Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/24/2001Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 6/28/01 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, May 24, 2001, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (3) #8-01 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Gottlieb, Vita &Wong Absent: Commissioner Clow Staff: Carl Cahill, Planning Director; Angelica Herrera, Assistant Planner; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary ` 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -None �r 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF WADHWANI, 26170 Fremont Road (37-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and a secondary dwelling unit. This item was introduced by staff indicating two changes to the staff report: page 3, and page 6 changing "Site Development Committee" to 'Planning Commission" review of landscaping. Letters regarding the project were received from the following: Harry Price; Vince and Monica Giacomini; John Glathe; L. Victor Riches; Edward Boscacci; Mr. and Mrs. Stewart; Fred Osterlund; and neighborhood petitions. Ms. Herrera identified the concems: Height- no official policy regarding the La Paloma Corridor; and Grading -referring to a letter from Curtis Williams, previous Planning Director, indicating Planning Commission approval of the grading and drainage plan April 8, 1998. Commissioner Gottlieb referred to condition #20 and the two foot fill. She felt a letter of map revision for this property should be required to be issued by FEMA prior to plan check rather than prior to final project approval. The level of the ground should also be certified as it would impact the height of the house. The Planning Director clarified that the house will be above the flood plane. Commissioner Gottlieb stated that when the property was subdivided, there was a condition of approval regarding a conservation easement over the width of the drainage channel (from top of bank to top of bank). She also read a statement from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/28/01 May 24, 2001 Page 2 Romesh Wadhwani, 470 Juanita Way, Los Altos, applicant, discussed the diverse area in the heart of Silicon Valley with many different architectural styles. He reviewed the history of the property and the approved subdivision. Mrs. Maurer (previous owner) had met with him indicating the property was "happy land". He felt the land was too beautiful to subdivide and decided to create a fusion home (Italian and Indian design). He introduced his project team stating when he started the project the key elements were neighbor friendly design, keeping within Town ordinances, and to minimize the impact of the structure with larger setbacks. They were going to minimize the impact by planting over 200 trees around the house. He had held an open house on the property to review the plans with the neighbors and to receive input. Concerns expressed related to the 27 foot height. He clarified that the house is a home and not a house of worship as stated by one neighbor. Michael Moyer, 430 Sherman Avenue, Palo Alto, project architect, discussed the Italian/Indian design with a 200 foot setback from Fremont Road. He realized there had been concerns by some neighbors regarding the 27 foot height, however, they will be lower than most surrounding neighbors and there will be ample area for landscape screening with only a glimpse of the driveway visible after landscaping. He provided a model of the project for review and also provided photographs of other two story, diverse houses in the general area. The guest house is also set back greater than required. The design meets all Town codes and he felt this single family home will be an asset to the community. He further discussed the open house in December for the neighbors and the changes made to the plan after the open house which included open style fencing, and the use of all native plantings along the creek, pulling the lawn area back from the creek to prevent non native grasses invading the stream. The land has a history of an apricot orchard and they have incorporated an apricot orchard in the back of the lot. He illustrated the fill on the property noting they have buried the house down two to three feet. He noted the Stewart elevation at 242 versus the Wadhwani elevation at 235. The actual height of the house will be 26.6 feet. Only 25% of the structure is second floor keeping the ridge two feet lower. Tom Mope, 1857 Appletree Lane, Mountain View, landscape architect, discussed the proposed landscape plan relocating only one palm tree. The Planning Commission will be able to review the landscape plan after framing. The average height of the proposed mature trees were discussed (view issues). Ed Boscacci, BKF, 540 Price Avenue, Redwood City, project engineer, discussed the creek and drainage. The plans had been submitted to FEMA and they are waiting final approval. They cannot get final approval from FEMA until after the project is completed. He further discussed FEMA requirements. He also referred to Fred Osterlund's letter indicating they could incorporate some of his suggestions regarding the drainage. The roof area represents about 12.5% of the 2.5 acre site. He felt the proposed development implements significant best management practices for storm water management. Additional measures can be incorporated into the project design within limitations of the site soils conditions. They are willing to work with the staff during the final grading and drainage plan review phase to develop a reasonable plan for site drainage. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/28/01 May 24, 2001 Page 3 Chet Silvestri, 13935 La Paloma Road, discussed the La Paloma Corridor and the staff report by Curtis Williams dated September 2, 1998 regarding same with a 4-1 vote. He had circulated a petition to the surrounding neighbors regarding the 27 foot height to create a policy. