Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/1999Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 12/9/99 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, November 10, 1999, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (3) #18-99 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF lit LEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Commissioners Gottlieb, Jinkerson, Wong, Cottrell & Schreiner Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Ola Balogun, Associate Engineer; Carl Cahill, Associate Planner; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary ((, City Engineer: Jeff Peterson 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Toni Casey, 23600 Ravensbury, requested item 5.1 be moved forward as she was unable to stay for the entire meeting. She also requested a copy of the draft letter that was to be prepared by Chairman Jinkerson. Public hearings have been noticed for 7:00 p.m. Chairman Jinkerson did not feel the applicants should be delayed. Discussion ensued regarding a letter from Wendy Wilson and Peter Richardson sent to the City Council which prompted Ms. Casey's letter to the City Council and the Planning Commission. Since the Planning Commission had not reviewed the letter prior, Chairman Jinkerson would like to absorb the letter before any letter was drafted. 3.1 Proposed Ordinance of the Town of Los Altos Hills amending Section 10-1.703 (Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Code to allow use of a single family residence for meetings of non-profit charitable organizations under limited conditions and upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and Negative Declaration. Chairman Jinkerson stepped down from the hearings of item 3.1 and 3.2 due to the proximity of his residence to the project site. Vice -Chair Schreiner presided over the meeting. Commissioner Cottrell disclosed he was a retiree of the Hewlett Packard company and knows several members of the foundation. He felt he could evaluate the applications fairly. The Planning Director explained the change to the ordinance for the benefit of the audience. As the minimum acreage is proposed at 50 acres, there are only a very few properties which might be eligible, even with Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/9/99 November 10, 1999 Page 2 consolidation of parcels. The Commission may even wish to consider whether a smaller site size is appropriate to encourage this approach more extensively. Staff believes that there is only one other site in town approaching 50 acres, other than the Packard property, and that there are only a few sites in excess of 25 acres in size. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Frank Roberts, 225 Bush Street, San Francisco, counsel for both the Packard Trust and Foundation, felt the report was complete and accurate. Kathy Scheib, 26946 Dezahwa Way, asked where were the other properties that may be eligible at a lesser acreage. The Planning Director responded the Fenwick property on Elena Road and a property on La Paloma Road which is currently in for subdivision. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner asked what would be the benefit of lowering the acreage from 50 to 25. The Planning Director felt there were potentially two benefits: (1) there may be a few properties that could take advantage of this in the future in which case they would have an opportunity for a property owner to set aside a substantial amount of open space and not subdivide; and (2) the ordinance gives the appearance that it is not solely for the benefit of one property owner. The same limitations would apply if the number was 25 acres or 50 acres. Commissioner Cottrell supported the amendment as it is one way to maintain open space. He felt this was good for the Town. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed. Commissioner Wong asked the Planning Director how the 50 acre figure was determined. The Planning Director stated the number was agreed upon after meetings and discussions with the City Attorney, City Engineer, and the Packard Foundation members. They all felt the number was not overly burdensome. The land use for the remaining acreage must go through the regular process. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed ordinance amending Section 10-1.703 (Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Code to allow use of a single family residence for meetings of non-profit charitable organizations under limited conditions and upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and Negative Declaration, changing (m), (1) the site (single parcel or combination of contiguous parcels) comprises a minimum of twenty-five (25) acres, and in the Initial Study, item #1. AYES: Commissioners Wong, Gottlieb, Cottrell & Schreiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: Chairman Jinkerson This item will appear on the City Council agenda on December 2, 1999. kav Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1999 Page 3 Approved 12/9/99 3.2 LANDS OF PACKARD TRUST, 26580 Taaffe Road (222-99-CUP-NEG/DEC); A request for a Conditional Use Permit to use existing residence for meetings of boards of non-profit organizations, subject to certain restrictions, including dedication of conservation and open space easements; and Negative Declaration. The Planning Director introduced this item by noting the receipt of a letter of support from Mr. and Mrs. Happ. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested a two week prior notice regarding meetings of more than 60 persons (condition #9). It was noted that they could have two meetings per day of 30 people although there are parking constraints. Commissioner Cottrell asked if item 3d was agreeable to the applicants. