altos Hills has a mix
of size and style of homes. Commissioner Jinkerson previously stated the homes should
be reduce to approximately 4,500 square feet. In light of the amount of cut, he cannot
support the basements due to the impact on the hillside. Other concerns were with grading,
the depth of the light wells, and the three car garage which could be changed to a two car
garage. The designs we better than previously submitted, however, they have not gone far
enough. He suggested a redesign to eliminate or reduce the basements, reduce the size of
�W the houses, eliminate pool(s) to come as close as possible to the grading policy.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 12
ibr Commissioner Cheng did not agree with the 4,500 square foot figure. Chairman Gottlieb
felt the stepping of the houses was an improvement from the first designs, but there is too
much grading. Usually when grading down, backfilling is done to reduce the retaining
walls. There is minimal outdoor area. The basement and light wells are creating the need
for more and higher retaining walls. She realized much work has been done, but they need
to reduce grading and refine stepping.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ankerson and
seconded by Commissioner Cheng to deny the Site Development Permit for a new
residence, and pool, Lands of Wythe and Vitu, with stated concerns as follows:
extraordinary amount of cut; not meeting the grading policy; floor area proposed larger
than topography of the site can support; the basements too large for the lots as is the pool
on lot 3; the retaining walls are too high; and the variances from the grading policy
excessive. Suggestions to lessen the cut, site house better with lower profile, 4,500 square
feet suggested for maximum size, and the nature of the lot supports two versus three car
garage were made.
AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Cheng & Jinkerson
NOES: None
4 4. OLD BUSINESS
4.1 Report from subcommittees -none
5. NEW BUSINESS
5.1 On-site meeting regarding Congregation Beth Am. Suggested dates and
time: Saturday, January 17" at 11:00 a.m. or Sunday, January 18" at 1:00
p.m.
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Sunday, January 18" at 11:00 a.m.
Public notices will be placed in the Town boxes.
6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
6.1 Planning Commission Representative for January 7, 1998, Commissioner
Jinkerson, reported on the following items: Appoint to Finance Committee; consideration
of subdivision improvements as complete, Lands of WytheNitu; Housing Element
summary and notice; appointment of the General Plan Committee; Council consideration
of off-road pathway plan process; letter from Mr. Douglas Grimes on drainage issues; date
for Volunteer Dinner; and Lands of Loughmiller.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/28/98
January 14, 1998
Page 13
4 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for January 21, 1998- Gottlieb
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
7.1 Approval of the December 10, 1997 minutes
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the December 10" minutes.
8. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS- JANUARY 6. 1998
8.1 LANDS OF ARIAS, 10460 Albertsworth Lane; A request for a Site
Development Permit for grading, retaining walls, and a landscape plan.
Approved with conditions.
8.2 LANDS OF AYYAR, 12121 Oak Park Court; A request for a Site
Development Permit for hardscape, and a landscape plan. Approved with
conditions.
8.3 LANDS OF CARNEGHI, 14220 Berry Hill Court; A request for a Site
Development Permit for a guest unit and hardscape improvements.
4 Approved with conditions.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 1:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Can bgr
Planning Secretary
4