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the 27 foot height and to continue to use the policy described as the La Paloma Corridor. He provided additional petitions to the staff. Lala Carston, 13761 La Paloma Road, voiced objection to the La Paloma Corridor policy. She asked for a conclusion to this issue as she felt you could not tell the difference between a 25, 26' or 27'structure from a distance. John Stewart, 13975 La Paloma Road, was concerned with views as he felt the structure was too massive and too high. If the policy which has been in place is changed, it would not be fair to those who had to comply previously. He voiced concern with the project so close to his property. The Planning Commission and staff started the policy; they should adhere to it. He further discussed the architectural style, proper screening, the pool house, drainage, and the reflectivity of the marble domes. Fred Osterlund, 26238 Fremont Road, voiced concern regarding the proposed project and read his letter which had been provided to the Commission. Highlights of the letter included the size of the home, drainage from the property, the side yard setbacks, driveway area which limits effectiveness of landscaping, and planting near the creek. Sandy Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road, discussed the conditions of approval previously placed on the two lot subdivision (23 foot height limitation), and the effects on Barron Creek providing a letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. She is not opposed to large homes but the Town is zoned for single family homes, asking if there will be more than one family living in the structure (plan indicates five kitchens). Jim Abraham, 12831 Viscaino Road, was concerned with the domes as white marble can be very reflective. He felt the domes should be treated in the same manner as a roof with a light reflectivity of 40 or less. He further discussed flooding and drainage. Dave Pefly, 26169 Mauer Lane, discussed the previous concerns regarding height and felt he could not object to something he cannot see. Also, the staff can handle the reflectivity issue. He had no major objections. Carol Meyer, 26007 Torello Lane, expressed concern. When you have a process, many properties were restricted to 23 feet which provided charm to this restricted neighborhood. Carol Glathe, 13801 La Paloma Road, a 30 year resident, felt they needed consistency maintaining the height limit at 23 feet. She was also concerned with water as so many houses are being built in the area. I� U Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/28/01 May 24, 2001 Page 4 Michael Moyer spoke of the unique features of the land due to the flood plane (basement not allowed). If they cannot have a second floor they would have to cover a large amount of the land. He noted an error in the plans indicating five kitchens. Some areas were incorrectly marked. There will only be two kitchens. Tom Slope discussed condition #1, asking for a 16 foot wide driveway so two cars can pass each other. He referred to Mr. Riches letter which indicated support. Regarding the domes made of marble and reflectivity, the curved surface reduces reflectivity and they would be happy to work with staff regarding any concerns. The bronze material will have a patina finish and they will certify the height at 26.6 feet. Mr. Wadhwani appreciated the input from everyone. He was told there would not be a problem with a 27 foot house. Staff did not mention anything regarding a La Paloma Corridor. If this policy was applied to six other homes, it was not an ordinance or a policy. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Vitu was impressed with the lower siting and the increased setbacks. The La Paloma Corridor policy never became law. Commissioner Gottlieb stated the La Paloma Corridor had been previously reviewed and voted on by the Commission. There still is a policy regarding a 23 foot height limitation. She felt the same condition for the subdivision should be t applied to this single family dwelling. She could support this project. She read the �r landscape/conservation easement condition from the subdivision conditions of approval. Reflectivity was a concern, suggesting the use of deeper colors due to the lack of trees. Also, she requested that mature landscaping not be any higher than the home. Commissioner Wong discussed the integrity of the Planning Commission (try to be consistent). They are not setting a precedent by approving a house 26.6 feet in height. Regarding the La Paloma Corridor, the Commission does not make policy; only the City Council. It never was a policy. He did not feel the height was an issue and the house has been designed elegantly. He was concerned with the landscape trees suggesting they use something other than redwoods. Chairman Cottrell felt the issue was fairness. He referred to the letter from the City Attorney who stated there was no policy regarding a maximum height of 23 feet within what is called the La Paloma Corridor. He supports the height and the project subject to the conditions of approval with the landscape plan to return to the Commission. Discussion ensued regarding a conservation easement over the width of the drainage channel (from top of bank to top of bank), as proposed with the subdivision and the request for a 16 foot wide driveway. It was felt the applicant could use grasscrete on both sides of the driveway, if needed, for the occasional times when cars would be passing. v Planning Commission Minutes Approved 028/01 May 24, 2001 Page 5 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Wong and seconded by Commissioner Vitu to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool, and pool house, Lands of Wadhwani, 26170 Fremont Road, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: the driveway width shall be reduced to 14 feet maximum; the landscape screening, landscape lighting, and erosion control plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; landscaping will generally not exceed the height of the new