Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/2002Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 6/13/02 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, May 9, 2002, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (1) #05-02 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 Wong, Commissioners Clow, Cottrell, Gottlieb & Vita Staff: Carl Cahill, Planning Director; Angelica Herrera, Assistant Planner; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none 4W 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Los Altos Hills Municipal Code and Policy Review Committee Presentation to the Planning Commission with regard to the following Municipal Code Sections (continued from April 11, 2002): L Outdoor Lighting (Section 10-2.10) U. Structure Colors and Materials (Section 10-2.702, 4, iii) HI. Landscaping (Section 10-2.8) IV. Structure Siting (Section 10-2.702) Staff had nothing further to add. Committee member, Evan Wythe, was available for questions OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Discussion ensued regarding if there was a Town map showing ridgelines and what is the definition of a ridgeline. It was felt there should be an objective way to make a determination. Commissioner Vitu agreed with the Committee's recommendations on the minor changes made. The new height and setback changes were mentioned as it relates to any possible conflict. Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2002 Page 2 Approved 6/13/02 4 Commissioner Gottlieb clarified that if a structure is proposed on a ridgeline, the height is a maximum of 21 feet; if not, maximum 27 feet. Also, she suggested substituting the word "obtrusive" to "blend into the natural surroundings". This phrase could be used in the 'Purposes" section also. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Vitu and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to recommend to the City Council the approval of Article 7, Building Siting, View Protection, Ridgeline Preservation, Creek Protection, as submitted, with the following modifications: the word 'obtrusive" replaced with "blend into the natural surroundings'; and adding "Ridgeline and Hilltop" as designated on a Town map to be created. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Clow, Gottlieb, Cottrell & Vim NOES: None MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Clow to recommend to the City Council the approval of Article 10, Outdoor Lighting, as proposed, changing (d) from "several' to "two (2) per acre". AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Cottrell, Vita, Clow & Gottlieb NOES: None Discussion ensued regarding reflectivity value, what is highly visible, and under what conditions should 50% reflectivity value be used. Evan Wythe indicated that usually any new house is highly visible. The Committee did not want to define "highly visible" which is an impossible definition to get into. They felt one definition should be used for all. It was felt exceptions could be granted by the Planning Commission. Currently, this area is not a problem. It was suggested using reflectivity value for new homes on designated ridgelines. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb recommend to the City Council the approval of 10-1, Color, as submitted. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Cottrell, Clow & Gottlieb NOES: Commissioner Vitu MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Vita and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to recommend to the City Council the approval of Sec. 9-1.07, Tree Removal, as amended by the Committee. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Gottlieb, Clow, Cottrell & Vim NOES: None Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/13/02 May 9, 2002 Page 3 4W MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to recommend to the City Council the approval of Article 8, Landscaping, with changes and modifications as follows: adding to the 'Purpose' section, replacing the word 'obtrusive" with "blend into the natural surroundings; Sec. 10-2.803 Site Development, change to read 'landscaping to help structures blend into the natural environment partially screened and in conformance ..." AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Gottlieb, Cottrell, Vitu & Clow NOES: None Discussion ensued regarding drought resistant plants and how to calculate the number of plants for an area. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Vita and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to recommend to the City Council the Sec. 10-2.804, preferred species list, as amended: The Planning Director shall maintain a preferred species list for distribution to applicants ...... (no change) "which includes plants that are drought resistant according to the preferred species list." AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Clow, Cottrell & Vitu NOES: Commissioner Gottlieb 4 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Vita to approved Article 4, Heritage Trees, as recommended with a change to the second sentence: "If the owner of the property where the proposed Heritage Tree is located protests the designation of Heritage Tree, the City Council may override the Heritage Tree designation with a vote of the majority of the Council members." AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Cottrell, Gottlieb, Clow & Vitu NOES: None MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Vitu to recommend to the City Council that Article 5, Protection of Trees in anticipation of and during the development process, be moved from 'Parks and Recreation" to "Site Development'. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Gottlieb, Clow, Cottrell & Vitu NOES: None These items will be scheduled for a City Council future agenda 3.2 LANDS OF SWAN, 13201 Burke Road (42-02-MISC); A request for vacation of a portion of Burke Road right of way at 13201 Burke Road 4 (APN 175-37-012) and 13190 Burke Road (APN 175-37-011). re Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/13/02 May 9, 2002 Page 4 Staff (Angelica Herrera) introduced this item by noting the receipt of a plat map from the applicants. In 1987 the other portion of Burke Road was abandoned. The applicants are simply asking to vacate the remain area. This is in accordance with the General Plan. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Swan, 13201 Burke Road, applicant, noted the area to be abandoned is only 13201 Burke Road as 13190 Burke Road has already been abandoned. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Vita to recommend approval to the City Council a request for vacation of a portion of Burke Road right of way at 13201 Burke Road which is in conformance with the General Plan. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Vita, Cottrell, Gottlieb & Clow NOES: None 3.3 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN'S ZONING CODE WITH REGARD TO HEIGHT (SECTION 10-1.504). The Planning Director introduced this item noting the City Council had accepted most of the Commission's previous recommendations, as is, but they asked for clarification on a few items, one being they wanted the increase to be proportional. The Ordinance has been written as such so it reflects an allowable proportion increase in height with a corresponding increase in setback, and provided they meet all the other rules set forth. The other item noted by the Council was that instead of requiring every project going to the Planning Commission, the Planning Director had the discretion that if there were issues with the house and/or neighbors, the project would be heard at the Commission level (follow same guidelines as Fast Track). OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Walter Chapman, 620 El Monte Road, Los Altos, Designer, provided a sketch that reflects the proposed Ordinance (with the sloping plane) for review. He discussed different design scenarios and verbiage in the Ordinance. He was asking for clarification of the verbiage as at the Council meeting there were some people under the impression that the 32 foot building had to be at the 45 or 60 foot setback. Now that they have clearly defined it as a sloping plane, any structure can be at any distance up to the 30 feet and the structure can get taller as it moves away from the property line. For clarification he noted that if you build a structure 27 feet tall, it can be at 30 feet from the property line. If you build at 29 feet tall, it has to be back 6 feet further, 30 feet tall, it has to be back further again. You can have any combination of elements on one building, ( each at different setbacks and heights up to a maximum of 32 feet tall (not a flat roof). Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/13/02 May 9, 2002 Page 5 4 Commissioner Vita noted that you could have a 32 foot tall structure on the existing setback line as long as the higher portion of the roof is back farther from the property line (sloped back). She did not feel this was the intention of the City Council. She felt they were intending to get homes to be set back farther particularly from the road and to do this they were going to allow them to have a higher roof height. Discussion ensued regarding interpretation. Commissioner Gottlieb felt the purpose of the ordinance change was to get the larger and taller homes off the front of the road. Mr. Chapman noted that having the lower portions of the home in front makes it softer and mitigates the mass. Mr. Wythe commented that the phrase in #4, "any sloped roof must terminate at a ridge above 27 feet", suggesting "the top of any sloped roof area above 27 feet must be a roof ridge, not a flat roof' or "any structure higher than 27 feet must be a pitched roof structure that terminates in a ridge at 32 feet or less" (wording provided by Walter Chapman). Discussion ensued regarding #1. It was felt it needed clarification. Evan Wythe, 13828 Moon Lane, felt the idea was to reward applicants who moved their house further back from the setback by allowing them a higher home; it was not to put the house on the setback, keeping it low for a while and then slope it up to a bigger home. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, agreed with Mr. Wythe. She felt that the information provided to the City Council was clear in that this would give people an opportunity E for architectural diversity. In order to get the 32 feet in height you would bring the house back to 4I 60 feet. Even this completely ignores what the Town survey indicated. The greater the setbacks, the less flexibility you have to site the house and the greater the chance for blocked views. Adam Seiver, 27869 Saddle Court, supported Walter Chapman's concept as proposed. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Discussion ensued. It was agreed that the verbiage was confusing. Commissioner Gottlieb preferred that the higher homes are setback up to 60 feet from the property line. She is looking for simpler rules. She discussed an increase in side setbacks to provide privacy, and allowing room for planting. The siting is the most important element. Also, view protection (corridors) is very important. She did not feel they should go with a building envelope concept. Commissioner Cottrell agreed. He did not see any problem with for every extra foot in height, you go back an additional three feet from the setback on the sides. The front is good up to 60 feet from the property line and on the sides you go in three feet for every one foot of height. If you go to the maximum in height, 32 feet tall, you will be back 60 feet from the front property line and 45 feet on the sides. Commissioner Vim clarified that they are considering the setback to be the footprint of the house (front and sides). The highest portion of the house determines the setback for the footprint of the house. Commissioner Clow also clarified the wording by stating if a house has a peak of 32 feet that means there is no portion of that house that is less than 60 feet in the front and 45 feet from the sides. 4W Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/13/02 May 9, 2002 Page 6 4W MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Clow to continue the Ordinance Amendment to the Town's Zoning Code with regard to Height (Section 10-1.504) to June 13, 2002, to provide revisions as discussed and the clarification in #4. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Clow, Gottlieb, Cottrell & Vita NOES: None 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees -none 5. NEW BUSINESS -none 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative April 18", Commissioner Vitu, reported on the following: results of development fee review; Town Hall Project and Purissima Hills Water District Office Space; Lands of Foothill College/Metro PCS, 12345 El Monte Road; and proposed Planning Commission recommendations for modifying Town height and setback standards to encourage diversification of architectural styles and increased setbacks for taller homes. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for May 2nd, Commissioner Vitu, reported on the following: approval of Parks and Recreation position; Pathway Map; and Housing Element update. 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for May 16'" — Commissioner Clow 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of April 11, 2002 minutes MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Clow to approve the April 11, 2002 minutes. 8. REPORT FOR FAST TRACK SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING OF APRIL 16. 2002 8.1 LANDS OF MAY, 26810 St. Francis Road (17-02-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for an addition. Approved with conditions. 8.2 LANDS OF MIELKE, 25026 La Loma Drive (11-02-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for an addition to an existing residence. Approved 4 with conditions. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6113/02 May 9, 2002 Page 7 9. REPORT FOR THE SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING, APRIL 30, 2002 9.1 LANDS OF DETRICK, 12120 Kate Drive (31-02-ZP-SD): A request for a Site Development Permit for a 6,689 square foot pool and spa. Approved with conditions. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:20 p.m. Ressjppeeecc' ully submitted, L3iti Smith Planning Secretary