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Frank Roberts, 225 Bush Street, San Francisco, counsel for both the Packard Trust and Foundation, felt the report was complete and accurate. He further discussed the reasons for the application, that David and Lucille Packard were very fond of the area and the orchard. They wanted to find a way that the Packard Foundation could maintain the property after their deaths. He discussed the tax rules and the legal aspects needed (charitable, educational, scientific purpose) for the Packard Trust. Their objective was to insure that their maintenance and preservation of the orchard will satisfy the requirements of the IRS. He further discussed their previous application for the Foundation. They do need to find some appropriate charitable use for the property. Most of the meetings should be fewer than 10 people. Occasionally, there may be an open house. He did not object to condition 3d. They would like to, in the future, develop on the Elena Road side, a facility to allow people, especially school children, to visit the orchard. Commissioner Schreiner was concerned with the parking. Currently, the property will hold 30 cars. Mr. Roberts stated they will only be repairing the parking area. There is no plans for lights except for a safety factor on the driveway with the use of low wattage lights. He agreed with all of the conditions of approval and restrictions. He further discussed the areas not to be included in the conservation easement granted to the Town (area of the house, the pathway easement, and the driveway). It is imperative that this proposal is satisfactory to the Town. He agreed to the two week prior notice of events involving 60 or more people. Commissioner Wong asked if there would be anyone living on the property and if so, how many. Mr. Roberts responded there are two houses; the Packard home and another home which is occupied by the ranch manager and his wife. Sharon Brothers, 26450 Taaffe Road, asked who came up with the number of 60 as it seems discriminating against the Packard Foundation. Commissioner Schreiner explained the condition. It was noted that the number was proposed by the Packard Foundation. Diane Barrager, Pathways Committee, has reviewed the proposed pathway on the property. The Committee would like an opportunity to review the site again for further connects if additional development is proposed. 6 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/9/99 November 10, 1999 Page 4 Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, thanked Mr. Roberts and the Packard Foundation. The Committee appreciates the fact that there are people who cue so much to keep the orchard land alive. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Wong felt this was great and voiced support. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed. She preferred the two week notice period prior to events of 60 or more people. She thanked the Packard Foundation. Commissioner Cottrell will be eternally grateful to the Packard Foundation for trying to preserve the last of the apricot orchards in Town. He fully supported this project. Commissioner Schreiner felt this was a unique situation. The Town benefits and hopefully the Packard Foundation benefits by allowing them the use of the land for non-profit organizations. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to recommend to the City Council approval of a Conditional Use Permit to use existing residence for meetings of boards of non-profit organizations, subject to certain restrictions, including dedication of conservation and open space easements; and Negative Declaration, amending condition #9, requiring two week prior notification. AYES: Commissioners Gottlieb, Cottrell, Wong & Schreiner ` NOES: None 4r ABSTAIN: Chairman Jinkerson This item will appear on the City Council agenda December 2, 1999. 3.3 LANDS OF GHEYRL 27400 Elena Road (25-99-ZP-SD-GD-VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new two-story residence, swimming pool, and cabana; and a variance to allow the residence and parking spaces within the front setback. The Planning Director introduced this item noting a clarification to the staff report: a portion of the easement runs through the Maraya property, then runs through the Wells property. There are a total of 5 lots on the private driveway but most of the length of the driveway is just to serve the three lots at the end. Commissioner Gottlieb questioned the swale and drainage. Chairman Jinkerson disclosed that he had met Mr. Gheyri on Sunday and walked the site. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING David Tollner, 2050 De La Cruz, Santa Clara, attorney for the applicant, was available to answer any legal questions involving the development of this property. He stated this was a long and frustrating process for his client who has been trying to get a building permit for over two years. 400 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/9/99 November 10, 1999 Page 5 The Planning Director clarified that the application was submitted in February, 1999. He provided a brief history of the application which included several complicating circumstances which have delayed scheduling for Commission review. Those issues included Health Department approval of the septic system, geotechnical study and review of a fault trace on the site, the legality of the lot and the Certificate of Compliance, and the adequacy of driveway improvements required within the easement. Cyrous Gheyri, 10355 Sterns Avenue, Cupertino, applicant, clarified that the property had been on the market for a long time. No one wanted to clean up the maps and surroundings. The property line, in relationship to the easement for the private driveway that goes to the neighbor, is parallel to 1-280. As you come to Elena Road, you pass through his easement from