residence; the roof and domes shall use materials that have a light reflectivity value of 40 or less except where adequately mitigated by landscape screening installed prior to framing and subject to review and approval by the Planning Director; the six accent uplights at the house entry are not approved. The safety security outdoor lighting labeled "Caribbean Sun Flood" lights shall be installed on motion sensors; add to #11, that the site drainage plan associated with the proposed development "shall be revised" and must...; add to #16, that all construction trucks shall be parked on the property site', add to #16, that placement of sanitary facilities (shall be located on the property site out of the setbacks); and plantings by the drainage ditch shall be non invasive native plantings. AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Wong & Vitu, NOES: Commissioner Gottlieb ABSENT: Commissioner Clow This approval is subject to a 22 day appeal period. 3.2 ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN'S ZONING CODE WITH REGARD TO THE BASEMENT DEFINITION (SECTION 10-1.208) AND REVIEW OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY. The Planning Director introduced this item noting that the Planning Commission discussed the basement ordinance during its January I& and February 14th meetings and also reviewed the basement ordinances of other nearby communities similar in character to Los Altos Hills. The discussion came about as a result of several recent projects where basements or underground rooms were proposed that did not appear to fully comply with the current basement definition. The Commission noted the difficulty of constructing a basement "wholly underground" particularly when the lot was sloped. He referred to the City Council meetings of March 15° and April 19". After much discussion, the City Council directed staff to prepare two revised basement definitions for review. Discussion ensued regarding definition "A" and "B". OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, provided the Commission with a news article "Atherton approves basement limits" regarding limits placed on basement size. In particular, the applicant was proposing a basement which would extend five feet from the property line which would prevent the growth of any trees. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/28/01 May 24, 2001 Page 6 Discussion ensued. The majority of the Commissioners thought that it was appropriate for the Town to allow "walk -out" style basements under the criteria specified in the proposed definition. They also determined that it was reasonable to continue to allow basements and cellars to be constructed outside the footprint of an above -ground structure but that such underground structures should be counted as development area since they diminished the amount of area available for planting trees and large shrubs. Commissioner Gottlieb felt the walkout basement should not be allowed when such areas are visible to neighbors and that underground garages should always be counted as floor area. Also, basements constructed beyond the building foot print might have negative effects on the environment particularly with regards to geological hazards. The Planning Director clarified that basements are already allowed by the Zoning Code to be constructed beyond the footprint of a structure above. The proposed basement definition provides no additional incentive to construct basements beyond the footprint of an above ground structure and would in fact now subject such structures to specific development standards where currently there are none. According to the Town geologist, there is no evidence indicating that properly located and engineered underground structures are likely to significantly increase the potential for mudslides or other episodes of geologic instability. Also of importance, the proposed basement definition specifically prohibits the location of basement structures within setbacks. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Vitu and seconded by Commissioner Wong to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed draft ordinance amending zoning code with regard to basement definition "A". AYES: Chairman Cottrell & Commissioner Wong & Vita NOES: Commissioner Gottlieb ABSENT: Commissioner Clow This item will be scheduled for a City Council agenda. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees -none 5. NEW BUSINESS Reminder regarding he Town Picnic which will be held June 3, 2001. 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for May 17a, Commissioner Cottrell, reported on the following: introduction of Ordinance amending the Town's Zoning Code with regard to the amount of allowable development area and floor area; review of mitigated negative declaration and addendum to the negative declaration (first reading); and Planning Commission assignments. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/28/01 May 24, 2001 Page 7 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for June 7ih - Commissioner Gottlieb 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for June 21" — Commissioner Wong 7. APPROVAL OFMBQUfES 7.1 Approval of the May 10, 2001 minutes -continued 8. REPORT FROM FAST TRACK MEETING- MAY 15 & 22.2001 8.1 LANDS OF BEYER, 26030 Elena Road (7-01-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. Approved with conditions May 15, 2001. 8.2 LANDS OF WOO & TAM, 27890 Elena Road (44-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, including a accessory structure. Approved with conditions May 22, 2001. 9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING—MAY 15 2001 9.1 LANDS OF BEYER, 26030 Elena Road (7-01-ZP-SD-GD-VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for a variance to allow grading within 10 feet of a property line for required fire truck turnaround. Approved with conditions May 15, 2001. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:30 p.m. R`ee�(s�s ectully submitted, V -. Lam S� Planning Secretary 4