Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/13/20014w Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 9/27/01 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, September 13, 2001, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (2) #13-01 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 Wong, Commissioners Gottlieb & Clow Absent: Commissioners Cottrell & Vita Staff: Carl Cahill, Planning Director; Angelica Herrera, Assistant Planner; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 4 OBSERVED A MOMENT OF SILENCE PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To add an emergency item, 3.3, discussion by the Town Architect regarding input on the formulation of the new Town Hall. 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF KRUEP, 27466 Sunrise Farm Road (186-01-ZP-VAR); A request for a variance to exceed the maximum fence height of 6 feet. Staff had nothing further to add to the report. Letters from neighbors (Chan, Jensen, Conlon, Metcalfe, Sasaki) were received and reviewed. Commissioner Clow disclosed he had meet with the applicants and the Sasaki's. Commissioner Clow's understanding was that there are actually two variance requests; adding a trellis to increase the height, and extending the fence along side the road which would be closer to the road than allowed by code. He felt they technically could grant one and not the other. Commissioner Gottlieb voiced concern regarding sufficient notice of the second variance, and that a fence post had been placed at the base of an oak tree. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/01 September 13, 2001 Page 2 4 Steve Grimes, Grimes, Landscaping discussed the location of the fence which is 45 feet away from the center line of the street. He felt the issue was the high cyclone fence with barbed wire at 12930 Tripoli Court which they are trying to screen. As a resident of Los Altos Hills, he does not want to obstruct any views and he did not feel views were being impacted. Dan Norton, applicant's representative, provided photographs of the 270 foot cyclone fence, six feet high with barbed wire on top. It was understood that the fence was installed for security reasons. To mitigate the looks of the fence they have come up with a design that averages 6.6 feet. The only portion of the fence that exceeds 7 feet are the posts. He further provided photos of examples of neighboring solid fences. He did not feel the fence would block views therefore, a non issue. They have signatures of support from all the close neighbors except for the Sasaki's. It was noted that they did not obtain an arborist report before digging the posts for the fence. Commissioner Clow asked if it was possible to create or put planters on top of a lower fence so a variance is not needed. Mr. Norton did not feel this would be earthquake safe. Commissioner Gottlieb commented on the April 25 letter regarding the height of the westerly located fence not exceeding four feet when located 40 feet from the centerline of the paved road way and may not exceed a maximum height of 6 feet when located 60 feel away from the paved road way. She felt the trellis extended 3 feet over the neighbor's property. Mr. Norton discussed the issue that the top of the proposed 32 inch trellis may encroach on the L Gilbert land by six to fourteen inches as well as the concrete foundations for the post with ta/ their permission. John Miller, 27462 Sunrise Farm Road, voiced support as he has been looking at the Gilbert's barbed wire fence for years, preferring it covered (dangerous, ugly). He noted there are other ways to hide the barbed wire fence such as with redwood trees creating a visual fence. Mr. and Mrs. Sasaki, 12922 Tripoli Court, requested that the fence height be limited to 6 feet. They have been in the neighborhood for 12 years, enjoying their view. They are requesting that the fence height be no more than 6 feet. The granting of a variance would cut their partial view of the valley and the bay below. The trellis will effectively add more height and mass to the fence. They are also concerned with the precedent that an 8' to 9'structure would have on their neighborhood. He would prefer preserving the open, airy and natural feeling of the neighborhood. He also expressed concern asking Mr. Kruep not retaliate, due to their request for denial, by planting massive trees in their view corridor. Also, the Town wide survey indicates the Town prefers open areas. He submitted signatures of neighbors within the 500 foot radius requesting denial of the variance. Mr. and Mrs. Sasaki were also concerned with the oak tree mentioned by Commissioner Gottlieb. Paul Ford, 12901 Tripoli Court, has had a view of the Gilbert property for 25 years which is not a problem to him although a Win 9' fence will set a precedent. If this is approved, he will apply for an 8 foot fence (not a variance) and expect it to be approved. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/01 September 13, 2001 Page 3 Brian Gilbert, representing his mother, Fran Gilbert, at 12930 Tripoli Court, supports the variance request. He provided some history regarding the barbed wire (security) fence. He felt the Kruep's wooden fence was an improvement to the property and voiced support. Regarding any encroachments to their property by the erection of trellis, he stated they do not see this as a problem and would provide signed documentation, if requested. Discussion ensued regarding other security measures and mitigating the top portion of the fence by changing it to a non -barbed wire which Mr. Gilbert stated he would take the suggestions into consideration. He noted that their fence is a perfectly legal fence Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, is not near this property but as a resident, she is aware of the intent of the codes and ordinances and has been involved with approving a great many fences (i.e. Butts property). She felt if this application was approved, there would be numerous other residents who would be asking for the same height request. Ninety-two percent of the residents who responded to the Town Survey indicated they wanted some type of view protection. They also want some control over the height of landscaping. She hoped that the neighbors could work this out. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, stated this problem was created four years ago by allowing back-ups and turnarounds in side setbacks which reduces the area for plantings and green spaces between homes. What she sees on the Kruep property is a 4-5 foot brick wall, then a 6 foot wooden wall. The Town has created this. She respects the Gilbert's 4I right to have a chain link fence for security. However, chain link fences are not open and do not allow for the movement of wildlife. The Town is in favor of keeping view corridors. She felt the trees would have mitigated so must better than a fence but there was not much area for planting. She felt the posts should be removed as they give the appearance of a much higher fence. The illusion from the road is 11 feet of fence. She further discussed oak tree protection. Mrs. Sasaki, 12922 Tripoli Court, clarified that they do not have a 7 foot fence as noted by Dan Norton and respectively requested a denial of the variance. Steve Grimes clarified that the fence is 7 feet or lower except for portions of the post which could be removed (cut off). Randall Kruep, 27466 Sunrise Farm Road, applicant, stated they do not particularly like fences but do respect Mrs. Gilbert's need for security. He felt by developing the site, they were improving the whole neighborhood by opening up views for everyone. He thanked Commissioner Clow for helping with what he thought was an agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Sasaki to help preserve their view by taking the trellis down on the last two links of the fence and to modify the posts considerably. Apparently he was wrong. He felt there were some special circumstances with the barbed wire, and the height of the fence. They modeled their fence and trellis after the Sasaki's so it would fit in. He asked that they be allowed to move forward with the project. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/01 September 13, 2001 Page 4 Commissioner Gottlieb stated if they put hanging planters on their side of the fence with plants growing I' to 3' feet high, this would cover the fence, keeping the fence at 6 feet. Hopefully the neighbor would removed the barbed wire atop their fence. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Gottlieb stated that they have not allowed 8 foot fences even along the freeway. Solid fences are not neighborly. She cannot make findings for the variance. She would like the applicants to work with the neighbors for the removal of the barbed wire, keeping an open feeling. Commissioner Clow noted that he had met with the applicants and the Sasaki's in an attempt to resolve the Sasaki's concerns regarding views. There did not seem to be a need for a lattice or any extension of the fence in their section. The thought was that the Sasaki's would withdraw their objections and in return the Kruep's would agree not to put any trellis on any area adjoining their property and would not put any plantings on their property that would block their view. However, the Sasaki's felt the issue was the high fence (8 feet). In the past, the Planning Commission has not approved high fence variances. He did not feel an eyesore (Gilbert's fence) was a unique situation. He liked Commissioner Gottlieb's suggestion regarding planters hanging from the fence to allow plantings to grow up the additional one foot to hide the barbed wire fence. He would support the 6 foot fence out to the natural end of the fence. Chairman Wong agreed. The issue is allowing a variance approval simply because of an eye sore. He could not support extending the fence. 4 MOTION FAILED: Motion by Commissioner Clow to approve the 6 foot fence going to the edge of the property within the road right of way. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Wong to deny the request for a variance to exceed the maximum fence height of 6 feet citing the findings outlined in attachment 3, Lands of Kmep, 27466 Sunrise Farm Road. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioner Gottlieb NOES: Commissioner Clow ABSENT: Commissioners Cottrell & Vitu This denial is subject to a 22 day appeal period. 3.2 BUILDING HEIGHT AND SETBACKS: a. Increase front and rear yard setbacks for two story homes that are larger than 6,000 square feet. b. Allow increases in building height to promote architectural diversity, provided that setbacks lengthen in proportion to building height; This item was introduced by the Planning Director noting the City Council recently directed the Planning Commission to examine the town's current setback requirements and height regulations. Two areas of concern are whether or not the town should: Increase front and Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27101 September 13, 2001 Page 5 4 rear yard setbacks for two story homes that are larger than 6,000 square feet; and allow increases in building height to promote architectural diversity, provided that setbacks lengthen in proportion to building height. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Walter Chapman, Chapman Design, 620 S. El Monte Avenue, Los Altos, has been working in the town for approximately 16 years. He felt building height becomes the most difficult factor when designing a house as far as architectural style. Part of the challenge is by adding greater distance as you go taller which allows some freedom in the design in the building but again keeps them further away from the neighbors and roadways. He has watched the heights go from 35 feet down to 27 feet which is difficult design -wise. With larger sites, you can build more but not taller which can create a design with no character. What height to recommend? He would not know where to start. The idea of a daylight plane which has been explored in the staff report is an approach that many communities have used. Discussion ensued regarding different design scenarios. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested the increase in height could only be in the roof line. William Masten, Architects, 384 Castro Street, Mountain View, prefers Palo Alto daylight plane allowing dormers to penetrate daylight plane and allowing 15 foot encroachment into the side building envelope lines. It breaks up the roofs and creates more architectural variety. He was concerned with uphill views to homes if maximum heights are increased. There should be discussion on how to solve this. Maximum wall heights may help solve this as the slope increases. He discussed the following: stepping the building back but avoiding the "birthday cake" effect; maximum flat wall height (wall plate); average wall height; and mid- point of the sloping roof to detemilne maximum building height. He liked the idea of having a different maximum height for flat roofs. John Goldman, Town Hall Architect, stated height, in San Francisco, is defined as "the top of a flat roof or the mid -point of a sloping roof," It works well as it encourages these sloping roofs to occur with dormers. San Francisco handles steep sites height limits by measuring from the highest point. For a certain distance you can go straight, then it drops down, another interval straight, etc. The steeper the site, the shorter the intervals get. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, stated the Town Survey indicated the residents were satisfied with how the town was developing. The maximum height in town use to be 30 feet and after her subdivision was completed, the maximum height was reduced to 27 feet. She would like to see how a hillside could be developed. She noted that the City of Carmel has changed its development policy and they are calculating completely on volume. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9@7/01 September 13, 2001 Page 6 4 Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, again discussed encroachments into side setbacks which creates a problem with privacy and planting. The side setbacks are where the encroachments are being allowed for backups and turnarounds. If you have two new homes, side by side, you may have only a separation of 20 feet which promotes fences and less green belts. As the homes get larger, the side setbacks should be increased. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Discussion ensued regarding all input provided. The Commission thanked Mr. Chapman and Mr. Masten for their time and input. It was agreed not to take action until they receive further recommendations, diagrams and a view of different homes, at a future time. 3.3 Meeting with the Town Hall Architect, John Goldman. Mr. Goldman discussed "Creating the Program" handout which he provided to the Commissioners. The program is a document which summarizes information necessary to generate the building design. Once the programming phase is complete, the schematic design phase of the project will begin. He asked the Commissioners to fill out the documents which will help in the ultimate design, in particular, the Council Chambers. 4. OLD BUSINESS `/ 4.1 Report from subcommittees -none 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.1 Review "Meeting Management" training video, September 27, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. It was agreed to watch the video after a short meeting. 5.2 Review of current applications for Wireless Communications Facilities in Los Altos Hills. 5.3 Interpretation of floor area definition (removable patio enclosure panels), Lands of Wong, 14250 Miranda Road PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this item until the September 27' meeting (lacked quorum). 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for September 6 —none 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for September 20 — Commissioner Clow Planning Commission Minutes Approved 9/27/01 September 13, 2001 Page 7 4 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the August 9, 2001 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the August 9, 2001 minutes. 8. REPORT FROM FAST TRACK MEETING -AUGUST 21 28 & SEPTEMBER 11 2001 8.1 LANDS OF CHENG, 26970 Arastradero Road (71-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for an addition to an existing residence. Approved with conditions. 8.2 LANDS OF HESARI & DERAK, 26520 Conejo Court (43-01-ZP-SD-); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, cabana, and pool. Approved with conditions. 8.3 LANDS OF WESTRA, 10574 Blander Way (145-01-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. Approved with conditions. 8.4 LANDS OF MILLER, 27880 Via Ventana (120-01-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool (continued to date 4 uncertain). 8.5 LANDS OF MCCREARY, 23750 Ravensbury Avenue (103-01-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. Approved with conditions. 9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING—AUGUST 21 & 28 AND SEPTEMBER 4 & 11 2001 9.1 LANDS OF WAHL, 12051 Stonebrook Drive (131-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for golf greens and retaining wall development. Approved with conditions. 9.2 LANDS OF WEISSMAN, 27227 Black Mountain Road (235-00-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a swimming pool. Approved with conditions. 9.3 LANDS OF BARITEAU, 13769 Wildflower Lane (139-01-ZP-SD-VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for a swimming pool and landscape/hardscape improvements, and minor variance to allow patio to encroach into setback. Approved with conditions. Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2001 Page 8 Approved 9/27/01 9.4 LANDS OF NIJENHUIS & BROERING, 12175 Hilltop Drive (174-01-ZP- SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. 9.5 LANDS OF LIN, 24021 Oak Knoll Circle(181-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:50 p.m. Res ectfully submitted, Lam Smith Planning Secretary