Maraya's property and the Wells' property; both recorded easements. There are only four people benefiting from this driveway; Skarmoutsos, his two parcels, and the Wells. The property line is more than 100 feet from the house site. He was willing to work with staff and the City Attorney regarding recording an easement where the driveway that goes to Mr. Skarrnoutsos' house is located. Commissioner Schreiner referred to the report from the Environmental Design Committee as they are very concerned that the creek drains downhill right where the pool is sited. They suggested moving the pool. The Planning Director noted that the Committee reviewed a previous version of the plans and since that time it has been located outside of the drainage Swale. She also asked if they have taken any preliminary studies on the decibel noise. Mr. Gheyri responded he will be using sound barrier boards and they will be using two shield windows to reduce the inside noise. Tom Knapp, 525 University Avenue, Palo Alto, attorney for John and Rosemary Wells who live at 27285 Elena Road. The Wells are very concerned with the application due to this difficult site, the earthquake fault, and most importantly, the long, narrow steep access easement which services this site. They felt the application was incomplete as there are no plans for the driveway easement. Until there is actually an engineered plan they are very concerned about what may occur. He further discussed the calculated slopes, the fire department approval, and no prepared off-site drainage plan. According to Town ordinances, a 25 foot wide access easement is required for a driveway to service two houses. Town ordinances require a much wider easement to accommodate any additional houses. He referred to the law suit, Schroeder vs. Wells, noting that the judge's decision does not limit the Commission's discretion. He referred to page 2, lines 17 through 23 of the "Statement of Decision" in the packet to provide additional clarification on this issue. Mr. Snape noted he had previously been a Planning Commissioner for the Town of Woodside for eight years and he is a real property attorney. Don Wolfe, 1715 Valley View, Belmont, planning consultant for Mr. and Mrs. Wells. He has been a Planning Commissioner and a member of an architectural board of review. He has served as planning staff to 13 Planning Commissions and a Planner for 40 years. He addressed two issues: the site development permit and the variance. They cannot be certain that the site development permit would not result in adverse impacts on the adjacent neighbors. There has Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/9/99 November 10, 1999 Page 6 been no final submission of a driveway plan or landscape screening plan. They are needed to carefully review any potential off-site impacts. They are concerned with the protection of the Wells utilities, the impact of tree and shrub removal, surface drainage, visual impacts, driveway construction and safety, and slope stability. He further discussed the recommended findings for approval of variances, reviewing the following: (1) There are no characteristics of the property which would render it impractical to conform to the required setback regulations. Conforming alternatives do exist. Also, it has not been demonstrated that any of the approximate neighbors have buildings that encroach into the setbacks. (2) The approval would constitute a grant of special privileges as no one has demonstrated that the neighbors have variances. (3) Questionable. and (4) Finding can be met. He also noted that the applicant will be using the maximum floor and development area numbers. He has driven and walked the road to the property site. A decision cannot be reached until the driveway plans are in and reviewed (safety issue). Jeff Peterson, City Engineer, noted that staff has been working with the applicant and his engineer for some time. The problem has been getting enough information to assess and evaluate the driveway. Up to date, staff has reviewed three or four driveway submittals. There has been some issues regarding completeness of plans, and accuracy of topography which is critical on a narrow easement like this. The driveway plan is still missing some key information. The Engineering Department as well as the Planning Commission need a proposal that can be evaluated. They also need to know the impact of the proposal (i.e. impact of three large oak L trees along the easement). Also, the retaining walls are not shown on the plans. They are �r working in the right direction but are still missing vital information. They need an actual proposal to review and evaluate. Mr. Peterson has primarily been working on the driveway (access). He further asked if anyone had concerns regarding drainage, to express their concerns. The Planning Director felt the application was complete in other respects (site lay -out, geotechnical review of the house, pool house,pool, drainage) other than the driveway. Chairman Jinkerson felt the driveway design was crucial prior to any approval. Paul Chalmers, 601 California Avenue, Palo Alto, attorney for the Marayas, discussed the problems with the driveway along the easement, one in particular, erosion problems causing the asphalt to crumble away. He indicated an on-going law suit. He continued by commenting on the impact to the neighbors with the additional use of the easement. The easement runs very close the backside of the Maraya house (bedroom side). If the Commission approves the development of the property, and Mr. Gheyn obtains the right, through litigation, to use the easement, the Commission should require as a condition of any development, that some measures are in place for reduction of sound vibration, dust, and whatever other impacts may occur during construction along with anyone else who would be impacted by the easement. Mike Skarmoutsos, 27440 Elena Road, felt the applicant has a right to build. He felt the road was safe as he has been using it for 11 years. N Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/9/99 November 10, 1999 Page 7 Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, requested the oak trees which have been eliminated from the plan be saved. Also, she suggested controlling the blackberries on the property. Dianne Barrager, Pathways Committee, requested the granting of a 10 foot easement adjacent to I-280 right-of-way for future native path. The pathway should meander through the oak trees. She felt this was a safety issue as it would provide a way out of the area in case of an emergency situation. It was understood that the pathway goes nowhere. Mike Skarmoutsos, 27440 Elena Road, felt the pathway was not needed as it goes nowhere. Brief break at 8:40 p.m. T. K. Singh, 305 Hazelton Court, Morgan Hill, applicant's civil engineer (nearly 40 years of experience), discussed the access road, explaining the angles of the access road, the length, the locations of the 20 to 25% slopes, grading, and the needed retaining walls. It is only a question of putting down on the plans the exact location the wooden retaining wall would be required He has given a fairly detailed layout in the form of a plan as well as in the form of sections. Regarding the oak trees, he stated they are not on this property but just outside the easement. Only the dripline comes onto the easement line. They will not be going new the trees. Also, the drainage problems are not created by the Gheyri's property but from the top down. Actually, it is Mr. Gheyri who suffers from the drainage problem. The problem will not become aggravated by raising the road or by re -grading the road. The access road is not on the property for the first 900 feet. At a 15% grade, the retaining wall would be a length of 235 feet, a maximum height of 6 feet then tapering down to zero. The length of the 6 foot portion would be 150 feet. The remainder of the 80 feet would be tapered down. All the retaining walls will be adjacent to the neighbors property. Chairman Jinkerson clarified that the Commission does not have a plan indicating where the roadway would go and where the walls would be located. They only have estimates. He requested an exact plan showing the walls. He further questioned the cut and fill amounts. Mr. Singh indicated it was not known as yet what the cut and fill would be with an 18% slope. The Planning Director indicated that the Fire Department was concerned not so much with the grades but with the widening. They felt the 18 foot width was acceptable although they have not seen a final design. David Tollner indicated that this application has been in the process for two years. He referred to the Planning Director's recommendation to approve the requested Site Development Permit and Variances, subject to the conditions of approval. He felt the plan defects were so minor he asked that the applicant be allowed to proceed with this project. They we not talking about safety issues but an easement that flows into the applicant's property which will service four properties. There does not appear to be any objections to the house. Regarding the lawsuit, it was originally filed by the Maraya's against Mr. Gheyri. Mr. Gheyri's council filed and served a summary judgment motion and based upon that motion Mr. Gheryri was dismissed in that kAr lawsuit. Ten years ago, this issue was decided; the owner of Mr. Gheryi's property had the right Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/9/99 November 10, 1999 Page 8 tav to 25 feet on that easement regardless of what he has to remove provided he stays within that 25 feet and provided he stays within the code of the Town. Regarding the variance, it is not Mr. Gheryi's fault that he needs a variance. He was told by a geotechnical engineer who works for this city that he could not be a certain distance from a fault, etc. The variance is also very minor. The key issue is Mr. Peterson's comments (defective plan). He felt all items could have been satisfied if Mr. Peterson would have been available. Cyrus Gheyd discussed the long process and the problems with the neighbors regarding the easement. Ten years ago this issue was decided. Regarding drainage, this property is at the lowest point in the neighborhood. Even in the summertime there is water. Also, there is no hydrant near his property. He has accepted the responsibility of bringing in a hydrant. He is improving the neighborhood. David Tollner discussed the safety issues and the fire department recommendation which is getting the fire department down the road and to the neighbors who may need help. This is satisfied by an 18 foot asphalt roadway which they are planning. He requested the Commission to follow the recommendations of the Planning Director, to pass this project, and allow them, under conditions, to finalize these minor issues. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Director clarified that staff has recommended two options for this project. The report identified the driveway was an issue and not completely approved by the City Engineer. Staff brought this forward recognizing that the easement does exist but it also requires determining that the access roadway within that easement is sufficient to serve multiple lots. This is what is being discussed; the adequacy of the design. Regarding the possibility of land swaps or some type of flexibility to help better accommodate the driveway, he felt they have heard enough from all parties to know that this is a highly unlikely scenario at this point but one that cannot be entertained until they have a good sense of the driveway impacts. He further took exception with the perspective on reducing the square footage of this project which is not a recommendation of staff. However, there are two very different avenues to pursue and justify the reduction if the appropriate findings are made. One is under the Site Development policies discussed previously in the recent ordinance amendment where the Council allows the Commission to reduce square footage where they find there are unusual circumstances and site constraints. There are certainly unusual constraints on this site. Secondly, this is different because this is a variance. If the Commission felt the variance findings were not met, they certainly could reduce the square footage enough to pull the comer of the stmcture back out of the setback. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/9/99 November 10, 1999 Page 9 Chairman Jinkerson felt the critical issue was the roadway. They have been told it can be done but not how much dirt will be moved, how the soil will be compacted, what impact to the neighbors while grading is going on, the impact on the neighborhood, and safety issues regarding putting this road in, rather on top of the land but putting it in a channel (at least 6 feet deep on one side). They do not have a final, concrete road proposal before them. He can work with the applicant on other issues, but until he knows where the road is, it is very difficult to make a determination about anything else. Commissioner Cottrell agreed that they do not have a complete plan and the road is the key issue. He would support a continuance until the necessary information is received. They have not even discussed the house. The neighbors should realize that the applicant will build a house sooner or later and use the easement. He suggested everyone working together. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed. The driveway is not a minor issue (slope issue). She felt the pool area would be better for the house site and the house area better for the pool site with the garage at a higher elevation, and the house stepped down. There is a problem with the freeway but with new construction, a variance should not be needed. She would like to see the house redesigned with a reduction in height, stepped down, and fitting more into the natural grade on the property. Commissioner Schreiner noted that the staff did provide two options. After reading the legal documents carefully; an easement does exist and the applicant has the right to improve the easement. He should also be mindful of the impact of these improvements on the neighbors and the requirements of the engineering and fire departments. She would have liked to see the house stepped down. However, there is articulation along the side of the house which might mitigate the appearance. She would like the applicant to look at the possibility of flipping the house and pool although this is not something she would require. She was mainly concerned with the driveway and the impact in that particular area. Commissioner Wong discussed the two options provided by staff. If the house is acceptable, he would prefer option #1, working with staff. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to continue the request for a Site Development Permit for a new two- story residence, swimming pool, and cabana; and a variance to allow the residence and parking spaces within the front setback, Lands of Gheyri, 27400 Elena Road, to Thursday, December 9, 1999, at 6:00 p.m., considering all comments from the Commission, staff and neighbors regarding the roadway and house. AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners Cottrell, Gottlieb & Schreiner NOES: Commissioner Wong Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1999 Page 10 Approved 12/9/99 3.4 LANDS OF ASTIZ, 13901 Edith Avenue (182-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, and secondary dwelling unit. Staff had nothing further to add. Discussion ensued regarding the height of the cupola, measuring height from existing grade, and the secondary dwelling unit with an attached garage (total area 1138 square feet). The Planning Director noted that there are no interior connections (access) from the secondary unit to the garage. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Von Haws, 329 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, project designer, read a statement from Abigail Ahrens, sharing their thoughts about the challenge of the site and responding to the staff report. They have taken a very challenging site and presented to the Commission a project that meets all the rules, asks for no variances or exceptions, providing a charmed village approach rather than one large house. Peter Astiz, 670 University Avenue, Los Altos, applicant, discussed the appeal of the location and uniqueness of the area. You will only see attractive design elements when driving down either Edith Avenue or Fremont Road. They currently live on University Avenue so are aware of what it is like living on a busy street. The trees along Edith Avenue will provide a buffer, the roof design reduces bulk and the wall will help keep sound out. Tom Mandle, 25435 Fremont Road, felt the design was overbearing for that corner. It is very large and he was concerned with the wall, and drainage. Mr. Hastings, general contractor for Abigail & Haws, discussed drainage and the construction of a swale. Von Haws, regarding drainage, stated they have been working on a three year project with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The swale Mr. Hastings mentioned is between this house and the Rogez project, 50 feet wide and 1 '/z feet deep, designed to mitigate whatever this house and the surroundings would have on the flood plane. He further discussed the installation of a 60" flood control drainage pipe to the north which links some of the runoff from Fremont Road over to the creek. He felt the drainage and flood control issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Town and the Water District. Peter Astiz, has met with the SC V WD numerous times. Most of the flood control work relates to problems up creek, not because of anything they are doing on the site. The allowable building area has been reduced to make room for the SCV WD projects. The proposed design will be less obtrusive than a big block house. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/9/99 November 10, 1999 Page 11 Commissioner Cottrell appreciated the concerns with the lot and the location of the house. But for years before the land was developed, you could not see what was on the lot because of the trees. The Town has already approved a house next door which is similar in height and design. He could support the project with proper landscaping. Commissioner Gottlieb stated during the subdivision process in which Mr. Haws and Ms. Ahrens were present, a great deal of time was spent discussing this site (entry to Town). It was not the intent of the Commission when approving the subdivision to see a wall of houses. Also at that time, height reduction was discussed. The house should be redesigned. Commissioner Schreiner stated this is one of the most visible and prominent entrances into Town. Now you will see several buildings, most of them 26 feet high, and a very bulky 6 foot wall encircling it. The whole concept does not fit with the guidelines and the intent of what they are trying to do in Los Altos Hills. It is also a transition into Los Altos. She would like an attempt to reduce the bulk by either reducing the Porte cochere structure or the bonus room over the garage so the structures are stepped down for a feeling of more space. She asked they do something with the 6 foot wall. Commissioner Wong agreed with Commissioner Cottrell. This project is an equal size to the Rogez house. They should be consistent with their decisions. He could support the project as is with proper landscaping and screening. Chairman Jinkerson provided the history of the subdivision and the concerns with the area being the entrance to the Town. This house at this location is more visible than the Rogez house. This house is on a comer, extremely visible with a feel of being close to the road. This is a very visible lot. He was troubled by the front element on Edith Avenue (two story) which gives a high effect, as well as with the bonus room because it give a high effect over the garage. Also he felt the cupola at 32 feet does not fit in the codes. For this location the roof is too steep, the house should be more in the order of 21 feet and have less impact entering the community. For those reasons he could not support the project. Von Haws asked for more direction. Are they asking for one story structures. They are asking for a major redesign. Mrs. Astiz suggested the wall between the guest house and garage be changed to something more open. Commissioner Gottlieb would like to see a more open and gracious structure, with a partial two story (tucked in). She has always objected to a secondary dwelling set in front of a house. Chairman Jinkerson felt the main concerns were the height of the accessory structures (should be one story), the cupola, and the pitch of the roof (reduce slightly). Commissioner Schreiner asked if the structures which are on the front setback could be pushed back further. 4W Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1999 Page 12 Approved 12/9/99 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to continue the request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, and secondary dwelling unit, Lands of Astiz, 13901 W. Edith Avenue, to December 9, 1999 at 6:00 p.m. AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners Schreiner, Wong, Cottrell & Gottlieb NOES: None 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees. The Community Service awards will be held December 3, 1999. 4.2 Joint meeting November 18, 1999 update. The meeting is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. 5. NEWBUSINESS 5.1 Draft letter in response to 10/22/99 memo from Councihnember Casey (Chairman Jinkerson). No further discussion on this matter as it was reviewed under "PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR". 5.2 Consider rescheduling December 8`h meeting to December 9, 1999 PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To reschedule the December 8`h meeting to December 9, 1999 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for November 4'h, Commissioner Gottlieb, reported on the following items: recommendation for appointment to the Los Altos Hills County Fire District Commission; report on Town Hall Building Committee; report on Board of Supervisors decision on LAFCO; joint meeting November 18'h; findings for color board condition requirements; and discussion of color board requirements in Quarry Hills project. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for November 18`h — meeting canceled 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the October 27, 1999 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the October 27, 1999 minutes Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/9/99 November 10, 1999 Page 13 4 8. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT HEARINGS - NOVEMBER 2 AND 9-199 8.1 LANDS OF ROBERTS, 24044 Oak Knoll Circle (249-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions. 8.2 LANDS OF ROGEZ, 25617 Fremont Road (253-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for hardscape improvements and landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions November 9, 1999. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /, � Lani Smith Planning Secretary - 400